/lit/ - Literature

Yep.
Used book shops.
It's where the future is.

>He reads or writes for anything other than enjoying to read or write

>>1378058
>>enjoying to write

LOL

>>1378027
If there's no such thing as higher fiction how does every university in the world come to (essentially) agree on a curriculum? Where does the canon come from? Literature just seems worse than ever because the only things we read from the past have stood the test of time.

>>1378058
I will never believe this claim as a singular purpose of writing, ever, unless the person saying it never sends anything out, has no desire to be published ever, and shows it to absolutely no one. I don't believe this claim unless the person makes no claim to writing anything, and then it's easy to understand why they don't understand why people write for the desires of some form of contribution, recognition, or consideration in their lives due to their efforts.
Motivation does not spring forth from a vacuum, and writing is not a mental illness. Denigrating others' primary motivation and ignoring the secondary ones is just plain narrow-minded, as well.

>>1378095

>I can't believe a different viewpoint than my own!

And that's what's wrong with the world today, OP.

>>1378098
How's that fanfic I was editing for you coming along? Taking any of the tips I offered? That was what, 6 months ago? I can e-mail you to prove it's me, might take a few min to go that far back in my mailbox.
I didn't do so for the fun of it, I did it because it was nice to see somebody else say "You're good at this."
The key word in my statement was "singular." My point was that motivations are many and varied for a pursuit like writing, and to say "I just write to write because I love to write" strikes me as either a lie or the statement of someone who lacks quite a bit of self-awareness. Again, motivation does not spring forth from a vacuum.

>>1378076
>implying agreed-on curriculum isn't a gigantic circle-jerk
>implying "complexity" = "superiority"
>implying english lit hasn't just been one gigantic ego trip reinforced by generations of university profs attempting to enshrine their totally arbitrary choice of literature
>implying the global "book consensus" isn't merely the natural extension of this as a result oftime
Herp. Although there is such a thing as books being more interesting or less to a person. So there is some argument to be made that a specific range of works should theoretically fulfill on average interest more than others. However, if anything pulp thrillers and adventure novels seem to be the "peoples choice"- so even there the distinction of literary superiority of "canon" is dubious

>>1378095
What the hell are you going on about? Why would any of those things preclude writing solely because one enjoys writing and the process of writing (including, but not limited to, the mental exercises of character creation, plot development, thematic insertions, etc.)? Just because I am not reluctant to display something I've created doesn't mean I wrote it to display it.

>>1378107
lrn 2 Art

>>1378106

The Editor Fantastique, or the other gentleman? I've shown it to a fair number of /lit/izens, so it's not like I don't believe you. It's cracking along splendidly. I took some of your advice - save for your advice to just delete fucking everything, which I couldn't do for obvious reasons.

>>1378095

What kind of BS are you spitting out, a perfect example is Steig Larson's Millennium trilogy that he wrote just for fun and never saw the light of day until he died.

>>1378114
>implying you just lost horribly

>>1378117
>I will never believe this claim as a singular purpose of writing, ever, unless the person saying it never sends anything out, has no desire to be published ever, and shows it to absolutely no one.

I believe he wrote it just for fun, then. That's what I just said.

>>1378116
You e-mailed it to me as a notepad file, I remember. I don't remember telling you to delete everything, I don't think I did because I'm not that much of a cruel asshole. It was alright, I just didn't get the whole military chicks with bunny ears and cyborg implants stuff cause I didn't know the series.

>>1378110
Again, I'd like to point out the word "singular." If you displayed it, you wanted feedback, maybe you even wanted praise, you probably wanted improvement in writing -- to what end?
I'm not arguing that pleasure in writing is a bad thing. I'm not arguing that people never enjoy writing. I'm arguing that enjoyment alone is not a singular or ultimate purpose of writing, and if I had to assert an argument as to why, I'd begin with the point of fact that writing is a form of communication.

>>1378095
What's so impossible about someone writing something for fun and then sharing what they wrote with others?

>>1378119
Apie confirmed.
If you can't tell great literature for yourself and must resort to the notion that artistic merit is comensurate to popular appeal, go back to /sci/.

i don't see how any of what you said should influence how much you like to read or write (unless you're writing for prestige and reading to show off). seriously. it does not matter

>>1378134
That's not what I'm saying. If you're showing it to others, obviously you didn't write it only because you enjoy writing, you obviously also have some desire for others to see it.

>>1378128

http://touhou.wikia.com/wiki/Reisen_Udongein_Inaba

>Reisen is one of the legendary lunar rabbits; she fled from the Moon to Earth as a refugee from the "Lunar War" between the two worlds that began in 1969 A.D. after the Apollo 11 "invasion".

