Rate my stack amateurs
>>25449572Congrats on starting your reading journey
>>25449597thank you anon, my instagram page will be bussin soon enough
>>25449572I have the same edition of Don Quixote.
None of these have been read or ever will be read/10
>>25449666>satanic trips
>N-nuh-uh! I've read lots of them! Just look at the condition of the spines!!You bought them secondhand/used.
>>25449572>female 'writers'nigga get the FUCK OUTTA HERE!
Love how these threads always bring out people with an interest in discouraging people from reading.
>>25449796Should have just read the books like a normal, sane human being instead of using the fact that you have them to fish for social media points and (You)s then, FAGGOT.Stack posters don't read.
>>25449839>stack posters don't read TRUKE it's just performative male posturing.
>>25449666looks like OP read a lot of Count of Monte Cristo & The Epic of Gilgamesh
>>25449879He bought that shit used.
posting stacks/shelves is so fucking lame. i couldn't imagine stooping so low. only time i want to see that is some professor's library with actually interesting stuff.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane AustenThe Bell Jar by Sylvia PlathAutobiography by Assata ShakurAll About Love/Ain't I a Woman by bell hooksIf you claim to be a sophisticated intellectual and don't have these on your shelf, yngmi. You aren't intersectional enough. Where is your woke women of color? Do you only read white men, anon? These are BARE BARE MINIMUM woke feminist poser requirements.
Anyone who reads Darwin is a pseud. It would be like reading Pythagoras instead of a modern math textbook.
>>25449785bruh relax theres only 5 of em
>>25449666>>25449717>>25449839>>25449849>>25449883
The performative male is afraid.
>>25450004All me btw
There's so rarely any variety in these threads. It's always the same "Why I am taking lit courses, how can you tell?" collection of books.
>>25449572I have a copy of Grayling's HoF. It's trash. I'm going to leave it in a little free library.
>>25450016Ive been reading a little variety.
>>25449572the editions you have are really ugly. like I think ur appearance as a reader is actually tainted by how shit all these books look. not that it matters much to the books content. Anyway ur stack looks like you just discovered classics a year ago. no curated taste at all just a generic classics list
>>25449572Thanks for reminding me I still haven't read Vanity Fair
>>25449572It's pretty basic but that also means most of these are worth reading>>25450404>ur appearance as a readerUnimportant
>>25449572You seem like an painfully dull man
There is not a single book in your stack that you have picked out of your own spontaneous interest.Everything in that pile is there because you felt you should read it because that's what other people say.You are just reading these books to prove something to someone.
>>25450404>Anyway ur stack looks like you just discovered classics a year ago. no curated taste at all just a generic classics listthis
Those arcturus spines are hideous!
>>25449702Why's Caillois looking like that?
>/lit/trannies be like: VGH no one reads the classics anymore!>also /lit/trannies: Hah! You're reading the classics? What an uncultured faggot!
>>25451003lit shemales simply dont read anything
>>25450735Unless you have a mountain of slop randomly mixed up with famous works that stood the test of time, you're not a true reader! Sorry for trying to waste as little time as possible and trusting history.
>>25451003You've read none of the books pictured you performative fag.
>>25451243NTA but you don't need a mountain of slop mixed in with classics. It's just that this particular selection has no organic exploration in it whatsoever. It's a top hits list of the canon and nothing else. Nothing that could reveal any kind of personal taste or individual interest. The stack looks much more like someone got the titles from a best books list rather than because they're naturally, deeply interested in all these varied topics.That's either someone just starting out who doesn't yet have their own taste (which could imply they haven't read most of these yet) or it's someone who is being entirely performative (which does imply they haven't read most of these)
>>25451362If you consider yourself a reader you should own almost every book in that stack - or at least have read them. The problem here is photographing your stack and showing it without even bothering to write anything about the books - that's the 'performative' part of this. I myself don't really order my own library, so if I took a picture of a shelf you could conclude I don't have a 'taste' or whatever.
>>25450998The covers are even worse
>>25450275>reading french literature in translationit’s not even a difficult language to learn
Off topic but why do penguin classic book covers deteriorate so quickly? I have century-old books in better condition
>>25452335Cuz their cheap shit
>>25449572Ugly editions half these look like the colorful books women have on their bookshelfs
(hold my beer)
>>25452335india
>>25451384are you even hearing yourself here?>Sorry for trying to waste as little time as possible>If you consider yourself a reader you should own almost every book in that stackIt's like you're trying to utility-max reading and score points for a "most serious reader" award, something totally contrary to the very spirit of reading, or to the spirit of enjoying any art desu. Like how are you not just meaninglessly churning words through your autistic head like an LLC? "This man is a machine that turns books into read books" kekA grown man assigning himself homework in his free time.There are also literally thousands of brilliant books written after 1950 and outside of England and the US East Coast.Finally you're denying yourself one the greatest pleasures of reading and books, to let one interest lead to another and to be surprised by what you find. "I enjoyed my holiday in France, I was intrigued by a museum exhibit on the Dreyfus case so I bought Zola" or "I'm a weeb who likes Japan, I bought Mishima and now I'm questioning the inner workings of human nature and sexuality" etcSome are of the best books I've read are when I went into a shop looking for one book, then another jumps off the shelf at me. I hope you get to enjoy it to.
