/lit/ - Literature

>>9620015
https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Western-Art/dp/0198600127

I particularly liked this one. Some of the prose is admittedly lackluster but it showcases a ton of good art and explains the history behind it, and its relation to the rest of the history.
this >>9620198 is also a well-known classic

>>8726354
Imagism. It's somewhat related to the Confucian branch of the rectification of names, but moreso a nominalism that a stubborn Pound never actually admitted to. It's obviously a type of nominalism, though, in accordance to Pound's original idea of imagism: a word or words in a piece of art should replace the "thing" in the real world, to get to the gist of it. It's about the direct treatment of the world, and their expression of differences amongst each other and so on.
It's really one of the most "Imagist" things about Pound, his use of proper names really condenses his early ideals into one particular device.

>>7148325
postapoem OP

>>7124111
Also OP you're already reading poetry so I'm not sure this will help you much but here it is in case.
http://pastebin.com/cBZknniE

Really if you're only looking to learn new names your best bet is definitely to pick up an anthology, Norton's anthology of poetry includes a bunch of them.

>>6720774
If you can't write then don't fucking write you faggot. Stop romanticizing the idea of being a writer and either write or don't. Fucking insufferable. This thread, it happens all the time. It's really awfully fucking simple. If you can't write, you're not a writer and you never will be. There is no trick to it, there is no blog that will give you the top ten steps to becoming a writer; writers fucking write, and by your own admission you cannot do so. Thus you are not a writer. Get over it and move on you cock attacker.

>>6679742
the first few lines are pretty cliché; the rest is okay, almost interesting. try to avoid heavy words like "agony"; they come across as angsty, i think. imo try to read more poetry, and always read more than you write

>>6679857
cute, but a poem that's bad on purpose is still a bad poem. be bad in a more eloquent manner, i guess, ie be less heavy handed with the shitty rhythm and diction and less hamfisted with what you're trying to do. subtlety is our friend.

>>6679893
you've posted this before, no? i know I've read this before. it's not bad, if somewhat bland. don't be afraid to be lateral. experiment

>>6679931
ugh anon this was absolutely dreadful to read aloud, the rhythm is poop. i'm not even going to bother critiquing the poem; no what i'm going to do is suggest that you study into metre, to help you control how your poem reads; without rhythm is one of the most unpleasant things a poem can do.

>>6680081
it's not bad for an esl. there are certain things here and there that i could knitpick but i'm going to skip it and just suggest reading more english poetry.

>>6680121
i was mean when i called this bland sentimental cliché dreck but what I wasn't was lying. read more poetry, a lot more, more than you write and learn what's been done, what's not cool, and what to avoid. it'll also give you ideas of how to work around worn out phrases like "lost in your embrace" while still managing to say what you want to say.

IN ORDER
>Whitman
>Melville
>Faulkner
>Emerson
>Hart Crane
>Eliot should you consider him American
>Twain
>Pound should you consider him American
>Dickinson
>Stevens
>Frost
>Pynchon
>McCarthy
>Williams

HARD MODE: STILL LIVING
>John Ashberry
>WS Merwin