That's what that was all about. I was concerning myself with a small special operations group within this LUNAR RABBIT ARMY. It's thrilling.

However,by some miracle, a few people thought it was about Call of Duty. Which is hilarious. Read the copypasta some people wrote about it:


>>Gotta say man. I've seen you around and tried to be nice, supported you a little, said I wanted to read your MW2 fanfic, felt sorry for you when you said your life is sad and lonely and you just sit at home playing videogames and getting high.But you're also a fucking dick sometimes. I don't feel so sorry for you anymore. And I no longer want to read your stories. (I originally thought they were stories involving modern warfare... not Modern Warfare as in Call of Duty Modern Warfare).

>>1378128
Ah, then I'm afraid you've missed the point of my initial post altogether (or maybe I stated it poorly). My point, really, was that you need to enjoy writing to do it. I didn't mean to point to it as a singular motive, my point was more that it's a necessary one. Not even a primary one, but I feel like if you don't enjoy writing, you shouldn't be doing it.

I was saying that if you have lost all motivation to write because the market is difficult to write simply because it's a tough market, you've fucked up in choosing your hobbies.

>>1378144

Will you please leave right now.

Like seriously you belong on /a/ or /jp/

Easily the worst trip here.

>>1378143
Or maybe it wasn't their original intention to show it to other people, but they did so because upon completion they thought their story to be special in some way. Not everything is done in pursuit of appreciation.

>>1378146
>I was saying that if you have lost all motivation to write because the market is difficult to write simply because it's a tough market

"I was saying that if you have lost all motivation to write simply because it's a tough market..." is how that should read.

>>1378146
Ah. Well yeah I'd agree there, if you don't enjoy what you're doing you're not gonna put the right effort into it.
Sorry, I read a whole lot more into your post than you really said.

>>1378144
Do you really just sit at home and play videogames and get high all the time? You should get out more, man.

>>1378107
Hmn. So Twilight and Dan Brown should replace Shakespeare and Dante? Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

>>1378144

Touhou fanfic?

Seriously?

>>1378160

What, and leave my nice house? No way, dude.

>>1378156
>implying they didn't have at the very least the faintest inklings of desire to show it someone when they started.

And that's where I think it's a matter of deception and/or self-awareness. I guess it's a form of cynicism or something, but I just don't buy that somebody who goes to hard efforts, finds their efforts rewarding, then desires a reward for the efforts after the fact, to have never once considered before the efforts that there might have been a possibility of reward.

>>1378164

Problem?

>>1378178

/jp/ is that way weeaboo.

>>1378163
>>1378138

Your move >>1378119
Or have you decided to leave this intellectual stuff to the adults?

>>1378163
>implying invoking enshrined literary works merely because they're enshrined doesn't illustrate exactly what I just said
Mind you, I'm not particularly saying people should hate either of those. Merely that literary "canon" is all-too-often a means of justifying what a person likes as "superior", which is hardly justifiable

>>1378185
How in your right mind can you say Twilight is superior to Shakepeare? Some people may enjoy Twilight more, but even they would admit it's aesthetically inferior, because we've evolved around Art.

>>1378185
Go write an essay on the significance of anything within any of those non-canon, popularist works with little to no discernible social commentary of depth or insights into human conditions or relations. Now do it 100 more times, for the same novel you chose. Make new statements for each large essay.
Use those statements to write your own novel, with new insights and discernible statements of social commentary, which can then receive the same treatment from others.
>yfw your accusation of "arbitrary taste of professors" is now proven childish and arbitrary itself

>>1378200
You're missing the point. I'm saying they're relatively equal- a person can see them as either good or bad. Words are merely words and can be anything a person wishes. "Art" is a sociocultural practice just as much a circle-jerk as what I just described.

To be honest, the only valid argument for "superiority" rests in a biological approach, to which it cannot be denied that there are some human inclinations in what they want to read. That this somehow makes it legitimate is an entirely different story. All things may be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate, or a thousand other things and each interpretation is entirely correct. There is really no such thing as higher/lower in this context

>>1378185
You forget the reason they're enshrined: Historical significance and artistic prowess. These are infallible truths, and while you not find may classic literature entertaining, if you're sane you'll admit it's superior to Twilight. srsly

>>1378219
your trying too hard brah

>>1378182

>complaining about weeaboos
>on 4chan

Okay, I lol'd pretty hard

>>1378217
You just said it, to be true to our humanity is the essence of better Art.

captcha Booreat Greek ...

>>1378220
Is that a concession?

