Why do literature professors obsess about guessing what the "author meant"?
Like with lord of the rings, tolkien had to go around telling people that "no, it wasn't meant to be a war allegory, please stop saying that".
What purpose does it serve? Without the author confirming it, there is no way to 100% tell whether one view is correct or not and even if you are right, you win no prizes. It has about as much effect as guessing which sports team is going to win the upcoming match.
It's just for the students to do something instead of it being a class where you read a book every week.
They need to justify shit.
They don't. Not since Roland Barthes' "Death of the Author" at least. Seriously, how can people read literature and not have previously heard of Barthes’ ideas before. God, /lit/ has gone to complete shit!
Help me out /lit/, please.
I am a STEM student from a country that has no connection to English literature, but I want to understand and enjoy the greatest works of the English canon to the fullest. The one I'm more hyped to read is Ulysses, because everyone says it is incredibly great and I loved the Iliad and the Odyssey. Even though I'm in STEM for a carreer path it is from literature that I take the most pleasure in my life and to literature that I owe the molding of my character. I would go through great effort to understand a book like Ulysses.
I have read Dubliners and travelled to Ireland for two weeks (if that helps), and enjoyed it, even though I don't get what the rave about it is (maybe because I'm not Euro). I also have read the plays from Wilde and Dorian Gray.
The question I'm getting to is this one: Since I will not be able to attend to classes about Ulysses (because of where I am), how would I go about certifying that I am completely ready to understand it and enjoy it to it's fullest? And where would I go to learn and understand more about Ulysses after I read it? Thank you.
>>7684889
start with the greeks
>>7684889
Read Portrait first, shakespeare, the bible and the divine comedy.
And then read ulysses and get the companion book.
>>7684893
Already have, I'm also through the process of going through almost the entire western philosophy canon, but I can attend to classes about those and /lit/ already has loads of detailed guides with links to lectures.
What is the most American book?
>>7684158
>>7684158
Art Of The Deal
>>7684158
anything by Jack London
I'm looking to order The Master and Margarita by Bugakov next, but I don't know which translation to get, sounds like there are 4 main ones, and each people are very opinionated about.
Which has /lit/ read and recommends?
>>7684035
The Burgin and O'Connor translation is widely considered to be the best one. It captures the humorous tone of the novel quite well.
>>7684043
I recently read M&M for a Russian lit book club and this was exactly the suggested edition. Apparently at least one of the other translations not only isn't as good, but actually has some missing content as a result of being drawn from an incomplete manuscript.
Also OP a cursory understanding of the early Soviet Union would help a bit when reading, but if you read the notes after finishing the book, most of what you miss will be made clear pretty quickly.
The best translation is the one you get without much research
So, I was thinking about Freud tonight.
Do you think he's onto something?
I've been thinking a lot lately about different approaches to psychology, and it occurs to me that I think the value of psychoanalysis probably lies IN the fact that it's not truly scientific.
I know, that sounds weird.
But it seems like there is a persistent ethical problem with biological-reductionist conceptions of psychology in that they implicitly undermine the 'humanness' of the human being. Human life is by definition conditioned by things that can't be measured: language, ideas, symbols. It seems that efforts to reduce psychology to neuroscience end up dismissing too much content that you need to study the subject properly. It seems to lead to viewing chemical imbalances as a 'a thing' in themselves, that need to be treated with chemical therapies. It seems to lead to favoring chemical therapies as first-order treatment instead of investigating whether (e.g.) the person could have a behavior pattern that is causing the imbalance, or whether there is some sort of problem in the broader society that's causing these imbalances to crop up frequently.
Basically, the 'reductionist' schools of psychology end up reducing the human being to mere matter, devoid of social significance.
This is where I think psychoanalysis may have some value. True, it's not science. But I'm not sure the field of human mental life CAN be scientific. Whether Freud's ideas are right or not, his project at least favors the idea of open communication as a potential solution. This seems preferable to the current 'prescribe amphetamines to the 6 year old after talking to him for 5 minutes' culture of mainstream psychiatry. Like, it at least is on board with the concept of human dignity, and it's not opposed to the idea that the problem might be with the broader society rather than the patient.
>>7683780
Freud is thought of a le kray-kray pseudoscientific sex fiend psychologist in pop culture, but that reputation is largely built off attempts at discrediting/disowning his weirder ideas by those in the field to legitimize psychiatry and psychology as serious medical disciplines so it wouldn't go the way of mesmerism. While some of the things he said are patently absurd, he was onto more than the average modern prescription-happy psychiatrist would care to admit.
OP get the Peter Gay Freud Reader and read 50 pages of it
>>7683780
>Do you think he's onto something?
Are you from the 1890s?
Is he right?
