|
ulvir posted:as for your other point, well, what is and isn't a classic is really just a matter of tradition and general consensus, and maybe the biggest point of this thread is that reading classics or High Literature doesn't have to be this painful chore of finding symbolism in every minute detail like some people are used to through school. Like, you can easily read Ulysses and say you enjoy it simply because leopold bloom is just a huge perv who really loves to jerk it every chance he gets I legitimately think people who look for symbolism in novels are loving oppressive pedants.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
ulvir posted:leopold bloom is just a huge perv who really loves to jerk it every chance he gets
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
And remember, pulp fiction can become accepted as literature too. Dashiell Hammett gets read in English courses because its obviously crime fic and was always intended to be such, but he's also good at writing dialog and capturing people. Red Harvest yo
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Here bro, let me help you out Here are some books that skirt the boundary between genre and literature so go ahead and read them and get the best of both worlds. Blindness by Jose Saramago 100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro Station Eleven by Emily St John Mandell The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey Man Tiger by Eka Kurniawan Winters Tale by Mark Helprin
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
blue squares posted:there's nothing perverted about jerkin it, you snob it is when you're doing it in public because you got so turned on by that bare ankle, though Mel Mudkiper posted:I legitimately think people who look for symbolism in novels are loving oppressive pedants. hear, hear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:And remember, pulp fiction can become accepted as literature too. Dashiell Hammett gets read in English courses because its obviously crime fic and was always intended to be such, but he's also good at writing dialog and capturing people. Red Harvest yo Raymond Chandler* Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Raymond Carver I think you're combining him and Chandler
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
ulvir posted:hear, hear. The only novel I ever read that I thought handled symbolism effectively was Thousand Cranes by Yasunari Kawabata because the characters were made conscious of the meaning behind the objects and were directly interacting with those meanings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I think you're combining him and Chandler herp derp
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Raymond Carver is cool and all but I don't see what he has to do with noi E: oh. Raymond Chandler's more obvious a choice I guess but I just read Red Harvest again so I wasn't thinking about him
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:herp derp Can't tell who that is directed at
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Pardon, I got annoyed by the title and OP as well as my own history with what I'd call elitist snobs. you got trolled hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Can't tell who that is directed at At myself, you were right, I confused Chandler and Carver
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Here bro, let me help you out Well I got a long list of books to read but I'll wiki these and see if; any peak my interest. Thank you for the recommendations. corn in the bible posted:And remember, pulp fiction can become accepted as literature too. Dashiell Hammett gets read in English courses because its obviously crime fic and was always intended to be such, but he's also good at writing dialog and capturing people. Red Harvest yo I don't think he's actually an example but you guys are the literary buffs so maybe you can confirm/deny a claim I've read. Some people I've talked to say Shakespeare was actually just a crude, juvenile bastard who's humor happened to tickle the fancy of the upper-classes as much as it did everyone else. So he's not the deep, master of the English language at all, really. That's the claim, anyway. Is this true or not? My main experience with William is his sonnets. Sonnets were my favorite form of poetry for my Poetry class back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Some people I've talked to say Shakespeare was actually just a crude, juvenile bastard who's humor happened to tickle the fancy of the upper-classes as much as it did everyone else. So he's not the deep, master of the English language at all, really. That's the claim, anyway. I don't particularly like Shakespeare but if you do not recognize his wordplay as loving brilliant you need to just stop reading. Shakespeare suffers from being *the* English writer, so everyone feels obligated to call him great without ever thinking about why. But legit, read some Hamlet, its really really beautiful. Real talk, how much have you thought about literature outside of a high school classroom? High schools are notoriously poor at teaching literature, and if you try to actually engage with it the way your teacher taught you, you will always universally fail. NikkolasKing posted:Well I got a long list of books to read but I'll wiki these and see if; any peak my interest. If you don't at least read Blindness and 100 Years I will personally find you and kick your rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I don't think he's actually an example but you guys are the literary buffs so