>>25453289>Some are of the best books I've read are when I went into a shop looking for one book, then another jumps off the shelf at me. I hope you get to enjoy it to.maybe a slightly useless addition but for me, the only better thing than this is picking something to read seemingly out of the blue only to realize the association/connection after a while
>>25453576Although it’s not been happening so often lately, for a while, I didn’t find good books. They found me.It’s been a great adventure.The most serendipious one: The Fountainhead (I love architecture). The Quixote also found me at my grandfather’s stash. Ubik ambushed me as a teenager. I finally read Moby Dick looking for distraction and mid-19th century history…
>>25454342And Thomas Wolfe is cited by Steinbeck, and clearly influenced some of his ideas, although not his writing… just to find that Martha Dodd met and fucked Wolfe, who disturbed Hitler by shouting during the 1936 Olympics from a seat provided by her in the diplomatic corps area…
>>25453289>It's like you're trying to utility-max reading and score points for a "most serious reader" award, something totally contrary to the very spirit of readingWhere the fuck have you gotten that from? You think you're special because you go "OH!" at random books? You sound like an Instagrammer who thinks he's special and precious. You won't read Austen or Plato because YOU didn't get to discover them? What the fuck does discovering even mean? Walking in a bookstore and picking up random books, caring more for respecting your girl-like fixation on "OH discovering!!1" than for what you're going to read? Retarded moron.
>>25454672wow, you're awfully defensive. that anon's point was clearly that emphasizing reading as much of what other people consider "the great works" in as little time as possible is, quite literally, trying to minmax reading. you don't have to wander into a bookstore and grab books at random - most will likely not appeal to you anyway - but pulling up a list of "top 100 books to read before you turn 30" and choosing from that is antithetical to the "spirit" of reading if you define it by pleasure. if you're simply studying books to get the most utility out of them then full speed ahead. they're classics for a reason, there will be plenty to learn. but it comes across more like trying to speedread or sparknotes something for a class rather than sitting back and enjoying the book itself. your conclusions should be your own, not what you are instructed to think about what you have read. (irony!) same as you should, preferably, choose titles which interest you. if all of the books in op's image interest him by their own merit - and i hope, given how much money that seems to have cost, that they do - then he has a wonderful time burning through that library ahead of him. but if he chose them solely because he thought he was "supposed" to read them, he'll likely think he's "supposed" to slog through the ones he doesn't enjoy as well, or "supposed" to draw specific conclusions from them even when they differ from what he actually feels. if you're truly trying to minmax this, there's no point in forcing yourself to read something you're not getting anything out of and actively despise simply because someone somewhere told you that you should. go back several hundred years and that entire list of what you "should" read will have changed, same if you go around the world. with a finite amount of time, why bother repeating exactly what everyone despises in poorly-taught literature classes? why bother reading this thread at all and not your books?i do hope you'll come back and discuss your thoughts on the titles as you work your way through them, op, if you're still here. i'm surprised you have conrad's lord jim over heart of darkness and don't seem to have kipling's kim. several of the arcturus titles are quite short - you should be able to finish multiple in one day at your leisure should you be so inclined. candide is very fun and i've been meaning to read as i lay dying. the former is often paired with tartuffe by moliere when assigned as coursework, if you're interested in further reading.
>>25449572>Nichomacean ethics instead of the complete works.Ngmi fr fr, baka no cap.
>>25449572>monolingualyou aren’t approved by /lit/ if you can only read in 1 language
>>25454838being bilingual is for nons
>>25454672You are so mad, and that is because I described you.I was able to do this because of my greate skills of discernment and connexxion, which I obtained from many years of reading books at random. I actually just read what interested me, bc I'm a human w interests in the worldPerhaps instead of getting angry, you should contemplate how TOTALLY CORRECT I am!>You sound like an Instagrammer >girl-like fixationYou have some rage against the feminine. I'm beginning to think you are some grindsetting Indian. If so it was my mistake to assume you were a member of an ensouled race.
>>25454979That's it, you've convinced me, I want to be as special as you are. I will throw away my entire library and just rebuild it based on vibes. I will wake up tomorrow and think of yachts and I'm going to buy a book about them because aren't I so special and precious? Plato? The one everybody reads? I can't be like other people, ugh. I am Le Human, with my quirky interests, eh he!
>look at these books I bought and will not readYeah. Look at them.
>>25455027what are you even arguing about right now? trying to keep a flame war going over choosing to read books that interest you? >I am Le Human, with my quirky interests, eh he!are you not also human with interests? go read your books already.
>>25455072Illiterate and dishonest. This started because I said the books in the OP pic are books everybody knows about/has read/will eventually read if they like reading. Only a moron would argue otherwise, and here we are.
