ITT: Books that people read just to feel smart

Freakonomics

Maybe it's because I grew up on the internet after 9/11 and the War on Terror, there were a ridiculous "documentaries" where the makers pulled the curtains back to expose reality to brainwashed sheeple. At the same time there were best sellers based on new age fads like Kabbalah and numerous other self-help books. As such I see people who see Freakonomics as gospel are people who don't understand economics and how the world works, but want to look smart buying the book in mass numbers and now it's gathering dust on a shelf.
The good thing about "Freakanomics" is that it unintentionally lays out the map for a who's who in the modern world of big corpo shills who sell their "ideas" to the best bidder (it's often shit like TED and their thought leader programs). It certainly helped me in rebuking most of the bullshit Malcolm Gladwell spews out.
 
What's invented the whole "books are for intellectuals and other media is for plebs" stigma anyways? Is it something new? I don't recall examples of people jerking themselves over reading above watching TV back in the 90's.

View attachment 1777232

This picture is pretentious as shit

1. Books actually take an investment of time, thought, and imagination to enjoy, as opposed to TV, movies, and vidya simply being beamed into your eyeballs.

This is not true at all.

Visual media often needs this from its viewers. Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather. all these films can be called pretentious but they’re not the stupid mans form of entertainment.

So many people HATE these films after watching because they DO require thought and patience after viewing. No high school film student came out of Citizen Kane understanding why it was a masterpiece. They thought it was crap and dismissed the thing as pointless until growing up into a pretentious shit later on in life to claim they have always loved the movie and passionately understand all of its themes.

A problem when it comes to the media of books is the author gets pulled into the trap of explaining out everything to its audience. Movies do this as well, but because it’s a visual medium this happens much less often and the symbolism needs to be figured out largely by the audience. Stanley Kubrick isn’t going to have Jack Nicholson say the meaning of The Shining while he’s axing the door down. It’s a film that’s still discussed today only because so many things are left unsaid but you can tell the hints to a meaning are there. They are scattered throughout and were placed there intentionally. There’s a reason the movie will be remembered more than the book.

A great example of how film REQUIRES patience and time to think on is Eyes Wide Shut. I went into it wanting it to be about the secret society. Guess the surprise I was in for when it ends in the most visually anti-climatic way of Nicole Kidman telling Tom Cruise to fuck her. You rewatch the film again and realize it had nothing to DO with muh conspiracy societies and everything to do with their relationship. The film WILL NOT tell you this and mainly focuses on Tom Cruises nightly adventures. Like getting a costume for a party. Or visiting a woman after her father died. Or going to a hotel receptionist to talk for five minutes if someone in particular checked out. Things so mundane and pointless but there’s meaning in the scenes.

I know the movie is based off a book and bought the book after watching the film. It’s the literally the size of the communist manifesto. Rushes through all the actions. Although the story is almost an exact replica of the film there are things it can NOT do that the movie can.

When Tom Cruise escapes the creepy orgy party he is followed. He notices the stranger while buying a random newspaper and takes refuge in a restaurant. What does it say on the front?

1634733895134.png


Cringey? Perhaps. Pretentious? Hell yes. But for a book it is IMPOSSIBLE to do this without literally spelling it out. You need to be paying attention and wasting your damn time if you want to catch this in visual media.

Sorry, this thread was about pretentious books, right? The Crucible by Arthur Miller or some shit, I don’t know…fuck that commie.
 
Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are both good. I think people get too hung up on the details of 1984, it was a dystopian future as imagined in 1949 from what seemed likely at the time. Especially when it comes to the government vs. private enterprise aspect of it. It's not really about the minute details of the implementation of the oppressive future surveillance state.
Only problem I have with 1984 is the illiterates who read it/pretend to read it but never read it but never read any other dystopian literature, don't really understand the context of it, and fixate on the surveillance aspect of it while missing all the much more interesting stuff about language and propaganda.

It's a Stalinist dystopia with some of Orwell's musings about language and thought thrown in. Yesterday's dystopia, but you could also read about the Soviet Union itself and get the same idea, just in a less dramatized form. Brave New World, Camp of the Saints, and Rash are all much more relevant to today's problems (I have not read Camp of the Saints).
 
most of the alan moore graphic novels.

any comic book related thing with deconstruction, really. most people who want to talk nerd comic stuff and bring that shit up do not have the ability to articulate the point of that stuff during that time and how it all fits in and why it's relevant and etc. it's always basic bitch surface level allegory shit.
 
Fight Club. It's a a good book, don't get me wrong. Definitely a favorite of mine and there's some good stuff in it, but holy fuck people act like they looked DEEPLY into the text to realize the message it's trying to tell, whether it's on men in the modern age, consumerism, or becoming an Ubermensch. But my favorite one though? My favorite take is the whole "Fight Club is a treatise on homosexuality and masturbation of the self" or whatever. They cherry pick a few quotes and throw in some hefty mental gymnastics to justify their claims, but in reality the only reason they think that is because the author is a gay man and therefore anything between two men has to be homosexual in nature.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: eternal dog mongler
I'm just wondering what kind of person thinks Starship Troopers is a book you read to pretend you are enlightened and an intellectual.
People who cant have fun. They think the book is superior just because it has none of the bits that make the movie enjoyable. Like sure its a satire of fascism, everyone knows that. But its also a film about shooting bugs. Not that I hate Robert Heinlein but many great sci-fi books like starship troopers and foundation don't translate well to movies or TV.
 
