Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 5:20:20 GMT
You just like it or is that a hipster thing that people do? Or if you read it while not trying to be a hipster does that make you even more of a hipster?
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on May 2, 2017 8:19:56 GMT
the older writers are the best writers, that was conventional wisdom until the 20th century, homer the bet greek writer, dante the best italian, shakespeare the best english, the older writers get in and say most of what there is to say, so the later writers can make a name for themselves by being eccentric and unnatural, in the 20th century writers go so frustrated they started claiming the old writers were limited and backwards, which is not true
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 2, 2017 9:24:41 GMT
I've never seen a smart person use the word 'hipster'.
It's always some kid who cares too much about what other people like.
But, to answer your question OP, some people just like to read. Believe it or not, they're not trying to impress you because you're not that important.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 2, 2017 14:36:38 GMT
Actually the "hipster" - the real elite - is not the person who reads pre-20th century literature or who likes those dumb and boring ol' black & white movies. The real elitist is the person who only accepts the New and rejects the classic. The same is true in judging movies, as well as literature (any kind of art for that matter) by their age. People who read classic literature (and who watch and love films of earlier ages) also tend to like a good book from any era and is able to understand that there is a continuum from the past to the present. It is only the modern elitist who seems to think that the latest dystopian future YA science fiction series just popped into existence out of nothing. The Cult Of The New is just reveling in one’s own ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2017 18:01:05 GMT
I've got nothing to add, really. What OldSamVimes and mikef6 have said is exactly what I would have said. Excellent thoughts, guys!
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 2, 2017 18:55:56 GMT
So the implication is that "hipsters" don't enjoy what they read?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 0:17:28 GMT
The Mplication in my opininion would be they just read stuff that's old because that makes them a hipster but I t really makes them stupid.
|
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 861
Likes: 732
|
Post by mmexis on May 3, 2017 1:24:19 GMT
I, too, agree with oldsamvimes and mikef6. However, there is a beauty of language (and of plot in the case of both books and movies) in older material than you often find today. Not that you don't find amazing things written today. The only other thing that I can think of that you're implying is that reading/watching older materials is too much work and requires too much concentration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:52:38 GMT
Perhaps this is an over-simplification but 'Old Literature' gives us a glimpse into the thoughts, opinions and personal strivings of authors from a distant age that we should feel privileged to be able to look back upon and understand.
The problem with this post 'Old Literature'? is undefined, talking pre-1900? I am currently reading 'The Invisible Man' 1897,
Or are we talking 'Robinson Crusoe'- 1719
Don Quixote- 1605?
The Canterbury Tales- 1478?
Dante's The Divine Comedy- 1314?
What's that? you recognize all those old titles, I wonder why that is? is it just because they are being saved by old fudy-dudy literature scholars?
Having read all of them, I definitely enjoyed them as much as anything written today.
So Yes, my life would of been a little bit poorer if I had not met Mark Twain along the way-that is for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 8:35:17 GMT
I do it because i think its better than modern litterature.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 3, 2017 13:19:37 GMT
The Mplication in my opininion would be they just read stuff that's old because that makes them a hipster but I t really makes them stupid. So reading old stuff makes them stupid? How does that work?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 3, 2017 13:21:30 GMT
Perhaps this is an over-simplification but 'Old Literature' gives us a glimpse into the thoughts, opinions and personal strivings of authors from a distant age that we should feel privileged to be able to look back upon and understand. The problem with this post 'Old Literature'? is undefined, talking pre-1900? I am currently reading 'The Invisible Man' 1897, Or are we talking 'Robinson Crusoe'- 1719 Don Quixote- 1605? The Canterbury Tales- 1478? Dante's The Divine Comedy- 1314? What's that? you recognize all those old titles, I wonder why that is? is it just because they are being saved by old fudy-dudy literature scholars? Having read all of them, I definitely enjoyed them as much as anything written today. So Yes, my life would of been a little bit poorer if I had not met Mark Twain along the way-that is for sure. Exactly. How far back is old literature? Does The Odyssey count? Beowulf? Gilgamesh? And if someone reads and enjoys those works, is that wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 15:46:47 GMT
Ya I guess it' not wrong though. I guess.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 5, 2017 11:58:51 GMT
I do it because i think its better than modern litterature. It is worth reminding ourselves that 'old literature' (for us) normally, and understandably, consists of the pick of the crop, a canon defined by tradition, schooling and accessibility, reprinted and cherished down the years. 'Modern' literature is just whatever is put out now and over which we stumble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 14:44:45 GMT
I do it because i think its better than modern litterature. It is worth reminding ourselves that 'old literature' (for us) normally, and understandably, consists of the pick of the crop, a canon defined by tradition, schooling and accessibility, reprinted and cherished down the years. 'Modern' literature is just whatever is put out now and over which we stumble. Well yes that is true.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on May 5, 2017 16:40:10 GMT
...exactly what the f-ck is a hipster???
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on May 6, 2017 3:42:08 GMT
If something looks good to me I read it. If it doesn't look good to me I don't read it. I don't read anything old or new on the basis that it's popular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 7:39:42 GMT
...exactly what the f-ck is a hipster??? Most jews actually, are considered hipsters , at least now days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 2:17:49 GMT
Reading pre-20th century fiction isn't hipsterish. Reading On the Road is being a hipster. That said, reading pre-20th century stuff is often frowned upon as being uncool. Someone gave me crap because I was reading Great Expections. What? Dickens is awesome. Well, for the most part. If he had a good editor, he'd be gold.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on May 20, 2017 8:55:48 GMT
I don't understand why some people pretend hipsters are not a real thing. There are countless pretentious douchebags who fit many of the stereotypes people associate with the group that's been tagged hipsters so why the hell do people act like they are too stupid to grasp that fact?
To answer the OP. If you leave copies of classics lying around your house in conspicuous places or carry a dog eared copy of Tolstoy or Nietzsche or On the Road with you everywhere or constantly mention you "never read anything post 1950 because it lacks substance." you're most likely a pretentious douchebag. In my opinion if you often mention what you read or listen or watch in an attempt to influence the way people think of you, you're pretty much an asshat.
|
|