>he reads books written post year 2000
>>23544309Phew, I haven't read a single one written post year 2000 in the last two years.
>>23544309Who cares
>>23544342Me, I care
>>23544309The Pale King
>>23544342>reads at 3rd grade reading levelIf that's your level then that is fine.
>>23544309>He's too insecure to read something without being told it's good first
>>23544309ummm that's problematic. dont you want to read about the life experiences of an upper middle class black lesbian who had to confront the patriarchy and racism at yale?
Why is nobody addressing how fucked up it is to use an actual person with Down's syndrome as the butt of your joke.
>>23545863>being told it's good.Tell us more directly you aren't well read. There are THOUSANDS of great books that aren't on any list anywhere.But you only browse what's presented to you or you'd know that.
>>23546138Because you are on 4ch. Go to reddit for faux outrage faggot.
>>23545820I don’t, but if you care about the unwashed masses reading slop you need to adjust your priorities. Just focus on you.
>>23546326Looks like the redditor had a malfunction and forgot to add to something something/pol/
>>23544309Ignoring the obvious inflammatory nature of the OP, I used to be a "only old books r gud" retard and didn't read anything newer for years. But when I went back to reading newer publications, I found I resonated better with them. It turns out, shockingly, that people who live in the same time period as you can write stuff that feels more resonant due to the shared knowledge of contemporary changes in society and culture.And as far as non-fiction goes, you're basically handicapping yourself by not staying abreast of recent developments, especially if you expect to have any clue as to where the bleeding edge of knowledge is in any given field.
>>23546321And what does this have to do with being a faggot who refuses to read anything written this millennium?
pic rel is kino, even if a pooner wrote it.
>he reads books after 1945
>He reads books written after the 19th century
>>23546562OP here. The post is designed to get nubookfags to look back. But I hear you on what you are saying.In the same vein, old books give you historical perspective of reading it from someone who actually lived at the time and has the mind and spirit filled the zeitgeist of the time.If you want to know about 1845, you need to read something written in 1845.>>23546588Not much, but the comment by (you?) doesn't follow. Assuming that "old" and "being told it's good" go together seems to mean that your repository of book awareness is limited to "classics" and other such old famous works.The lady's comment seemed to indicate that she was unaware there were so many old books or the comment makes little sense at at all.
