/lit/ - Literature

Before I became an author myself, I held an inflated estimate of the number of copies the typical book (bestselling or otherwise) sold. I also thought the author earned more per book than he really does. In my experience, the general public shares the misconceptions I once held.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/nobody-sells-millions-of-copies/

>Literature is not a good source of knowledge about the world.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/06/truth-from-fiction-truth-or-fiction.html

Try to guess what the following have in common:

1) a man comes up to me and kicks me in the shins
2) a mother reminds her daughter that it’s not ladylike to spit
3) a group of friends form a club for Chicago residents of Polish descent
4) a philosopher proposes an explanation of reality
5) an essayist claims that America’s history has been one of expanding freedom.

If you’re a postmodernist, you’ve probably guessed that these are all instances of “violence”. Those of you who haven’t afflicted your sanity by reading Nietzsche, Lyotard, Foucault, etc. are no doubt confused—surely only #1 is violence? Here’s the claim: the philosopher in #4 and the essayist in #5 are proposing “metanarratives” or “metaphysics”, which means they’re trying to impose their view of the world on everyone else and crush other legitimate worldviews. All attempts to explain a multiplicity of facts under a unitary scheme, we are told, are instruments of “violence”. Similarly, the mother in #2 is using rules of etiquette to assert her will to power and crush the spirit of her daughter. Okay, so if unity is oppressive, multiplicity must be good, right? Nope, despite what they sometimes say, postmodernists hate particularity too. The friends in #3, by limiting the membership of their club, are excluding the “other” out of sheer hatred for non-Poles. Only their weakness keeps them from committing genocide. Well, then, if all of these things are violence, what isn’t violence? Nothing—the will to power is the only reality.

>Try to guess what the following have in common:

1) a man comes up to me and kicks me in the shins
2) a mother reminds her daughter that it’s not ladylike to spit
3) a group of friends form a club for Chicago residents of Polish descent
4) a philosopher proposes an explanation of reality
5) an essayist claims that America’s history has been one of expanding freedom.

If you’re a postmodernist, you’ve probably guessed that these are all instances of “violence”. Those of you who haven’t afflicted your sanity by reading Nietzsche, Lyotard, Foucault, etc. are no doubt confused—surely only #1 is violence? Here’s the claim: the philosopher in #4 and the essayist in #5 are proposing “metanarratives” or “metaphysics”, which means they’re trying to impose their view of the world on everyone else and crush other legitimate worldviews. All attempts to explain a multiplicity of facts under a unitary scheme, we are told, are instruments of “violence”. Similarly, the mother in #2 is using rules of etiquette to assert her will to power and crush the spirit of her daughter. Okay, so if unity is oppressive, multiplicity must be good, right? Nope, despite what they sometimes say, postmodernists hate particularity too. The friends in #3, by limiting the membership of their club, are excluding the “other” out of sheer hatred for non-Poles. Only their weakness keeps them from committing genocide. Well, then, if all of these things are violence, what isn’t violence? Nothing—the will to power is the only reality.

>Try to guess what the following have in common:

1) a man comes up to me and kicks me in the shins
2) a mother reminds her daughter that it’s not ladylike to spit
3) a group of friends form a club for Chicago residents of Polish descent
4) a philosopher proposes an explanation of reality
5) an essayist claims that America’s history has been one of expanding freedom.

If you’re a postmodernist, you’ve probably guessed that these are all instances of “violence”. Those of you who haven’t afflicted your sanity by reading Nietzsche, Lyotard, Foucault, etc. are no doubt confused—surely only #1 is violence? Here’s the claim: the philosopher in #4 and the essayist in #5 are proposing “metanarratives” or “metaphysics”, which means they’re trying to impose their view of the world on everyone else and crush other legitimate worldviews. All attempts to explain a multiplicity of facts under a unitary scheme, we are told, are instruments of “violence”. Similarly, the mother in #2 is using rules of etiquette to assert her will to power and crush the spirit of her daughter. Okay, so if unity is oppressive, multiplicity must be good, right? Nope, despite what they sometimes say, postmodernists hate particularity too. The friends in #3, by limiting the membership of their club, are excluding the “other” out of sheer hatred for non-Poles. Only their weakness keeps them from committing genocide. Well, then, if all of these things are violence, what isn’t violence? Nothing—the will to power is the only reality.

Wow. Postmodernism sounds dreadful.

>>949071

>In his 1975 autobiographical book "Der grosse Basar" ("The Great Bazaar"), Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit describes his experiences as a teacher in a Frankfurt Kinderladen. When the children entrusted to his care opened his fly and began stroking his penis, he writes, "I was usually quite taken aback. My reactions varied, depending on the circumstances."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html

>Are Libraries Necessary, or a Waste of Tax Money?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/library-taxes-closed-20100628

>>834883

I don't know her name.

>Fiction has become culturally irrelevant.

http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/where-have-all-mailers-gone#

I hate when they put modern art on the book-cover.

>Plato

The overwhelming majority of my friends don't read books. Not a big deal. But a couple of them have expressed shock when I've told them that I've read many books multiple times.