This picture is pretentious as shit



This is not true at all.

Visual media often needs this from its viewers. Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather. all these films can be called pretentious but they’re not the stupid mans form of entertainment.

So many people HATE these films after watching because they DO require thought and patience after viewing. No high school film student came out of Citizen Kane understanding why it was a masterpiece. They thought it was crap and dismissed the thing as pointless until growing up into a pretentious shit later on in life to claim they have always loved the movie and passionately understand all of its themes.

A problem when it comes to the media of books is the author gets pulled into the trap of explaining out everything to its audience. Movies do this as well, but because it’s a visual medium this happens much less often and the symbolism needs to be figured out largely by the audience. Stanley Kubrick isn’t going to have Jack Nicholson say the meaning of The Shining while he’s axing the door down. It’s a film that’s still discussed today only because so many things are left unsaid but you can tell the hints to a meaning are there. They are scattered throughout and were placed there intentionally. There’s a reason the movie will be remembered more than the book.

A great example of how film REQUIRES patience and time to think on is Eyes Wide Shut. I went into it wanting it to be about the secret society. Guess the surprise I was in for when it ends in the most visually anti-climatic way of Nicole Kidman telling Tom Cruise to fuck her. You rewatch the film again and realize it had nothing to DO with muh conspiracy societies and everything to do with their relationship. The film WILL NOT tell you this and mainly focuses on Tom Cruises nightly adventures. Like getting a costume for a party. Or visiting a woman after her father died. Or going to a hotel receptionist to talk for five minutes if someone in particular checked out. Things so mundane and pointless but there’s meaning in the scenes.

I know the movie is based off a book and bought the book after watching the film. It’s the literally the size of the communist manifesto. Rushes through all the actions. Although the story is almost an exact replica of the film there are things it can NOT do that the movie can.

When Tom Cruise escapes the creepy orgy party he is followed. He notices the stranger while buying a random newspaper and takes refuge in a restaurant. What does it say on the front?

View attachment 2642383

Cringey? Perhaps. Pretentious? Hell yes. But for a book it is IMPOSSIBLE to do this without literally spelling it out. You need to be paying attention and wasting your damn time if you want to catch this in visual media.

Sorry, this thread was about pretentious books, right? The Crucible by Arthur Miller or some shit, I don’t know…fuck that commie.


I think it is very important to talk about gender equality within the framework of this discussion. Recently, I have been reading a lot of articles and books about how people fought for gender equality in different periods of history. At https://studyhippo.com/essay-examples/gender-equality/ you can read some helpful articles on this subject. While gender inequality is still a big problem as women do not receive equal opportunities in education, workplace and daily life, at least there is more equality for children. This is already better because there is a growing generation that accepts that equality is very important.
I absolutely agree with you. Very deep thoughts that respond within me.
 
Last edited:
It was first published as a serial and I have a strong suspicion that Dickens was just making it along the way.

You're right. Great Expectations just goes nowhere. That's the biggest problem with it. The climax is just so...bizarre.
Dickens would at times change his stories due to unpopular reception since he needed to sell copies. I wouldn't be surprised if he had plans originally that he kept changing.
 
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Normies buy this book off Amazon and immediately think they've unlocked some sort of divine knowledge.

1. Books actually take an investment of time, thought, and imagination to enjoy, as opposed to TV, movies, and vidya simply being beamed into your eyeballs.
If this is true then why does YA exist? Its like junk food for your brain. There is no thought or imagination as there are no morals or ideas explored and everything is all tell, no show. So mind-numblingly easy to digest, its practically beamed into your eyeballs. Like another user said, there are movies (and I'd add, vidya and TV and music too) that are more challenging than some books on the market today.
 
Arthur Schopenhauer was a crusty pedophile incel. I think people buy his books to look smart but would find a lot of what he says just gross and dumb if they really looked into it.
He was the first philosopher to call out Hegel's BS for the BS it was. He hated the British, despite being fluent in English. He wasn't all bad.

Beyond that:

Would Catch-22 fit into the theme of this thread? I thought it flat out sucked, at any rate.

And I don't know if people read Terry Pratchett to feel smart, but the smugness just seems to ooze off the page to the point the whole thing seems like an exercise in a try-hard "LOL, look at me Ma, I'm so meta-" way I find him, or at least the Discworld books, on balance unreadable. I accept the fact that I'm alone in my view of him, but such is life. I know Piers Anthony is a creepy perv and all, but every once in a while I'd actually come across a passage that would make me laugh. Never happened for me in a Discworld book.
 