>>7682937
He's an idiot for thinking there is such thing as a "better" or a "worse" writer which would imply some kind of aesthetic realism he doesn't even agree with.
no. Pushkin and Chekhov are better, and he hasn't read Lermontov
>>7682941
Hey. I'm looking for some interesting books on psychology.
It's an almost endlessly broad field, and a very interesting one.
I used to read quite a lot related to this subject. Body language, some stuff featuring case studies, about the dynamics of organizations (from Scientology to businesses to communes and autocratic regimes). I've also read very little Jung and some evolutionary psychology, which I found fascinating, and perhaps I would like to explore it further.
Anyway, please recommend me all good books related to psychology (even if only tangentially related!).
Even fiction is welcome as well. I love Dostoevsky (a master of psychology).
Anna Karenina
Yeah /lit/ loves Jung I think
No memes, just your favorite top 10, any genres. Here's mine:
Kafka, Franz: The Trial (1915)
Bulgakov, Mikhail: The Master and Margherita (1940)
Witkiewicz, Stanislaw: Insatiability
Mann, Thomas: Buddenbrooks (1901)
James, Henry: The Golden Bowl
Bronte, Emily: Wuthering Heights
Nabokov, Vladimir: Ada
Pynchon, Thomas: V
Gogol, Nikolaj: Dead Souls (1852)
Faulkner, William: Light in August
Good list, OP. Here are my favorites:
Stendhal: The Red and the Black (1830)
Dostoevskij, Fyodor: The Idiot (1869)
Joyce, James: Ulysses
Musil: The Man Without Qualities(1933)
Woolf, Virginia: To the Lighthouse
Conrad, Joseph: Nostromo
Gombrowicz: Pornography (1960)
Tolstoy, Lev: War and Peace
Zola, Emile: Germinal (1885)
Flaubert, Gustave: Madame Bovary
>>7682023
you know?
I can't list 10 books.
I never understood the idea of favourite. I can choose a favourite song or even a type music, I could listen the same song 1000 times and say that it isn't my favourite.
How could I do it with a book?
>>7682040
Some people are just able to do it I think, books for me are very much in the moment and it subtly changes me I think. I can't even list the last 10 books I read I'm so disorganized.
Has anyone read this book? I'm trying to change my attitude on life and have read a few reviews in praise of it. Group therapy isn't helping much because girls are just talking about how slutty they are and their daddy issues.
Go back to whatever board you came from, friend. We don't talk about this stuff here.
>>7681418
Yeah, because all of your threads involve scholarly discussion, right? Like your YouTube book review waifus and DFW memes.
>>7681377
Yeah, I've read it. The content is very good for what it is. It's probably not going to help you if you're dead-set against self-help as a genre on a philosophical level.
Where does /lit/ get their books? I'm looking for several old-school sci-fi titles.
Bookdepository
Local libraries
Fuck amazon
>>7688208
got it, lad
thanks
ebay
what are some good and easy to read books to introduce myself to the buddhist philosophy?
Siddhartha
Easwaran's translation of the Dhammapada breaks it up into sections and gives each a short helpful introduction
Holder's collection Early Buddhist Discourses is a bit tougher, but after the Dhammapada you should be able to get a lot out of it.
alguien tiene esto en formato digital?
Che habla en ingles
Che
Te fijaste en bookzz?
>>7687883
isnt there
che
Am I too dumb to read Philosophy?
I had never read any before, but I found myself interested in 'The Myth of Sisyphus' by Camus, not really knowing what it would be like to read. I am struggling a lot.
Did I pick the wrong book for my level? Am I too dumb? For a complete beginner philosophy seems really overwhelming to get into. Do I really need to start right at the beginning with greeks?
I guess I would ask for a good book on absurdism for someone like me, but looking it up it seems like 'Sisyphus' is THE book.
Yes you must start with the Greeks
>>7687735
philosophers build on each other. its as if you skipped to book 5 and had trouble understanding what was going on. however, the myth of sisyphus is special in that camus' reference of other philosophers is so shallow that you could easily read it with a guide.
You don't need to read the Greeks to get into absurdism. What specifically is giving you trouble?
What are the best military strategy books?
Check the archive
>>7687434
Something not written by russians
Lit's recommendations for someone whose native language isn't English? My girlfriend has shown an interest in reading novels written in English, but the book which she chose based on the cover, Lolita, was too difficult. I gave her McCarthy's The Road and she loves that so far. She's already asking me what she should read next. ASOIF? She likes the shows...
Hemmmingway
>>7687200
I'm not a native speaker and these are all pretty readable, with Lolita being the hardest (but should be manageable after reading the others).
>>7687200
>ASOIF? She likes the shows...
>She likes the shows
Give her that, and Harry Potter, and so on and so on. Then when she has a grasp on the language, better books.