/lit/ - Literature

Bump.

Dunno if D&E's up to the challenge. Pretty sure he just reads the first paragraph of wiki articles and comes here and talks the talk.

>>1326827
I honestly do hope he walks the walk. My problem is I don't want to "research" the process on the internet and I'm stuck at a community college for the next year and a half before I can possibly get to interact with somebody who might know this stuff and also have the time to discuss it. There's an "Author's Club" at my college, but I'm the most well-read person there and people consistently acquiesce to my knowledge of basic literary analysis. So, my problem is, all I have is basic literary analysis.
I'd like to know more.

>>1326830
And there's also the fact that I'm not majoring in a Liberal Arts program. I love and deeply appreciate literature and poetry, but I want it to be my love and not my career, if you understand what I mean. I am fascinated by and enjoy applying mathematics, and that's what I intend to do to make money because I can see myself doing that and liking it. On the side I'd like to have random elbows and assholes bump into my written works.

>>1326827

Bulgakov is a great author.

Anyway sorry to say but you seem like just another of those pseudo-intellectuals that are a dime a dozen around here.

To even begin to understand something like deconstruction, which isn't all that interesting in the end really, there's an immense literature and scholarship you need to read. You need to study philosophy, literature, languages, history, classics, everything really, and to apply this knowledge. Otherwise there's no point in telling you about "deconstruction" because it won't mean anything. There's a progression of ideas here, you can't just skip to the parts that intrigue you for whatever reason.

>>1326845
Ok, can we please drop the insults for just this thread? Please? I'm not trying to appear intellectual. I love poetry and literature, I've read some philosophy but I'm no expert on it, and I'm asking for something more than just what I've read about/of Derrida.

>>1326845
I've read plenty of all of these things. All I'm asking is for someone to take a poem and deconstruct it right here. I really doubt it's some sort of magic spell that requires ancient lore.

I'm not D&E, but I am an English major faggot who has spent way too much time around other English major faggots, so if you're serious about wanting a close reading of this poem I'll hop on sometime tomorrow and give you mine. Going to bed right now though, l8rs

>>1326855
Thank you. I appreciate it. It's frustrating that the only other response was being called a pseudo-intellectual when my entire point here is my ignorance of this particular thing. I have a pretty broad base of general knowledge-- that's my problem, I'd like somebody here to get specific.
I appreciate that you're at least offering to take the time to show me something.

>>1326850
Just read the primary texts. What more do you need?

Basically deconstruction is just chasing the etymological roots of words, establishing the history of the words, following the semantic trail to the end.

I might talk about the state as a family in the sense that Marx developed, about mothers, Freud's psychoanalysis, militarism, whatever I liked to prove my point.

But it can't be reduced to something like that, just like any other idea can't be reduced to a few lines or an article on wikipedia or something.

>>deconstruct a poem

Please, please tell me we don't have a Derrida faggot on this board...

>>1326859
That's it? Seriously? That's just analysis from a semantic standpoint.

>>1326861
What do you know?

Shut the fuck up.

>>1326865
That's not "it" completely and there's an end of the matter for you. There are many intricacies involved.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

>>1326868
He's trying to find WHY things mean this or that.

To strip away.

To find that first foundation block.

To establish what we know and what we don't. A favourite theme since the Greeks.

>>1326858

Deconstruction is an intentionally-obfuscating rabbit hole created by sophists; no serious philosopher takes Derrida seriously, and no serious critic actually believes deconstruction produces meaningful criticism.

Chomsky, on deconstruction:

"Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in some personal inadequacy, like tone-deafness. Or there may be other reasons."

>>1326866

See:

>>1326871

>>1326859
yah. i don't know shit about deconstructionism or literary theory as it is actually practiced but there's a ton to talk about in Ball Turret Gunner with state as false family, ball turret as replacement womb, wakening to death, etc. pretty obvious really. The family is a social construct used to benefit the state / in marx is an economic unit - thus, the instruments of state military might and industrial power literally replace the organic family unit. unfortunately this is ultimately sterile, etc.

>>1326872
Cut and pasting someone else's argument is not a substitute for one of your own.

You obviously don't understand what postmodernism is.
It's much more than Derrida. It's also very closely related to modernism, despite what some others may think. And Derrida is mostly just being playful anyway.

>>1326871
although i am similarly skeptical about deconstruction, i think going to chomsky is a little... eh. i also suspect that there is something useful at the heart of deconstruction, it's just been completely fucked up by academe (which is pretty much universally terrible)

>>1326876
postmodernism and deconstruction are very distinct, duder

like, deconstruction is a fairly specific thing, and postmodernism is a much broader field

>>1326876

>>Cut and pasting someone else's argument is not a substitute for one of your own.

That's exactly what it is, actually.

>>You obviously don't understand what postmodernism is.