I love Faulkner, but I fully admit that people get into him because his work is considered fairly unaccessible, but not as much as Joyce's - Absalom, absalom! being the exception. Which is fine - come for the vanity points, stay for the literature. Just don't post more pictures of As I Lay Dying on a coffee table next to a wine glass on instagram, please - my heart can't take much more.
 
So I have decided to do a bit of a dive on Nietzsche (I know, thank you drunk Slimy for looking it up at 3am on the weekend) and I think from my limited reading and listening to interpretations why that guy produces so many people who believe themselves to be smart.

I think it's because people who read or have a cursory (mis)understanding of him see him describe either the "superman" or "master morality" and immediately subscribe that view to themselves. Take resident lolcow Bob Chipman, who espouses "science and a superior future" and believes himself to be superior to those "dumb hick Christian right wingers". He is, on a moral scale, on the "slave morality" level. He is possessed by ideas of science and a superior future, simply being a vehicle for espousing these ideas. He himself is not actually practicing or contributing to those ideas, and I think this is something that happens to a lot of people who read and espouse (or incorrectly espouse) Nietzsche. You see it with academics, politicians, and a lot of other people.

Nietzsche, from my limited read so far, is about striving for personal excellence, to obtain "master morality", that being morality which is personal to themselves and themselves in the pursuit of excellence. When reading/listening through some of his stuff, it struck a chord with me that I am not going through life trying to obtain excellence, merely living it from one day to the next when I could be doing much more, but don't because...well, that would be inconvenient/"painful". To strive for individual personal excellence in whatever aspect is something I think everyone can and should do.

Looking at it, I think reading his work requires the ability to do serious introspection, which many people either are incapable of doing, or don't want to do, because confronting that reality is fucking ugly and something they really don't want to do.

Anyone else more knowledgeable about Nietzsche, if I'm writing complete garbage, please let me know.
 
Would Catch-22 fit into the theme of this thread? I thought it flat out sucked, at any rate.

And I don't know if people read Terry Pratchett to feel smart, but the smugness just seems to ooze off the page to the point the whole thing seems like an exercise in a try-hard "LOL, look at me Ma, I'm so meta-" way I find him, or at least the Discworld books, on balance unreadable. I accept the fact that I'm alone in my view of him, but such is life. I know Piers Anthony is a creepy perv and all, but every once in a while I'd actually come across a passage that would make me laugh. Never happened for me in a Discworld book.

Its not a 'this book is actually bad' or 'this book is not smart' but rather books that people will either pretend to read or flaunt reading as some kind of way to signal that they are an 'intellectual' or of a particular social group. So Catch-22 or the works of Pratchett don't really fit just going by the fact that you don't like them - thats not the point. You could certainly make arguments that Catch-22 is something people will sperg about in an attempt to appear deep, but you don't, you just say it sucks. As for Pratchett, he's not really considered to be a deep philosophical writer with tremendous depth that people will use to showcase how 'smart' they are, like him or not the dude writes comedic fantasy.

Try and follow the format and theme of the thread, dude.
 
Dickens would at times change his stories due to unpopular reception since he needed to sell copies. I wouldn't be surprised if he had plans originally that he kept changing.

Dickens was like the early model for manga writers. Just keep it meandering along for a hundred chapters.

And I don't know if people read Terry Pratchett to feel smart, but the smugness just seems to ooze off the page to the point the whole thing seems like an exercise in a try-hard "LOL, look at me Ma, I'm so meta-" way I find him, or at least the Discworld books, on balance unreadable. I accept the fact that I'm alone in my view of him, but such is life. I know Piers Anthony is a creepy perv and all, but every once in a while I'd actually come across a passage that would make me laugh. Never happened for me in a Discworld book.

This. I liked Pratchett's earlier Discworld stories when I was a kid because they were as JohnDoe says: slightly snarky parodies of fantasy and real life. But I think he started to get high on his own farts, turning the series into a soapbox, veiled attacks on people he didn't like, and 'big brained' incomprehensible explanations of metaphysical phenomena that the plots relied on. I got as far as Thief of Time missing a handful of earlier books before I called it a day.

So I think Pratchett still qualifies for this topic. I'm willing to bet there's at least one euphoric youtuber out there, filming in front of a stacked bookshelf to display their superior views, and loyalty to the ur-fedora.
 
Format wise, they are between 40000 to 60000 words in length; That should be OK for them to be called novellas. They are however serialized, like the big novels of yore, and deal with subject matters market-researched to appeal to the middle and high school segment. This is why complicated kanji are left out, because those kids literally do not know how to read them yet.
You end up with a serialized digest of comic-book laden tropes that do not necessarily deal with "light" topics, targeted at a younger audience. At that point, why not just compile and publish a real novel. I also get that the word count is favorable for phone format, where shitty battery life favors reading shorter chunks of text.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: eternal dog mongler
While they are fantastic books, Neuromancer and Snow Crash are peoples obvious go-tos when it comes to the cyberpunk genre. It’s not an intellectually stimulating genre, it can be, but that’s not the main intention.
 
Back