/lit/ - Literature

>>11305027
Fuck no man

Don't touch anything that says post-modern philosophy is about "metanarratives". Also, there isn't really such a thing as postmodern philosophy. There's structuralism which is based off of Ferdinand de Saussure's work, incl. people like Levi-Strauss, Jakobson, early Lacan. Then there was a pivotal talk by Derrida at a 1966 conference on structuralism at Johns Hopkins University. The talk was called "Structure, Sign and Play in the discourse of the human sciences" and it basically (some would say) bodied all the structuralist thinkers of the day. Structuralism was basically buried in intellectual circles and replaced with post-structuralism, which incl. thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, later Lacan etc.
Heres a good article about that conference if you're interested:
>http://quarterlyconversation.com/the-french-invasion

If you want a quick route into post-structuralism (which is universally seen as more interesting than structuralism), what you really need is a good knowledge of Nietzsche, Freud, and to a lesser degree Marx. It's alright to read secondary materials on these thinkers like stanford, except for Nietzsche, whose Geneology of Morals you should *definitely* read before approaching any post-structuralist thought. Also you have to read Sausseure's Course in General Linguistics (I think that's the name it's been a while since i looked at this stuff).

After you've done that, you should have enough of a foothold to start reading Foucault, who is the best inroad to primary materials on post-structuralism. His essay "What is an Author?" and his book "Discipline and Punish" (which is a good complement to Nietzsche's Geneology of morals because of the topical overlap), were my starting points with him.

If you want a more detailed guide on how to get into "postmodern" philosophy, I can recommend this blogpost, even though it is really extensive and requires a lot of reading:
>http://fuckyeahlogical.tumblr.com/post/170680617708/an-abbreviated-guide-to-the-study-of-continental
It should be kind of obvious which sections of this you can safely ignore if you just want to focus on structural and post-structural (and adjacent movements like post-marxist) thought.

Basically it depends what level of understanding of this stuff you want to have. I personally took the first route because I'm not especially interested in 20th century philosophy, but I don't understand these thinkers nearly as well as someone who has any dedication to finding out what they thought.

Also a token rec of Rene Girard, who is kind of part of this intellectual circle but also reacting against it. He also has the advantage of requiring absolutely zero background reading except a passing knowledge of freud's main concepts, like oedipus complex, ambivalence, and super-ego. Violence and the Sacred is his most famous book.
Paul Fry's Yale Lectures on lit theory are also a good survey of this thought

>>11061157
Post-Sam

>>10394457
Authors are inherently revolutionary, but texts are inherently preservationist. This is why they'll never get along

>>10062916
>be straight male
>have really gay dream where all i do for the whole dream is kiss various cute guys
>wake up without an erection
Anon's assorted noggin joggers no. 99

>>9860429
>In Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, there's a verse that says "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day". Well Shakespeare wanted to say that the person in question is "mediocre", because the summer day in England isn't really that hot - it's generally warm, but it's often cloudy and rainy.

Yo, OP, don't want to rag on you like many others in the thread, because you aren't entirely wrong, but Shakespeare does mean this as a compliment.

>Shall I compare thee to a summer's day
>Thou art more lovely and more temperate
Here, it's presented as a good thing that English summer's are "temperate", meaning they are an ideal balanced temperature. So, the fact that the person that the sonnet is addressed to is "temperate", means they are sort of serene and (for lack of a better word) balanced and not temperamental. It is meant as a compliment and not to suggest that the person is mediocre

>>9369342
sam hyde is modern day diogenes

>>8849901

>>8824773
As you probably know /lit/, Sam Hyde has written a novel. Yes, Sam Hyde. The school shooter. The guy who does talks at events that literally anyone can do talks at and pretends it's a big deal. The slut who stalks traps on /r9k/, then sucks his/her giant cock, his mascara smeared, and chokes down the semen as Charls fucks him from behind.

You all know him.

That said, how does it make you feel that Sam Hyde is a published author and you're not? How does it make you feel that he is able to get his $100 book out there, regardless of whether it's a great piece of lit or not, and you are not?

>inb4 ghostwritten
Even if it was, someone who's good enough to render something publishable has settled for doing just that, secretly writing for a YouTube comedian and not getting his/her own name on the cover of that book. How does it make you feel that someone good enough to write even a mediocre book has to settle for being the ghostwriter of a neo-nazi terrorist?

>>8691222
You're of a fucking roll dude
Nice trips

>>8672359
>POP vinyl figurines

>>8658302
In all seriousness I lost count of how many books I've read. the book is an over hyped piece of shit meme. My grandfather was telling me I'd like it because conspiracy. I was excited at first, then became angry I wasted a couple days of my life