maybe you can confirm/deny a claim I've read. Some people I've talked to say Shakespeare was actually just a crude, juvenile bastard who's humor happened to tickle the fancy of the upper-classes as much as it did everyone else. So he's not the deep, master of the English language at all, really. That's the claim, anyway. This isn't an objective thing. It's a silly question. Things don't work that way. But I think that if you read Shakespeare and your overwhelming reaction is like "this is crude and juvenile, I can't believe this bastard", then, like, you're dril? Like he's one of the most popular and significant authors in the history of loving words. Do you think that's all 100% emperor's new clothes and no one has actually liked him? What is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I legitimately think people who look for symbolism in novels are loving oppressive pedants. I also do not believe that thinsg sometimes mean other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:This isn't an objective thing. It's a silly question. Things don't work that way. But I think that if you read Shakespeare and your overwhelming reaction is like "this is crude and juvenile, I can't believe this bastard", then, like, you're dril? I have no opinion on him apart from liking his poetry, hence why I asked all of you, who doubtless know more than I do. Mel Mudkiper posted:Real talk, how much have you thought about literature outside of a high school classroom? High schools are notoriously poor at teaching literature, and if you try to actually engage with it the way your teacher taught you, you will always universally fail. I don't look for symbolism and meaning in every other sentence, if that's what you mean by applying my high school teacher's thought process to how I enjoy books these days. In every form of fiction I enjoy, be it reading or movies or video games, I just enjoy the story. And then I get online, have a discussion with people, and odds are they point out ideas and stuff that eluded me. I enjoy fiction not just for its own sake, but because it's a great way to get to know people. I can't tell you every book I've read outside of high school - it's been nearly ten years - but I guess you could say I do a "surface-level" reading. I just want to find some cool stories with interesting characters or worlds. quote:If you don't at least read Blindness and 100 Years I will personally find you and kick your rear end I will keep this in mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I got a long list of books to read but I'll wiki these and see if; any peak my interest. Troll theory: most of Shakespeare's plays were cooperatively written by his whole acting troupe, he was just lead writer, like John Stewart gets credit for the daily show. Evidence: his vocabulary is too large for one person and his knowledge too broad and too detailed
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:I also do not believe that thinsg sometimes mean other things. "Why is the chair green in this chapter?" - an rear end in a top hat who I do not want to have a conversation with
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
who calls Shakespeare "William"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
blue squares posted:who calls Shakespeare "William" Anne Hathaway. And look which bed she ended up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:"Why is the chair green in this chapter?" - an rear end in a top hat who I do not want to have a conversation with the fact that some people go overboard with looking for symbols is not a good reason to dismiss the entire idea, considering there are plenty of writers who deliberately use symbolism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Also why does having dick jokes mean it can't be literature
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I have no opinion on him apart from liking his poetry, hence why I asked all of you, who doubtless know more than I do. Your question suggested that that was your assumption?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:"Why is the chair green in this chapter?" - an rear end in a top hat who I do not want to have a conversation with Ohhhh okay you mean specifically stupid poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I can't tell you every book I've read outside of high school - it's been nearly ten years - but I guess you could say I do a "surface-level" reading. I just want to find some cool stories with interesting characters or worlds. Ask yourself why you find what you find interesting. Interesting is actually incredibly subjective, and you can learn a lot about yourself by thinking about why you have the preferences you do. That is what I enjoy about "literary" fiction. It often challenges me to interact with my own idea of myself and draw conclusions about my own biases. You do not need to hunt down symbols like the world's most obnoxious easter egg hunt, but you also do not need to look at the book on the surface level. Interact with the text with a conscious awareness of the limits and conditions of your own perspective, and see where that experience takes you. *makes little wizard fingers*
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Also why does having dick jokes mean it can't be literature I love telling people to read the Miller's Tale a literary 700 year old fart joke
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:the fact that some people go overboard with looking for symbols is not a good reason to dismiss the entire idea, considering there are plenty of writers who deliberately use symbolism. Symbolism is also a thing that literal children can understand
