>>7637554 Well, if you read most of the books recommended on here that's a very good selection that'll definitely match literature major reading lists and without spending money. You'll miss out on lectures and discussion which I imagine can be great depending on your professor and class but either way probably isn't worth the ridiculous amount of money, especially in US universities
>>7637592 >Well, if you read most of the books recommended on here that's a very good selection that'll definitely match literature major reading lists
hahahahaha do you actually believe this? are /lit/ posters really this deluded? /lit/ reading, for the most part, are definitely renowned classics that are found on reading lists, but /lit/ meme lists skip over so much stuff.
for one, there is basically no poetry, which is a cornerstone of an english major.
similarly not represented is the 18th - 19th century/victorian novel. i don't care for it myself but you need to at least know them.
shakespeare is barely alluded to here beyond a vague notion of "read his stuff" (look at his representation on the top 100 list for example).
no one here other than english/lit majors shitposting on their spare time has any interaction with theory on anything more than the most superficial level, if even that. no, bloom doesn't count. and no, "theory is a marxist charade and is totally useless to literature" doesn't fly as an argument either.
unlike what /lit/ and newpaper pundits like to pretend, literary awards are still acknowledged in academia, esp if you are specializing in some sort of world literature/novel form. so stuff like the nobel.
>>7637590 I am doing fine in school. My grades are above average. Not perfect, but solid.
>>7637595 I am studying what I like? All I'm saying is that I am disappointed, because I honestly didn't expect humanities departments to be so full of SJW's. It makes me sad that students are having opinions shoved down their throats by cuckolds.
/lit/ is a bunch of people who liken themselves the next James Joyce or William S. Burroughs (usually bc they're white men) who don't really give a shit about critical theory or close reading, and spend their time circle-jerking about how great the Greeks are, how much of a "cuck" DFW/Pynchon/etc. are, and beyond that, not a whole lot else.
That's not to say I hate /lit/--I'm here, after all--nor is it to say that I think academia is the be-all end-all of good thought about literature--I have my own frustrations with it as a student--but if you want to seriously study literature, /lit/ shouldn't be your first stop.
>>7637601 >no one here other than english/lit majors shitposting on their spare time has any interaction with theory on anything more than the most superficial level
Many of the greatest poets and writers have ignored theory as a bunch of shite. I've had to "engage" with the "critical conversation" on many assignments, and I can say with confidence that my time would have been better-spent reading literature.
The worst thing that a university education does is that it teaches you to revere literary criticism. Half the time I suspect (not without reason) that my professors don't even understand the critics they're quoting.
>>7637650 ok this is a different argument and you're discussing it in a more sophisticated and concrete way than is usually the case on the board. it's typically just a bunch of hysterical shit flinging from people attacking the strawman of their idea of theory with no first hand experience.
i agree completely with you that a lot of the critical conversation is garbage. but, that's a result of the the past few decades when theory completely dominated the discourse at english department. people would quip that no one read literature anymore, since everyone was too busy reading literature about literature. however, i think we have definitely witnessed a pullback from the excessive theory frenzy, and with some exceptions (extremes always exist), literature discussion at top schools are acceptably balanced between literature itself and criticism, and we now have a much healthier attitude and relationship to criticism.
theory, at least when practiced at respectable institutions by real scholars (as opposed to the third rate garbage that gets picked up as clickbait by newspapers cause they're so outlandish) is no longer about pigeonholing authors into anachronistic readings and advancing agendas, but more about finding the proper way to describe how literature impacts people today and why someone in 2016 would even care about shakespeare. to me, that is valuable and respectable. using twelfth night to illustrate all cismen are evil is something that you see on jezebel. using twelfth night to show how gender and perception is a more complicated issue, and one that has been (consciously or unconsciously) thought about for many centuries is perfectly reasonable. unfortunately the perception of "gender criticism" tilts towards the former as opposed to the latter.
i don't think literary criticism is to be revered, but rather, the purpose of the critical conversation is to attain awareness of what has been discussed and how the establishment thinks about certain works and authors so that you may participate intelligently in the conversation. i don't mean to no true scotsman this, but i truly believe that the vast majority of people working here in respectable institutions hold similar views, and that popular demogoguery paints a far more absurd picture of the modern english department than warranted.
Actually yes. I just started my first semester after being a 4chan browsing neet for years and I'm finding a lot of the stuff they're teaching are things I picked up from browsing and shitposting. Though it's also true first years are low hanging fruit.
>>7637583 This. It's so fucking watered down at this point. The few people who are dedicated are endlessly sub-specialized so that they are basically plebs in everything but their tiny little corner, and the vast majority are just plebs in everything, shallow trendy activists and makework researchers.
It's so fucking bad. There are like four "well-read" people left in academia and they're not even in lit, and one of them died as I was typing this.
