[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 200x287, image_mini.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627267 No.16627267 [Reply] [Original]

Give me your favorite books on literary theory/criticism. I want to learn. I have not read the book in the image.

>> No.16627277

>>16627267
why not read the one in the image?

>> No.16627299

>>16627267
Theory is cringe. Immerse yourself in tradition to learn.

>> No.16627300
File: 200 KB, 1100x1007, 1603310407942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627300

>>16627267
>literary theory
>in english

>> No.16627303

>>16627277
That pic is dumbed down marxist literary theory. Even if you're inclined towards that approach, you should look for something more comprehensive and rigorous.

>>16627267
If you have a dislike of the dominant currents of our age, I can wholeheartedly recommend "Criticism : The Major Texts" by Walter Jackson Bate. It's from the 50s originally and it's pretty much all "classic" literary theory with some light freudianism sprinkled on top at the end of the book. Even if you don't agree with it, I think it's worth reading just to know what sort of literary criticism the current trends are rebelling against.

>> No.16627311

>>16627303
>you should look for something more comprehensive and rigorous
why?

>> No.16627319

>literary theory
>at all
Just read the fucking books, you idiot. Don't read Failed McFailure Writer, P.h.D.'s ramblings on Shakespeare or some General Theory of Plays. Just read the fucking things.

>> No.16627331
File: 59 KB, 478x538, C9ED72E6-5758-42D7-85BC-4DEEE53C573F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627331

>>16627300
>Frog posting
>2020

>> No.16627338

>>16627331
>whore posting
>ever

>> No.16627339

>>16627331
>posting
>over 30

>> No.16627352
File: 16 KB, 258x386, 88BEB1F8-E467-4E29-8C84-015FC9A395BD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627352

>>16627267
Some that I was recommended. 1/2

>>16627338
>/r9k/ poster
>Not even trying to blend in

>> No.16627355
File: 82 KB, 361x640, 898EDC07-1DC6-4A98-9A0B-4D3BC5F160A2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627355

2/2

>> No.16627369
File: 33 KB, 600x612, 14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627369

>>16627331
>why yes i frogpost

>> No.16627376

>>16627267
Anything utilizing darwinian literary studies. Basically natural selection for literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian_literary_studies

>> No.16627382

>>16627267
Crítica de la Razón Literaria, Jesús G. Maestro

>> No.16627409

>>16627339
butterfly faggot is over 30 years old?

>> No.16627424

>>16627267
The Eagleton book is good, clear and readable.

>> No.16627458

>>16627409
And also a tranny that shat her pants once (and posted the picture of course)

>> No.16627461

>>16627424
https://youtu.be/fds-76EkIcc

>> No.16627468
File: 87 KB, 1024x768, Vid-01-CRL-3-tomos-1024x768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627468

Pic related is all you need
>>16627424
>Eagleton
>good
His books are printed trash

>> No.16627486

>>16627424
Refuted by Maestro

>> No.16627493

>>16627331
>anarchist
>...

>> No.16627529

>>16627267
It's a physicalist literary theory. I'm a predicational monist metaphysical realist but if you can read Spanish it might be a ladder or foil to the current crap https://b-ok.lat/book/5965946/63e822

>> No.16627549

>>16627458
show pics

>> No.16627554
File: 734 KB, 2400x3672, critique_of_literary_reason_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627554

>>16627382
>>16627461
>>16627468
>>16627529
These

>> No.16627555

>>16627458
I thought she was a terf.

>> No.16627588

>>16627555
She's a self-hating terf

>> No.16627623

>>16627549
>>16627555
That guy has the pics and they are of him and his filth. He solicited me for feces and I refused, so he shits up the board with his own crap. Wrong board.

>>16627555
Trans are homosexuals that wish they weren’t. I don’t hate them, I don’t believe in the ability to do such a thing.
Stop fucking up the thread

>> No.16627672

>>16627623
>Stop fucking up the thread
Please followe your own advice.

>> No.16627691
File: 19 KB, 868x935, 1598501151019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627691

>>16627331
You have roasties, I have frogs. We all have things we like to look at.

>> No.16627731

>>16627623
>Trans are homosexuals that wish they weren’t. I don’t hate them, I don’t believe in the ability to do such a thing.
>Stop fucking up the thread
What about all the trans people attracted to members of the gender they transition to.

