Is browsing /lit/ equal to majoring in literature?

no

being an english major is much better for developing a love for literature imo

>>7637554
No, you could feasibly have a job and browse /lit/

Hell no, enough of these asinine questions already.

Yeah pretty much. Browsing /lit/ might actually land you a job though

Lit major here.

Trust me, with academia gone to shit thanks to all the PC and SJW bullshit that's been injected into it, you're better off browsing /lit/.

I'm majoring in literature and most people here have no clue what they're saying or can't go beyond the "I like/dislike it", so I will have to go with: no.

>>7637583
>i'm bitter about getting a C back on my Evola paper from a minority professor

of course.

>>7637569
Kek

>>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

>>7637583
Smart people usually make it there, so no wonder why the academia is leftist. A better question is what are you doing there.

>>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.

can go on but those are just some big examples.

>>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.

>>7637601
>similarly not represented is the 18th - 19th century/victorian novel
I love the occasional middlemarch/scott drop that gets ignored totally 100% of the time.

At least this years man booker got a lot of attention...

>>7637608
>middlemarch
Muh nigga.

Have you read The Mill on the Floss, too?

>>7637601
>being this autistic

Not even close.

/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.

>>7637554
No, this is a hobby board. If you enjoy reading it's a good place to expand your horizons and have casual discussions

The fact that STEM fags come in here to shitpost about reading books while also working towards being a doctor/engineer only proves this

>>7637590
Someone finally fucking said it

>>7637617
>nothing to say, so just gonna memetext instead

>>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.

>>7637631
schizo

>>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.

>>7637669
Seconded

>>7637669
neck yourself

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.

>>7637701
>implying i'm not necking myself as we speak

>>7637669
>you're discussing it in a more sophisticated and concrete way than is usually the case on the board
Holy shit fucking lurk more.

>>7637729
did i give you permission to respond to me?

delete this right now.

>>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.

>>7637759
Since warosu is down I cant, but the weekly non-fic history threads were excellent before /his/

>>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.

>>7637583
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?

>>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.

Yes
No denbts either

>>7637554
he looks like a chassid with alopecia

>>7637620
Hey you're that faggot right?

>>7637975
Yeah what's up?

>>7637620
The greeks were actually pretty great though senpai.
>circlejerk
reddit

>>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.

>>7638006
found the pleb who doesn't understand ulysses

everyone point and laugh

>>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.

>reddit

Sure thing love.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 537x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 537x360px

But why major in literature when you can major in philosophy, politics, and French, anon?

>>7638082
>>>/his/

go back to your containment board faggot

>>7638082

>majoring in politics

What is wrong with you

>>7638134
Not him but what's wrong with it?

>>7638202
marx literally killed politics

you can't add anything new that marx didn't add earlier

Absolutely no, this place is pretentious.

>>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).

File: 26530-1.jpg (460KB, 530x733px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 530x733px

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.


back to >>>/pol/ and >>>/his/ faggot

File: 1449651915032.jpg (101KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x960px

>>7637554
as much as browsing /hc/ is equivalent to getting laid

>>7638283
Hello, Bloom.

>>7638338
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction)
>(fiction & non-fiction)
>non-fiction

/lit/ is appropriate for the discussion of any subject so long as there is a work that stimulates the discussion.

>>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?

>>7638389
>Camus,
>philosophy
eeehhhhhhh

File: Capture.png (118KB, 491x462px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 491x462px

>>7638394
:^)

>>7638389
>college degrees

don't give a shit go to /soc/ if you want to talk about your life

>>7637595
>academia is leftist
The more logic-based and difficult a subject is, the further it shifts from the left.

And my metric for both of those things is the male enrollment rate.

>>7638460
You aren't the brightest, are you? I'm not the one who started the thread, anon...I'm simply replying to the OP and the general thread conversation that followed. Jesus Christ, kid.

>>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/.

>>7638283
Well we also study Batman comics in lit classes too. As we should.

>>7637669

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.

>>7637569
Underrated

>>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.

basically better by far

File: 1446783067874.jpg (178KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 960x720px

>>7637620
literally the only answer that has made sense thus far