/lit/ - Literature

Lack of George Eliot is disturbing

>>14233094
>,Henry James, Joyce,
nice

>>14233094
Imagine getting a degree in fiction. What's next? Degrees in Netflix and video games? You are a burden to the society you're dwelling your parasitical existence in.

>>14233115
I've picked up and put down Middlemarch countless times. Doubt she is that good.

>>14233094
What is this? Did you make a listing for yourself, or is it some university programme?

Too pushy.

Thank god I was a poli sci major that looks like 4,000 hours of prereq reading. If you’re a professor and not a troll how many of your students have actually done that? I went into an advanced english lit class at a decent private uni and the kids seemed to have no background in anything

>>14233094
anyone know others like him?

>Austen
stopped reading

>>14233094
>>>>>>>>no shakespeare

>>14233217
Actually only the 2nd “paragraph” is required ;)

>>14233131
>picked up and put down Middlemarch countless times
Have you tried reading it?

I really don't get why Austen is held to such high regard.

>>14233094
It could be a lot worse. 5/10.

Ok paperbird

>>14233094
>a bunch of literally whos and no dostoyevsky
filtered

>no shakespeare
>no homer
>no dante
>no dostoyevsky
>no bach
>no beethoven
your prof is a fucking pleb

>Patrick White and Claude Simon
based
>>14233347
>>14233354
>>14233223
This place is garbage

>>14233094
Given the horror stories I've heard regarding feminist militants affecting every aspect of literary courses, this seems like a rather good syllabus. It effectively tells anybody who doesn't have an appreciation of canonical literature to go fuck themselves and implies at the outset that any dumb cunts trying to shove their modern sensibilities onto the greats are going to be drowned. Funnily enough the writing of the syllabus itself is terrible. Hope you enjoy the class, OP.

>>14233298
You're in good company, she's too patrician for most people

>>14233360
>This place is garbage
Refute them
Why should multiple greats that heavily inspired half the shit on that list not be required reading

>>14233370
Because they are the most well known so you are expected to know them anyway. Why not just use the room to include relatively underread writers instead like Broch and Musil?

>>14233375
Anon, if you aren't expecting people to have read cervantes, why would you expect them to have read shakespeare, dante, and homer?

>>14233370
Looks like it's concentrating on prose and novels rather than poetry or drama, so Dante, Shakespeare and Homer can be omitted. As for Dostoevsky, does anyone take his reactionary journalism seriously, no matter how amusing some of his scenes are?

>>14233354
>Dostoyevsky
>On par with anyone you mentioned or anyone on that syllabus

>>14233381
It's just a loosely written list on a syllabus he doesn't have to mentioned every canonized writer that everyone knows about calm down

>>14233364
All that is a meme. English is fine.

>>14233130
t. underread petit bougeois philistine

>>14233094
>>14233137
The way this is printeded and worded really makes it look like it comes from literature degree at some finance-sociology based college in eastern Australia or something.

>>14233094
>>14233115
>>14233128
>>14233130
>>14233131
>>14233137
>>14233205
>>14233217
>>14233218
>>14233223
>>14233232
You look like you could really benefit from reading Hubbard's work.
Start with Dianetics and then take it from there.

>>14233130
Underrated. People whose fiction is worth reading are people who have the life experiences that make for interesting perspectives. Bugman university students who pay for a fiction credential, and pay for someone to tell them what to read are only capable of producing trite postmodern ironic bullshit

>>14233446
cringe

>>14233094

>Balzac but no Zola

Weird there's Musil there. Always thought he was under exposed. You're going to enjoy The Man Without Qualities.

>>14233515

And I just saw Zola's name there.

>>14233454
What's your issue with irony? Half of the greatest works in fiction are ironic in nature

>>14233454
t. underread bugman

>>14233395
>judge this syllabus
>get mad at people for judging the syllabus
What did you expect when you came into this thread

>Machado de Assis
...

>>14233536
they are the judgements of underread pseuds

>>14233559
>falling back on ad hom when you can't refute judgements
Huh... so this is the power of austenfags... woah...

>>14233094

Where's Tomas Pynchon, Ayn Rand, and David Foster Wallace?

>>14233559
>pseuds
ironic

>>14233094
Based for Roussel, but at the same time he's a lot more obscure than the other - classic, canonic - ones. In which case they probably meant Rousseau. Kind of embarrassing.

>>14233094
>No R. L. Stine

>>14233638
He's not that obscure and is pretty known in literature departments. Felipe Alfau is obscure.

bump

>>14233094
FUCK OFF ATTENTION WHORE

How many have you read /lit/?

are there actually people that dont know paperbird here? no one has said anything relevant, funny. clever, or helpful here

>>14233094
Cool reading recommendation list. Not really a syllabus.

>>14233094
What fucking syllabus is just a list of writers you should read? Is this American education?

>>14234341
>>14234365
these

>>14234230
post2016 /lit/ does not read

>The shock of seeing how badly others write can be a consoling sort of inspiration; and, of course, there is always the chance that one of these books will be a masterpiece.

Perhaps learn how to use semicolons properly (or learn to not use them at all) before shitting on other people's writing.

>>14233094
Why is Nabokov in there?

>>14233094
>Most of these books will be worthless

kek asshole teacher

>>14233094
Seems ridiculous to include Borges and Marquez in there

>>14233130
HAHA, imagine teaching it.

>>14233223
They have to include some hoes.

>>14233739
Alright, sure, but then so are many other experimental (post)modernists not included here

>>14234443
being a woman doesn't make her a ho

This looks shady on so many levels
>formatting is horribly unprofessional overall, names get repeated in "should" and "must know" lists
>what the fuck does it mean to "know" a writer's works? having read them? know their titles? synopses? from personal experience, actually reading and confronting oneself with a work is way more important and impactful than knowing about the work, and the wording seems to prefer the latter, surface-level knowledge
>reading biographies, letters and essays of the writers you are studying is methodology straight from the 19th century, of very questionable value unless you think you should imitate the lifestyles of great writers to become a great writer yourself (Horace's 20th epistle from the first book of epistles makes fun of that in an excellent manner), instead of building from within yourself
>bizarre selection of writers - no Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare, no poetry whatsoever(!), in general I really don't see any sort of consistent system behind it
>extremely pretentious final comments for a fucking fiction writing course
>ugly ass thumb

>>14233454
A lot of great writers studied literature,

>>14233446
>Hubbard
>Dianetics
pls stop pimping this convicted fraudster in every thread

>>14234673
he's more legit than any pope has ever been

>>14234530
it's probably for a creative writing class or a class focusing on novels
it is from this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNvFgHb51mQ

>>14233446
incredibly based

>Elman's Joyce
Go to L

>>14233094
>dozens of musts and shoulds
>no reason why

>except "you might like the typeface"
>but most of them are worthless

Who wrote this syllabus.

>>14234420
It's technically improper here; but, for stylised writing, it's fine.

>>14234721
>>14234704

The extent to which Jane Austen makes /lit/ seethe is always amusing to me.

Austen is based but it needs George Eliot.

bump

Very based. Lots of minor writers that are better than major ones.

Buump

But seriously, how how do people get by in degrees where you're given huge amounts of reading to do? I was a stemtard so I never had this problem. I can only read 30 pages an hour

>>14236579

they either barely comprehend anything, or they have enough leisure time to do nothing but read every day. expecting to read the entire canon before you're 30 is idiotic

>>14236579
have discernible talent.

>know the works of
yea i know at least 1 work from every one of those big whoop

>ballsack