Be honest. How many of you actually started with the Greeks?

>>24627224 (OP)
I started with the Greeks but not with this shitty boring chart. It needs to be laid to rest

>>24627224 (OP)
im not that interested in stories about fighting unicorns and eating grapes

Other than Homer, I haven't found the Greeks all that interesting. Philosophy isn't my thing.

>>24627224 (OP)
distinct lack of Xenophon here

>>24627224 (OP)
I'm reading the Greeks, but not based on this chart alone. I also don't understand why you would start with Edith Hamilton's book. You're going to read the text with which she was able to write that book anyway. Seems like a waste of time that actively hurts the magic of discovering it on your own.

>>24627263
I'd recommend you read Hesiod and the tragedians if you enjoy Homer.

>>24627224 (OP)
I just read the poets, not the scholarly translations, but the ones done by actual poets

>>24627300
>the text with which she was able to write that book
which is?

>>24627224 (OP)
I didn’t even understand a word of the Greeks which I read but I did get the basic idea of it. I liked what I understood along with what I didn’t understand.

>>24627224 (OP)
Because of public schooling, nobody can truly claim to have started with the greeks. Public school is pretty pozzed but it still qualifies as "starting". So any grecofag who believes they "started" with anything greek is either deluding themselves or else they went to some eccentric private school where they probably got molested.

>>24627367
and what if you went to school in athens

>>24627350
All of the myths that she is recounting.

>>24627367
I started with Magic Tree House.

>>24627224 (OP)
I picked up Edith Hamilton's book by chance. Didn't even know it had a reputation on this board. Bought it because I know nothing about mythology.

Classical mythology fucking sucks. I can't follow anything. It's like reading competing fanfictions on AO3. None of these stories are interesting in their own. There's nothing interesting about reading "And then X killed Y who came back to life and kidnapped Z, who..." Thank God Christianity wiped all that away.

>>24627386
Why do people that clearly haven't read anything talk about shit they don't know anything about?

>>24627393
it's not entertaining like harry potter therefore bad

>>24627386
Yeah it does suck if you read dry Wikipedia plot summary descriptions of it

>>24627393
Disagree with me if you want but I literally have a copy of it that I'm reading through

>>24627397
That's basically what it is

>>24627372
Probability of molestation reaches 100%
>>24627380
Based

>>24627350
probably
>Metamorphoses
>Appolodorus
>Homer
>Hesiod

>>24627401
I believe you're reading Mythology. I'm just wondering why you're dismissing classical mythology as a whole based on summaries of the tales you're reading. Of course they suck, read the source. You wouldn't read spark notes of Proust and say "wow, this guy sucks" you'd read the whole thing.

>>24627414
Yeah I'm being facetious. The book is boring. I'm open to Greek mythology.

>>24627224 (OP)
I did; and I'm still reading them six years later.

I read Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides and the Playwrights so yeah
They were great
I didn't bother with Plato or Aristotle because I'm not interested in philosophy

>>24627224 (OP)
I started with this chart and have read everything in it apart from the Cambridge Companion to Theater, can't remember if it's out of print or just stupidly expensive. I think it could be improved, maybe more tragic plays between Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides so you have a greater understanding of Greek mythology and knowledge of the works by Euripides, Aeschylus, or Sophocles that may be referenced by Plato and Aristotle. You can also get through them relatively quickly, compared to how lengthy Herodotus and Thucydides' respective works are. Then finally Hesiod before going on to the philosophers.
You absolutely do not need to read all of Aristotle, there's plenty of great compilations of his major philosophical and scientific works out there. The more niche stuff you can go back to later.

>>24627224 (OP)
I did but not with this awful chart. We really need to stop posting that around. Innocent readers could fall prey to the gruesome notion they have to go through the epic cycle fragments.

>>24628791

I understand skipping Aristotele but Plato is alot of fun, especially the Socrates dialogues.
Socrates asks a question if some guy agrees with a premise then shows that the premise leads to absurd conclusions. The reader is at the end left wondering what went wrong in the chain of reasoning. It's not dry, it's actually a lot of fun.

