if you finish reading a book and are still unsure of what the main theme/intent of the author was, do you prefer to read critical analysis and essays over the work or try and piece it together yourself? In my case, if the book is particularly challenging I tend to gravitate towards essays for help. If you think this is the wrong way of approaching the problem, what methods do you use to get to the core idea of a work?
Yes and no. I read a lot on catch-22. Specially the characters and what they represented. When I re-read it I can't even explain how much more I enjoyed it.
%73 percent of the time though I value my own thoughts on the book itself. One isn't better then the other but if you read analysis after every book and are not writing an essay on said story you should go back to 10th grade English with Mrs. Rimjob.
I think everyone should have some more of there own concepts as to what is happening in the story.
Some books need it though. Like House of Leaves or some stupid shit like that.
>everyone can make fun of me for catch-22 now
I like to read criticism for:
books that felt too simple (Age of Innocence, Lady Chatterly) - sometimes they lend new depth (Age of Innocence) and sometimes they pretty much confirm what I thought (Lady Chatterly);
books that are too specific (Tale of a Tub);
and on books where I have fairly strong opinions myself and upon which no one can achieve a definitive statement (Don Quixote, Hamlet)
Sometimes I avoid it. I've never read Gravity's Rainbow criticism and I actively avoid criticism of the Confidence Man.
>>7877791
Nothing wrong with that. On the topic of plebian literature, I'd be interested in Illuminatus! criticism, if it even exists.
I read critical essays for the stuff I really enjoy, which usually means I have prior interpretations.
Nothing really has the key to the text, but I like seeing different perspectives. If I have no clue what I'm supposed to be getting from a book I don't really follow up on it.
>>7877754
Sometimes when I finish a book, I interpret everything as clear as day and have a very strong conviction as to what it was about (for example, Blood Meridian was like this for me), even if I might technically be 'wrong' when compared to scholarly consensus etc.
If I feel as if there was some meaning but that I didn't fully grasp everything that went on, I'll head straight to critical analysis. It's a meme but I also tend to go straight for Bloom's guides to things.
So yeah, there's nothing wrong with relying on other people's analysis, in my opinion. Sometimes, it's only after getting a grasp of what a book is trying to say that you can appreciate it.
I'm a dumb faggot and have trouble ever analyzing literature to any great degree, so I read essays when I find good ones.
>>7877808
My favorite plebeian criticism is about 1984. As if the ideas arnt already layed out plain as day, people still publish anayalisis on this shit book. Not to mention the anayalisis is utter fucking garbage 10 out of 10 times.
If there was a gun to my head and someone told me to get rid of one dystopian novel I would book burn every copy.The sad part is I read these essays and I think 1984 has its merits and is a needed book in literature.
>Someone kill me please
>>7877910
I change my mind. I would burn Hungarian Games or Maze Sprinter novels
Only good dystopian novels are old ones and even then their stories are typically not built upon enough or are to long.
I am a master race Illustarted Man enthusiast myself. Granted it's a collection of short stories realistically; they're all but two written expertly and have the perfect length to complement the stories
