[ 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: 21 KB, 333x499, 41ZvXuR9SRL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8514069 No.8514069 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/ i'm a college freshmen and were currently learning about literary theory, I find myself very intrigued by the sheer amount of possibilities in the subject, but i'm not quite sure where to start. Pic related is what our teacher is using and while it provides a clear analysis of most of the techniques used, it seems a bit limited in its scope(talking about marxism, feminism, race, gender identity etc.). I've studied and analyzed stuff like this throughout high school and i'm looking for something new. I'm probably going to check out what the recommended reading on structuralism, but besides that what are some other ways to get into literary theory?

>> No.8514074

>>8514069
Start with the Greeks

>> No.8514094

>>8514074
Okay new question. Is there any place I can go to discuss literature that isn't complete shit?
>ib4 Reddit
Not reddit

>> No.8514118

Just read fuckin Adorno my dude

>> No.8514119

>>8514069
Read on being blue and the pleasure of the text, that what got me into literary theory

>> No.8514125

>>8514118
i was just about to type exactly the same

tfw unknowingly part of the /lit/ hivemind

>> No.8514131

>>8514118
adorno is marxist though

>> No.8514134

>>8514131
Is this bait?

>> No.8514139

>>8514134
This is why I told this dumbass to start with the Greeks

>> No.8514141
File: 513 KB, 800x600, 1472495518621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8514141

>>8514118
>>8514119
Alright. So I can just go into these with my current knowledge?

>> No.8514142

>>8514069

start with the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.

only lurk /lit/ is the right way of using /lit/, post occasionally only on threads that interest you and take every "females are dumb cna't write" jokes as ironic.

>> No.8514146

>>8514142

oh ya on being blue and pleasure of the text are great too

>> No.8514147

>>8514134
no it's true

>> No.8514152

>>8514141
yah. expect to be a bit confused with adorno at times but if you put your thinking cap on should be right. Might have to look up some words with Barthes but you should survive

>> No.8514161

>>8514142
>>8514152
Thanks for all the recommendations. I think this is gonna be fun

>> No.8514215
File: 6 KB, 302x167, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8514215

>>8514069
Simple answer: Just read Marx (Capital Vol. 1). Then read everything else. Then read Marx again.

Longer answer:
Most of literary theory is only valuable for intellectual history imo. Much of the academy has abandoned movements like deconstruction psychoanalysis postmodernism etc--- and for good reason!---(America is lagging behind Europe on this) into new kinds of empiricisms and types of theory that work with scientific thinking: so-called new materialism, media theory, speculative realism etc. Literary theory will make you think that this is a bad change but it's not---- scientific thinking is good if you know how to do it right (Marx will teach you this!)

You are waaaaay better off just reading the works themselves and then branching out from there--If you find a thinker you like, read who influenced them and who they influenced (you can find this in their citations or on wikipedia). Critical Theory Readers and the like will make you think you know a particular theory when you really don't. Part of the experience of learning/doing theory involves reading the works themselves...even if this is unfortunately filtered through a translation.

Learn French and German while you still have time! If you just focus on learning the language for reading you'll develop the ability to read it much quicker.

Literary Theory: Saussure, Bathes, then Derrida.
Critical Theory: Adorno and Horkheimer, then Marcuse--- avoid Habermas
Race: Fanon!.... perhaps Hartman & Spillers
Feminism & gender: read Butler so you know what all the fuss is about, then move on
Post-colonialism: Avoid
Post-structuralism in general: Foucault, then Deleuze
Psychoanalysis: (If you must) Freud, Lacan, then Zizek

Learn to make distinctions between the different types of thinking as soon as possible! You'll get some flack if you try to resonate Butler with Deleuze for example, at least while you'r starting out

I've been studying this stuff for a few years in an undergrad setting with experts in the fields and am happy to provide more (specific) suggestions. Please let me know what you're interested in and I can help!

(Pic related, some of my favorite philosophers)

>> No.8514234

>>8514215
I'm gonna sound salty, but I wonder how you could praise "scientific thinking" in philosophy (I'm not talking about "apart from it") while liking Deleuze and Nietzsche

>> No.8514255

>>8514142
this is all you need

>> No.8514261

>>8514234

I'm talking about science as a materialism. "Science" via ppl like Spinoza, Marx, Laruelle (perhaps Ray Brassier) who would consider their work science in different ways. Basically this is to say that postmodern theory is dangerously seductive and got a lot of stuff wrong...

Of course this type of science is against its enlightenment conception in which science is just the pseudo-atheistic flipside of religion.

>> No.8514267

Not sure if you have but best place to start out would probably be Plato's Ion

>> No.8514273

>>8514069
Critical theory is garbage for Pseuds

>> No.8514274

>>8514261
My dude, I seriously need to get into Ray Brassier and am too scared to ask my professors and be exposed as a pleb.

Where would a art history / aesthetics guy start with his shit?

>> No.8514310

>>8514261
Could you be more precise?

>> No.8514311

>>8514310
(I mean, precise about science "definition", from Spinoza to Laruelle doesn't really help me)

>> No.8514318

>>8514274
aesthetics is garbage

>> No.8514336
File: 72 KB, 723x820, free helicopter rides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8514336

>>8514069

>talking about marxism, feminism, race, gender identity etc

What does any of that have to do with literature? What happened to looking at the quality of the writing itself?

You know what kid I got two Blooms for ya: Harold and Allan. Read them and get all this Left French nonsense out of your head.

>> No.8514456

>>8514274
just read nihil unbound
after finitude trans. brassier is also nice for *context*

>> No.8514464

>>8514311
Good luck that, they're a continental. They couldn't be precise to save their life

Fight me IRL

>> No.8514474

>>8514464
Bad luck then since I'm continental too, and it's me who asked for more precision

>> No.8514741

>>8514215
>Feminism & gender: read Butler so you know what all the fuss is about, then move on
Top pseud.
>inb4 you criticized the only long post don't you want the board to be good

>> No.8514790

I'm currently reading 'practicing new historicism' and it's pretty accessible and very interesting.
Not agreeing with their approach but still

>> No.8514933

>>8514215
Hey OP here. Thanks for the detailed reply! Should I read Structuralism before post-structuralism?

>> No.8515393

>>8514069
>it seems a bit limited in its scope(talking about marxism, feminism, race, gender identity etc.


Limited in scope?
it'll take you years to become a master at even one of those perspectives

>> No.8515412

>>8515393
Let's be honest here, this guy wants some right winger critical theorists but doesn't wanna ask.

>>8514318
Ok

>>8514456
Thanks mate

>> No.8515611

>>8515412
>this guy wants some right winger critical theorists but doesn't wanna ask.

sadly seems true. if only some people would realize literature is about absorbing information that broadens your perspective, not just squatting in your festering myopic bubble of alt-right quackery

>> No.8515798

>>8515611
I could probably trick OP into reading liberal/bourgeois literary theory, but i have no idea about the alt-right? They'd have to use whatever autistic literary theory doesn't completely eviscerate ayn rand or something XD


i guess OP, Derrida is a complete reactionary and Paul de Man was a literal Nazi so you should probably read deconstruction theories

>> No.8515851

>>8515611
>you need to expand your horizons
>but not in a direction I disagree with
Priceless