[dubeye]

Interesting that you highlight classics, is the implication that it's more ... productive for your personal development to read classics than trashy thrillers?

As someone who spent four years reading 'the' Classics at uni, I doubt it's very true

you comment wouldn't read quite so well if you swapped classics for posting cat tiktoks and hanging out with strangers you bump into in the street. But what makes that inferior?

[Telaneo]

> Interesting that you highlight classics, is the implication that it's more ... productive for your personal development to read classics than trashy thrillers?

No. You can play Candy Crush for all I care if that's what gets you more enjoyment. The classic were just what were on my mind when I wrote that comment.

[dubeye]

not every profession has excess, not sure I can get on board with the idea that candy crush is of equal value to any job. money is just a measure of goods and services.

[hallole]

Yes, it is more productive. Becoming more familiar with the English language and skillfully written prose is good. The notion that modern prose is of lesser quality is widespread.

This comment reads as snarky post-modernism.

[dubeye]

I think you missed my point. But you think the bounds of every field of research and technology has expanded, except language?

To learn how to read and write well, then you would do just as well, if not better, to read modern authors at the top of their fields. I wouldn't exclude thrillers. Reading Chaucer in old English, to stretch the point to breaking, is not going to give you any kind of edge. Maybe it will teach you a bit of French, but again, you are better off reading modern French literature for that.

I suspect you were not forced to read the classics as I was. Much of it is stuffed with overly flowery prose and immature ideas. It's mostly tradition that keeps them alive.

There is much personal satisfaction in literature, but I would place it much closer to leisure than work.