Is /swtg/ really necessary? Where do you go when you've

It doesn't need to be, but beneficial to extract as much as possible from every work instead of going back and forth. Purely saving time.

I'm going to quote my English professor here because its relevant:

>The order in which you receive information changes how you view things.

If you started from the contemporaries and feminist literature and then read the Bible, you would hate the Bible because its sexist/racist etc. Likewise if you started with the Bible and worked forward you would see feminism as the story of Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah.

>>9184102
ok what I think I might do is read all the stuff that's interesting to me now and then do a minor in classics or something like that and then build my base from there, maybe rereading the things I feel worth it

>>9184094
>Does the bible come after?
Plutarch, Aesop, Lucian, and then the Bible, yes.
>And after that?
Philo, Middle Platonists, Plotinus, Augustine, Nag Hammadi Scriptures, Corpus Hermeticum, Qur'an, 1001 Nights, Nibelungen Lied, Parzival, Yvain, Beowulf, El Cid, some secondary lit on the history of the Middle Ages and Christianity...

Then: http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html#aristo
>Does reading really need to be chronological?
Writers are not time travelers, yes.

>>9184094
/swtg/ is beneficial only if your'e studying literature on an academic level.
Otherwise, your'e just getting memed hard and should just read whatever the fuck you want.

>>9184094
It's not necessary. However, Edith Hamilton's Mythology (the first book in that pic) is a pretty good primer and small reference book. If you come across anything Greek or w/e in your novels/poetry, just look it up on Google or in a Greek mythology reference book. Nothing will be lost.

>>9184105
Or you could think critically about the information you receive instead of hopping on the bandwagon of whatever you read first like the piece of garbage pseud you are :^)