>>24627224 (OP)
I’m doing it right now.

>>24628822
Unfortunately your retarded chart left out the Stoics, so you still haven’t read the Greeks. But at least you read Hesiod, who nobody reads or cares about. Congrats

>>24628865
The point of the chart is to be an introduction to the Greeks and give you a frame of reference for the past 2000 years of western literature that continues their tradition, it's not an introduction to western philosophy. If you want to continue with philosophy, then yeah read Epicurus, the Stoics, the Cynics etc. There's even more poetry and theater to read, too. I forgot to even mention Xenophon, who absolutely should be on the chart. Both the Persian Expedition and the Cyropaedia are must reads

>starting with the greeks
starting with gilgamesh is the correct choice

>>24628893
I’m pretty “start with the Greeks” is usually said to people wanting to get into philosophy and it has been misinterpreted as a general directive

>>24628954
It applies to all western literature, that's undeniable. Whether you're on a philosophy or literature degree you'll be reading the Greeks first

>>24628959
You won't read the same authors, which is why this chart is stupid. It should be deleted for good.

>>24628967
You're moronic and I won't waste my time with this discussion any longer

>>24628865
This is about starting with the Greeks, not completing the Greeks, you retard. Maybe take a minute to process what you're reading before you post next time.

>>24628970
The heck? You're the dimwit to believe Hesiod or Herodotus is a requirement to read philosophy.

>>24628972
“Starting with the Greeks” meaning before you move up the philosophy ladder to other cultures, you dunning kruger idiot. Not “starting” as in we’re just getting started with the Greeks exclusively. Lmao

>>24629024
You're the one making up that it's a philosophy chart.

>>24628858
>not emily wilson

>>24629060
>whether you're on a philosophy or literature degree you'll be reading the Greeks first
>you're the one making up that it's a philosophy chart

If the chart is so bad, what should someone new to the Greeks read instead?

>>24629070
Whatever tickles their fancy, first and foremost. Plato’s dialogues are always good, too

>>24629069
Ok? The chart still isn't a philosophy chart. It's a Greek literature chart.

>>24629070
If the aim to ‘start with the Greeks’ is to get enough background to move forth rather than to delve into Greek literature itself, then you can reasonably ditch Hesiod, Theognis, Herodotus, some of Plato and most of Aristotle, and the Presocratics as well. I would focus on Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, orators (mostly Demosthenes and Isocrates), and Plutarch.

>>24629075
Then why do you claim that it's worthwhile whether you're a philosophy or a literature major? This chart is bad because it doesn't seem to have an actual topic. If it's about Greek literature, how come does Aristotle, epic fragments and the Presocratics make their way into it?

>>24629083
You really have a problem with reading comprehension.

>>24629083
>why would Aristotle be on a Greek literature chart
Because he wrote some of the most famous and influential Greek literature in history. How is that even a fucking question?

>>24629088
Aristotle is completely irrelevant in literature and what's left of his is basically hand notes taken from students. Do you know what literature is? What exactly is the influence of Aristotle in literature?

>>24629094
dante?

>>24627224 (OP)
based on this thread alone, not many of us I'm afraid. I haven't as well but wish to.

>>24629083
>If it's about Greek literature, how come does Aristotle, epic fragments and the Presocratics make their way into it?
Because its Greek literature?
>>24629094
Have you ever read Aristotle before?

>>24629094
>Aristotle in literature?
anon...

>>24629094
>Aristotle is completely irrelevant in literature
His written works have made him one of the most influential human beings to ever live

>>24629058
yes, well done, that is the implication. My point is that it also doesn't imply anywhere that the list is meant to be an exhaustive catalogue of all the essential Greek texts in history. You've just hallucinated that bit. Clearly this is a pre-Hellenistic list as there are some major (and popular) works like Plutarch's Lives and Argonautica which aren't included.

>tfw you don't know what literature means

>>24627224 (OP)
I read some plays like Prometheus and some Plato, went back as necessary. I don’t think I’ll ever read all that. I still would like to read Homer’s epics one day. I still haven’t read major works like the republic either, there’s just too much to do.