[ 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: 285 KB, 760x530, school of athens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4163260 No.4163260[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How the hell will we ever read everything

I feel like I need to read all of the classics before I even begin reading the obscure stuff I want to tackle, but reading all of the classics will take 2 years at least and by then I might get caught up in some job or girl

will we ever read enough to say something worth anything?

do we even have the time?

help

>> No.4163263

As cliche as this saying is, it's not about the destination, but the journey. Don't view reading as some sort of goal to achieve, thinking you have to read every book ever published, but view it as an experience. Read what you want and enjoy it, don't read what you think you have to and make it a chore.

>> No.4163265

This whole idea that you need to read one thing before you read another thing is ridiculous and needs to end.

I speak English. I didn't have to learn Olde English and Middle English and French and Latin before I could speak English. I just learned English. You don't need to read all the classics in order to read some obscure text. Just read the text you want.

>> No.4163269

>>4163265
but what if those primary things I am talking about are things like Aristotle and Plato and the Bible? how will I ever hope to read even Nietzsche without having read these?

>> No.4163278

>>4163269
You don't need much of an understanding of those three to get what Nietzsche is doing or trying to do. He's a pretty straight-forward writer. Now, if you want to really understand someone like Joyce, then yes, you'll need a pretty in-depth knowledge of the Western canon.

>> No.4163281

There is no end to this journey. Do not be anxious. Two years is nothing, five years go in a flash. You won't be the master librarian sage at age 25. At certain points in your life you won't be reading a thing, at others, you'll be reading a book a day.

Do not try to "collect" books. Read them one by one. Just the one in front of you is what matters. Knowledge

Consider that certain works call for you to read others, which is something people mention as "required reading". Challenge that. Skip things and read them regardless on whether you know the classics or not. The experience pays and you'll have your own interpretation of it, as always. One day you might get back to a classic and your understanding of the new work you've read earlier will change, perhaps you'll even read it again. And this is no waste of time, it is a great use of it. And then someone who has read the classics and understand the references will call on your opinion as being naive and empty. But this is alright, for the important thing is to be humble about it. You'll know that something is missing, but that shouldn't be a problem that weights on you, for you'll eventually get to it.

Otherwise you'll have a list of to-read books just to understand a single one. And that huge list is filled with things which are not meant for you to understand or enjoy at this given time. Read the things that are meaningful to you at this very moment and keep connecting things around, old and new, known and obscure, etc.

>> No.4163282

People used to read 8 hours a day and shit bro. They used to have all the essential classics down pat by age 20. They were aristocrats with the perfect combination of leisure and discipline. We are elevated plebs living in the illusion of enlightenment.

>> No.4163284

>>4163281
>Knowledge
I was going to say something on it, but forgot. Nevermind that.

>> No.4163287

>>4163282
I know

and it's terrible

and because of that I'm afraid for us, if we will ever accomplish anything great

>> No.4163290

>>4163284
it sounds wise and cryptic the way it is, I like it

>> No.4163293

>>4163260
If you are good at reading, nothing will take it away from you, not even money or pussy.

>> No.4163296

>>4163293
what about death

>> No.4163321

>>4163260
>all of the classics
>two years
top lel OP
I'm reading through Mortimer Adler's list of "Great Books," but I also read whatever is interesting also. I usually just read a book for the list for about an hour a day, then read something that is more contemporary of relevant to my interests. I think if anything could be a considered a list of classics, and not in the sense of just Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman literature, then Adler's list is it. It would probably take me a few years just to read through all of the important Greeks if I was payed to read full-time. As it stands, I will be lucky to finish the list in ten years, but I think I will be able to say unequivocally that I am well-read for the rest of my life, which I am looking forward to.

>> No.4163503

Of course you can't read "everything", OP, and nor can any human ever have done so; we feel the impulse to absorb every iota of information, which is not a bad thing, but if you let it get the better of you it'll destroy you.

