Would you recommend, or at least approve of, a person working

nobody cares

>>9496135
what is the POINT of doing this?

stupid fuck

Pro: It would be easier since you're starting with your own culture's works and slowly moving towards literary works that can be alienating if you down put the work in.

Con: Texts build upon one another, so there's quite a bit you would miss (or misunderstand) in Shakespeare if you're not familiar with Roman playwrights.

Or, and this is a suggestion, you can read whatever the fuck you want without seeking the approval of strangers on a Cambodian basket-weaving forum.

>>9496148
I'm not looking for advice on what to do this is just a hypothetical. I'm just thinking of other teaching techniques. Perhaps working backwards allows you to more clearly see the influences in an author's work?

>>9496168
>Perhaps working backwards allows you to more clearly see the influences in an author's work?
How so?

>>9496168
>I'm just thinking of other teaching techniques
this would depend on your endgame of teaching. what's your goal? what do you hope to teach to your students? you want them to know the history of literature? you want to broaden their knowledge and understanding of the world through text of those who studied it? perhaps you have some sort of agenda you'd like to instill into as many young people as possible.

really, teaching methods depend on what you're trying to teach.

Put your dick in the canon and strike the fucking wick you stupid piece

>>9496168
Best courses I've sat through have moved sequentially forward where we're presented one author and their general ideas and then move on to another author that critiqued the previous author and added a new concept/theory. This way you can both develop critical thinking by showing that no theory is perfect as well as building the baseline understanding needed for down the line authors. I know Foucault gets shit on a lot but his ideas of knowledge proliferation make a lot of sense as to why you should work forwards rather than backwards. One begets two more that couldn't exist without the first.

>>9496181
Look up the 'Borgesian Conundrum', you ignoramus.

>>9496135
As far as possible in philosophy this would be actually a great idea, because:

1)We empathize more with the contemporary problems of philosophy, this mean we can read it more "joyfully" and we won't miss a lot

2)When you read philosophy backwards you can appreciate more how carefully crafted are the thoughts of the classic authors, (I mean, that's why you can find neoaristotelians or neokantians) because to do so you need to be more or less familiar with the topic, and this could be a start point

3)Philosophy is full of canon philosophers who misread each other, so for example, you can study Schopenhauer without reading Kant (although you'd need a basic understanding of Kant's philosophy, but that's it) and then when you embrace Kant you can read him thinking in what Schopenhauer "went wrong".

I think the later you can start with this method is by reading foucault, then heidegger and so on, or start with heidegger (I hope you don't believe that shit of "To read me first you have to study aristotle for 10 years"). And you would need a super basic knowledge from the canon before doing this. I personally prefer this method in philosophy, but I don't know how would it work in literature. In philosophy you'd appreciate more the canon, and that's really the important part.

t. native speaker