[ SECRET POST #2216 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2216 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 120 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - personal attack ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Reading actual books

[dreemyweird]

I think the majority of people does that?

But I personally see no point in reading if one doesn't enjoy it. There's no direct profit in being well-read, and I noticed that avid readers usually have a fucked up personality as a bonus. [I guess it is a cause rather than a consequence]

I also hate it when people start bitching about how it is necessary to know Tolstoy, Kafka and Shakespeare and how one is a bad/stupid person for not knowing the guys. Literary snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery.

/Haruki Murakami is fairly vapid, IMO./

But I really, really love encountering people who read a lot. It hurts so much when you read something, and there's no one around to discuss it with.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with everything that's been said in this post a whole lot.

Although that said I think things that are well-regarded like Kafka and Shakespeare etc are often very good and very much worth reading.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

So you think people who read a lot are fucked up...but you like people who read a lot?

I don't know how to process this.

Re: Reading actual books

[bluepard]

I think they're saying that reading the classics makes you a fucked-up hipster because no one really likes the classics. You should read things like Harry Potter instead.

Of course, Harry Potter IS considered a classic now, because things become classics through finding an audience. So IDEK.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

it's not considered a classic

come on

i'm not saying this against Harry Potter in any way, but you need more than 15 years before you can justly call something a classic

Re: Reading actual books

[bluepard]

It's being studied in universities, which apparently means it cannot be interesting.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

It's interesting and great and I love it, and I will probably always love it. I just find it really weird to describe a book that was published 15 years ago a classic. Let a couple generations go, at least, before you describe something as a classic. You want to describe Tolkien as a classic? I'm down. When our grandkids are reading Harry Potter, I'll be comfortable describing it as a classic.

Re: Reading actual books

[bluepard]

Eh, fine, it's not a classic. My point was more that classics are remembered and become classics because they're popular. They're not just art, they're generally entertainment written for money. Shakespeare wrote to be friendly to a wide audience. He's got sex jokes and jokes about public figures and melodrama! And the crowds ate it up. His stuff was plagiarized all over the place.

Classics aren't something read solely by maladjusted people trying to prove something. They're actually usually interesting for some reason, which is how they got to be classics.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, sure, I totally agree. I mean, Samuel Johnson is as classical as anybody, and he was the guy who said that no one but a fool ever wrote except for money. I absolutely agree that there's nothing wrong with having a wide audience & that the contemporary prejudice against it is something born out of really specific and minute historical circumstances. But being popular doesn't prove that something's good anymore than it proves it's not good.

Re: Reading actual books

[dreemyweird]

NO NO NO
Yeah, it's late, and you won't see my comment, but NO

I didn't say it.

That was precisely why I specified that a fucked up personality was a cause not a consequence. First hand experience here.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I always see the comments, because I always come back the next day, because I guess I'm weird or something.

So...sorry, then. I misunderstood.

Re: Reading actual books

[(Anonymous)]

There's no direct profit in being well-read, and I noticed that avid readers usually have a fucked up personality as a bonus.

I consider being 'an avid reader' probably the only commonality between all the people I admire. I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this. Especially the "direct profit" thing? What is there direct profit in?

Re: Reading actual books

[dreemyweird]

Good for you and your acquaintances! And that was why I said that there was no direct profit.

As to the personality thing, it's all because of mild escapism+tendency to be reflective. Often leads to psychological problems.