>>13208 (OP)
>you read any form of genre fiction
done
>you barely know your classics
one can always get better in that respect
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
i don't
>you speak a single language
not my case
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
and what would those be?
>you read for the plot
at times, but sometimes i read stuff i already know how they are going to end, or reread stuff.
>you read for entertainment
sometimes.
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
i would not call it solid…
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Home
i do, instead.
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
what do you mean? that i don't read literature coming from cultures very different than my own? or that, if i do, i don't try to put it into context or think how it's intended audience might receive it?
>you mostly read contemporary literature
nope
>you believe 'the author is dead'
who says that?
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
sometimes it is. or do you think that intricate prose has artistic merit by default?
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
what if the author had his writing proceed from ideology?
>your rarely read poetry
a couple of books a year. is that rarely?
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
i despise modern "poetry" if that's what you mean
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
i wouldn't say that. at times i do, though.
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
definitely not my case.
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
guitly.
and now that i have answered and that i didn't pass the test, i inform you that i'm not going anywhere. have a great life.
