/lit/ - Literature

>>5698164
>Is literature not made to entertain?
Some is, not most. Is the main problem people have with "genre" literature, while some sperg lords repeat formulas and think that having a genre is the problem the thing is that any work made to appeal a genre will be inferior to one that uses it to work something.
This doesn't mean that it teaches something, but that it communicates ideas through the situations it presents. From simple general thesis like BNW to commentary on human nature like you'd find in a good Cheever story.
You can be entertained by it, a lot of people is entertained with their work or menial tasks in the house, it's not a merit nor something that really should be a goal to achieve.

>Why are more ideas better than less ideas?
Besides the obvious "more is more than less" you can have more in depth ideas even if less in a work that's made to deal with them instead of distracting you with them.

>Why are denser mediums superior to lighter mediums?
I never said superior, they are different. I though you wanted to know why some people consider literature a more mature or complex medium, but there is no superiority in human creation since it's a relative value. It becomes easier to see if you ask "Is painting superior to music?", it depends what for and how silly you are that you need to ask.

Hey, OP, mind sending me a copy too?
ilovemybuilding@gmail.com

>>5684007
And ringo too, I just love you anon <3
Don't check the source, though, it's a horrible anime.

B-but...
I can't tell if you're baiting of if tour sincere! That's some great stuff man!

Let's see.
It's nothing new, structuralism is more than a hundred years old and it's pretty much the first serious method to (among many things) analyse literature. Obviously it's gonna remain a topic to touch just as we read about Freud when talking about psychoanalisis, even if you, or the world, don't like it it's still the origin of many things.
That's not to say that a lot of ideas from structuralism aren't valid, unlike that absurd idea that post-modernity is a thing that rules us, most theorist prefer to take a bit from both schools.
Post-structuralism, still, made a lot of serious corrections to the previous theories, and anyone with common sense would recognize the basic ideas (even if they have pretty complex ramifications later on).

Todorov is the go to starting point for structuralism, then Roland Barthes is a pretty comfy (although some times complex) author to to walk from pre to post.

But all in all great bate, even if it's just "I don't wanna read the full wiki article" bait.

>>5641217
Nada más giles dicen que el que no roba es un gil, y gente que tiene más miedo de ser herida que de no lograr sus metas.

>>5641229
But that was after this first publications, when he went to Cuba and had some Ron with revolutionaries, I can't see what did he think that would happen

>>5641204
How much rape are you charging?

>>5638686
My posts are 100% well though up quality and I strive to make /lit/ a better place. You're jelly that you can't have a gimmick like me, but you can also do it, anon, I believe in you!

>>5634031
>Eraserhead wasnt that good imo.
When you take in consideration that he had recently become a father it becomes a hell of a psychoanalysis session.
Also, it was his first film with a year between each half because he run out of money. There are many things to notice about how he translated his sculpture and painting background to film and the aspects of the medium he devoted to.
In symbolism terms it may be a bit more heavy handed and straight than his later work, but for a learning process it's pretty great.

>On Jacob's Ladder
I just was pretty underwhelmed when I saw it. People paint it as an absolute classic and, while interesting, I feel most of the praise came from the 90's being pretty empty of that kind of stuff. If it had been done in the early 80's or before people wouldn't had noticed at all.

I'm glad you weren't the guy getting buttmad. That kind of people is quite boring to have around.


>Because it makes interpretation much easier?
There is this weir boner people get with obscurity that is quite weird. I don't quite like hoe unrestrained Jodorowsky is because it ends up taking away from his point, but the fact that he is quite clear with his intentions shouldn't be a detriment.
I also liked Synechdoque New York, for a more modern example, which was quite evident and even discussed itself. Obscuring your meaning isn't inherently better than dealing with it.

>>5628507
Nah, thanks for the offer. I barely have sex drive and I reserve it for people that I admire.

>>5606918
I can't do anything about people getting mad, it's their problem and their offtopic thread.

>>5603217
It's cute that you think things in the internet matter to anyone.

>>5579948

>>5471134
The word seems to be "transbian" as in transexual lesbian.

>>5471140
This is getting lewd.