/lit/ - Literature

Also,
>Wagner

Interesting thread, d&e.

Tell me this though; if literature quality can be analysed in a purely objective way then why is there no mathematical equation for assessing this quality?

The dietitian and the carpenter rely upon mathematics, why not the literary critic?

I am not saying that the opinion of literary critics is not informed, but it still relys upon a significant amount of subjective interpretation, like psychiatry for example, which is often considered an art.

Perhaps one day we will have a formula to produce a masterpiece as you suppose, but we have not reached that point yet and perhaps our minds are simply too irrational as i'm sure a supported of the frankfurt institute would argue for such a firmly objective analysis to arise.

And probably by that time we will have stopped calling it literary criticism and start calling it 'neurology'.

>>1734942
or maybe just my terrible bitmap editor (paintbrush for mac)

>>1705748

Statistically unsurprising.

>>1639974

I've only been once and it was fun. My friend has a job there though.

Are you an edinburgher?

>>1627245

I've read Zizek's political commentary on this issue, I heard he has very similar views to Baudrillard.

>>1627260

I have actually already heard about Dynamical Systems Theory in an article in New Scientist. Also, why criticize me for not knowing something and then quote directly from wikipedia?

>>1627264

If you consider that the theory proposes that our intricate orders of thought are subject to a constant system of construction and destruction then I think it could definitely be attributed to the idea that our existence is in a permanent state of flux.

Someone twin this thread with a /soc/ thread and we'll settle this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/21/teaching-creative-writing-classic-fiction

>mfw when I'm taking computer science and psychology and i'm male

>>1486603

Ok, I understand now.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you have a personal belief in any of the theories which attempt to explain quantum? Multiverse theory, Transactional theory..?

Or do you subscribe to the "shut up and calculate" ethos?

>>1433303