>>7605446 It's mainly that it conflicts with other studies, I'm reading Plato atm and I don't want to read later dialogues from my order (such as those in the anthology) before their time. Is lit crit a field in which the works should be read chronologically?
>>7605465 most things should be read chronologically for maximum context but no i don't think it's absolutely necessary. you should avoid jumping around too much though and already being familiar with earlier stuff being cited/reacted directly against in later stuff would probably save yourself a lot of confusion an dtrouble.
the bulk of the norton is like 1 - 2 excerpts from each author at most anyways so it really won't impact your plato much at all.
>>7605525 also a common view is that the explanatory/contextual/biographical info from the norton is more useful than the excerpts themselves a lot of the time, so keep that in mind. it's meant to give you a fairly comprehensive, if shallow (as it would naturally tend to be) overview of the field. and for stuff that really interests you then you go out and read the full works from which the excerpts are taken and other related stuff by the same author/others
>>7605542 Difficult in today's environment. Boils down to finding people, either critics or friends or acquaintances, who have proven themselves to give good recommendations/ones compatible with your tastes, to lean on for opinions.
Try reading book reviews in big name publications (not user reviews) to get a sense of what publications/critics seem to have a good track record. Just google "-name of work- review" and click on the ones that seemed to be backed by a real publication. Doesn't have to be New York times tier but should still be "respectable." Once you're more comfortable with what you're looking for maybe expand into personal blogs/independent reviewers.
You should probably read a few different reviews of the same thing as well if you care strongly about having the best chance at reading a "worthwhile" work.
>>7605574 >>7605577 Yeah I'll try that. It seems I'm SOL on this one, though. No respectable places have done a review on it.
Only shit like Salon, the SPLC, HuffPo, and a bunch of random right-wing sites have talked about it. Closest to "prestigious" is probably the LA Times, but according to Wiki they got derailed and complained about conservatives too, instead of focusing on the facts of the book.
>>7605598 Yeah I figure I'm just gonna pull the trigger on it now that I just got my paycheck. It's sorta pricey for a relative unknown, so I hope this doesn't become a doorstop.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.