Am I a brainlet, if I enjoy 19th century realism the most?
>>24679700You're only a brainlet if you worry about what you're supposed to enjoy and let that override your actual reactions. P.S. the comma you put after 'brainlet' is incorrect.
>>24679708Thanks, I'm German and our comma rules are a bit different.
For me it's realism, naturalism and the decadents
>>24679700Realism is just so fucking bland. I once fell asleep reading War & Peace, never managed to finish it.For me it's baroque, surrealism, modernism and postmodernism. And Melville is like crack to me.
for me it's whenever the narrator digresses from the plot and goes on a 30 page rant about some random shit
>>24679708using commas to separate subordinate clauses is a-okay, reet
>>24679830In this context it's flat out wrong. 'If I enjoy 19th century realism the most, am I a brainlet?' would be correct.
>>24679700Name some books you like
>>24679861Not OP, but to all 19th-century-novel-enjoying anons I'd highly recommend Thomas Hardy's Return of the Native and Mayor of Casterbridge. Perhaps Return would be considered too melodramatic to count as true realism, I'm not an expert on these historical distinctions.
>>24679878Also I read Phineas Finn by Anthony Trollope recently but would not recommend it unless you wanted the Victorian equivalent of a low-stakes dating-sim/visual novel.
>>24679700Not really. Outside of extremes, as long as you deeply engage with the book, it doesn't really matter what you read because the process is the same. Just read what you like. What books/authors do you enjoy the most?
>>24679835sure thing, bud
>>24679905What does deeply engaging mean?>>24679861No, there’s no point, because your taste gets ridiculed either way.
>>24680020bruddi sag einfach
>>24680020>What does deeply engaging mean?In my minds, its the gift of reading. The almost unique psychological process that reading creates. Deep reading is like a kind of intellectual immersion that’s worlds apart from skimming headlines or binge-watching shows. It’s a slow, deliberate, and intimate engagement with a text. Sustained attention. Reflective. Almost meditative, but not with an empty mind, but a high cognitive demand.
>>24680030How do I know whether my reading qualifies as deeply engaging?
>>24680034I find it when I lose track of time, not getting distracted, and dont realize I'm turning the pages. Its hard to explain.
>>24680030>>24680034For me it's hard to explain what engaging deeply is specifically, but it's easy to say what it's not: it's the opposite of that horrible hollow feeling you get after you've been mindlessly scrolling twitter or 4chan and it feels like you basically didn't exist for the last few hours and the world around you now looks small and grey and meaningless. When I get up from a book I really enjoy the world always feels somehow larger.
>>24680100Thats a great way of putting it. I tend to think about it like this: using the internet is a mile wide, but its an inch deep. Whereas reading a book is an inch wide, but its a mile deep. Something like that.
>>24680100Your post inspired me to get back to reading, thanks.
>>24679708Linguistics is descriptive not descriptive. People use language however the fuck they want, and linguistics is just there to describe its usage. It's not a rulebook for people to follow.There is no "incorrect" usage.
>>24680221I look at reading like walking. Its something a person should do everyday, not only because its very beneficial, but its also very pleasurable. The key is, to do them without distraction.
>>24680793My problem is always the start. Once I start I immediately get the satisfaction and pleasure from reading and can continue like that for hours. But too often screens keep me too goddamn invested, so I don’t pick up a book. Just have to overcome that little hurdle everyday and I will reap great benefits.
>>24680802I had and, really, still have that problem. I found keeping the discipline of reading for 30min before bed helped me make time for reading at other times. And I found I got to sleep easier as well. But, like most things: simple =/= easy
>>24680825>simple, not easyI swear this has become my catchphrase at work lol
>>24680289Stupid. Linguistics is descriptive of a currently accepted prescription: there exists an ever-changing, currently correct form in a given context.
>>24681087You have never been more wrong in your life
