/lit/ - Literature

well, i guess you need to define 'canonical' for this. the concept of a canon is problematic in itself, but i think you need to know a certain amount of works considered classical for whatever genre you want to work in.

>>5194091
No. Think of writing like playing golf. Ultimately, you need to practice to get good at golf. However, if you have a shitty swing, don't know how to use the different kinds of clubs, and are fuzzy on the rules, you'll never be a very good golf player. There's also a degree of natural talent involved, but nobody can really tell how much because everyone pro is practicing like a motherfucker to begin with.

>>5194101
by canonical I mean all the major works that defined movements and genres. Like Shakespear's works' influence on romanticism, or Goethe on novels.

>>5194091

only if you're a fucking computer, jesus...

>>5194140

There's no need to explain. Everyone knows what the canon is. That guy is a fucking idiot.

>>5194140
you should read all the major works you can in the genre/s you're interested in contributing in with your writing. Which hopefully will match with literature you find the most enjoyable to read.

>>5194191
cry. of course everyone knows what a canon is. but it is highly debatable which works should be part of the canon.

>>5194226

OP's implication is obvious and you're just muddling the thread up with useless, pretentious garbage.

>the concept of a canon is problematic in itself
Yawn.

Either answer the question or continue to derail the thread with me, but don't pretend like you're helping.

>>5194274
i imagine how you're sitting in front of your computer with barely suppressed anger, your neckbeard trembling while you spout words like 'pretentious'.

when op asks about the 'essential works of canonical literature' it might mean to him all of shakespeare and tolstoy. for you it might be dante and proust. for me steinbeck and e l james. you get the idea?

but you're right, i'm not helping.

>>5194289

Or for someone who understands the definition of canonical it would include all five of the authors you listed that are regularly mentioned as part of the canon, (almost like those particular authors came to your mind because they're all considered "canonical"), and the one author you included humorously because we're all aware that James has nothing to do with the canon. From the looks of it, you understand the definition just as much as the rest of us, so I don't understand why you're trying to be ambiguous about it.

Then how would the first good play be written? Reading and appreciating other works is a good habit, but each great work is a genesis of it's own reflecting what the author wishes to write, and nothing else. Drawing inspiration from the greats will simply make your work a great clone.

>>5194226
>everyone knows what a canon is
Was talking with a christian about christianity the other day. This woman was the type to push christianity on others, go evangelize etc. She had no idea what a canon was, I had to spell it out for her(literally).

>>5194373
>Drawing inspiration from the greats will simply make your work a great clone.

Perhaps a similar "incident", can occur when ignoring the greats, leading to a lesser clone of sométhing that was made much more better before.

Maybe the issue revolves arround your ability to apreciate art. You can have read them all, but only acquirred pedantic skills and knowledge only allowing to write poor imitations, or you can have read a little bit of each major period of literature with conciousnes thus apreciating it as it should be and grasping the direction literature has taken until this day and being legitimatly able to contribute to further the path

>>5194091
You should be reading all the time if you want to write anyway, so you might as well.

But it's not a requirement to read anything. Read what interests you.

>>5194101
>problematic