[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 241 KB, 945x595, 8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8195564 No.8195564 [Reply] [Original]

Thoughts? I'm sure there are a billion problems, but please tell me and I'll change it. Will make it prettier post-corrections.

>> No.8195571

Useless guide. Just use Bloom's Western Canon list.

http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

>> No.8195587

>>8195564
>mediaeval europe
>no Chrétien de Troyes
What was he thinking?

>> No.8196145

>>8195571

Bloom's list is like 100 times larger than the guide OP made. It has a completely different scope and target demographic. Therefore, OP's guide is not rendered useless by Bloom's list as it is far more approachable.

I am a bit confused by the categorical exclusion of philosophy and literary theory, but the inclusion of religious texts. Was this intentional or an oversight? (I realize that philosophy isn't literature, but I think it makes sense to at least include Plato's Republic if we are going to include something like the Qur'an.

Looks great for a starting point, though. I would love to see some of the more knowledgeable folks here (I am not a member of this group) expand on this chart and make it relatively thorough (without simply including the entire western canon like Bloom), therefore creating a list that is actually useful for a beginner.

>> No.8196158

>Balzac more important than Flaubert
>Stein more important than Crane
>Fitzgerlad more important than Modernists like Mann or Lawrence.
>mention fags like tao, Franzen, Diaz but no Sebald, Krasznahorkai, ect.

>> No.8196163

The bible should be read after Romans

Medieval and Ancient Europe should be one section

>> No.8196185

>>8195571
OP here, I'm willing to agree with this

>>8196145
personally don't feel qualified, but others welcome to suggest

>>8196158
>Balzac
idc
>Stein
yes
>Fitzgerald
good point
>Tao
important to the development of literary art and culture, much much more so than S. and K.
I also have an English bias, so sorry

>> No.8196191

>>8196163
>The bible should be read after Romans
it is

>Medieval and Ancient Europe should be one section
I almost agree, but I think Ancient European texts are kind of extraneous to the development of western lit. The idea of the rightmost column is that it's optional.

>> No.8196204

this is such a stupid list. it's basically a list of what OP randomly deems important with no real regard for actual historical context/importance/influence

i don't mind personal, hgihly subjective lists, but they need to have some sort of internal logic and structure beyond "these are the only authors i've seen memed so im gonna namedrop them"

>> No.8196208

>>8196191
I meant immediately after.

>I almost agree, but I think Ancient European texts are kind of extraneous to the development of western lit. The idea of the rightmost column is that it's optional.

They are essentially one and the same. "Ancient" European texts were made at the same time as "Medieval" European texts.

>> No.8196220

>>8196145
>a beginner have to be spoonfed in every way
bloom's list is perfectly fine, just research a little by yourself and it will be way more fruitful. bloom's list has an excellent variety too.

>> No.8196226

>>8196204
why waste your own time saying this to me?

>>8196208
That is basically the intent, but I don't think it's harmful to show pre-christian western lit from northern Europe as well as Rome before introducing the Bible and its impact.

>> No.8196231

>>8196226
cause i just know you're gonna be an insufferable faggot and then spam this shit everywhere and pretend you speak for /lit/ with your shitty pseud knowledge

>> No.8196254

>>8196208
>>8196226
forgot to address the second point
I'm not sure about when the Poetic Edda was created by I just read that it was recorded circa 1300, so you might be right about that one, but the celtic myths (and the norse myths) are from as far back as the B.C.'s

>>8196231
didn't plan on posting it in any other thread besides this one, now or in the future. if people like it they can save it, but if nobody's into it, then I want nothing to do with it.

>> No.8196264

>>8196254
>but the celtic myths (and the norse myths) are from as far back as the B.C.'s

The works that would be read are not from BC

>> No.8196351

You obviously didn't read 99% of this chart.

>> No.8196364

>>8196351
/lit/ specializes in making charts of things they haven't read and feeling good about their "knowledge"

>> No.8196515

>>8196220

>a beginner have to be spoonfed in every way

Notice how I did not actually say this, nor did I imply it. My point was simply that Bloom is completely incapable of pruning his list to a manageable size. Take, for instance, the entry on Faulkner-

>As I Lay Dying
>Sanctuary
>Light in August
>Absalom, Absalom!
>The Sound and the Fury
>The Wild Palms
>The Collected Stories
>The Hamlet

I can't speak to the quality of all these, as I have only read AILD, TS&TF & A,A!. However, this list contains 7 Faulkner novels and a 900 page collection of short stories. A more helpful list for a beginner might only include AILD & TS&TF since those are his most widely read, by far, and the two that any serious reader ought to read. The others, I'm sure, would be of interest to someone interested specifically in Faulkner or perhaps literary modernism. However, I have a hard time justifying the inclusion of an extremely obscure Faulkner novel like The Wild Palms on a list that is supposed to provide a brief overview of the most important works in western literature. Just my two cents.

I was originally responding to a claim that this chart is "useless" because of Bloom's list. Since this list appears to be more concise and manageable, I maintain that it is not "useless" and is, in fact, more "useful" FOR A BEGINNER (key point here) than Bloom's list. There's nothing wrong with helping beginners get their feet wet. To think otherwise is extremely elitist and self-important.

>> No.8196587

>>8196264
and edith hamilton wasn't born in sparta

>> No.8196596

>>8195564
Where's Calvino?

>> No.8196604

>>8196596
In the trash

>> No.8196646

Flann O' Brien is not Post Modern despite what Wikipedia tells you.

>> No.8196764

>>8196646
Flann O'Brien is not surrealist despite what your ENG100 prof tells you

>> No.8197213

>>8196204
this is such a stupid post.

>> No.8198381
File: 28 KB, 565x463, 1464449425111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8198381

>>8196185
>Tao Lin
>/r9k/ books of questionable quality less than 5 years old
>important
>and of all things "important to development"

What development?

>> No.8199769

>>8197213
hi OP