Hey, Kluurs.
-
Here's a list of books published by Business Insider as "22 classic books to read in your lifetime". Probably some of them were on the list in your high school, but not all. Taken together, they seem to provide interesting well-roundedness.
-
You have got to be shitting me, Cats. This article might as well be called, "Lookit Me, I'm a Liberal Female who Considers Herself Educated!" It checks All. The. Boxes.
African American history : 7 freaking books
7! Out of the total number of books you're supposed to read in your lifetime, a third should be about a very specific facet of a very particular time in U.S. history. GMAFB.Things to read to make you feel better about yourself for being an intellectual, a deep thinker, and a carer of all peoples:
Japanese internment camps, Chinese history, The Guide, Tale of GenjiThe right political books (“people are fucked, capitalism is fucked, the world is fucked”):
1984, Catcher, Grapes of Wrath, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Catch-22, Brave New WorldStuff women like anyway:
Little Women, Pride & Prejudice, Jane EyreNo Russian novels, no epics, no plays. But 7 books on African-American history. Just wow.
And I don't know what's more astounding—what I just pointed out, or the fact that what I just pointed out would sound positively racist to this article's readership.
-
Come on, fess up. Your whole diatribe rests on the fact that Toni Morrison's book was the first one listed.
Which I have to admit, took me aback a bit.
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
-
Come on, fess up. Your whole diatribe rests on the fact that Toni Morrison's book was the first one listed.
Which I have to admit, took me aback a bit.
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
@catseye3 said in Hey, Kluurs.:
Come on, fess up. Your whole diatribe rests on the fact that Toni Morrison's book was the first one listed.
Which I have to admit, took me aback a bit.
No, I'm fine with that. To be honest, with a list like this, it's not so much the particular books that are important but the overall spread. And this list is straightup out of the liberal feminist playbook. Every. Single. Book. on that list checks those boxes.
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Everyone says that, and it's not true.
Literature is completely subjective, and one person's interpretation or value they place on one text vs. another is just as valid as another person's.
This idea was first codified by Barthes in '67 and today, it's taken as something so obviously true, it's falsely presumed it's always been this way. It hasn't. It's a very new idea and it's wrong.
Literature isn't math. Weighing the importance of one novel over another isn't as straightforward as arithmetic. Of course you can't say that Macbeth is 154.23 times a more important read than "The Happy Ever After Playlist." But that doesn't make them the same. Nor does it make the dolt who thinks the latter provided a greater contribution to Western literature correct, that's not how it works.
-
@catseye3 said in Hey, Kluurs.:
Come on, fess up. Your whole diatribe rests on the fact that Toni Morrison's book was the first one listed.
Which I have to admit, took me aback a bit.
No, I'm fine with that. To be honest, with a list like this, it's not so much the particular books that are important but the overall spread. And this list is straightup out of the liberal feminist playbook. Every. Single. Book. on that list checks those boxes.
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Everyone says that, and it's not true.
Literature is completely subjective, and one person's interpretation or value they place on one text vs. another is just as valid as another person's.
This idea was first codified by Barthes in '67 and today, it's taken as something so obviously true, it's falsely presumed it's always been this way. It hasn't. It's a very new idea and it's wrong.
Literature isn't math. Weighing the importance of one novel over another isn't as straightforward as arithmetic. Of course you can't say that Macbeth is 154.23 times a more important read than "The Happy Ever After Playlist." But that doesn't make them the same. Nor does it make the dolt who thinks the latter provided a greater contribution to Western literature correct, that's not how it works.
@aqua-letifer said in Hey, Kluurs.:
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Literature is completely subjective, and one person's interpretation or value they place on one text vs. another is just as valid as another person's. <
Uh, how are we not in agreement here?
I don't support a thing because it's 'feminist'. Just so you know. I mostly think 'feminist' things are a big ghastly PITA.
On the rest of your comment, fine. I'll go along, mostly because I don't get what you're talking about. But that's okay; I'm used to it.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Hey, Kluurs.:
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Literature is completely subjective, and one person's interpretation or value they place on one text vs. another is just as valid as another person's. <
Uh, how are we not in agreement here?
I don't support a thing because it's 'feminist'. Just so you know. I mostly think 'feminist' things are a big ghastly PITA.
On the rest of your comment, fine. I'll go along, mostly because I don't get what you're talking about. But that's okay; I'm used to it.
@catseye3 said in Hey, Kluurs.:
@aqua-letifer said in Hey, Kluurs.:
Otherwise, I'd say your listing is a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Literature is completely subjective, and one person's interpretation or value they place on one text vs. another is just as valid as another person's. <
Uh, how are we not in agreement here?
I don't support a thing because it's 'feminist'.
I'm not saying you do. I'm just saying that this list was compiled by a liberal feminist and as such, it's left a ton of shit out. (That's not to say any of the books would be bad to read. Just terribly limited as a list.)
On the rest of your comment, fine. I'll go along, mostly because I don't get what you're talking about. But that's okay; I'm used to it.
I'm saying that calling a book (or a book list) a P.O.S. isn't merely an opinion. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not, and sometimes it's a little fuzzy.
What I hate about the subjectivity argument is that it completely discredits the conversation people should be having about what they read. We should be trying to get to the bottom of what's universally good and what's not. That takes discussion and ideas to kick around. Throwing your hands up and calling it all subjective denies us of this and so we never learn anything useful.