>>7637729 feel free to link to where this issue was discussed with any semblance of content and sophistication. i've been on /lit/ since board launch and i can count the number of times that has happened on one hand
the point i'm alluding to here, as articulated by someone else here >>7637622 is that /lit/ is a "hobby board." it's for people wtih a passing interest in reading/books/humanities/literature. it's not a bastion of scholarship, insight, or knowledge. there's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean the notion that reading /lit/ meme lists is anywhere comparable to a dedicated degree in the field is laughable.
you certainly don't need theory to read and enjoy books. but you do need it if you want to be deeply invested in the field. not to say people need to do the latter.
>>7637766 that's...not theory. i'm not doubting those were excellent (i don't read those threads thoroughly) but they rarely touch on literary theory. honestly, the closest this board comes to discussing theory is when someone posts that "books about books" chart and a few stray anons chime in here and there with some thoughts on stuff like the ABC of Reading or something like that, surrounded by a lot of bloomposting. not exactly high academia.
>>7637854 >I'm also a lit major and I have never seen SJW/PC shit get injected into things. This is in the UK though. >Are you American?
Not him, but I'm Canadian and I can somewhat attest to what he's saying. It's a little silly how much they try to bring out dusty second-rate women writers in some courses. But even at the very worst, it's not so bad. It's still worth doing a degree in English, I think.
>>7637554 It's even better because you don't actually have to read anything, just pretend you're an erudite and call everyone a pleb when they don't get Ulysses or whatever the fuck meme book they're worshipping.
>>7638001 I don't doubt that the Greeks were great but it's like god damn, you'd think literature stopped being good after the fall of Rome, started back up again briefly (only in Europe) from like 1700-1900, and then fell off based off of the memery here.
>>7637583 I think students are as intellectually gifted as they every were, but there is a difference compared to many years ago. All, but the most intensely literary of them, have simply read a lot less, both on their own and in school before they go to university than 20 years ago. And i think that has something to do with the screen, the internet. However, there are two enemies of reading. And the second is the destruction, the lunatic destruction of literary studies and its replacement by cultural studies. The people responsible represent the treason of intellectuals, the betrayal of the clerks. For example, in American literary studies, where the most severe academic adulteration has taken place, they almost certainly never read anymore. They never read American literature. They don't know who Walt Whitman, or Emily Dickinson or Henry James are. Instead they study Coney Island and pop culture, they study batman comics, and Mormon theme parks -- this is what people do in cultural studies!
>>7638283 >>7638283 That is true. I believe they are as gifted as before, but the thing is, they don't have proper guidance and they are addicted to the screen (as we all are, to an extent, I am afraid).
Absolutely not, this place is filled with 60% illiterate who wouldn't know symbolism if the author dictated the meaning to them in bold, 20% who are so tunnel-visioned in their interpretation of books that they can't see the author meant blue, not green, when he wrote blue, and 15% who though are competent in reading (a fucking accomplishment right) just shitpost, like the rest of the 95%. The last 5% are the ones of wisdom, amiability and intelligence, they lurk 100% of the time.
>>7638084 >languages and philosophical literature do long belong on a "literature" board You are literally wrong.
>>7638134 It's a double major with my Phil B.A and it's on political theory. It's not classes about policy or any governing system in particular, but rather social and political thought, foundations of political theory, etc etc. A lot of Locke, Hobbes, etc. all the way up to some contemporary shits like Murray Rothbard.
>>7638335 >. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
>>7638338 We aren't discussing any of those you troglodyte. We're talking about college degrees and what a /lit/ experience is similar to. You are literally just looking for an excuse to be contrarian.
>>7638380 Especially considering all of philosophy fits under /lit/ or are we supposed to pretend like you all don't talk about Camus, Sartre, Dostoevsky, etc. etc?
>>7637554 Only if browsing /lit/ is equal to being a writer. Which, no. Your activities *outside* of /lit/ (some of which may be even facilitated by /lit/) might be able to say something about your literary skills (which may or may not translate into the substance of an English degree), but not browsing /lit/.
Hi, I did a non-lit arts degree but have always written and have been doing so more and more. I'm planning on applying to an MA or MFA in a few yeas when I've developed my writing a bit and had a chance to take my reading more seriously. Can you or anybody reccomend me a good starting point for criticism that won't be too expensive. At the moment I'm into mid-century american lit: updike, roth, carver ect though I recently really enjoyed Proust's Pleasures and Days. I don't think i'll ever be much of a classicist but I do find that I'm unable to find the depth of analysis I'd like in New Yorker reviews, so a pointer to a few core texts or texts around what i'm reading would be really appreciated.
>>7638716 I met a girl studying English Lit who said she was looking at comics. I asked her which, she said "The serious one about Arkham Asylum, you know, the one by Neil Gaiman". I like to imagine that she's going to write her final dissertation on John Green's Moby Dick.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.