How do you balance the books you're "supposed to read"

>>9623514
If the only thing compelling you to read a book is feeling you "should" because it's popular or culturally significant or shitposted about on /lit/ then just fucking put the book down and read something you actually like, my dude.

don't pay any attention to books you're "supposed" to read.

The faggot who said you were supposed to probably hasn't read it either.

File: IMG_4283.jpg (35KB, 424x516px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 424x516px

>>9623514
I enjoy the books I am "supposed" to read, because I am not a fucking pseud.

>>9624467
(You)

>>9624488
>>>/booktuberofthemonth/
Goodbye

>>9623514
by not having pleb tier taste

depends, I have 3 separate classifications for my books, the ones required by the university, the ones who might help me in the business world like accounting or economy, and the ones that I enjoy, like sociology. The priority list is divided between the university ones, which are the most important by now, and the other two.

>>9623514
this:
>>9623576

Even if you force yourself to read a book you "should" you won't take away from it what you're even supposed to because you're just trying to get it over with as fast as you can, and not getting properly involved, making it useless. Do try to read books you should, but don't keep reading them, you dig? Not everybody likes the same things, and anybody who drinks wine has a story about the time they poured a 50$ bottle down the drain because they thought it was awful.

You guys say I should read what I want but whenever someone says a book by Dostoevsky or Pynchon is bad you guys claim he's a brainlet. You guys are liars and pseudointellectuals

Holy shit this board has turned unbearable
It's been like two months since I last checked it and I today's browsing session is being quite revealing

>>9624568


how is reading what you want the same as railing against good lit?

the point is, if you have bad taste, indulge your bad taste!-- just acknowledge that you are not a great reader-- i.e. don't shit on great writers.

simple honesty.

>>9625548
Good post.

Problem with /lit/ is that it's impossible to tell whose opinion is worth a damn. Example: someone asks for some recommendations from a certain author/from a certain region/literary movement, and someone comes in and says "don't read author "x." You don't know if he's a pseud for not getting that author, or if his opinion might actually be worthwhile/valid.

So OP, the best thing you can do is disregard pretty much everything said here. Take the recommendations people make, assuming the book interests you. That's the only thing I've gotten out of this place. I've certainly found some books/authors I wouldn't have read otherwise.

Just to pass along a rec I once received: Novel with Cocaine. Great book. Wouldn't have found it without he rec of an anon here.

>>9624568

>taking /lit/ seriously

you're hopeless

>>9623514
You should mostly read stuff you want to read, but if you have the time try to get some important parts too. I don't think anyone would blame you if you got a tl;dr on a few people, just because you can't stand their writing, but they're culturally significant enough that you have to at least know about it. The best thing to do is find books that are both 'classics' as in important to read that are also books you want to read. A good example is something light hearted like Candide.

I used to only read because I felt obliged to read. But I've started just reading short novels that I actually enjoy, and it's been pretty nice. Don't read because you feel obliged; you'll hate the entire thing, not appreciate the book's value, and ultimately waste your time.