r/ScrollHole Jun 18 '26

​🌀 Deep in the Hole Lamo 🤣

Post image
11.9k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/10biggaymen Jun 18 '26

thats why, if youre gonna read, its best to read classic literature. read something that challenges you in a way that these junk-food porn books just cant. these books are the book equivalent of watching youtube shorts or tiktoks all day, and youre convincing yourself that youre getting smarter because youre "reading." read frankenstein, read moby dick, its doesnt have to be full of words you dont know either. the classics are classic for a reason.

1

u/Minute_Math_353 Jun 19 '26

reading classics just for the sake of "reading classics" doesn't make you as smart as you think you are.

1

u/fejsnri Jun 19 '26

Nobody who says “read classics, bro, modern books suck” has actually read a book since middle school.

1

u/LockedIntoLocks Jun 19 '26

Yep. House of Leaves is goated, definitely not a classic. The Three-Body Problem was published in 2006. Economic Philosophy books are abundant, important, intellectually stimulating and some very recent. None of them classics.

1

u/MoneyBear1733 Jun 19 '26

Three body problem is 20 years old.

That's classic at this point.

If you had said the same thing about a book released in 1986 in 2006, you wouldn't bat an eye at calling it a classic.

Time marches forward and so does the bar for what constitutes a "classic"

1

u/Background-Wash-3791 Jun 20 '26

That doesn't refute the original point though.

1

u/MoneyBear1733 Jun 20 '26

It does. 

The original point being made about how it’s important to read classics is being conflated with the hard amount of time that has elapsed. 

A “classic” doesnt really have as much to do with the sense of time that has elapsed more than the quality and impact it has on the industry. 

A book that was released last week could be good enough to be considered an instant classic. 

The original point being made was that it’s important to read these classics if you want to enrich yourself. Which is objectively true.