/lit/ - Literature

>>14167496
>I-I just wanted to read books that seemed interesting...
Then do it, no ones holding you back. Make sure you've read at least the Greeks and have a large history prior to what you wish to read(can easily just be found on the internet or an anthology) and then read it, make sure to understand it in its historic significance and influence as I said before but also after reading it along with any books prior though you may apply the concepts learned with the later book to it (the prior book) just make sure to understand it from its time period also in lacking the later knowledge you have.

Learn these generality's and particularity's and you'll be fine, rather encouraged to read the books you enjoy.

Pic unrelatated but somehow related.

Don't worry about reading. Just become a full-time Coomer.

>>14167511
It's not that I want to abandon things altogether, but that I'm in a constant state of analysis paralysis. Do I want to read the works that seem most interesting to me, or do I want to read everything that historically influenced them for complete understanding? I will need to go down the entire chain of influence to understand those works as well. Could I gain anything without context? Will I waste my time, thinking that I understood a particular work when in truth I only gained a very surface-level understanding of it? Can I just wikipedia my way through the context, or would that be a waste of time as well? My heart says Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, but my brain tells me to start with Plato. I'm kinda new to all this, obviously, so I'm troubled by my inability to decide on either path without doubting myself about not choosing the other.

The greentext is just a pasta I found.

>>14167496
I didn't see the correlation between the greeks and Babbitt, so I just read Babbitt.

>>14167525
I wonder if the biography/introduction books for Kierkegaard (the blue one + the introduction book by C. Stephen Evans), Schopenhauer (by Bryan Magee), and Nietzsche (the one by Kaufmann), combined with the often-recommended "German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism" would be enough for context.

>tfw never wasted my time on a single book of philosophy
>tfw pretty much learned everything by /lit/ osmosis anyway

>>14167538
And I'm quite familiar with the Bible, which would be useful for both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

>>14167552
It does not work that way. :3

Just read these http://orgyofthewill.net/read/

>>14167496
>after surpassing /lit/ plebs
I'll just read what I want to

>>14167496
Are you complaining about being enlightened and educated?

>>14167511
what happened to him? is /tv/ killing him?

>>14167496
It's good to be more systematic if the systematicness will be of use to you.
But if it won't (and it likely won't), you're just a bit stupid and impressionable. Don't fool yourself by thinking that /lit/ has some great wisdom and that you have to compete with it.

>>14167496
Hey, this is a copy of a post I made
Very based. It is a huge problem /lit/ has

>>14169382

He coomed too much.

>>14167496
Sage

>>14167496
Wait, you haven't even formed your own literary canon yet? Nigga stop complaining about /lit/ and read more. How can you expect to understand anything without a foundation?

>>14167496
>before /lit/
>don't want to read book
>don't
>after /lit
>want to read book
>don't

>>14167496
people do that so you wont flood up the board asking specific questions about the work, which is kind of inevitable if you skipped key milestones

>>14167496
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1dtVwEb3gXI

>>14167496
Anon I am in your position atm
To remember just diligently take notes while reading it takes 10x more time but you actually learn and predict whats coming up more. The slower you go the more you understand.

>>14169646
This is me.

>>14167496
>forget most of what I read after I read it
Well, that is your fault and only mistake

>>14167496
Anon honestly just read what interests you.
I use lits charts as more of a recommendation list than
>YOU MUST READ IN THIS ORDER
If its history about a period I try to do it chronologically.
I will say Herodotus was helpful with parts of Manetho as I knew about the Persian acquisition of Egypt, as well as their revolt, and ultimate restoration of Persian rule.
Also recognized some of the events mentioned in it cause of the Old Testament.
But its not the end of the world if you don't catch this. You can still comprehend the stuff, its just more of a "oh this person said the same thing"

If you aren't reading what you wanted to you are not going to retain the information as well and reading will feel more like a chore, less like a nice break.
Im in the process of skipping the Romans and reading British history.
Do what you want. You may want to read the other works at some point if you read what you want to now.

>>14167825
Based