>TOODEEPFORYOU!!!

>>1326879
I wasn't conflating them. And postmodernism is everything that came after the modern movement.

>>1326894
>postmodernism is everything that came after the modern movement

not actually tho

>>1326896
Then what is it?

>>1326897
it can be defined as a response to modernism (both the literary movement and modernity generally) BUT neither the modernist nor the post modernist movements are that tightly connected with chronology. postmodernism is a response to and (arguably) rejection of modernism. it doesn't just follow modernism temporally. and not everything that came after modernism temporally is postmodern. in fact, not everything contemporaneous with modernism is 'modern'. postmodernism and modernism are movements not eras.

>>1326900
To quibble about such a technical or semantic point is ridiculous.
It should be taken for granted that I'm referring to the artistic/philosophic/what have you movement.

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
and I hunched in its belly til my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

War is far more glorified than it is a reality. You are alive one moment and gone the next. there you go. summary of the poem

>>1326818

> I honestly am ignorant of a lot of literary theory

Good. Being ignorant of lit. theory will spare you the indignity of being ignorant of everything else.

>>1326901
well, there are things that came after the modern movement that are not postmodern, in the field of art philosophy etc

harold fucking bloom came chronologically after the modernist movement

>>1326900

>>To quibble about such a technical or semantic point is ridiculous.

It's not a technical point: methodological quantification is crucial to defining [and subsequently understanding] a movement--especially a reactionary movement. Also, it's hilarious to see a deconstructionist bitch about perceived semantic technicalities.

Did someone actually quote Chomsky in this thread. Please, tell me /lit/, did I actually see that? Noam Chomsky is an 81-year old man, and his ideas should be prefaced as such. He represents old world ideals attempting to make themselves pertinent in a 21st century world, and at one point he had great ideas and the world applauds all that he has contributed to the general discourse. He is still is a very eloquent and intelligent thinker, but his ideas and words should not be carried forth and I shudder at the children carrying his ideals and namedropping him with quotes as if somehow an 81-year old man can understand a world that a 21-30 year old sees and will inherit. Don't see his words for the words he spoke but the way he arrived at such words and judge the world using your own lens instead of his. Likewise, don't steal Derrida's quotes, examine the world as he did and arrive to your conclusions, charting your progress along the way and using his ideas as a jumping point, and then fucking carry them forward.

Deconstruction is as much literary criticism as snapping a Compact Disc is music criticism. The point isn't to judge why one piece of work is better than the other or should be held with higher regard than another. It's just to show how fuck all language is. I saw the sign, bitches, and it opened up my eyes.

D&E = King of /lit/

>>1327201

king troll

>>1326818
For koroviev this was the most important day of his life

For Deep&Edgy it was tuesday's trolling.

Here are some prominent terms that are suppressed in the text:

mother/father
sleep/wake
dream/reality
life/death
black/white
wet/dry

You could probably talk about the etymology of the womb and make it significant in some way, idk

Contradictions:
You don't fall in a sleep, falling is something that happens in reality (put that in erasure)= undermining the dichotomy between reality and dream state and yet he goes on in the poem as if there is a concrete distinction, 'loosed from his dream of life into waking', which he again undermines by regard life as dream (as if there is even a possible distinction to be made about any underlying reality)
In short, the poem initially presents a stable conception reality for us which it continually undermines
Death and life are indistinguishable due to an inability to differentiate between dream state and awakening, thus the most supposedly meaningful moment in the text, the moment where the stupid faggot dies and they wash him out of his stupid ass camel sopwith or what-fucking-ever, is totally undermined.

blah blah blah, I fucking hate war poems they are all whiny

>>1327812

might want 2 scratch off life/death there, or highlight how polarised it is within the text

>>1327201
uh, more like generally ignored aspiring tyrant of /lit/. if kingdoms are to be established, i declare myself ronin with a sympathy for the absurd land of CAPSGUY; the anon spectre who is known only for his typographical screaming. he does not have an "inside voice."

i'm actually studying English Literature and would happily have a go at deconstructing this poem, however i'm assuming that deconstructing it means closely reading/analysing it? Not a term i've encountered much here in England

>>1327896

http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/literary-theory.php

this might be a useful page for you brownanbloom

>>1327904
>>1327904

no thanks, i already own several critical theory texts and would be very able to analyse this poem without them.

