[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1752085160474828.png (119 KB, 253x407)
119 KB
119 KB PNG
Does this help with making you better at interpreting books?
>>
In my experience, no. What I got out of it was maybe some introductory practice in applying Jungian archetypes and imagery; but I haven‘t had a single example of reading another book and pointing back to Campbell‘s formula.
>>
No. Archetypes and whatnot are essentially a system of thought-terminating clichés that poison your brain so you can't actually engage critically with fiction anymore. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>>
>>24849377
there are serious readers who struggle to interpret books? you cannot read something and reflect at all?
>>
>>24849445
Well, I don't usually understand every symbolism every time I finish a book



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.