/lit/ - Literature

>muh structuralism
>muh post-colonial theory
>muh critical theory
>muh feminist theory
>muh personal expression
>muh word games

>>10688759

Most r*ddit comment I've seen on this website.

>>9409985

Poor word choice, small and generic vocabulary, simple sentence structure, first degree meaning only, unaware of the musicality of words (no attention paid to rhythm, sound, word play, etc...)

''But why is lack of X bad, objectively?''

Because the sound must seem an echo to the sense.

''But why?''

Read Pope.

''But why can't you demonstrate it here and now, in simple terms''?

Because we cannot apply mathematical rigor to subjects of which the objective rules we can barely grasp.

Consider Chess for a moment, or how about Go, which is said to have even more possibilities. In any given position, there is a best move possible. However, it's impossible for the human mind to brute force its way to the solution. So you take another path, the path of instincts, intuition and 'often true but not always' general rules; like controlling the center or doubling your opponent's pawns. As a human player, you are more likely to beat your opponent by playing to somewhat uncertain and mystical rules than trying to solve the game.

What are the possibilities of literature and of human thought? Finite, to be sure, but the number is unfathomable. So, like in Chess, or Go, you must follow the path of the unsteady wooden log that nobody seems to fall off of for some reason.

The sound being an echo to the sense is one such rule and for the reasons cited by all of the poets across the ages. When you stop playing by the rules, you're not being clever, you're practicing avoidance coping. Likewise, the crab opening might make you seem clever, but you're unlikely to win.

The issue with literature compared to a board game is that there is no clear goal, no way to win definitely. And so, I can't tell you in the absolute sense why Keats is better than Rupi Kaur by virtue of what he does ; perhaps someone here can, and I'm too dumb, but I can at least tell you why he's above her by virtue of what he is not doing, such as lowering the heaven-aspiring goals of art to that of a commodity, dumbing down the masses with genericness and insulting human sensibility with vulgarity.

On a related note, I think you should read 'The Educated Imagination' by Northrop Frye.

>>9153046
You stole my favourite painting so I'll post this instead