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Interact with the text with a conscious awareness of the limits and conditions of your own perspective, and see where that experience takes you. To be more specific, when you come across characters that you like and characters that you do not like, ask yourself why. Ras Het posted:Symbolism is also a thing that literal children can understand So is pooping on someone, but that doesn't make Gravity's Rainbow any lesser
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I got a long list of books to read but I'll wiki these and see if; any peak my interest. Look at Shakespeare's plays. They're dry at first glance, but they're full of dirty jokes. Taming of the Shrew if I recall, has one about cunnilingus (or it might have been about butt-licking. It's been years, forgive me). My highschool taught a variety. I mentioned earlier I had to read the pearl, which I hated, but I had to read To Kill a Mockingbird, which I loved, and some YA novel which I tore through. I also had to read Fahrenheit 451. I actually like Sci Fi, but I do not like this book. It doesn't help that teachers insist that it's about censorship, but dammit, I feel you can get a pretty strong reading that it's about how much Bradbury hates TV. Maybe it's about both. I'm actually really glad that the Pearl was the only classic (other than Shakespeare) I read, because they're not taught right, and also, when you're a moody teenager, you tend not to appreciate the plight of the poor even if you are poor yourself if it's separated by generations. Shakespeare for example, is hard to grasp without watching it. I had an optional class, in which we watched Taming of the Shrew, where it was really easy to see the dirty jokes because you have the actor's reactions. But we didn't even watch a taped performance in my required English class. We easily could have, but we didn't. So we just slogged through it. My school had infamously low-paid teachers though, and they were all married or lived with their parents, so that may have been part of it. For what it's worth, I read a lot of sci-fi, fantasy, and Young Adult. But I also like reading classics and modern literary works, because I want to read a variety. You gotta expand your horizons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:the fact that some people go overboard with looking for symbols is not a good reason to dismiss the entire idea, considering there are plenty of writers who deliberately use symbolism. Symbolism can be done well in two ways. Do what Thousand Cranes did and make the characters consciously interacting with the symbolism of objects, or use the imagery to evoke response rather than represent ideas. For example, The Old Man and the Sea Good symbolism - "I sympathize with the old man's battle because the vastness of the sea he is in makes him seem small and helpless, and accentuates his struggle" Bad symbolism - "The sea represents nature's power"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
tbh highschool students always end up being forced to read Romeo and Juliet which is pretty bad. if that were all I'd read of him I wouldnt think too highly of him either
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
The only benefit to the whole YA "boom" is that hopefully english classrooms can start teaching kids the basics of reading comprehension with loving Hunger Games or something and stop ruining Hemingway and Steinbeck by forcing children to read them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
blue squares posted:So is pooping on someone, but that doesn't make Gravity's Rainbow any lesser Yeah that's what I meant, the point was just that that's why it's a thing in high schools and thats why people grow up thinking art is like that I didn't have to read a single book I didn't pick myself in all of my 12 years of school tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I read Piers Anthony books all the time as a kid for Book-It! Which is hosed up in several ways
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
*with the air of someone revealing a great mystery* "class, i want you to consider that perhaps gregor was not literally transformed"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:tbh highschool students always end up being forced to read Romeo and Juliet which is pretty bad. if that were all I'd read of him I wouldnt think too highly of him either I hated Romeo and Juliet, I preferred Taming of the Shrew. And seriously, for teaching, I strongly agree with the idea of teaching with more YA books. If nothing else, it's a lot easier to relate to the characters for teenagers. The sexual themes in a lot of books might be a problem for certain school boards though. Maybe classics would be okay if they picked the classics more carefully though. I really think Steinbeck is a bad idea though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
blue squares posted:So is pooping on someone, but that doesn't make Gravity's Rainbow any lesser I'm reading GR now and I legitimately almost threw up reading that scene. That is a sign of good writing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
I really enjoy reading Steinbeck in high school and so did many of my friends - but in our case it wasn't just taught as good literature but as the Story Of Our State. and personally I'm glad to have read him just before the age when I started doing a lot of car trips up and down California.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:20
|
|