Leave this board and never return if any of these apply to you:
>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
>>9708696
saged, kys, the usual shit
>>9708696
>pretends he's deeply enrolled in literature
>posts this everyday
>>9708712
This
>>9708696
Is this supposed to be bait? I agree with most of this honestly.
>>9708712
>announcing a sage
>>9708696
I'll stay because
>i don't read any form of genre fiction
>i don't barely know my classics
>i don't tend to believe that if i like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>i don't think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>i don't speak a single language
>i don't read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>i don't read for the plot
>i don't read for entertainment
>i don't rarely read nonfiction
>i don't don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>i don't don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>i don't have little to no understanding of literature outside of my cultural horizon
>i don't have little to no understanding of literature within my own cultural horizon
>i don't mostly read contemporary literature
>i don't believe 'the author is dead'
>i don't make my literary analysis proceed from ideology
>i don't think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>i don'tr rarely read poetry
>i don't think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>i don't have a hard time explaining why i like a given work
>i don't have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>i don't tend to refuse to judge works for myself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>i don't rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
>>9708696
why novalis?
>>9708696
Your argument is self-contradictory. You rail against 'genre fiction' and claim that classical poetry is the only worthwhile kind of literature, and yet almost all of the best classical poetry *is* genre fiction.
>>9708696
>all these people unironically responding to a pasta
WHAT THE FUCK
>>9711576
I chose the picture because it looks cool and he has a badass pseudonym :3
I don't actually read books; they're boring as hell. The OP was informed by my apprehension of /lit/'s board culture from lurking out of surface level curiosity while watching shows on my other monitor
>>9711576
because that's what the original op posted
>>9711584
>all of the best classical poetry *is* genre fiction.
wrong
>>9711986
op here, prove that you're the original poster of the copypasta