/lit/ - Literature

>>17931964
shit, forgot pic

This is not off topic. Why? I am not referring to the reading of bad history books which is what /his/ deals with but with the analysis of form and style in early attempts at history. Many of these early attempts were almost like novels and should be treated accordingly.

a > b > c (a in the context of b) > d > e > f (d in the context of e) > g (c in the context of f) >> ad infinitum

This is the Herodotean form as I understand it (a). Novels such as Through the Looking Glass and Tarr make use of idiosyncratic forms (b). The Herodotean form differs from the aformentioned novels in making use of a rigid structure which was criticized by Aristotle (c).

Do you gentlemen analyse literature in this manner (d)? Literature can vary in its use, misuse, ignorance or abandonment of form (e). Analysis of literature may be enhanced through this method and discernment of the various ways in which literature exposes itself to the reader on a level as important as metre in verse (f).

There are many Classicists who spend their time studying the supposedly primitive yet surprisingly versatile forms of auncient Greece. Should we not invest as much time in the use of it in the context of Victorian and Edwardian prose? Is it not strange that this is left uncriticized in an era when verse is so scrutinized for its lack of metrical consistency (g)?