What's the proper way of reading /lit/? 1, pick an author and read everything they wrote?2, group books by eras instead of authors?3, just read random stuff you find interesting based on synopsis?
>>25043858Read while completely naked
>>25043858Just read who you like...
>>25043858>start with the greeks
Started with Moby Dick as the first book I ever read to completion. Moved over to McCarthy since the vibe was more or so the same. I simply just go by themes and brutalism is what I like.
>>25043858How much do you read already? If you don’t read at all, don’t go into the Western canon right away because you’ll get mindraped and you will never want to read again. Find a cozy, long bestseller - Preston & Child, early Stephen King, Michael Crichton - and make reading the book a comfy experience. Once you have a few of those books under your belt, move on to the entry level of the Western canon - Homer, Plato, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Conrad, Melville, Dostoevsky, etc. By then, you’ll be used to reading as an act of enjoyment and stimulation, and authors like these will add a level of depth to your reading that will push you to the next level. I used the term “entry level,” but all these authors are studied to this day by professional scholars, and you’ll see the power of writing laid out for you. You don’t jump right from the sofa to a full marathon. Condition your reading brain and you’ll be great at reading /lit/.
>>25043858It's a good question. Ideally you should aim for every era, every major author and work.For me however, the utmost priority is to go through your national literature. You should honor your ancestors and your culture more than focusing on some 20th century avant-slop. Likewise, don't get too caught up with the Ancients so that you see everything through a classical lens. Start with your Chaucer, your Shakespeare, your Milton. If you're German, your Nibelungen, your Schiller, your Goethe.
>>25043858Numero 3 and nothing else. If you read like 2 or 3 books from an author and they sucked ass don't force yourself. You can be extremely well read without reading the biggest classics everyone talks about.If anything I purposefully avoid them.Just find what you like then jump off to something similar.That doesn't mean you should only read slop though. Actually try to avoid it if you don't wanna end up retarded
>>25043858You very rarely need to read everything an author ever wrote. The exception would be if you're interested in them as a person instead of their ideas or creative output. Only do this if you really, really want to.Just keep a list of works you want to read or that are of major significance or contain information that would make your life easier. Some works you should read cover to cover, others only sections of. It's difficult to give a major overarching rule for all works, they're all different.Just read, think about what you've read and use that as a basis for determining what you should read next.
>>25044283>You very rarely need to read everything an author ever wroteI used to do this, still do depending on the writer.
>>25043858Read the most interesting subject and work your way from it. All forms of reading eventually leads to classic literature, not the other way around
