When will people stop referencing this stale meme?

When a better/easier to read book, articulating the same issues comes out.

>>9262050
How do you articulate those issues which cannot happen within reality?

>>9262043
Ask the same about any religion.

>>9262069
Most religions and creation mythos have more staying power than George "muh inf-ore-may-chon" Orwell's ideology does

>>9262090
Religion is cancer no matter what.

>>9262097
No more cancerous than any ideology

>>9262050
Hunger Games was almost there.

>>9262101
Yes it it. It is the most cancerous. Allahu akbar, friend.

>>9262050
Max Barry's Lexicon is much better written and is critically acclaimed. It focuses on the same central ideas as 1984.

>>9262063
>which cannot happen within reality?

What makes you think a world like 1984 can't happen in reality?

>>9262105
>Considering Hunger Games relevant literature. What are you smoking? I want some.

>>9262118
People don't just change their opinions and lose their memories because muh guberment said so, even out of fear of arrest, not to mention government can't have complete control of language as normal people make up words, inside jokes, and slang all the fucking time

>>9262125
I'm not, it just an even easier read than 1984 and it's very popular.

>>9262105
Hunger games doesn't even articulate any issues other than Catniss both being a "stronk female character" and never having any agency of what goes on with three possible exceptions in the whole series

>>9262139
Don't forget MUH IRAQ in the third book. Yeesh, what garbage.

>>9262132
Did you even read the book?

>When /lit/ is so contrarian and up it's own ass that 1984 is a "meme" for the "unintellectual"
Someone please kill this board

>>9262202
It's already dead, don't worry.

So, do you recommend it?
I'm not really that much of a reader (kinda grew disinterested in books over time) but I saw some brand new copies in my library and remembered I hadn't read it yet.

>>9262243
There are worse novels. It reads like an essay, though. George Orwell was an essayist, not a novelist. What made you disinterested in books?

>>9262410
Not him but some people grow out of books like some other people grow out of video games, action figures, or sleeping with a nightlight

>>9262202
it is though, only pseuds read Orwell for his novels. its good YA lit though

>>9262139
I haven't read it desu.

>>9262202
it's overrated and seems to attract the biggest pseuds, without exception.

>>9262043
>When will people stop referencing this stale meme?
When we stop living in it.

>>9263793
Damn............................. Really makes you think.......

>>9262132
The first Englishdictionary was written by one man in 3 years, by one Samuel Johnson, on the request of the King of France

>>9263829

>The first Englishdictionary was written by one man

Nope

>in 3 years

Nope

>by one Samuel Johnson

Nope

>on the request of the King of France

lolwut? nope

>>9262063
They are literally happening right now

>>9262105
It didn't even come close. The danger of the populace at large being kept ignorant isn't shown in the Hunger Games, it's the elites who are ignorant.

>>9262132
Go back and try to read the book without prejudice this time.

>>9263805
>being so much of a pretentious contrarian faggot that you refuse to see the parallels between our society and the dangers Orwell warned against and instead mock his work.

>>9264067
funny cus orwell was basically wrong about everything

>>9262112
holy shit, I never thought I'd see someone reference Max Barry on /lit/

>>9263845
Excellent rebuttal. You sure proved him wrong

>>9262043
When DRUMPF is impeached and Hillary becomes president

>>9262043

just as soon as the issues that this already-popular work raises cease being easily compared with it, and with other de rigeur dystopian touchstones.

Oh, wait.

>>9262097
Religion is civilization

this is seriously annoying honestly

everybody is like >im reading 1984 im cultured now

read it when i was like 14 or something

File: 1489732628194.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>9262097
Have a fedora

>>9266072
>ME BIG BOY

>>9263845
I hate cunts like you

>>9266078
thats not the point, im 30 by now and there are people at the age of 40 or something reading it and keep referencing it like its some new shit

its literally babbies first book after the exciting adventures of harry potter

you should read these books when you are young not when you dont matter anymore

>>9262410
Well, I wasn't THAT big of a reader. In fact, I've not even read the biggest classics. I just can't read because I fall asleep in front of my books and can't get immersed in them. I've started reading the WoT series, read through 9 of the books but I'm sitting halfway through the 10th and it's been in that state for years now. I also have Lovecraft's Cthulhu and I can only read it little by little before jumping to something else. It doesn't help that the vocabulary is really not from this time, especially from the perspective of a non-native.

I've been through an anime phase recently, which more of less killed my willlingness to read books, and am now a fa/tg/uy more than anything else. I guess hobbies change. But I've recently read a book called "Eclipses japonaises" by a French writer called Eric Faye (writer of "Nagasaki") and it kinda captivated me despite its absolutely gloomy contents so I guess I should try to read more about social things than fiction stories.

Yeah, huge blogpost but you were kinda asking for it.

>>9266114
Dude, people don't reference something because it's new shit. People reference shit a lot because it has stood the test of time and can still be referenced.
Do you think people talk about Voltaire, Dumas, Bradbury, Wells or some famous writers because they hold "new ideas" ? They can simply be read at all times and still have meaning. That it's for you a gateway book doesn't change any value it can hold.

And honestly, I don't understand what your point is about age. If you are depressed about aging and are just now, at the age of fucking 30, realizing that all you're going to do from now on is wither away, then you are already several years too late.
Don't be an asshole because you got neuroses.

>>9262132

Freedom fries.

>>9266348
they reference it because its new shit to them and thats what i was referring to
they try to show how educated and smart they are by spouting about something that should have been in their lives ages ago and yes they always add >im reading this book
>realizing that all you're going to do from now on is wither away, then you are already several years too late.
not exactly sure what made you say that but nobody and nothing matters, nothing to be depressed about

i was just pointing out ages because some people are just lagging behind and when they take a crumb of an entire bread they start acting superior while in reality they are dumb as fuck
1984 is a great example because its a book people hear about during their high school lives, read it and there is that

its like a 40 year old starting to learn how to count to 10 and then brag about it

i mean common you must have a friend who went to the theatre once and keeps bringing up that shit when s/he meets strangers

>>9266376
I don't understand your shit. It's never too late to learn stuff. I mean fuck, stop being so pretentious. What next? Are you going to talk shit about people who weren't there to read a book back when it was released because "heh, you're 30 years too late to read that shit, kiddo, nothin' personal"?
Oh and what to read and when isn't like elementary shit like maths. I mean, I do sci-fi TTRPG stuff, I've played Star Wars boardgames, and yet, I've barely seen those movies even though they are "classics". Some people just don't have time or interest in shit and start only late to get into something. Do you actually blame people for actually trying to learn stuff instead of staying stupid all their lives?

>>9266376
And if people are acting smug as fuck, you should perhaps just stop frequenting them. No, I don't have that sort of friend.

>>9262043
CIA please leave

>>9263845
where are your proofs?

>>9264222
about what exactly?