/lit/ - Literature

>Open “Harry Potter: Sorcerers Stone.pdf”
>ctrl + f: “stretched his legs”
>735 results
>mfw

>Open “Harry Potter: Sorcerers Stone.pdf”
>ctrl + f: “stretched his legs”
>735 results

>rich anglo boys buttfuck each other in venice for 400 pages

>one character makes the sign of the cross on his deathbed in the last chapter

>eternal catholic classic

>>10828576
>Hating King is for charlatans.

>>9775740
>it's a Socrates was a troll episode
lad have you actually read Socrates or do you just like to namedrop him in order to seem "well read"

>>9693210
that post is unironically correct though...

>>9628157
holy kek

>1. I don't know if I can respect the opinion of someone's book review when they don't even know that books are never put in quotes. 2. Google "The Hero's Journey." This will explain situations why the uneducated always think that authors rip off other authors by making "more versions of Gandalf," as you imagine. The "Gandalf character" is a pivotal part of all epic tales (not epic like "cool"--epic, as in a literary epic, such as Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the Bible, most religious myths in general, the Odyssey, etc.). The "Gandalf character" is what is know as the "Father figure" and/or the "Magical Guide." It's a common pattern for epics, and it's why Harry Potter is so beloved. It follows a pattern in which humans have always been creating mythos, from the Epic of Gilgamesh and on. Study literature and the Monomyth and see how the phenomenon of Collective Consciousness is a major reason why some series/books rise to the top, and others are forgotten. #igotmydegreeinthislol

I know, but I am not telling you.

>>9354371
What exactly is your process when reading a book? This question goes out to anyone else reading this also.

>>9298627
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVWiwd0P0c0

>he says in 5 to 6 years harry potter will be completely forgotten, and only of interest to sociologists
>17 years later

A lot of the canon are just outdated historical curios, and nothing more.

Just because they were influential doesn't mean they are still worth reading outside of historical value.

Reminder that you should never listen to critics who have never written a great work themselves.

And no, Flight to Lucifer does not count.

>>9005635

>>9001270
It's from this Charlie Rose interview (last quarter of the interview) if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVWiwd0P0c0

He talks about the 'unlived life' being one of the 4 or 5 major reasons for great literature, and talks about it's relation to poetry in particular, although he mentions Cervantes too.

>open Harry Potter: the first one.pdf
>ctrl+f: stretched his legs
>643 results
mfw

Bloom is a reactionary tilting at windmills. He appeals to a popular but largely inaccurate idea that cutthroat postmodernists have shown up to wrest Shakespeare from the hands of the reading public and force them to read Mary Wroth instead. Who are the people saying this? A shadowy cast of Frenchified literary critics that Bloom never seriously engages with. Why, it's almost as if Bloom's idea that the discussion of canonicity in the eighties and early nineties is affirmative action designed to replace aesthetically superior authors with minority also-rans is a broad caricature that can't descend to taking the claims of those who sought to expand the canon seriously, because rather than being a serious scholarly claim, it's sky-is-falling nonsense for people too coy to say directly that they think "anti-racist is anti-white."

The peculiar thing, of course, is that Bloom's accuses his enemies of wanting to stop people from reading the works he considers canonical - which, though I'm sure one could dig up critics saying inflammatory things about the canon, let's be clear that there was never a moment in time where there was any real threat that the literature Bloom identifies as canonical would stop being taught or studied - but, in point of fact, his argument is really about suppressing his opponent's views. He insists that people shouldn't teach or study aesthetically inferior works. In effect, he says, "It's not about stopping people from reading books written by people of color/women; it's about ethics in aesthetic selection!"

This is dissatisfying to me for many reasons.

First, I think that describing the history of literature is central to what critics should do. Bloom's Anxiety of Influence work is an attempt to rewrite the history of literature so that it takes place only in the personal and aesthetic realm rather than on the larger stage of history. I don't know if you've ever looked at that work, but it's mystagogic bullshit, interesting in its goals but deeply unsatisfying in execution. To avoid giving a "political" analysis of literature, you have to segregate the aesthetic from the rest of history, since as soon as you bring history on to the scene, literature looks like another form of political and social writing. To me, accounts that put literature in the context of the wider scene of history are much more convincing and much more critically productive.

1/2

Why do we fellate this old Jew?

>tfw there hasn't been one single good book released this year

>>8568818
>>8568843
>>8568849
>No, no, no, that's a very bad interpretation. That two-handed implement is, as I say, doing one thing and one thing only: it is striking fire which has been put into the rock, clearly a Promethean motif, and he is clearly contrasted with creatures who are either goulish [sic] human beings, if they are human beings, or already are, in fact, shades, looking for bones for whatever nourishment that might bring about.... I cannot see that as any kind of allegory of anything that has happened to the American West.

>>8558753
In Bloom's defense, it looks like he has lost some weight. He's probably healthier now than he's ever been!

>in my humble opinion, no one needs to read old works of literature in order to lead a better life, since they lost whatever they had of value ages ago. a much better alternative, that is if you have the absolute need to read, is to pick up the most recent book you can find by minority authors. if you were to read something by, say, a cis asian woman but you have the opportunity to chose another, this one written by a transblack pansexual body-happy goddess, by all means, go with the latter. the important thing is not to carefully chose what to read, but to read the most recent you can. also, sorry for being white and privileged

I can't take this anymore!!! Why do these white males think they can give opinions about whatever want? Helllooo, you're so privileged you can't even measure your amount of privilege! Don't come here telling me what to do!

It kills me how there's always people talking about there being 'not enough talk of female authors' or 'why didn't they mention female authors! I'm so disappointed!' lmao you butthurt bitch, how about you show me some female authors worth reading? Get fucking wrecked.

>tying the aesthetics of art to politics

no