/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2707928]

>that feel when you've never read essential books like Huckleberry Finn, The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, Anything-by-Charles-Dickens, etc.

>That feel when you just want to read 20th Century authors like Nabokov, Proust, Joyce, Pynchon, et al.

>That feel when you feel like a fraud for never having read the old, boring shit they assign in high school and feel like you should but don't wanna.

[Anonymous No.2707936]

>Anything-by-Charles-Dickens

Oh God, do I know this feel

JUST GET TO THE POINT ALREADY

[Anonymous No.2707939]

>mfw when you think you "read" 20th century authors like Nabokov, Proust, Joyce, Pynchon, et al without having a firm grounding in 19th century literature

[Anonymous No.2707940]

Does anyone else know this feel? Does anyone else live in fear of someone asking if you've read A Tale of Two Cities?

[Anonymous No.2707946]

>>2707939

OH DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN THAT GIRL IS SO PRETTY.

Ah fucking me.

[Anonymous No.2707951]

>>2707946

[Anonymous No.2707959]

Most of us here are in our early twenties - any (reasonably comprehensive) 'essential' list is bound to appear a little intimidating, but hopefully also motivational. You're in the company of people who're, generally speaking, in the early stages of their literary education: we've all got a long way to go, don't feel bad.

[Anonymous No.2707961]

>>2707946
>>2707939>>2707951

GOD DAMMIT.

This happened to me before on /b/. Sometimes I go through the yloveyl threads just for this one person.

>>2707940
This is my favorite Dickens. It's also very short for Dickens.

>tfw you've read a lot of books and don't feel like a fraud

[Anonymous No.2707962]

>Huckleberry Finn, The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick, Pride and Prejudice, Anything-by-Charles-Dickens, etc.
>Essential

The only people who think that stuff is essential are moldy old fucks who think shallow shit that states the obvious is somehow "meaningful" or "deep".

[Anonymous No.2707963]

>>2707939
I don't think that's true. Maybe if you're reading like Dubliners or something it would be a good idea to know the history at the time of the book's writing because of the politically-charged writing in some places, but other than that, I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.2707967]

>>2707928
>That feel when someone thinks Victorian literature is 'old'
>That feel when someone seems to be ignoring everything written before the 19th century even though the best literature was written before the 19th century
>That feel when you don't want to live on this planet anymore

[Anonymous No.2707973]

>>2707971
Yeah but Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope all were.

[Anonymous No.2707972]

>that feel when all the books you mentioned are not the essential books for you because you are German.

Feels good to have mostly German and Russian books for essentials

[Anonymous No.2707971]

>>2707967
>the best literature was written before the 19th century
Last time I checked, Thomas Pynchon wasn't born before the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.2707974]

>>2707939


>that feel when you think you read 20th century literature when you have no grounding in 21st century literature
>ishygddt

[Anonymous No.2707975]

>>2707967

Oh come on. I like to read. I just find everything before, say, Oscar Wilde really boring.

I mean, Middlemarch? Come on. COME THE FUCK ON, GEORGE ELIOT. WHO READS THIS SHIT?!

Yes, I tried to read that thing before. I mean, FUCK.

[Anonymous No.2707980]

>>2707975
I actually don't like Victorian novels either. They're pretty entry-level. No, I'm talking about:
>Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope

[Anonymous No.2707983]

>>2707971
Dude. Come on. I don't believe that for a second.

[Anonymous No.2707988]

I probably read about three post-war books for every pre-, so while my preference is contemporary-ish stuff, I'm slowly accruing a foundational knowledge of the classics too.

Of the books you listed I'd say Moby-Dick is really definitely worth a read.

[Anonymous No.2707991]

I know her name. If you give me you word of honor that you will read Moby Dick I will give it to you.

[Anonymous No.2707994]

I'm not very well-read when it comes to the classics, but I've enjoyed most of the works I've read in that vein. I have a thing for modern lit, American lit in particular, so that's where I usually go when it comes to choosing another book to read.

[Anonymous No.2707995]

scum, scum everywhere

you all need to go read the bible, homer, virgil, some anglo-saxon, chaucer, shakespeare, and pope, and THEN you can begin THINKING about your sodding victorians and moderns

[Anonymous No.2707999]

>>2707980
>>2707980

Oh, I meant old novels. I can't stand novels before the 1900's. Dickens, Austen, Melville, Eliot, etc.

I like Shakespeare. And I like old poetry, too. The Romantics are great, and some of my favorite literature of all time – Wordsworth, Coleridge, et al.

I love John Donne, Pope, Chaucer, Beowulf, etc.

