Just picked up this book. What am I in for?

>>9773350

A long list of obvious symbolism any mature reader already knows. It's not really about literary theory or aesthetic appreciation, it's just one type of analysis: "rain means THIS, sickness means THIS, etc." If you didn't pass high school you might find it useful.

>>9773366
This. I looked at the table of control and realized how base the interpretations are. There are much better books dealing with how to read.

>>9773350
High school english class

>>9773350
I seriously don't understand the purpose of these books. Isn't it just better to enjoy quality literature just by your own thoughts and instincts? Taste and appreciation would gradually improve.

>>9773350
Just put it down.

I think there is nothing wrong with reading things like this. If it helps you to appreciate literature on a higher level, why stop yourself?

If you are going to criticize something, criticize the book in question and what it preaches. Don't criticize the thought of it.

>>9773437
reccs pls

>>9773565
>How to Read a Book
>Understanding Fiction
>Understanding Poetry

>>9773350
It's for niggers. Read The Art of Fiction by David Lodge (fiction) or How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler (non-fiction) if you want to start reading like a white man.

File: 51NUf4XZCEL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (29KB, 225x346px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 225x346px

>>9773618
Nice, I just bought How To Read A Book and its been quite the easy read so far. I suppose it wont do me any damage reading it as some people in this thread are suggesting. I do wonder if I will greatly benefit from it though, I've been reading for a while now and haven't had too many problems so far. Poetry on the other hand was never something I could get into.

File: 41KZijmGAWL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (29KB, 330x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 330x499px

>>9774548
>Poetry on the other hand was never something I could get into.

Pic related is something I found very informative and accessible.

>>9774548
ABCs of Reading by Ezra Pound might help you in the poetry department. Also definitely look for Art of Fiction by David Lodge.
>>9774562
How did it help?

>>9773350
An easy to swallow red pill

>>9774604
>How did it help?

It's just a fine introduction to reading poetry. For the longest time I've been weary of poetry guides because they're usually just a list of poetic techniques and a dry explanation of meter, and that never really got me to appreciate the art form. This one instead first focuses on diction, then syntax and lines, then metaphors and similes and so on. It just feels much more natural in easing you into all the stuff that goes into a poem.

Is there something like this for art? I. e. how to 'read' a painting? I've been meaning to get more into art by exposing myself to it on a regular basis but it seems hard to access. Oftentimes it's very cryptic and there are motives I dont recognize.

>>9775095
bumping for answer

>>9776517
check the /ag/ autodidact thread in the archive

>>9773350
Read it, it's not bad. E.g., it explains how The Crying of Lot 49 more or less fits the hero's journey structure, which is non-obvious (inb4 brainlets pretending to be brain-tier say it *is* obvious).

It's not especially deep, but it's a quick, pleasant read, and you'll likely learn a few things.

Any how to read how to read books that you guys would recommend?

>>9773366
I was pretty stupid and never focussed during basic english classes. You think it would be good just to close up that gap? I'm not OP, by the way.

>>9777477
Yes, it would definitely help to close the gap.

Another book that's a fun, easy, but informative read that would do the same wrt poetry is Camille Paglia's Break, Blow, Burn, which devotes 3 or 4 pages to about 40 poems written in English, starting with Shakespeare. It will open your eyes, and you will learn what poetry is. She has some very fine insights while avoiding the obscurantism that often accompanies the analysis of poetry.

File: Whatisthewhatbook.jpg (17KB, 220x304px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x304px

To clarify, I am not >>9773366 in replying with this >>9777499 to this >>9777477.