How effective is pic related at helping you read fiction? I've

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-09 at 12.45.29 AM.png (8KB, 85x35px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 85x35px

Strangely, my post is in some bizarro, question mark page.

File: 51cbdlphAGL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (51KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 332x499px

I never read that book but they had us read this for AP Lit. This is explicitly for fiction.

But I wouldn't say it made me a better reader.

File: 51OCFIOoH8L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (31KB, 324x499px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 324x499px

Picture related actually made me a better English prose reader. English is not my native language though. It might not be too useful to people who already speak English as their primary language.

>>8599298
The entire book basically comes down to "make it quick the first time and read carefully in the second time". I don't think it helped me much.

>>8599312
That book is mostly for dumb fucks who haven't grown a sense for literature yet (like what I used to be).

Here's another question related to the books in question though, how do I talk about literature like tolstoy or basically like someone who actually understands literature.

I've read loads of books yet I have no practice in dissecting books, their characters, their personalities, when i read essays by authors like henry james, tolstoy, i water at the mouth at how well they can discuss literature.

I don't know if OP can bump his own thread here but I don't want this to die because I'd really like a more in depth answer

>>8599298
do you really need a whole book to show you better reading techniques jfc

>>8601414
Don't be rude. Why wouldn't you want to be the best reader possible?

Are there any alternative methods to being a more involved reader you'd recommend?

>>8601439
they're techniques, you can find plenty on the internet. there are sites that help train you to read faster too.
i really don't see a need for 200 pages telling me basic techniques. i wouldn't even know what they fill it with. it's like social self-help books giving you a chapter on why you should smile.

It doesn't help at all. It's a truly embarrassing book.

>>8601460
A good guide only teaches you to read slower and with concentration, not faster.

It's not a very good book, and it's a horrid book for teaching you about fiction as its focus is primarily on non-fiction. I wouldn't recommend reading it at all for that purpose unless you are well below a high school reading level.

>>8601469
you really need a book to tell you to concentrate? once you get that down you speed up.

>>8601472
So what would you recommend to help me with reading fiction? I generally find that I'm at least okay with identifying basic symbolism and themes/motifs, but when it comes to much deeper, more complex books there's so much that I miss without reading a critical analysis.

Basically, how do I read fiction and poetry in such a way that allows me to get the most out of it, rather than just reading for plot like a faggot?

>>8601483
You don't speed up in fiction unless you're a faggot. I want to see how you can actually immerse yourself in Flauberts descriptions if you move from sentence to sentence in fast succession. A dedicated reader, a reader who isn't a critic, should read slower than subvocalization. Of course it depends on the prose, speed is dynamic, but wishing to speed up or reading fast is the biggest indicator of a pseud.

>>8601487

Re-read, take notes, look for image clusters.

>>8601487
if you want to get as deep as a critical analysis, you need to work like a critical analyst does. This means taking notes and methodically working through a novel. And even then you will find various different interpretations.

Don't stress too much over not gettng everything. You will improve as you read more, just slow down and reflect on characters and scenes, be careful of how the writer uses language and so on. If you want to take it further it will go beyond normal fiction reading and towards professional reading, akin to Mortimer's method, which is just one of many methods and, i find, a shitty one too.

>>8601491
you never said fiction retard. obviously it depends on what you're reading.
but that's besides the point which is that why do you need 200 pages telling you how to concentrate. it's like someone telling me how to listen to music or watch a movie it's just fucking focus.

>>8601512
>How effective is pic related at helping you read fiction?

>>8601514
missed that my bad. either way, it's just fucking focus.

OP here
So there's no quick method (i.e. reading one book or two on the subject) to becoming a better reader of fiction. Why do I often feel like symbolism escapes me, and how can I improve?

File: 1363565669880.jpg (136KB, 554x929px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 554x929px

>>8602665
I'm in the same boat as you. Past years I've only read maybe 2-3 books a year but in the last 6 months I've read ~25. I too feel like I miss a lot of symbolism and meaning. I was stressing about it but decided I would just relax, keep reading widely, takes notes, think, and reflect.
I have a hunch that reading books on books such as those recommended do in fact help, you just gotta put the thought into it. Either way, good thinking is hard thinking and hard thinking is hard work.

>>8602665
Anon have already told you what to do >>8601499 >>8601501.

>>8602765
why do you have this pic saved? Are you some kind of homosexual?