Appreciating literature and poetry

This topic lead to a bit of discussion on other websites when I started it so might as well talk about it here too. How do you best appreciate a book? Do you read it in a superficial way and only look at the surface (story, setting) or do you go deeper to find more? Most books released nowadays barely have any deeper meaning, they mostly repeat "criticism" that was mentioned in tons of other books (for example like most YA or dystopia books criticise our current society) Is it correct to analyze poems and prose or should they be enjoyed aesthetically and emotionally? I like to think of this movie clip of The Dead Poets Society https://youtu.be/LjHORRHXtyI

I haven't read much literature but I am going through some philosophical novels soon; Dostoyevsky and Pirsig. My thoughts on the matter are in my thread https://lainchan.org/lit/res/7.html which sadly has been only responded to three times, and of those three have completely disregarded the topic. How one first goes through a book I believe should be attempting to see and converse with the author. If the book is sufficiently interesting, read it a second time with a sharper eye and asking more questions but in a manner of challenging the author. Re-read as many times as necessary and pause frequently. https://philosophynow.org/issues/94/I_Re-Read_Therefore_I_Understand I'm more inclined to read classics than what's current.

>>137 I also prefer classics over whats current but I can't help but feel pretentious saying that out loud. Truth be told I know very little about contemporary literature and perhaps if I made an effort to learn I'd be able to find some enjoyable reads. >>114 Of course I try to appreciate stories at a deeper level. With poetry my chief pleasure is an appreciation for the aesthetics and emotional appeal but if the poet is writing in a context I am particularly interested in I try my best to analyze it.

>Is it correct to analyze poems and prose or should they be enjoyed aesthetically and emotionally? I don't think this is an either/or situation. Great literature sees aesthetic and intellectual enjoyment come together to create a whole package that is best served by a combined approach. Consider the poetry of Wallace Stevens, for example. He's a master of rhythm and musicality, and the beauty of his words easily stands on its own. However, his poems are also imbued with cutting insight regarding the nature of being and perception, and a student of his would be sorely missing out if they were to ignore this aspect of his work. That said, I would much rather read something "purely" aesthetic than "purely" intellectual. Beauty is the soul of art, and it is something far bigger and more complex than we will ever understand. Intellect is a human device, and it can be satisfied elsewhere.

You can actually make mad hiphop bars with finnegans wake. Lots of phonetically beautiful passages, rhymes and nonsense. A hook consists of simple repetition. This is hiena hinessy laughing alout at the willingdone This is lipsyg dooley krieging the funk from the hinnessy. This is hinndoo shimar shin between the dooley Boy and the hinnessy Tip! This is the wixy old willingdone picket up the half of the three Hook: Foiled hat Of lipoleums fromoud of the bluddle filth Foiled hat Of lipoleums Fromoud of the bluddle filth

>>114 I don't see how analyzing a work stands in contradiction to enjoying something aesthetically and emotionally. Of course intuitive appreciation comes first though; no one would bother to analyze literature if it wasn't appealing sans the analysis.

I judge all art on the same basis: Stickiness. If it sticks in my brain I appreciate it, especially if it sticks for a long time. Art is more socially successful overall if it sticks in the collective consciousness more than other works for a long period of time, among many people, and is referenced often. My judgment is a function of these three variables: Rate, Count, and Period. But hey that's just me. Subjection is subjective.

