if someone explained what's wrong with reading for story

There's nothing /wrong/ with reading for the story, it's just not patrician.

Compare a comfy McChicken Sandwich in terms of sating-your-hunger value to having a multiple course fine dining meal.

It's the whole experience of the thing. If you read (or eat) solely for basic entertainment (trashy no effort nutrition), then fine, judge the best pulp (fast food?) based on story.

Most people (/lit/erati?) pretend to be more discerning in taste.

what if I read for the characters? Is that less pleb?

Because the entire story of any book can be described in 1 minute. It's absolutely minuscule, information-wise, compared to every other part of a book.

>>9456734
It is pleber but patricianer.

>>9458067
you mean "pleb but patricianer"?

>>9456291
You bought into the /lit/ maymay.

>>9456291

Reading for story is fine for the vast majority of people. That's even the whole point for a lot of books who use plain language and style so that people focus on the story. It really depends if you want art or entertainment. Reading for prose, structure, etc., can be very rewarding, but it's a different experience. It's ok to just enjoy the ride without going into all the mechanical details.

because medium is the message and the author is dead