/lit/ should make a literary criticism reading list so posters

>>9244392
Go for it, but break it down by framing methodology.

Lit posters who are largely unaware would probably get a kick out of New Criticism, especially antebellum apologist strains like I'll Take My Stand. Probably apostolic canonical traditions as expressed by Bloom as well. Nobody ever talks about Anxiety of Influence around here despite fawning all over Bloom for standing up to the big bad culture warriors.

>>9244392
Can you just tell me how to critique a book please.

>>9244392
no list is required, it would be billions of lines long. The best way is to google "(book title) essay" "(book title) criticism" "(book title) lecture notes" "(book title/author) scholarship"

The fact lit doesn't do this has nothing to do with not knowing the resources but sheer laziness or unwillingness to do the actual work needed in actually reading a book. Don't tell me that the website that can find some random booktuber's home address within the hour has trouble finding resources on books.

>>9244430
new criticism? ew. do not pass i.a richards and william empson if you're going to go that route.

>>9244493
Oh please. Don't be philistine. New Crit was an extremely dominant literary tradition in the late-early to early-middle 20th c.. They are out of fashion now and no one still practices it but their influence and ability can not be disputed. Can't you detach yourself enough to appreciated antiquated crit schools thought?

>>9244540
i just named two guys who are good new crits. the quest is quixotic though. no new crit ever wrote anything as good as call me ishmael. at least empson is funny.

A U G U S T I N E

>>9244568
well yeah, they were literary critics, not writers

look at bloom, heads a whole critical school fo thought, one published novel that was embarrassing

>>9244568
>empson
never mind I misread your post

>>9244481
>Don't tell me that the website that can find some random booktuber's home address within the hour has trouble finding resources on books.
this.

Good idea. Bump

>>9244648
Call me ishmael is a study on moby dick by charles olsen. read more widely

>>9245123
see
>>9244657

My fault. I glazed over those names on my first pass. I thought you were saying critical writers can't produce literature so they suck.

>>9244392

> these pics

>>9244493
>>9244568
New Criticism is highly underrated, its not perfect but its a perfect starting point for understanding how to speak about a book

>>9245853
yeah, which is why i said to read i.a richards and empson and don't bother with the chaff. practical criticism was highjacked by the new crits and they killed creative reading for a couple of generations.

only the text is like saying only the idea. it ignores all the background which makes for interesting readings. this hurt poetry more than prose in hindsight.

be gone, j evens pritchard!

>>9245199
snark rescinded my dude

>>9244481
OP clearly meant things about general critical methodology so anons could come up with their own (worthwhile) opinions, not just looking up things to paraphrase so people can say "good post".

>>9244392
Is there much literary criticism out there discussing what makes prose good? As an outsider, I get the impression it's largely about discussing influences, interpretations, context (depending on the school), not 'here's why A is awesome writing and B isn't' using detailed analysis. I'd guess many scholars would consider that uninteresting/beneath them, but it would be really interesting to see.

File: 1465593489734.jpg (10KB, 220x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x255px

>>9244392
As long as there's no Roland Barthes on the list, I agree.

>>9246421
Why not ?