Im not trying to even brag because im fuarrrking retarded but I can read almost anything and get all the implications and meanings of it instantly. I only read at about a slightly above average pace though im not rainman or something. When I was in like 1st - 4th grade the teachers thought I was going to be a genius or some kind of savant cause I had a college reading level. Unfortunately i'm still just average aside from this. I rarely read these days though and to be honest nothing about writing I find impressive. I dont see it as an amazing skill, ive never been surprised by writing alone. I dont think its that hard, I myself am not good at it because I make a lot of jumps that I understand in my head but dont explain properly and am scatterbrained as soykaf. However I do find storytelling to be a great skill. So what grips me about a book is usually ideas, and mainly fictional stories. Tragedies especially. I really like to be surprised and see something I havent seen before too. If the book is organized strangely or is willing to explore ideas that are super risque thats always a positive. I like stories about people that feel real, i like them to be really emotional. I absolutely hate philosophy books. They always read to me like somebody who was so self impressed that they came up with an idea they decided to just write some boring drull soykaf instead of actually incorporating that idea into a much more impactful allegory or story. Rarely has the ideas of some philosopher been that interesting to me, and often times I came up with something similar just walking around and thinking. It might not be as perfect as theirs, but most of these philosophers are also usually 10 or 20 years older than me and have been reading and studying the stuff for all that time. Which I think is pretty sad because it doesnt look like it got them much of anywhere. I also have a fear of reading books to be honest. I worry they will influence my mind too much and take away my creativity and originality. Especially things like philosophy and self help books because its just someone yelling at you, I dont get to draw my own meaning from it. If I dont get to draw my own meaning, somebody is putting their ideas about life and how to live life directly in my brain. And I worry what I learn in these sorts of books is only relevant to other people who have read the same books. I dont feel this way about stories because even though the author is trying to get an idea across, its more natural. Its as if I bore witness to a scenario and came up with an idea myself. So I guess the less the author tries to impress his meaning on you and the more he just creates a scene and actors that play out the more I like it.

>>701 How do you know if you get ALL the implementations and meanings?

>>702 good question. i dont know use my oujia board to communicate psychically with the author.

>>701 post all the meanings and implications of In a Station of the Metro

>>722 never read it, probably wont read it. you guys need to chill. i guess if its really creative then I wouldnt get all the meanings and implications. thats why I said I like stories that allow me to pull my own meaning and it isnt obvious the writer is trying to convey a specific set of ideas . If not I know I get all the meanings and implications in the same way you know you get a math problem or get anything else. you just know, and when you google the book and its meaning everything listed you understood. i know you may want to think im just deluded and dont get anything actually but thats not gonna happen. ive done this sort of soykaf before, ive taken tests, and ive had comments made by professors and teachers. im really good at reading, period. that was my insight on what kind of books i like as someone whos really good at reading and "gifted" in that area which is a soykafty thing to be gifted at anyways because books only get so difficult. Its not some field that if i keep exploring il make something out of it or develop more. il learn new soykaf I wont get that much better at reading. im sure theres some more important thing you could own me at too.

>>730 I just looked it up and its a poem. poems werent really what I was talking about. you could argue I should have said that but I think it should have been very obvious. I guess this is what I meant by im a soykaf writer. I thought about mentioning not poems or more artistic writings that can sometimes be very subjective but I figured that from talking about philosophy books and stories it was clear. i actually like poems quite a lot.

>>730 >>731 Okay, explain all the meanings and implications of Wittgenstein's Tractatus then.

I understand good art, in general, as something that makes me feel new things or makes me record old feelings that I haven't felt in a long time. Sometimes it takes a deeper look, sometimes it doesn't.

I read: >Books for the message technical information, how-tos >books for the feels philosophical texts or poetic verse Although I can appreciate prose, I do not read books specifically for it, I have found that getting to the bottom of the message is usually better than if the message is displayed poetically. Basically the same thing as when I watch media, anime for the mood, and documentaries for the information. I personally feel that emotion comes from good text naturally, and should not require detailed analysis (in the event it does, it has failed to capture the appreciation it seeks to convey) Literature I see as a conversation, normally a monologue. If one has to ask oneself what the writer was trying to say, then one fails for receive the message as the writer intended, which is also why I despise writers who try to be artificially complex for the sake of ambiguity alone.

>>701 >I also have a fear of reading books to be honest. I worry they will influence my mind too much and take away my creativity and originality this is a fear that i've felt as well. i just try to not pummel my brain with constant expository books, especially related to politics and philosophy. but it's not easy trying to keep my "original" thoughts intact from authors and other influencers

>>114 For all lainons looking to develop their abilities at analysing and appreciating texts of all kind, I can't recommend "How To Read A Book" enough. It's thorough and rigorous, albeit a bit dry and repetitive at times. However it's my bible and probably one of my favourite books. At the very least, brief the table of contents. Those that delve into the book, don't take the authors' criticism of fiction too much at heart.