/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11443561]

Hi /lit/. I am a professional writer that is woefully decently read at best. I never had any formal higher education on literature outside of basic English courses in college and I really want to correct this in a way that will benefit me as an author.

I'm a long time lurker/poster here so I know a lot of people will suggest the greeks but seriously where do I begin? I've survived off of a lot of meme contemporary classics like Infinite Jest and the better genre fiction but I feel it's time to get more serious about my career. My problem is I'm keenly aware the western canon is full of trash and I genuinely don't know what sources to trust as a result of this. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11443651]

I didn't start with the Greeks either, so I don't know how good this chart is.

[Anonymous No.11443658]

>>11443561
>My problem is I'm keenly aware the western canon is full of trash
Wrong attitude. Go away.

[Anonymous No.11443669]

>>11443658
>Wrong attitude. Go away.
Wrong attitude. Go away.
>>11443561
Map some trends. When you look at the parts of the western canon that you think are trash, figure out what commonalities you find in the trash. Once you find those elements, you can search for things that specifically avoid or subvert them.

[Anonymous No.11443676]

>>11443561
Read Don Quixote, it's wonderfully charming.

[Anonymous No.11443688]

>>11443669
If he wants to know classic literature not to read because he won't enjoy it, then he's never going to make it as a writer

[Anonymous No.11443692]

>>11443561
>professional writer
>woefully decently
Hmm

[Anonymous No.11443694]

>>11443688
They make it sound like they're already making it. Also you don't have to be well read to be a writer, that's a meme perpetuated by non-writers and the exceptions who happen to do both.

[Anonymous No.11443700]

>>11443692
>two adverbs in a row
Is that even legal?

[Anonymous No.11443702]

>>11443694
>Also you don't have to be well read to be a writer
You sort of do, at least when it comes to prose. There's a reason why the novel wasn't really a thing until well after the invention of the printing press.

[Anonymous No.11443712]

>>11443702
That's fair, but that's not something that really requires forcing yourself through literature that you think is awful. Assuming they're already competent enough (or have enough popular appeal) to feed themselves by writing, it's especially not necessary to take in the canon regardless of your feelings on it. If anything, it's more worthwhile to find more of what you respect so you can learn and grow in a direction influenced by that.

[Anonymous No.11443720]

>>11443712
The canon constantly references itself, so if you want to be part of the conversation and understand the parts of the canon that you actually do enjoy, then you need that knowledge. It's also important the trace the evolution of form, just from the standpoint of understanding your craft.

[Anonymous No.11443733]

>>11443720
It's worthwhile, to be sure, but I wouldn't say it's the best path to go down if you're already a decent enough writer. I get where you're coming from and it's not strictly wrong, though.

[Anonymous No.11443747]

>>11443733
"Woefully decently" OP probably isn't a decent writer, though. That process of imbibing great works (along with a few grammar books) is what someone like him needs. He probably should start with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.11443772]

>>11443561 (OP)
>I'm a long time lurker/poster here so I know a lot of people will suggest the greeks but seriously where do I begin?

You can seriously begin with the Greeks, theyre actually good. If not there, I would suggest short story collections. Joyce, Salinger, Hemingway, Borges, Woolf, Kafka, etc. These are all fairly modern but the point is to figure out your taste. Once you get that, pushing aside what is trash will be easy. For example, with the list I just gave you youll be able to tell if you enjoy older literature in English, where people like Woolf can sound like a pretentious wanabe aristocrat since she started writing young. But if that type of writing grips you, youll probably want to start reading some Russian literature about dinner parties and train trips.

[Anonymous No.11443787]

>>11443772
>people like Woolf can sound like a pretentious wanabe aristocrat
Anyone who thinks this should stop reading immediately

[Anonymous No.11443792]

>>11443787
I agree but they still might get a lot out of contemporary literature

[Anonymous No.11443796]

>>11443792
also
>>11443787
Her early stories, as in the short stories, are pretentious. Its just a few stories though and she was young, but they are trying far too hard to say something meaningful and beautiful

[Anonymous No.11443803]

>>11443561
>that is woefully decently read

You're not a professional writer.

[Anonymous No.11443816]

>>11443796
The Mark on the Wall is some of the most impressive introspective writing of the early 20th century. It mimics the process of thinking (and drawing associations while we think) better than most stream-of-consciousness writing. Her first novel sucks, her second is okay, but everything after that is fucking great

[Anonymous No.11443830]

>>11443816
>The Mark on the Wall is some of the most impressive introspective writing of the early 20th century.

No. I cant agree to that. Compared to her later writing that developed the style started roughly in this story, its just poor. She had to start that technique somewhere but jesus, its so heavy handed.

[Anonymous No.11443840]

>>11443830
BROAD STROKES. Subtlety is great, but it can come across as self-conscious. As much as I love her work, that latter stuff is where people get the idea that Woolf is pretentious. I don't think that her messy experimental early stuff is necessarily better, but it has its own charm

[Anonymous No.11444129]

>>11443561
Are you looking for philosophy as well or strictly literature? I just recently started reading Dostoyevsky novels...I think that’s a great place to start. There’s no order that you need to read canonical works in to become well read.