/lit/ - Literature

Conspicuous lack of Foucault.

>Deep&Edgy

sage goes in every field

>Uses the word 'paradigmatic'
>Expects us to take him seriously

>>1254926
Yeah I thought about him for a while but I don't feel comfortable calling him a literary theorist

>>1254929

>>talks like a young, arrogant twat of an adjunct professor
>>expects us to care about his buffy and philosophy book

>Lacan, Kristeva, etc. not in charlatan tier

Could your pathetic trolling be ANY MORE FUCKING OBVIOUS D&E?

>>1254936
What son u don like a bit of fort-da every now and then?

>Lacan

>>1254933
What

>Lacan't

Well I agree with the shit tier at least but you should know better than to include the guy who tried to turn his failed ideas for social action into (almost literally) masturbatory modes of textual (anti-)analysis

Seriously fuck Barthes why don't you just include some faggot Victorian who thinks literature can turn the underclass into better, more submissive factory workers

>crowley

>>1254946

switch Kristeva and Saussure and I'm okay with this

spot on with top tier

what about Eco?

>>1254928
Freuds own literary contributions sucked and is hardly read. It is the theories from other discourses we use him for in the literary field. Same goes with Saussure. Also a fuckton of the work of these theorists is fundamentally based in Saussures work. This is just one out of a hilarious amount of flaws your retarded "putting in booth". Please tell me you're trolling, if not end your life.

>>1254928
Also: Either you list them based on their litterary works or you base them on the importance of their works in general. You fail to differentiate, which makes you a hipsterfaggotnigger.
F-
also imad

bump

>>1254964
Okay brah, I am willing to admit I maybe should have put that robot Saussure in Paradigmatic tier.

You forgot Hegel in paradigmatic tier and Deleuze in good tier.

>>1254984
Okay bro this is literary theory not bullshit any critical theorist goes discursivity, there are cutoff points

And your point is?

bump, I think we're only 3 ppl monitoring this thread.
>>1254985
Also agree with op on that one IF he has decided that the list is indeed intended to represent literary theorists, see my post
>>1254970

>>1254970
>Either you list them based on their litterary works or you base them on the importance of their works in general
The one implies the other and either are inseparable. mebbe u prefer if I rank them on fuckability? young barthes and cixous confirmed for god tier

>>1254994
forgot pic

>>1254994
Your idea of dividing them in a hieraich fashion is fundamentally flawed no matter what you base the division on. And the one does not imply the other. You will agree that many of the people listed has had huge impact in other fields than the litterary. That some of them is read more or has been an important factor in litterary theory doesn't mean they have played any role outside of it. In that way they are indeed inseperable. You must be trolling.

>>1255001
seperable*

>>1254977
>>1254989

>bumping a thread blatant troll thread
>by the worst poster on this board
>who is a tripfag
>twice

I sincerely hope you die a very painful death in the near future.

>>1255015
arguing is fun, gtfo

>>1255017

For "you idiots will argue about anything" threads, >>>/v/ is the place to be.

>>1255019
Wouldn't argue "anything".
Thread is following a litterary discourse.
Now piss off

>>1255024
SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOT I'M GOING TO SAGE BOMB THIS FUCKING THREAD JUST TO PISS YOU OFF YOU FUCKING CUNT

>>1255026
>implying sage does anything.
Go ahead and waste your time.
Op's ran away when he read my awesome arguments anyway, so my work here is done.

>>1255027
I FUCKING HAVE YOUR IP AND I'M GOING TO HACK YOU

Take Derrida out of paradigmatic tier, considering he is just another in a long line of Heidegerrians (this also includes Lacan, Foucault, etc.) Hegel belongs in Paradigmatic tier.

>>1255024
>Thread is following a litterary discourse.

This thread is you getting trolled by an imbecile with a tripcode and access to wikipedia. Have fun.

>>1255031
As I already implied, I am arguing for the sake of arguing. It is quite stimulating. Couldn't care less if it was a troll or not, and that doesn't change the discourse you dumb nig. So piss off and let me have my fun instead of being so obliviously butthurt

>>1255033
the game

u mad

u jelly

not a single fuck was given that day

deal with it

>>1255001
>Your idea of dividing them in a hieraich fashion is fundamentally flawed no matter what you base the division on.
It's a tier-list bro what do you expect

>That some of them is read more or has been an important factor in litterary theory doesn't mean they have played any role outside of it. In that way they are indeed inseperable.
>spouts barely coherent gibberish against a claim I have never made; quad erat demonstrandum

>>1255019
>"you idiots will argue about anything" threads
okay now hold on bro this isn't anything we are trying to get at an objective ideology-free ranking of the best literary theorists in western history here, no joke