>> No.16627737
File: 72 KB, 402x630, 84C45824-AD1E-4836-922D-14973C0A8E57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627737

>>16627731
Straights who wish they weren’t

>> No.16627742

>>16627731
those are just incels that took the tranny propaganda and swallowed it

>> No.16627753
File: 18 KB, 334x500, 4458779878766.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627753

>>16627267
Just finished pic related and found it excellent. It has a chapter for all the major schools of thought such as new criticism, structuralism, post-structuralism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, feminism, LGBT, reader response, ecocriticism, etc.

A lot of the content of those theories are pretty pedantic Leftist propaganda (IMHO) but the book does an excellent job overviewing them all.

>> No.16627754

>>16627742
Bruce Jenner?

>> No.16627787

>>16627742
Even the FTMs?

>> No.16627802
File: 1.10 MB, 2406x3672, critique_of_literary_reason_ (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627802

This is the only right answer

>> No.16627817

>>16627787
maybe

>> No.16627846

>>16627300
Based frogposter

>> No.16627857

>>16627753
That's literally all the same crap

>> No.16627862
File: 514 KB, 240x162, FEC8E5D7-9A90-470B-8A9D-56602231C4D7.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627862

>>16627846
>Basing himself
>Like we wouldn’t know

>> No.16627872

>>16627857
Not quite...but nice try.

>> No.16627879

>>16627857
You have a book that interprets literature based on Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism and paganism?
We could say the same thing, now couldn’t we?

>> No.16627913
File: 68 KB, 639x764, 1601162508348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16627913

>>16627267
honest question: what do you learn reading literary theory/criticism?

>> No.16627920

>>16627267
Burgerized french trash

>> No.16629435

>>16627468
Basado

>> No.16629475

>>16627879
No, the difference between left literary criticism is extraordinarily minor. Considering the extreme divisions in all politics you could argue they're either the same or ppl aren't educated enough to politicize them.
I think a broader sweep would be better. Almost all of those are psychological or if it's not it centers on a group of ppl to do the interpreting. It's not based on materialism or universals or anything. There are more diverse metaphysics and all of them being based on readers or groups of ppl to me begs the question and certainly pigeonholes it. Granted psychoanalysis is a bit more complete than all those w a strong tradition and mechanism cf to the others

>> No.16629526

>>16627331
The leftist always shrieks at the authentic propaganda of the worker. If only they could all be priests of social justice and prostrate themselves before the left wing of Capital.

>> No.16630362

>>16627303
It's fine as a basic introduction.

>> No.16631127
File: 129 KB, 1280x960, D44B1EA3-4C48-4E44-B070-0D873B109407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16631127

>>16629526
>NEET frogposters
>worker

>> No.16632270

>>16627913
Different schools all have their own hermeneutics. But essentially most modern (20thC) literary theories teach you a code for interpreting texts in a different, or less immediately intuitive light than you might see them if you read seeking solely to divine authorial intentions or somesuch - as a 'layman' that is. Which you might be happy doing, for whatever reason, intellectual or non-intellectual. Outside of academia, unless you have certain political beliefs about literature/society generally, you probably won't consider the overwhelming majority of it useful or necessary.

>> No.16632310
File: 35 KB, 381x600, 33216544z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632310

>>16627267
Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction
https://b-ok.cc/book/671874/035475

>> No.16632320

>>16627267
WHY IS EVERY ANGLO BOOK OF LITERATURE THEORY AN INTRODUCTION?

>> No.16632324
File: 97 KB, 640x786, 1603335724079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632324

>>16632270
thank you! accept this picture as a gesture of my gratitude

>> No.16632338
File: 472 KB, 735x735, 118229909_317366449684438_979376013910690460_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632338

>>16632320
Because they don't know how to make a literarh theory, they lack a systematic method to do it.

>> No.16632339

Damn, is Butters based for being a TERF?

>> No.16632384

>>16632338
>new criticism
>new historicism/cultural materialism
Keep coping. If you're not French this is doubly cringe

>> No.16632394

>>16632384
Refuted by Jesús G. Maestro on the third tome of the Crítica.

>> No.16632406

>>16632394
Which one

>> No.16632436

>>16632324
my pleasure fren

>> No.16632683

F r leavis was recommended to me, as was Beginning Theory by either a professor from Manchester or published by Manchester Uni, I can't remember which.

>> No.16632811

>>16627424
it's good for suppporting my monitor on the thin shelf it sits on, but that's about it.

>> No.16632832

>>16631127
aren't you also a neet though?

>> No.16633651

>>16627267
Theory is worthless. The best modern book of criticism I've read is Joyce's Book of the Dark by John Bishop. Dr Johnson is always great.

>> No.16633797

Viktor Shklovsky is based.

>> No.16635384

>>16632832
Oh no. Not at all.

>>16632339
I’m based in a million different ways