I just read for fun, but apparently I need to get "more" from lit. What does that even mean? How do I go about that?

>>24548496 (OP)
Don’t listen to the retards on here. You’re reading and that’s more than 95% of people anyways. You’ll eventually get more out of it the more you become acquainted with the themes and such. All it takes is practice and thinking.

>>24548496 (OP)
Is Humbert Humbert in Love? With Who? Does Lolita Exist? In what sense does she exist? Does Delores Exist? In what sense does she exist? Does Humbert Humbert Exist? In what sense does he exist?

Can you read that he rapes his sister, Phoebe?

Is Hamlet actually a tragedy?

>>24548532
>Is Humbert Humbert in Love?
Haven't read Lolita, honestly it seems outside of my comfort zone.
>Can you read that he rapes his sister, Phoebe?
jfc man...I assume you're talking about catcher in the Rye? No way Holden would do that.
>Is Hamlet actually a tragedy
Yes. Sure, everybody who dies in the story is kind of an asshole, but that doesn't excuse their deaths.

Are these the types of questions you think I have to ask?
>>24548527
Thank you dude. Appreciate it.

>>24548557
Lolita is only outside your comfort zone because it has more than 0 layers of irony. Not being able to conduct arbitrary readings of texts means that you'll be forever enjoying your current reading of a text, incapable of reading the text "as-if" you were an English Romantic, or a Realist, or an American.
>excuses their deaths
So Tragedy offers a unique experience to the audience where they get to watch a great man forced to be base by fate, resist it and then accept it, or watch a small man forced to be great by fate, resist it and then accept it. Tragedy isn't nasty things happening. That's Grand Guignol, or Idi i Smotri, or Doctor Zhivago (book). Now those you don't want to read. Trust me.

>Are these the types of questions you think I have to ask?
No these are the types of questions associated with the accepted minimal form of professional reading: literary criticism. You can choose to read Sex Motorcycle for all I care at the level of mere masturbation of resisting Punchy fucking your sex motorcycle by hiding her pussy, but eventually learning to share your sexmotorcycle with Punchy. Or you can read deeper and fully penetrate Punchy, yourself, the sexmotorcycle, the text, the context, the hypertext and the social text of men gang fucking motorcycles with "pussies" in their "seat." Please note real sex motorcycles have cunts in their saddles.

If you are really interested in gaining dfferent perspectives you could start dabbling into theory. It's really fun to start applying theory into what you read and the world around you

>>24548532
Don't care, Nabby sucks.
It's hard to not have meme interpretations in mind.
I'm not attached to the notion of tragedy having definite boundaries.

Once you’re out of school you can read whatever you want or not read whatever you don’t want. No reason to jump through hoops for random mental patients on the internet

>>24548496 (OP)
Thinking about the book. Just do it when you're taking a shower

>>24549587
doesn't everyone think about the books they read?
>>24548773
Where do I even begin with theory? I don't even know what that really means. Is it like music theory? Where there are certain "rules" and "patterns" that, once you recognize them, you can gain a higher appreciation for the art form? Where do I learn this theory?

>>24549730
Depends on what you mean about thinking

>>24549730
>Where there are certain "rules" and "patterns" that, once you recognize them, you can gain a higher appreciation for the art form?
Jordan Peterson

>>24548527
Agreed. The people that say this usually deny themselves fiction and fantasy and wonder why life seems so boring.

>>24548496 (OP)

"To 'get more' from literature typically means moving beyond surface-level reading and engaging with the text analytically and interpretively. It involves examining how form, language, structure, and context contribute to meaning. Rather than focusing solely on plot or entertainment value, a more critical approach considers elements like theme, symbolism, characterization, and narrative technique.

To develop this deeper engagement, one might begin by annotating the text — noting literary devices, shifts in tone, or points of ambiguity. Asking questions such as 'What is the author suggesting here?', 'Why is this word choice significant?', or 'How does this reflect historical or cultural contexts?' helps cultivate interpretive depth. Reading scholarly criticism or participating in discussions can also offer new perspectives and analytical frameworks. Ultimately, 'getting more' from literature is about reading with intentionality — treating the text as a crafted work of art rather than just a story."

>>24548496 (OP)
Now do you really and truly believe that Homer, when composing the Iliad and the Odyssey, had any thought of the allegories which have been caulked on to him by Plutarch, Heraclides of Pontus, Eustathius or Conutus and which Politian purloined from them? If you do so believe, then you come by neither foot nor hand close to my own opinion, which decrees that they had no more been dreamt of by Homer than the mysteries of the Gospel by Ovid in his Metamorphoses (as a certain Friar Loopy, a filcher of flitches, endeavours to prove, provided that he can chance upon folk as daft as he is: ‘Lids,’ as the saying goes, ‘worthy of their pots’).

To get maximum replies on /lit/, you need to balance controversy, sincerity bait, and just enough ambiguity to let anons argue. Here’s a formula that reliably works:


---

Post Topic: "I don’t get literature. Am I stupid?"


---

Post Text:

> I read for fun, but people keep saying I need to “get more” out of it.
What does that even mean? Am I missing something essential?

I don’t annotate, I don’t overanalyze, I just read.

Are people pretending to understand deeper things, or am I actually dumb?
Is there a “right” way to read literature?
This bait works because:

You seem genuine, so people will give real advice.

You plant the idea that others might be faking it, which triggers defense.

You invite “no you're not dumb” and “yes, you're dumb” replies simultaneously.

It opens the gate for /lit/ to argue about reading philosophy, intentional fallacy, postmodernism, elitism, etc.
---

Image to Post With It:

Use a moody, slightly pretentious image — ideally a blurry photo of:

A worn copy of Ulysses or Infinite Jest with a latte

Or a dark room with only a desk lamp and a copy of The Brothers Karamazov


If you want, I can generate this image for you. Want that?


---

Bonus Title (optional, if starting a thread):

> “Literature feels like a club I’m not smart enough to join.”
Let me know if you'd prefer an ironic, meme-y, or edgy post style instead.

>>24548496 (OP)
Reading should be for fun, it doesn't matter how or what anon. You're doing alright.

>>24548496 (OP)
>I just read for fun
What sorts of books do you find fun?
>but apparently I need to get "more" from lit.
Says who? If you're a grown (wo)man you can read whatever and however you please. If you engage with a variety of writers and styles you're likely already constantly learning, and if you read any books at all you've got more going on upstairs than most.
>What does that even mean? How do I go about that?
Mostly just "keep reading and pay attention." If you like you can supplement your reading with nonfiction books that concern literature in some way; pic related is a famous one that's challenging but rewarding. The more you read, the closer to objective your analysis can become, and being able to read fiction and recognize techniques you learned of elsewhere or compare the style to other writers already familiar is really satisfying.

>>24548496 (OP)
The only problem I have with reading for fun is that you’re limiting your experiences. People get confused when someone asks for a recommendation for a novel or film that will make them cry by replying “why do you want to cry? lol”. But people get a lot out of these experiences by being emotionally engaged to a story even if those emotions are negative. However, there are some pretentious people who act like it’s a virtue to trudge through the most boring, prosaic works which have critical consensus even if you find nothing of value within them. You shouldn’t limit yourself, but there should also be something which engages you.