What do you mean when you condescendingly say "never read

>>9235588
stop being a fagget

>>9235588
If anyone says that they're just meme-ing. You shouldn't ever read 'solely' for plot though (outside of purposefully light, pulpy reading) because characters, themes, and style are just as if not more important.

because every plot has already been written, and if you haven't figured it out yet, you haven't read enough yet

>>9235599
But aren't those just elements of the plot?
>>9235614
Did you ever stop to think that maybe just maybe you have been reading too many similar books? No seriously can you even honestly say that you are at least acquainted with every piece of writing in the world? Maybe I could say the same to you, you've read too little and that too inside a bubble.

>>9235636
>But aren't those just elements of the plot?

Nope. Well, I suppose it depends who ask, but the popular distinction is between two aspects: content and form. Content encompasses plot and characters, but it seems simple enough to imagine two books with the same plot that provide different characterizations of the actors at play. See: retelling of any folk story or myth, like the different versions of Faust. It really just depends on narrow your conception of 'plot' is, I guess, but, in my opinion, better analysis is provided by splitting characters and plot under a combining 'content.'

>>9235750
Thanks for taking the time to explain anon, made my day.

>>9235775
No problem, always happy to help provide answers whenever I can on here.