/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20844984]

Does /lit/ have any recommendations on literary theory and criticism?

I want to read something that will deepen and expand my understanding of what I read.

[Anonymous No.20845031]

.

[Anonymous No.20845096]

>>20844984

[Anonymous No.20845206]

>>20845031
No
>>20845096
And what did you make of it?

[Anonymous No.20845239]

>>20845206
Your loss

[Anonymous No.20845597]

bump

[Anonymous No.20845612]

>>20844984
If you are not looking at going all out and learning criticism and theory than just start reading criticism, Gass is a good entry since his essays tend to be fairly self contained. If you want to go all out and dive into theory and criticism than the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism is a great place to start. Avoid Anatomy of Criticism, it is written for people well versed in the field and assumes a decent grasp of everything before it; ankns who reccomend it as a beginner text don't actually read and are just assuming what it is based off the title. Anatomy of Criticism is an outline of his method of criticism and only addresses how it differs from the standards of the time.

[Anonymous No.20847048]

>>20845031
Is there an English translation of this work? It looks to be very interesting, but I cannot but rely on an online version via Google translate.

[Anonymous No.20847179]

>>20845612
>If you are not looking at going all out and learning criticism and theory than just start reading criticism,
I actually think I am, and I've already dabbled in most 20th century "theorists," from the side of other fields, who usually get applied to literature such as Barthes, Derrida, or Benjamin. But if I'm going to read theory rather than criticism, I want it to be primarily about literature, and I have no tolerance at this point for Marxism, feminism, postcolonial, etc. So one thing I'm drawn towards but haven't read is reader response theory and certain deconstructionists like de Man and Fish.

[Anonymous No.20847814]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20848171]

First, check out Kaplan's Criticism: The Major Statements. Even just as a list of names to know it's very valuable.
>Auerbach, Mimesis
>Ricoeur, Rule of Metaphor (very difficult unless you understand hermeneutics and phenomenology but can fundamentally change the way you experience language)
>Any robust anthology of T.S. Eliot's major critical writings
>Collingwood, Autobiography (for his "question and answer" theory of art, and his anecdote about "when a painting is done" - just apply it to any other work of art)

>>20845096
Frye is one of the greatest minds of the century and nobody knows about him anymore, or they only glide over him in some intro to literary theory course. I highly recommend pic related on him.

>>20845206
Why "no" to his earnest recommendation? That seems rude

[Anonymous No.20848209]

>>20847179
Palmer's Hermeneutics can be a good introduction to Iser and Jauss if you're unfamiliar with German hermeneutic/historicist thinking. If you're seriously interested in the history of criticism I would read Eliot's essay on the function of the critic, maybe Matthew Arnold and John Ruskin's essays on the same (although more general or in relation to other arts in their cases), and then read through major critical statements via something like the Kaplan volume, while also getting a sense for the history of the novel, particularly the English novel.

It's also good to learn how people at the major/epochal moments of the development of criticism thought about man and the world. Something that covers "sentiment," "sense," "sensibility" etc. (very important words, try not to read them with current colloquial usage in mind) from Shaftesbury onward into the 18th century, when "good/common sense" and "taste" start to meld together and emerge, along with a discourse about how aesthetic refinement and urbanity fit into it. These lead into dissenting, proto-Sturm und Drang thinkers like Rousseau, which then leads into the Sturm und Drang and romanticism. Maybe look at something like Seigel's Idea of the Self, and then Berlin's lectures on The Roots of Romanticism to get an idea of how the Germans basically created modern culture (reading Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self or the first 50-100 pages of his Hegel book right after reading Berlin's book might be a good idea - Berlin's book is also just a transcription of recorded lectures that are available online).

Forgot to mention Coleridge's Biografia Literaria. Remy Gourmont, Problème du Style. Balakian's books are good and short on the French symbolists and surrealists, gives you a good quick overview. Secret Germany is a good book on the George circle.

[Anonymous No.20848260]

As a total noob what's the best single work on literary theory/criticism that I should read to become 200IQ?

[Anonymous No.20849336]

>>20848209
>>20848171
Thanks anons

[Anonymous No.20850271]

>>20848260

[Anonymous No.20850282]

>>20848260
>>20850271
Unironically. Get a Norton Theory and just read through it.

[Anonymous No.20850313]

>>20850282
that's a big fuckin book

[Anonymous No.20850319]

>>20850313
Lol. Do you have the life expectancy of a termite?

[Anonymous No.20850366]

>>20850313
Just read a few essays a month slipped in with your regular reading, it is not like you need to dedicate yourself to reading it cover to cover uninterrupted.

[Anonymous No.20851315]

>>20845031
Very based!
I was the one that uploaded it for the first time, hope some anons got something out of it.

[Anonymous No.20852755]

bump

[Anonymous No.20852817]

What idea from criticism or theory has most enriched your reading? Tell me anons I wanna know

[Anonymous No.20853219]

>>20852817
It's not a particular theory or whatever, but looking at the Bible from a literary perspective has really inspired my faith and made me a better reader I think generally. I'm not so hard working as to examine the structures of a text myself, I use secondary literature to help, as should everyone really, but I think reading like a schizo as if verses and sentences have hidden meanings that reference and relate to other texts or aspects of reality is a cool exercise for secular texts, regardless of preexisting Joycean intertextuality. Prophecy works in the Bible according to several rules, mainly the good fruits rule, but also that of non-contradiction (dialectics allowed), so you can see how biblical hermeneutics can provide heuristics for reading secular texts too — provided you read them according to some master text or worldview, i.e. the Bible and Christian Worldview. It's a fun little game, really, to read things "as if...".

[Anonymous No.20854263]

>>20852817
Reading Gass's essays, especially Finding a Form (probably because it was the first of his for me). He got me a hell of a lot better at analysis, Gass with an idea is like a puppy with a ball.