>>25455079No you didn't, you said:>>25451243>Unless you have a mountain of slop randomly mixed up with famous works that stood the test of time, you're not a true reader!and:>>25451384>If you consider yourself a reader you should own almost every book in that stackYou said these are books people HAVE TO read.You got mad about words I wrote on a mongolian puppet forum and now you are lying about both me and you.You don't HAVE TO read anything.
>25454838>phoneposted it again award
>writing a book about an ancient greek hobo
>>25455547sounds based, i'll take two
>>25449666really? the book of five rings is super short lol
Too many books too little time. In spite of everything, I am really enjoying what I am able to read when I get the time.
>>25450275I definitely want to get to Proust after I more substantially complete my current stack.
>>25455141true and>>25455079even if that was what you said you would still be wrong about it, but that comes with the territory when you are a quirked up white boi goated with the stack. >>25457534you know i have long wanted to read catcher in the rye but missed the crucial development period of doing so in high school. do you think it would resonate the same way when fully unc, or has the time for appreciating bildungsromane come and gone?
>>25449572>all those Arcturus Press copiesFellow Canadian spotted! I do like those books, all the seppos ITT don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Arcturus print extremely cheap copies of books in the public domain which are surprisingly good quality for the price. These are often sold in Indigo for 3x for $10 CAD or 1x for $5 CAD. They're extremely affordable, in other words. Some of the covers are a bit too gaudy, but they seem to have a focus on stuff like Lovecraft, Howard, MR James, Machen, and other weird fiction in addition to alll the usual requisite classic titles like in the OP. The fact that they print collections of these semi-obscure weird fiction and science fiction writers for so cheap is cool. Basically anything you could want from prior to the 1930s is printed by Arcturus. They even have the licenses of quite a few newer books, like from the 1960s for example (I've got their edition of The Bell Jar just for casual reading -- I've got an expensive vintage hardcover on my shelf).
>>25449572How many of this have you actually read?>>25449646ahhh/10
>>25449572Too many english speaking authors
>>25458442>bildungsromaneNot really a fan of these as an adult, but Catcher rises above for me. I think it deserves the hype.
>>25458637Troll or stupid?
>>25458837>or
>>25449572There's twelve books in those stacks worth reading, but I'll let you find out for yourself which they ones they are
>>25458953The Epic of GilgameshSpinoza's EthicsBlake's Complete PoemsTwain's Huckleberry FinnConfucius' AnalectsShakespeare's Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's DreamJames' The Portrait of a LadyCervantes' Don QuixoteJuvenal's SatiresThe Arabian Nights
>>2545849715
>>25452322French can be a pleaasing experience but Proust can be difficult due to his penchant for purple. The tangential references to past thoughts and archaic esoteric and obsacure words make him a frustratimg read.
>>25449572Any time someone claims they read shit like this, yes the classics are shit, they always, without fail, turn out to be insufferable pseudo-intellectual twats that aren't even capable of interpreting 90% of what they read.
>>25459145You sound like the type of person who needs to feel he's very special - of course classics are shit, you can't use them to show how special and niche you are since everybody knows them.
>>25456218So what? He's still not going to read it.
>>25453289>playing Sims 1>see recommended reading list in manual>get a book on history of the idea of home>has a section on the design of the perfecf chair>use this as a reason to buy a book on the history or chairsI never thought of why 'chairman' would be a title of authority
>>25459204but what little skill meter above your head did you fill when you read it while sitting in your chair anon
>>25458837If you look at any "TOP 100 NOVELS OF ALL TIME" you find that great majority of them being english speaking authors because the authors of said lists are shilling their own culture. It same with French and Le Monde's 100 books of the (20th) century.
I bought a bunch of things I wanted, but that I can't read because I'm reading Warhammer 40k and I feel like offing myself just for that.1/3
>>254609552/3
>>254609603/3
>>25460955Do what makes you happy.
>>25460961fake loebs
>>25461230That book will surely crush and pulverize your teeny tiny little loebs
>>25461230Big loebs
>>25461364YOU'RE A BIG LOEB
>>25455027I think what he means is this: if / when you finally sit down to start reading, you'll realize that you aren't a fan of ALL of the books you've got. You'll maybe get ten pages into Bleak House, feel bored out of your mind, and decide to never read Dickens again (then you'll throw away your copy of it and David Copperfield). Maybe then you'll read through the 1001 nights and think "holy shit that was so good", at which point you'll pick up the Decameron and Heptameron and maybe some nonfiction about the study of folktales. Your bookshelf will be curated to your actual tastes, because right now it looks like it's curated to the tastes of some Top 100 Books of All Time list from buzzfeed.
>>25449572>Tolstoi>Plato>Aristotle >Juvenal>Nietzsche>William Blakegenuinely interesting>Spinozaboring; read a modern textbook on math or logic; at least, you'll have acquired a skill from doing that>DarwinPoint of reading a dry outdated textbook being?>Shelley Read Frankenstein and was underwhelmed by it, to be honest.
>>25449572>Rate my stackBut you posted two stacks. You cheated
