What are the best books for better understanding lit, asides from just reading more lit itself? Any recommendations/reading list on crit/theory would be appreciated
>>7616423
Do you go around telling people you can't think for yourself?
>>7616441
pleb opinion: the post
super entry level stuff:
norton anthology of theory if you want the comprehensive overview
well wrought urn by cleanth brooks for poetry
mimesis in OP pic is good
shakespeare by mark von doren is a good shakespeare overview
>>7616423
Thomas C Foster - How to Read Literature like a Professor
Crash Course: Literature (youtube lectures)
How to Read a Book - Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren
Harold Bloom - How to Read and Why
>>7616458
these are all super bland and kinda gets mired down in stuff like symbol hunting and really basic, high school english tier stuff that would probably make people think lit crit is boring/pointless/anyone can do it :|
bloom is a bit better but it's still one of his mass market $$$ books and not any serious lit crit
>>7616457
>i need crusty 60 year old men who have not had an original idea since the 50s to tell me what to think about literature
congrats, m8
>>7616478
>i don't know what literature actually entails but im gonna shitpost on /lit/ anyways based on my in-depth readings of wikipedia summaries
>>7616483
>being this insecure that you get buttblasted
o i am lauffin
>>7616506
You are making an ass of yourself
>>7616516
Nah m8 keep thinking that though while you suck off a professor
>>7616521
I'm not the person you are originally speaking to, so you have no reason to say that to me as you do not know my opinion on the subject.
You like to think you are a troll, but authentic idiocy shines through.
>>7616536
topkek
I do go around with the recognition that people who are smarter than me exist and that other people have had different lives and educations so will have different understandings of writing than myself.
>>7616457
Building on what this guy said, the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism is pretty good, I have the second edition and it's essentially just extracts from the history of aesthetic and literary criticism, ordered chronologically and with introductions for every writer to give you a feel for them.
Beyond that, it gives you lists to read for content, genre, school, etc., so whilst it's expensive, it's fairly comprehensive, and as you're reading the philosipher themselves (barring translations) you're not coloured by others bias, and you can follow up on whomever interests you. That said, don't know if it'll help you better understand, it's often more about the function/purpose/meaning of art than how to read, if that's what you're looking for.
Norton Anthology...
Is the Norton Anthology good for dipping in and out of? Rather than reading through it in one big plog?
>>7617209
imo, yes. i own an edition of the european literature from enlightenment through modernism and did own one of british literature through the same time period. i used both books for college classes and we skipped through most of the text (obviously). there is context given before each author, and even without that context, the pieces can be read on their own. however, some pieces or snippets of a much larger text which is a bit of a bummer depending on the piece.
>asides
Are you Tommy Pickles?
>>7616423
