/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4284637]

Any erudite cinephile knows the essential /tv/ lists/charts are complete garbage. I find it hard some people actually blindly follow these awful and uneducated recommendations.

Is it the same for the other boards? If I wanted to learn more about basic essentials for other interests, should I avoid them like the plague? I tried reading /fit/'s sticky to get into fitness and got great results by following their basic advices, so even though I'm not a fan of the locker atmosphere they have going on over there, their elite knows what they're talking about, the board is actually knowledgeable and helpful. But arts require more than basic knowledge, they're a matter of taste and education. So if I'm not very well versed in jazz or philosophy for example, are /mu/ and /lit/ full of shit as well or are they actually truthworthy unlike the shithole that is /tv/?

[Anonymous No.4284654]

>>4284637
mostly full of shit but some kernels of goodness here too

[Anonymous No.4284694]

>>4284637
Not sure about jazz specifically, but /mu/'s recommendations seem impressively eclectic to me. 95% of the board is a giant in-joke about plebs and patricians, so finding actual intelligent commentary on music is very rare, but the music they recommend is generally good shit.

[Anonymous No.4284717]

>>4284637
/lit/ is the best board when it comes to lists, our wiki is very extensive and complete and with some great recommendations.

[Anonymous No.4284732]

/mu/'s specific charts are decent but their overall charts are shitty pop music

/lit/'s tastes align very faithfully with academia and hence are generally very trust worthy

[Anonymous No.4284738]

just avoid any chart that arbitrarily ranks things

[Anonymous No.4284744]

I found Stina nordenstam from /mu/ so I'm happy

[Anonymous No.4284754]

mu is quite possibly the worst board on this site. They dont know anything about music. If you like what they recommend however that's fine for me.

[Anonymous No.4284762]

/lit/ is pretty good for recommendations. /mu/ is awful - don't listen to anything they say, as they base their tastes on whatever is in vogue at the time (or whatever isn't so they can be contrarian) and they are all teenagers. Also, never take /tv/ seriously.

[Anonymous No.4284803]

If you want to know more about jazz, there are many books, if you ask a random musician with an actual carreer on music, he's probably going to be a pretentious asshole and look down on you, and if you manage to get him to give you recommendations and instructions or whatever, they'll be very biased. I don't know what it is with formal musicians, but 90% of them are assholes

[Anonymous No.4284813]

>>4284637
/mu/ is full of shit

/lit/'s essentials are useless because they're just basically the western canon + stoner. literature has a defined "essentials" already, which has been passed down for thousands of years. you don't need an essentials infographic

[Anonymous No.4284835]

>>4284637

Unlike the history of Film and Television, the history of literature and philosophy has pretty much been established and the so called "canon" set in stone. Film, being a more recent invention, is still in it's infancy as an art form (from a chronological standpoint); Television even more so. As such, what most people consider to be "good" is more subjective than what you will find in the history of literature.

If you stick to the "canon" of literature (literature encompassing philosophy, theology, poetry, prose, etc.), you really can't go wrong with what is generally considered good. There will undoubtedly be writers and books you find unbearable (I'm looking at you, Kant), but for the most part, most of what has traditionally been held as quality literature seems to remain just that--quality literature.

It's when you get into the post-WWII, post-modern, and contemporary period that subjective opinions become more prevalent If you're looking for suggestions from these periods they become wide and varied, but, generally speaking, here are a few of the authors /lit/ seems to be keen on:

>David Foster Wallace
>Thomas Pynchon
>Cormac McCarthy
>Tao Lin
>Gene Wolfe

[Anonymous No.4284837]

>>4284732
>shitty pop music
check your rockist privilege

[Anonymous No.4284850]

>>4284835
>Tao Lin
>implying that isn't a joke

[Anonymous No.4284889]

>>4284637
Since you are interested in jazz and this is /lit/, let me recommend you a book: "blues people" by leroi jones.

[Anonymous No.4284906]

>>4284835
You almost fooled me this time, Tao.

[Anonymous No.4284935]

It's not so bad, is it?

[Anonymous No.4284938]

[Anonymous No.4285131]

>>4284837

well I consider rock to be pretty similar to pop music since it uses the same structure and chord progressions, so I just call it "pop" generally

[Anonymous No.4285143]

>>4285131
>muh metal
go to bed

[Anonymous No.4285174]

>>4284717
not really. :)

[Anonymous No.4285271]

The whole idea of making these charts is flawed.

I could give you a personal list of the best 100 books or movies or albums. But what of it?

In the end you just want to know what's the next movie you'll watch, the next book you'll pick up. I only need to recommend you one. And I'll get it right if you speak to me about how you feel about literature or film at this moment, what's your mood, what's your interest, etc.

If you want quantity, get to the library/bookstore and go through the shelves.

Otherwise, I see no point in making these endless canonical lists. It appears that they serve more to justificate or certificate one's taste. You'd have tiresome arguments on what should be there but isn't, what shouldn't be there but is and that is absolutely pointless.

[Anonymous No.4285323]

>>4285271
such intellectuality

its a fucking chart. itll throw direct recommendations that only people who dont read books will value. well-read people wont give a shit, so who cares.

[Anonymous No.4285334]

1/2

[Anonymous No.4285339]

>>4285271
You could probably make some sort of tree diagram to show what authors/schools of literature /lit/ recommends if you're interested in a certain topic or field. Not quite as restrictive as what to watch but still enough to share past experiences in a well organized and thought out manner.

That being said, I think there are no charts or diagrams made by /lit/ because they prefer words over pictures.

[Anonymous No.4285346]

>>4285334
2/2
White Epilepsy, Camille Claudel 1915, Post Tenebras Lux, L'inconnu du lac

P-047, Goltzius and the Pelican Company, A Última Vez Que Vi Macau, Larzanandeye charbi

Meteora, El verano de los peces voladores, Foudre, Norte, hangganan ng kasaysayan

Centro Histórico, Lukas nino, Leviathan, Sieniawka

Stemple Pass, Mai morire, Inori, Leones

3x3D, Bestiaire, The End of Time, Nebesnye zheny lugovykh mari

[Anonymous No.4285353]

>>4284637
>I tried reading /fit/'s sticky to get into fitness and got great results by following their basic advices
That's because fitness is objective. A routine works or it doesn't. It yields good results or it's shit.

Arts are a little more difficult because it's all subjective and a lot of people think that a majority of people are mouthbreathers with terrible taste

[Anonymous No.4285354]

>>4284637
/tv/ is one of the shittiest boards, even when it comes to discussing its intended content (movies, TV).
other boards are pretty much all better.
although /mu/ is not amazing, but still better than /tv/.

[Anonymous No.4286320]

[Anonymous No.4286663]

>>4285334
>>4285346

jesus fucking christ

please tell me youll stay on this board.

[Anonymous No.4286667]

>>4286320
>pedro costa

i think modern arthouse directors abuse the long shot.

it should be used sparingly. its normal to get bored when youre a watching a movie that over-uses them. they need to be juxtaposed with shorter shots or the narrative/acting needs to be strong enough to support them