Doesn't it just sort of thrill you that nobody else in the world will have read the exact same books as you? That nobody else will be privy to exactly the same information which you possess?

I think, also, that people overestimate just how many "classic" works you have to read to be "well read" - I don't think being well read means merely that you've read all the books on the list, I think it's a lot more complex than that. Any hipster can claim that they've absorbed every word of Homer and Dante, but what has this done for them? What more do they possess than the words? That's the kicker, learning from them, applying that learning to new texts in a meaningful way.

So don't sweat it. Read the big ones, those will be helpful - but if you don't get to every one of the Greek plays, to every line of Milton or Virgil, you can still be excellently well read.

>> No.4163530

>reading all of the classics will take 2 years
more like a lifetime

>> No.4163542

>>4163530
I mean Classics classics, roman and greek specifically, and the main ones at that.

>> No.4163545

>>4163542
>I mean Classics classics, roman and greek specifically
>reading all of the classics will take 2 years
It gets better and better.

>> No.4163548

Even Harold Bloom thinks it's impossible to read everything that you need to read. He's cited Dickens as someone that he never had time to read completely, but he says that "[he] know[s] the plots, and that's enough."

IMO wanting to read everything is a somewhat immature point of view. Because you don't necessarily gain insight or understanding from reading something, especially if you rush through it. You can't just download all of literature into your brain, even if you had a lifetime just for reading.

It's better to read less but understand it better and think harder about it.

>> No.4163556

Most of the classics are irrelevant unless you want to know the history of literature.

>> No.4163591

I have the exact same feel OP. I'll often go into mini-existential crises when I realize that i'm not enjoying something but it's essential (good example is the Bible, damn is that a slog), or that i'm reading something and m,issing out on references

i've been trying to read pre-1800s stuff exclusively lately

my OCD has been going nuts

>> No.4163659

>>4163548
>He's cited Dickens as someone that he never had time to read completely

Ha, when Edmund Wilson wrote on Dickens he prepared by reading through everything Dickens ever wrote.

>> No.4163671

You don't even need to read the classics unless you are specifically interested in the history of literature. Just read what you enjoy.

>> No.4163672

>>4163671
>>4163556
deja vu

>> No.4163717
File: 225 KB, 373x327, c9a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4163717

>the obscure stuff I want to tackle
see pic

and just fucking read don't com here with that shit
>hurr durr I wanna have read every single classic there is, I don't like reading I like having read

>> No.4163816

>>4163717
what are you even saying

>> No.4163853

>>4163672

Just so you know I only did one of those.

>> No.4163878

Man, the Greeks really had it easy, didn't they?
Just imagine how long it would take to read all the classics for somebody living five hundred years from now.

>> No.4163892

>>4163717

>edgy

this isn't /tv/ faggot. you post like a fratboy.

>> No.4163917

>>4163892
>faggot
this isn't /b/ idiot. you sound like a shithead.

>> No.4163982

>>4163878
yeah but the greeks had to go to war all the time and lived til 50

>> No.4164006

>>4163878
Same as now

Doubt people 500 years from now will be reading DFW's muttering horseshit and Parisian Postmodernist Android #747484's "L'ecrits de la genealogie des Riens du l'Hausserldegger mais pas sans fadaises incoherentes"

>> No.4164011

>>4163878
>Implying the Greeks didn't have an overwhelming canon of classical works now lost to us because fuckers burned libraries full of papyrus scrolls when they conquered cities.

>> No.4164015

>>4164011
i.e. Library of Alexandria
Fuck the Romans, dog.

>> No.4164022

>>4163290
Heh, I can see that.

>> No.4164165

>>4163260
>I might get caught up in some job or girl
Do you even /lit/?

>> No.4164201

>>4163269
Kaufmann's book on Nietzsche is pretty straightforward. It summarizes his ideas, touches on other thinkers that influenced him, and discusses what people after him have thought of him.

>> No.4164213

>>4164011
How many actually read those if they were all in one library?