I just can't stand reading shit like Oliver Twist or Emma. A Tale of Two Cities. Eugh. Even Huckleberry Finn or the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Just shoot me in the fucking face.

[Anonymous No.2707998]

>>2707995

Or I can read what I want, when I want.

[Anonymous No.2707997]

>>2707991
Who are you talking to? Moby Dick is on my "to read" list.

[Anonymous No.2708002]

>>2707991
You have my word. I'll start tomorrow.

so?

[Anonymous No.2708003]

>>2707999
You have redeemed yourself!

In that case you have nothing to feel bad about. Not being interested in Victorian literature is a perfectly ordinary impulse in a man or woman of good taste.

[Anonymous No.2708008]

>>2708004
Maybe try Henry Fielding's "Tom Jones". It's hilarious!

[Anonymous No.2708004]

>>2707999

I forgot to mention Henry James. I mean, WOW FUCK IS THAT GUY BORING. Who honestly reads that shit and enjoys it?

Give me a Cormac McCarthy novel instead, please.

[Anonymous No.2708006]

>>2707999
Have you tried the old novels from other areas of the world? Ones like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Outlaws of the Marsh?

[Anonymous No.2708007]

>>2707999
You don't like Twain? How can you not like Twain?

Go read "The Mysterious Stranger" this instant.

[Anonymous No.2708009]

>>2708002

Bartleby the Scrivener's pretty damn funny, too.

[Anonymous No.2708014]

>>2707973
I like poetry, but those guys are so easy it's not even funny. Poetry is the easiest form of literature to read (to me anyways). The only way they could be hard is if you're reading their work in the oldest olde English available, and it all means the same thing as modern English so why would you do that other than to be a pedant?

[Anonymous No.2708017]

>>2708009

I see what you did there...

[Anonymous No.2708023]

>>2708009

She has a kid! Our beautiful /lit/ queen got knocked up by a nigger!

[Anonymous No.2708019]

>>2708014
I'm not sure what you mean by 'easy'. There's a tremendous amount going on in all of them and if you're denying that then I fear you just don't really understand it as well as you think you do.

[Anonymous No.2708025]

>>2707995
>>2707980
>>2707973

I don't understand why all of you are including Alexander Pope on your, very short, lists. If you're attempting to justify literature written before Modernism (let's say 1911, taking Woolf's 'that's when everything changed' statement for a guideline) with reference to only a handful of writers then he really shouldn't spring to mind. He borrowed his content from Juvenal and Horace, perfected a form that had already been well-worn by Dryden (albeit rather shakily), and his best works were in translation. Now, I'm fascinated by his work - indeed, no other writer interests me more, except from Lord Byron - but his place in English literature's history is overstated.

[Anonymous No.2708031]

>>2708019
Oh no I'm not denying that. I just find it to be the easiest form of literature to actually physically read. That's just how it is for me.

[Anonymous No.2708032]

>>2708025
Pope's historically under-rated. The entire first half of the 18th century? It's him. It's "The Age of Pope". The Rape of the Lock is entirely fantastic. There is no other writer who perfected his craft in the way Pope did, and took such an obvious joy in his work.

[Anonymous No.2708057]

This thread seems relevant to a problem I have. I really love literature but I like genre literature – science fiction and fantasy.

I intend to go to graduate school and earn a Ph.D. in English but the thing is, I really hate every author you guys have mentioned so far. The 20th Century authors and the 19th Century ones.

I prefer Tolkien, Herbert, etc.

Do you guys think someone with my tastes can succeed in academia?

[Anonymous No.2708059]

>>2708057

You can succeed, but you'll hate every moment of it

[Anonymous No.2708066]

>>2707962

[Anonymous No.2708070]

>>2708057
Give up. Sorry. You're going to have to get better taste or try something else.

[Anonymous No.2708077]

>>2708057
You don't love literature.

[Anonymous No.2708084]

>>2708032

He couldn't be underrated, it's impossible. People often afford him the same status as Shakespeare, Spenser and Milton: they shouldn't. The Rape of the Lock is a wonderful piece of poetry, I absolutely agree. In 'correctness', he is without rival. However, many critics (such as Tillotson, whose scholarly work on Pope is the best I've read) have identified his reliance on the couplet as a weakness, and I agree. Byron, who I mentioned earlier, exhibited a wonderful competence in the Spenserian stanza, Terza Rima and the rhyming couplet, yet for many generations they were willing to criticise his 'careless' (Coleridge's description) verse. For my money, Pope never did enough to merit his oft-allotted place on the literary pantheon. Better than Addison, Swift, Gay or Arbuthnot? Certainly. Equals with the aforementioned giants? Not for me.