[ 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: 639 KB, 2500x4000, 1591546148512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17320001 No.17320001 [Reply] [Original]

The lists that sad 4chan boards make for essential books or albums are useless self-indulgent displays. You don’t learn to appreciate anything with an incoherent list. Instead listen to every Phil Spector single obsessively and repeat that with every other artist one at a time

You have to understand things developmentally by building out context. To understand an artist you have to recreate him within. Read what books he liked. Read what his contemporaries wrote. Read everything he ever wrote. Only then will you know why something was a masterpiece

This is why all the great book lists are useless. They’ll just slap Faust in there but include no other work of German literature from 1760-1848. If Faust is a summation of an epoch of German culture, how can you understand it if you dont read anything else from that culture?

Likewise how can you appreciate the Beach Boys without understanding Phil Spector? Or Motown? Without reconstructing the developmental history of music production which Brian Wilson was great in context of and in relation to? You can’t. It’ll lead to superficial appreciation only

Everything is great in its own way, masterpieces dont exist in a vacuum. Studying and discovering is an endless process eternally enriching itself. Taste is about refinement. Good taste isnt formed in reference to prevailing fashion, but comes from objective aesthetic evaluation

I've spent years scouring for every insignificant forgotten piece of music, exotica, private pressing christian heavy-psych, library music. There's so much bizarre stuff out there you'll never hear if you're focused on listening to the "best" albums, which is a nonsense category

I don't think most people are ever going to become experts suddenly or develop the discipline or passion necessary to go so deeply into things. I dont think they need to, or that it's a failing not to. Whatever. But for those who want to learn the right way, this is how you do it

>> No.17320102
File: 1.67 MB, 1724x3246, Dark Chart 2.10 jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17320102

>>17320001
HAS JUST BEEN REVOKED

>> No.17320188

those lists are clearly faulty, you don't need to go that far. a quick examination shows enormous predominance of anglophone titles, which doesn't reflect the literary world (of masterpieces). It only reflects the predominance of anglophile posters, which by itself shouldn't be a factor, except for the fact anglos are notoriously ignorant of everything not anglo: languages, books, music, movies, any kind of culture

>> No.17320195

>white noise
List discarded

>> No.17320213

Phil Spector just died. F(ucking murderer).

>> No.17320229

>>17320102
Prefer this over f.gardner tier shit, btw hs anyone even read this? I came across a thread with people trying to find a copy and nobody could produce one besides one guy

>> No.17321041

>>17320001
I've been considering composing an extensive list/chart that would try to give a historical overview of Russian literature, i.e. point out the key and most influential works of particular periods, the general tendencies, external influences, etc. And I'd definitely make sure to point towards secondary literature. There's a new massive history of Russian lit published recently by Oxford, for example.
A big problem is the lack of translations of everything from before Pushkin. And before Pushkin a big influence were foreigners such as Racine, Boileau, Rousseau, Sterne... so again you need further context, further "prerequisite" reading.
This particular chart here is godawful, that's for sure.

>> No.17321491

>>17320188
sorry our books are just better.

>> No.17321694

>>17320229
the entire book can be found in these old threads. good luck
>>/lit/thread/S15654261#p15654261
>>/lit/thread/S15656498#p15656498
>>/lit/thread/S15660345#p15660345

>> No.17321731

>>17320188
Sucks to suck Brownie

>> No.17321757

>>17321041
>There's a new massive history of Russian lit published recently by Oxford, for example.
Which one?

>> No.17321781

>>17321491
no they aren't, ignoramus

>> No.17322246

>>17320001
fuck off kantbot

>> No.17322302
File: 11 KB, 372x440, amerimutt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17322302

>>17320188
This post angers the mutt.

>> No.17322326

>>17320001
Jesus Christ this is shit. (chart)

>> No.17323102

>>17320001
So you follow Twitter user. Epic dood

>> No.17324495

>>17321757
the one which is the very first result on Google for "Oxford history of Russian literature"
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-history-of-russian-literature-9780199663941

>> No.17324513
File: 114 KB, 1000x793, 71a081fc3010f5bcd2f74b50f744e054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17324513

>>17320001
>atlas shrugged is #3
>patrician core
Whoever made this list should kill himself. Patrician core is reading Shxpeare, Dante, Homer, and Ovid in the original languages.

>> No.17324537

>>17320001
patrician core is only reading poetry

>> No.17324624

>/lit/ charts
Lists are for people who rather talk about what they eventually want to read and the aesthetics of the books.
I haven't seen any lists with informed curation that made some points about what books are on there and what books are not because that's probably just as important. It's all just name-dropping to look fancy.

>> No.17324637

>>17320001
I haven't read any of these books.

>> No.17324694

>>17324637
How could this be?

>> No.17324704

>>17324624
I find the only useful charts are the ones for obscure topics where finding more than half a dozen books on it is difficult. All the "patrician" or "whiny 20 year old" charts are worse than useless.

>> No.17324708

>>17321491
if you've eaten shit your whole life you might cringe at the sight of a steak