/lit/ - Literature

>>14902603
I used to but then I realised I never went back to them or thought my notes were retarded and superficial when I finally did.
These days I keep separate notebooks on individual authors or major works which I think gives you a better overview and chance of making a system of it, which in turn I think is necessary if you want your notes to be anything more than scribbles to make you think you're engaging the text.
Pic related, picked it up on campus when I was a student, was probably used in some English lit 101 course somewhere and immediately discarded afterwards (likely couldn't sell it either because of the vandalism).

>>11766752
is this thread also where you post your /lit/ cringe?

>>11343600
Yeah that's what I do. Basically my system is:
>making horizontal notes on the content next to the text when headlines, section titles, etc. aren't provided
>making vertical notes or notes at the top or bottom with my own personal thoughts
>marking sparingly certain key phrases or choice wordings that'll be a bother to find on a second read
I don't bother much with the second point any more, I usually think my notes are shallow or wrong on the second read, and I generally don't bother with notes/markings at all if the book is thoroughly indexed.
Pic sort of related, I'm guessing this is what people mean when they say notes do nothing but give you a sense of accomplishment.

>mfw picking up books from the free shit-tables around campus
Never again. On the plus side the 'notes' are only in the story in pic related, I'm guessing because it was the only one on the required reading list for whatever lit 101 class where this was used.

>>9927617
Now you've got me thinking about what Hemingway meant by all THIS

>>9881370
It's just a document of your past retardation, really.
If I make my notes too explicit I'll usually find them outdated and stupid as early as next month.
Pic related is a collection of short stories I picked up for free on campus. My guess is the Hemingway story was part of a course somewhere because it's the only story that's been annotated, and it definitely showcases what I would call bad/pointless annotation which doesn't contribute anything upon a second reading.

>>9099978
>pick up collection of short stories
>previously used by some college student
>only notes in one or two texts
>notes are excessive and mostly moot points or useless paraphrases
>rest is unread and spine is basically in pristine condition
Note the female handwriting :^)
But seriously though it's like this every time you buy something which incidentally is part of a curriculum somewhere else.

>>8265304
I don't look anything up because shit's so cheap anyway that I won't be pissed if it's a sub-par edition, and if there are several editions I'll just buy them all, but if you're making a habit of used bookstores and antiquaries then it's definitely worth being able to recognise publishers and editions you like
I'd say Aristotle and Thomas Paine are a find. I live in a capital city and authors like that that everyone's heard of and are in English (which everyone knows) would most likely be picked up by some undeserving philosophy major or high school student, and the true bargains are made in places where people don't know what books are worth, i.e. the country, or by contacting private sellers, and finding a widow whose husband was literary is a fucking goldmine.

But the real trick is to see if it's a female who owned the book before you because, more often than not, females do not know how to take notes in a book, and they opt for underlining fucking everything and paraphrasing what's in the text right next to the text. Pic related, I don't see why you should ruin a book like this unless you're writing your bachelor or whatever on it and are supposed to completely excoriate the story.