/lit/ - Literature

>>11106271
>favorite movement
>people actually don’t choose 19th century realism

dem wanna look smart and talkin bout difficult tings. like philosopy or literature or else. but it aint supreme knowledge but bomboclaat dem joyce or ecco. we built piramids in past but now we dem built a bludclaart business centres and buyn cars. man a babylon. mad ting. bun dem.

>>11106518
Could you butcher the english language somewhere else?

>>11106271
>why don’t people just lift weights that are easy to lift?
Because the only way to grow is to challenge yourself?

>>11106545
If you start by lifting a heavy weight you will hurt your self but the comparison is inane.

>>11106271
>When I suggest this people refer to me as Ignatius J. Reilly.
Literally who did this.

>>11106518
10/10 post mon

>>11106271
>I ask people what their favorite movement in literature is

>>11106271
earlier texts are for historians. all literary movements bleed into one another. the specifics will vary but the themes will carry. don't be pedantic. you don't have to know the history of baseball to know how to throw a fastball.

>>11106559
The comparison wasn’t the point. The point is to get better at reading difficult literature you have to start reading difficult literature.

>>11106630
>earlier texts are for historians
no you fucking idiot

>>11106271
Modernism has the aura of high art and is actually easy to see why a text is good (it experimented in this or that way, did stream of consciousness or something, decribed something that's still culturally relatable to us today).
In the same way are classic westerns being ignored. They are great films very often but Tarkovsky and Tarr and Kubrick are the "highbrow" directors, blatantly artistic and philosophical.
Preromanticist styles are subtler and culturally foreign. I don't think not being particularly interested in them is a problem. They should be taught, of course, but Joyce and Tolstoy and Goethe capture our way of thinking much better than Racine or Dante, I think you'll agree.

>>11107663
capital dictates it so. regardless of what value you may see in earlier texts, the moment their worth ceases to be reflexive in their value to the current culture they are as unnecessary as outdated software. themes carry through culture, not dates of movements -- they become more comodified and efficient in their modes of imprint. Aside from the personal worth someone puts on a forgotten piece of prose, they have no further value. Of course this is not to say that one should avoid outdated texts, but to put forth a hierarchy because of them or to label them as necessary on anything other than historical grounds is silly.

being interested in language usage is justification enough.

>>11106535
>no u

>>11106535
quit posting anime NIGGER

I think some people just aren't educated about that stuff and try to pick up any books they like with no context. To be honest I never even knew about the "start with the Greeks" thing before coming here, though I'm glad I found out about it.

>>11106688
maybe start with the wikipedia articles first, then move up to secondary commentary about the book in question, then finally move up to reading the book?
so, starting with 5pound weights, then 10, 15, etc. instead of jumping straight to the 50lbs?