/lit/ - Literature

its because of the nature of modern university systems and teaching/thinking modes.

i read foucault's biography recently and the french university system at the time fostered an extremely competitive and original batch of thinkers for decades on end.(although it did also have a many faults and failures which led to mass protests). there was a culture of intellectualism in which new ideas were always popping up and vying with each other for ascendency (the downside being a climate of snobbery/shallow elitism). now no such culture exists, only the downsides at best.

analytical thinking also has really destroyed the possibilities of thought. it says: writing has to be like this, thinking must follow these rules, if it does not fall into these categories it is not valid/does not exist, if it is stylistically different it not serious, if it is not referenced by a thousand journal articles it is plagiarism.

if philosophy is concept production, then the process of this production has been stopped dead by these analytical demands. we are not allowed to dream up now ways of seeing the world or acting in it because it does not fit within the analytical/empirical/positivist/scientific model. so we mull over the original thoughts of the past and lament the emergence of new ones. (Zizek is no exception, he's just a lasagne of freud/marx/lacan/hegel, not a single original thought)

the truth is we should be responsible for these new thoughts but are too scared or impotent to break out of the restrictions that bind us. it doesn't mean we should reject the past, but find new ways to overcome it and move forward into the future on our own terms (while still connecting with historical terms we find valid like justice/equality/blah blah blah).

i think we can do it. i bet a few of us here can be the names the next generation references because they helped illuminate and improve the lives of others.

>>3667684

Madame Bovary c'est moi.

So what are some examples of pro-establishment/pro-institution literature, preferably fiction?
I was relentlessly forcefed 'anti-establishment' books throughout highschool I want to look into the other side.

>>3527370
I have a bag of dicks for you.

And my 'Shittier example' I provided was at least a common or plausible situation relatable to most human beings. Not some Brits' allegorical vision of what it would take to change the world.

In closing, i put my example in such simple terms so the average /lit/ goer could not mistake what I was trying to say. Guess I was wrong at how low the bar was.

Read OPs post.
Read thread.

None of you morons make the connection that the main character of Rats in the Walls was from a wealth southern family...

>All of you are retarded.

>>3145660
Awwww.

Look everyone! Someone got offended after I accused them of shitting up my thread with retarded shit?

They can't into self-examination of there knee-jerk reactions. Critical thinking failure plebes the lot of you.

>>2766175
As opposed to what? It's a rather absurd question. In order to put a value of life one would have to know a position outside of it, which is per definition impossible for an existing sentient being. Lifeforms are the very things doing the evaluating.

It's like asking if measurement is long.

>>2651519
Right, right.. You want a man that ignores your flaws, accepts your short-comings, and takes cares of your problems - to let you play around in your little dream-scenario?

grow up kid, the world isn't perfect.

oh lawdy...

top 10 most unforgivable spelling mistakes

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/twitter-spelling-mistakes?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twit
ter&utm_medium=buzzfeed

STOP FLATTERING YOURSELVES YOU SELF IMPORTANT FAGGOTS

>The underground man isn't you, he wouldn't like you, you aren't tortured and misunderstood
>Holden Caulfield would think that you are a phony, but honestly fuck Holden Caulfield because what exactly made Salinger so much better than everyone anyways?
>You're not Woody Allen either, nor are you charmingly awkward
>Stephen Dedelus is one hundred times the thinker you are because he is James Joyce and you are an idiot

NONE OF YOU ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE FAGGOTS

I read that T.S. Eliot once said that modern novelists, like modern poets, are supposed to difficult. I read this while reading about W. Somerset Maugham, a novelist who certainly is not difficult to read or understand, though clearly not simple. I'm not saying an author should dumb-down his work, if it is natural for him to write difficult works, but I don't see why a novelist should purposely make his work difficult. Isn't the point of writing that the reader can enjoy what you wrote, not some self-congratulatory intellectual masturbation? I like "difficult" books, but what's so wrong with a simple, enjoyable story anyway?
What is your opinion, lit?

I was curious what the member reviews for Lil Bush would be like on Netflix. This delightful one caught my eye:

"I did not think I would like this cartoon but anything that makes fun of Dumb George is O.K. buy me..."

soup /lit/

Can anyone recommend a good novel by a European author? Yes, any book.

I need one for school and I'm honestly drawing a blank