42 books
—
6 voters
Literary Analysis Books
Showing 1-50 of 1,883

by (shelved 18 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.58 — 33,541 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 11 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.54 — 23,738 ratings — published 2021

by (shelved 11 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.13 — 44,451 ratings — published 1949

by (shelved 7 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.34 — 312,816 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 7 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.98 — 27,332 ratings — published

by (shelved 7 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.26 — 53,314 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 6 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.28 — 3,210 ratings — published 1964

by (shelved 6 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.84 — 4,039 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 6 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.77 — 11,703 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 6 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.33 — 2,673 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 5 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.23 — 2,745 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 5 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.64 — 2,327 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.32 — 4,678 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.20 — 3,265 ratings — published 1961

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.29 — 3,713 ratings — published 1942

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.65 — 4,537 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.03 — 3,676 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.22 — 251,260 ratings — published 1929

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.83 — 6,230 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 4 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.01 — 2,151 ratings — published 1928

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.36 — 2,802 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.18 — 137 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.22 — 25,721 ratings — published 2020

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.75 — 115,510 ratings — published -1200

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.03 — 1,971 ratings — published 2022

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.94 — 2,938 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.09 — 2,137 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.07 — 5,847 ratings — published 2020

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.26 — 1,666 ratings — published 1942

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.24 — 7,084 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.41 — 7,496 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.99 — 8,024 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.12 — 1,465 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.78 — 223,912 ratings — published 1611

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.76 — 1,712 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.76 — 416 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.94 — 5,613 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.77 — 4,392 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.01 — 1,264 ratings — published 1961

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.81 — 350 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.85 — 672 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.22 — 7,108 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.28 — 1,454 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.96 — 351 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.21 — 9,187 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 4.08 — 643 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.61 — 3,815 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.64 — 1,258 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.87 — 10,745 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 3 times as literary-analysis)
avg rating 3.67 — 30,846 ratings — published 1981

“Anybody gets to ask questions about any fiction-related issues she wants. No question about literature is stupid. You are forbidden to keep yourself from asking a question or making a comment because you fear it will sound obvious or unsophisticated or lame or stupid. Because critical reading and prose fiction are such hard, weird things to try to study, a stupid-seeming comment or question can end up being valuable or even profound.
I am deadly-serious about creating a classroom environment where everyone feels free to ask or speak about anything she wishes. So any student who groans, smirks, mimes machines-gunning or onanism, chortles, eye-rolls, or in any way ridicules some other student's in-class question/comment will be warned once in private and on the second offense will be kicked out of class and flunked, no matter what week it is. If the offender is male, I am also apt to find him off-campus and beat him up.”
―
I am deadly-serious about creating a classroom environment where everyone feels free to ask or speak about anything she wishes. So any student who groans, smirks, mimes machines-gunning or onanism, chortles, eye-rolls, or in any way ridicules some other student's in-class question/comment will be warned once in private and on the second offense will be kicked out of class and flunked, no matter what week it is. If the offender is male, I am also apt to find him off-campus and beat him up.”
―

“Yeah,” I agreed, “the author just immediately tries to write down as many emotions as possible. Initially, I thought that the method of writing was ineffective, but eventually, I realized how the structure potently manifested her passion for her own thoughts about mental illness and the restrictions of herself and the woman in the yellow wallpaper. First off, the experience-oriented writing was relevant to the conveyance of the author’s ideas, because since the writing was, well, about experiences, the issues the author was addressing appeared to be more based on the reality of society, not a hypothetical model of it, and the issues really were based on the reality of society, since some of the events in the book were actually based on events in the author’s life. Also, the spontaneity and honesty of the writing was an effective choice of the author. I observed that the narrator’s silence in the presence of her husband and her spontaneous and expressive writing were juxtaposed, which emphasized the restrictions the narrator was put in and also her progressive views on mental health and her ability to stay true to herself. Also, this way of writing exemplifies that the narrator had to hold in so much thought because of her restrictions. She wrote without hesitation! In other words, her spontaneous writing and the lack of thematic structure in her writing showed her ability to stay true to her own beliefs.”
― The Reformation
― The Reformation