>>1327909

>brownbear attempts to hurt D&E's feelings with laughing girls
>doesn't realise OP has specifically asked for analysis done by someone with knowledge of lit theory

>>1327909
>implying there is anything more 2 u than regurgitated opinions on entry-level texts in the western canon you clumsily convey over tinychat

>>1327912
>>1327916
hey I agree with both of you & find it funny, really. he can be quite full of himself at times.

but the thing is he has a few girlfriends & alot of friends, so really i think he's less pathetic than you (well i know less than d&e irl anyway).

bb, i give u my <3 & h8,
~tybrax~

>>1327912
>>1327912

>implying i try to hurt peoples feelings with image macros
you'll see i usually accompany a random picture with my posts, however in this instance i was using laughinggirls because he linked to some sort of critical theory website when i actually own my own texts :)

>>1327916
>>1327916

my feelings bro :(

>>1327896
>Not a term i've encountered much here in England

Out of interest, what university are you studying at?
I can't imagine why you're unfamiliar with deconstruction; are you perhaps studying Ceramics or something and never realised?

>>1327940
That is what u get for being an UNGRATEFUL BASTARD

>>1327947

i lol'd

>>1327947
>>1327947

we don't use the term "deconstruct" we use the terms closely read, analyse, study, interpret etc

you know.
the correct words.

and University of Manchester

also
>implying i only haven't seen deconstruct used a lot in University, i was obviously talkign about education as a whole

>>1327954

D&E: "they see me a'googlin. they hatin."

>>1327959

ah, manchester. a passed out junkie on every stoop and a basin full of barf in every bathroom. a delightful town, to say the least.

you might, seriously, be interested in my bro's work:

http://poppybooks.blogspot.com/

>>1327959
>we don't use the term "deconstruct" we use the terms closely read, analyse, study, interpret etc

NON NON NON

>>1327975
>>1327975

i'm actually gonna check it out, much thanks anon!

>>1327959
>we don't use the term "deconstruct" we use the terms closely read, analyse, study, interpret etc

I lol'd.
I'd heard they had a pretty decent English faculty there too.
Seriously though, I'd consider asking for a refund on your fees.

>>1327990

yeah, do. he's from the north but has resided in london for twenty years. his pops still lives up there and he frequently visits... all of his shorts, thus far, are being compiled to be published as volume through OhWow Publishing (NYC). look out for it... or just grab what you can while it is free for the taking. shit is wikkkkkkked.

here he is in rome doing some crazy reading with my boys providing projections and soundscapes.

http://vimeo.com/13402112

>>1327992
>>1327992

the faculty's pretty top notch apparently, but heyy, i don't word the essays. As long as the point is conveyed i'm not too bothered about the use of one word

>>1328015
>>1328015

i definately will do, it seems pretty damn interesting thanks man

>>1328019

no sweat. happy to spread the word.

>>1328019
brownbear if you get on the guardian site i will read your books :s

>>1328041
>>1328041

okay

>>1328016
I'm in the UK studying Engineering and know what deconstruction is in the Engineering AND literary sense.

Yeah. 2deep4u.

>>1328083
>>1328083

not really, i understand what the deconstruction of a text is, however i wanted to make sure because i have rarely come across that term.

>>1328102
> i'm assuming that deconstructing it means closely reading/analysing it?
> i understand what the deconstruction of a text
Over £9000 for a degree...

>not only CALLING OUT A TRIPFAG FOR HELP IN A RANDOM THREAD, but the tripfag in question doesn't even contribute useful shit like the tripfags on /jp/, /3/, etc.

sage this thread with the force of a thousand fucking suns

seriously, /lit/, seriously? is this all it takes to be a "notable" on this board? make a tripcode and act like you know what you're talking about when you really never prove shit???

>my motherfucking face when

>>1328110
>>1328110

i said i was assuming to show that i had an idea of what the term meant however wanted clarification.

>>1328122
>>1328122
>come to one thread
>complain about tripfags
>obviously jelly

>>1328122
until you prove him wrong d&e is king of /lit/. just stay butthurt baby but its true.

>>1328138
>paying 3 grand a year on a lit degree
>do not know that closely reading/analysis and deconstruction are not the same thing
>call other people jelly
You're only lying to yourself.

>>1328110
Education it's not free nigga

brownbear is a total fucvking pleb

>>1328141
>>1328141
>implying that what matters are the definition and differences between analysing and deconstructing a text.

i forget i get marked on that for my degree

>>1328153
>>1328153


not sure if a troll or just an actual retard.

>>1328015 wtf is the talking, just show the chicks.

Oh yeah, I am a biochemistry major. Never heard of the word deconstruct until I came here (maybe I heard of it when I played wow a couple years ago, XT2 maybe?)

Anyways. Don't be hating on brownbear. I bet he could give a reasonable analysis of the poem. besides, analysis is complete subjective bullcrap. Just write what you want to say, not make us sit there and think about what you truly meant. Bunch of garbage. One of the main reasons I hate people that study art/literature.

>>1327812
>>ball turret gunner
>>camelsopwith
D&E ignorant of the context? yeah, critique in isolation, next to chomsky as well.

Deepedge, do you really think that those six words are suppressed?
I mean, do you believe that deconstruction is a legit approach to literature or are you just doing it this way to prove you can.