/lit/ - Literature

>>17592151
That's okay so long as you contrast it with what you thought it meant.

>>17592151
Which book(s)?

>>17592151
It's ok.

me with american pastoral recently

>>17592151
Nothing wrong with wanting to enter into a discussion on something you want to know more about or finding things you might have missed.

>finish book
>log it on goodreads and laugh at the top reviews of angry women
>look up “(book title) reddit”
>come to /lit/
>post picture of book and ask anons what I thought of it
>consoom another book
>repeat

>>17592156
>>17592151
This, I would say that this is even a good thing, anon. You should definitely take every opportunity to do this kind of thing.

>>17592151
dumbfuck kys

>>17592205
Don't listen to this guy. He hasn't read a book in 3 years

>>17592222
checked

>>17592151
as long as you don't blindly accept it there's nothing wrong with this
>>17592222
checked

>hear about book
>immediately look up "[book] meaning explained"
>post a thread on /lit/ about how people who think book means x are retards

>>17592151
I do this too, but most of the time I feel as if the "explanation" misses the point of the book or that too much energy and focus is pent on the wrong thing. Even on /lit/ I get the impression that a lot of people didn't 'get it'. At least they didn't get what I got from it.

It's very rarely the same when I hear others discuss film or music. I assume literature is both more subjective in the sense that it impacts the reader differently and that it's paradoxically a lot harder to put its essence into words, since it's already been done by the author.

>>17592348
I think you can also put much more freedom on the different approaches you have with literature. Like sure you can approach Shakespeare and Dosto from the point of view of mimesis and desire like Girard does, but you can also focus purely on their use of metaphor, you can almost ignore the style to concentrate on the plot, etc.

>>17592380
What is the Girardian analysis of Hamlet or TBK

>>17592151
based

>>17592156
>>17592199
This is true but perhaps don't do it immediately after finishing the book, leave it sitting in your mind for a day or two to allow your thoughts to mature.

>>17592151
Readers interpretation is just as important, if not more important than authors intent. This ambiguity is part of what makes the written word last through the years, interpretation can change with society or reader and allows it to remain relevant. Don't worry about what people say it means, look at how the work applies to you and you and your life.

This place sort of kills any room for interpretation. Too many autists needing to anonymously prove to the word that they are anonymously right and smarter than you.

>>17592151
I do it to see if I've 'got it right' so to say, and not misinterpreted it or missed something

>>17592537
>Readers interpretation is just as important, if not more important than authors intent.
'no'
>This ambiguity is part of what makes the written word last through the years, interpretation can change with society or reader and allows it to remain relevan
no it's that the work speaks to something universal in humans

give me your address, i am bringing boxing gloves

>>17592569
>'no'
Yes
>no it's that the work speaks to something universal in humans
Sure, but that can change with the times.
>give me your address, i am bringing boxing gloves
No you are not.

>>17592670
i'm already halfway there

>universal
>change with the times

>>17592793
That is not what universal means, you probably meant innate. This is what happens when you yield interpretation to others, you loose your ability for critical thought, you just react and regurgitate instead of think and respond.

>>17592963
>universal to humans
What do you think this means based retard

>>17592391
I’m too lazy to effort post rn so have this random blog post which I haven’t read instead: https://danielrk.com/general/2019/05/30/hamlet.html

>>17593007
And that changes, and is often be dictated by ones society as can easily be demonstrated. You are wrong unless you are going to reduce 'universal' down to 'evokes an emotional response.'

>>17592151
>Look up nonliving historic figure on Wikipedia
>Immediately scroll to how they died section
just me?

>>17593123
>people in the past weren't humans
absolutely lmaoing at your wewery over here

>>17592174
Is this actually good. I’m in search of Roth’s best books

>>17593154
You must feel you are on very firm ground to make sure a ridiculous statement, either that or back into a corner.

>>17592151
Its good that you want to see and discuss what other people thought about the book. I can't come to conclusions about books message before I have read something that contrasts it, or my conclusions and thoughts about it come to me weeks later. Its not bad either, but I feel like I should have something to say about the book immediately.

>>17592151
Based

>>17592151
based

>>17592151
S.

>>17592151
It's okay anon I don't think you're thoughts matter either. I'm glad you agree.

>>17593268
>I feel like I should have something to say about the book immediately.
It will come when you'll have read more don't worry. As your tastes are more defined, you'll understand them better and will be more capable of articulating a judgement about what you've read. Contrarily to what some posters would want to make you believe, what matters most is wether you liked a book or book, and then articulate it. Reading some literary essays can help too.

>>17592348
Often times with literature and also film I feel critics try to read between the lines too much or in the wrong places and find things where the author meant nothing or atleast less than what they make of it. This happens most with symbolism which is fine as an author might unconsciously write it into the themes of the book (or film).
For example, I've seen people analyze the "I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor" monologue from Apocalypse Now as foreshadowing for Willard's journey or as Colonel Kurtz expressing a desire to withstand trauma unscathed, when the simpler explanation is that it serves as exposition for Kurtz's insanity and to set the mood for the movie. I've also seen this sort of over-analysis in Heart of Darkness, in which people find criticism of colonialism and racism when it clearly centers on evil and absurdity, and The Great Gatsby, which people find class struggle in.
This makes me think that they didn't actually read the book, or that they're a pseudo intellectual who grabbed and held onto the first idea they related it to inside their head.

>>17594749
I don't think the problem is over-analysis per se, but rather failing to state an interesting claim about the text despite all that analysis. If one scene foreshadows another, that doesn't necessarily change how I read either scene. If the author had a particular current event or politics in mind, that's merely of biographical interest.
On the other hand, some geniuses have read between the lines that Gatsby is secretly a quadroon. Now there's a claim!

>>17595042
I don't have anything to say to this but to your first post I want to add that it can be very hard to put the feeling a book leaves you with into words. The impression that a film or music leaves is much more concrete.

>>17592192
I swear to god all the 1 star reviews of any of Faulkner's novels are women writing them. That's how you know an author's good, by the percentage of women getting angry at it.

>>17592151
>finish book
>immediately open (((TV Tropes))) page for that book
>wade through tranny posts and English 101 interpretations
>find some good nuggets

>>17593197
it's a first for me; i have not been a good reader in the youth and just starting being a decent one now that i'm 30. i dunno i find it entailing maybe because it's the first serious literature book i read outside of school homework (that in any case i didn't read because i was a bad very bad student). i just really liked parts where immigrants find their way in america society