Books about books

>>9038316
Weird you didn't get any replies, OP. Anyway:

->The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism
->Robert Alter, "The Pleasures of Reading"
->Nabokov, "Lectures on Literature," "Lectures on Russian Literature," "Lectures on Don Quixote"
->Clenneth Brooks, "The Well-Wrought Urn"
->Paglia, "Break, Blow, Burn"
->Northrop Frye, "Anatomy of Criticism," "Fearful Symmetry"

That's a good start.

>>9038461
Not the op but if i have read no literary theory proper, only introductory books like A Very Short Introduction to Literary Theory or Critical Theory Today by Lois Tyson, will I be able to jump into something like Anatomy Of Criticism or Fearful Symmetry and get much out of it, or are there some intermediate works that are less famous? Are lecture based books simpler in general than other critical books? What is the literary theory equivalent of start with the Greeks? Poetics I know, but anything else, or anything else preceding say, the 19th century that is essential before reading more modern stuff?

>>9038480
All of the works I named are entry-level and accessible. In "Anatomy of Criticsm," Frye basically establishes a new, autonomous framework for analyzing literature and literary eras/movements. "Fearful Symmetry," like some of the other texts I listed, is straight-up solid analysis without reliance on any sort of academic jargon or bloated theoretical lens.

>literary theory equivalent of start with the Greeks?

The Norton work. It's got Freud, Derrida, Bahktin, Plato, Eagleton, Barthes, etc.

>>9038480
>>9038517
Also, IMO, the best way to get into it is to read the stuff that analyzes literature as "aesthetics", and not critical theory. Having people read Barthes, Bahktin, Derrida, Benjamin, et al. before they even know how to read literature as an art form I think is very misguided, but that's another whole can of worms.

The best thing I could recommend on that front would be Walter Pater's "Selected Works," especially "Appreciations, with an essay on Style," the Alter book I named above, James Woods' "How Fiction Works," the Nabokov stuff, DH Lawrence's book on "Studies in Classic American Literature," Edmund Wilson's "Axel's Castle," and maybe Harold Bloom's "How to Read Poetry and Why."

That, and just random, scattered essays written by writers themselves (see: Poe, Shelley, Eliot) or general criticism (see: Edmund Wilson, Susan Sontag [especially "On Interpretation"], Randall Jarrell).

Then once you've 'learned' to love literature as beautiful and stimulating art, move onto the theory if you wish.

For something a bit lighter than all this lit crit, I'd recommend Alberto Manguel. The Library at Night, A History of Reading, and A Reader on Reading are all great, informative fun.

Umberto Eco's On Literature, and Six Walks Through Fictional Woods, Calvino's Why Read The Classics?, and Six Memos For The Next Millenium, and any collection of Borges' essays or lectures are also well worth reading.

>>9038517
>>9038544
thanks

>>9038316
I like Adler's "How to Read a Book", but it is focused on non-fiction and classics.

>>9038629
It is. Adler had autism. I listened to him and now I'm reading Apollonius, which was on his list of to read books.

In all seriousness though, he probably got most of his books on that list from the Oxford classics books he edited.

Euclid's Elements is a must read. He's right about that one.

>>9038633
>Adler had autism
>Euclid's Elements is a must read. He's right about that one.