Where to start with lit crit? Want to read a lot of it. Any

Norton anthology of criticism is the best single book and willmdo.more for you than pretty much anything else.

it misses moers city of dreaming books. thats a good start to fuel the love for literature

>>7604946
I assume that's not a book to be read from cover to cover -- could one just jump in and read the works that interest them from the anthology?

>>7605053
you could but reading the whole thing, or at least the bulk of it, would be very very useful if you actually care about lit crit. if you're just dilettanting you can do whatever.

>>7604944
poetics by aristotle

>>7604944

I liked that Knobokov lecture book, even if the introduction is kind of stupid ("you shouldn't feel emotion for the story" more or less)

>>7605036

Also agree with this, that was a fun read.

>>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
You know you can read things more than once?

>>7605516
I like to be real autistic with my reading desu

>>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

>>7604944
Since this is the best thread to ask this in, does anyone know where I can find some good, hopefully objective-leaning criticism of works?

Like Goodreads if it wasn't retarded.

I find works through things like Amazon suggestions, Wikipedia, etc. and it's really hard to find good criticism on them.

For example, recently I found out about the book "White Girl Bleed A Lot", which is about things like the Knockout Game and media perspectives on race-based violence.

I'm trying to see if it's any good, since I'm not interested in reading Michael Savage-tier complaints and rather a factual portrayal about the issue.

It's impossible to tell, going by reviews. They're either literally
>IT'S AMAZING. MUH LIBRULS KEEPIN THE WHITE MAN DOWN.
or
>IT'S SHIT. MUH NEOCONS KEEPIN THE BLACK MAN DOWN.

I just want to know if the fucking book is a good study or if it's bullshit pop-sociology for the far right.

>>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
oh and just to add reviews today tend to be predominantly positive ones (at least published ones, personal/independent ones are whatever), since writing negative reviews is now frowned upon.

>>7605542
this subject is extremely biased nowadays, i think you should just read it and see for yourself

>>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.

>>7605542
Go to a university's library, look around the shelves near where they keep the book you're interested in.

>>7605641
Good idea for more well-known stuff. Thanks anon.