>>1378223
SPEAKING OF JAPAN, I WENT PASSED A RESTAURANT LAST NIGHT, AND THE NAME OF IT WAS 'BIG BOY', THIS WAS JUST AFTER MY FUCK. NORMALLY I WOULDN'T THINK ANYTHING OF IT, BUT I COULDN'T HELP SMILING SINCE THE GIRL DRIVING SAID THE EXACT SAME TWO WORDS TO ME LESS THAN AN HOUR OR TWO BEFORE.

>>1378229
herp, I just implied humanity is a highly interpretable construct that can vary greatly. There is no case for the "superiority" of anything, to be honest- because there are no real goals.

Even what people would consider "bad" (like pain) may in fact be considered "good". Perceptions of higher/lower is really just the exact same

>>1378233

Chilling narrative, Caps guy!

>>1378239
YOU NOW REALISE WHY I NEVER PARTAKE IN WRITEFAG THREADS.

>>1378240

I agree wholeheartedly. Against my better judgement, I posted in this one.

Now we all have to face the consequences.

>>1378237
>>a biological approach

Everyone has the same DNA brah

>>1378244
variations of the same genes brah

Besides, absolute determinism seems to break down when you look at the high level of variation that appears in society. Although, the thought is genuinely frightening

/mu/fag here. Now you know how I feel every fucking day.

>>1378253
So you admit there is some constant that binds humanity, one that everyone does not necessarily express, but always acknowledges? The aesthetic instinct?

>>1378284
Hah, such an interesting dynamic. I do not believe similarity leads to natural superiority, although the question of how much innate biology is factored into the equation is really an unknown.

It's a guessing game at this point. Judging by the diverse artistic styles existing prior to outside contact, I would say that artistic appreciation may mainfest extremely different in forms. I also am confident with the notion of "canon" lit as an arbitrary construct serving to justify personal preferences.... but the question of if these preferences are in some way universal? I'd be a fool to give the final call in either direction. However, I wish to suggest that this is the case- for I doubt that there can ever be a single and arbitrary all-ecompassing answer to beliefs, which are multitude and infinite. Nothing can be justified or legitimized completely, and it follows that fact is as much interpretable as anything else is.

>>1378253
Then why do societies over thousands of years and continents behave identically? lrn 2 Sociology

>>1378303
Heh, it's hard to tell if you're serious. If anything sociology offers a generally optimistic and malleable vision of society, where social practices can rearrange persons almost entirely. Try trolling harder, brah

I'm more perturbed by how every fucking person wants to be a writer.

"So, what do you want to do with your English degree?"
"Well, ultimately, get paid to write."
"OH! No way, I want to be a writer too!"

Canon is a Modernist construct that we will eventually, over time, completely let go of, and you can see it happening now as more and more students are graduating high school without having read anything considered literary canon or even showing any sign of interest in them. Why? Because they're meaningless to the personal narrative unless we give in to the remains of Old World thinking and choose to uphold what the past has dictated in terms of what should be considered good.

We only try to keep the canon alive in order to allow us to further the gap between ourselves and lesser people, not because reading Shakespeare, Proust, Chekov, whoever is inherently better for you, but because we desire for that, and thus it happens.

TL:DR; 4chan is canon if you really want it to be

>>1378301
>>a single and arbitrary all-ecompassing answer to beliefs, which are multitude and infinite. Nothing can be justified or legitimized completely

'Did we come from one source or from many?' Is the question I think ... Evolution has molded humanity, but I certainly concede that some primal variation may exist in us, it's unprovable. Given the constants in our world, I believe we did.

>>1378312
>>malleable

Exactly, away from the root of humanity. People are the same, they behave differently in different places but are latently identical.

>>1378328
People have been showing no interest in the canon since Greece. These people read for entertainment, not artistic satisfaction. We keep reading Shakespeare and Proust not to oppress anyone, but to keep their writing safe for smart people in the future.

>>1378328
You should really read The Western Cannon, by Harold Bloom.
Great troll, by the way.

>>1378340
>keep their writing safe
>keep our Sekrit clubhouse safe
Same thing brah. If it was genuinely the best and appealing to all things it wouldn't need to be kept safe.

>>1378347
You were that kid they didn't let into the secret tree-fort, it all becomes clear ...

The only reason it's a "secret" is because intelligent people are a minority. According to you we should revert to the Baroque ethos of never playing Bach simply because he died last year.

The whole point of culture is keeping the artistically superior works of every epoch together so they may continue to be learned from, and so new arrivals may act upon the old.

>>1378347
What appeals to the masses of every generation inevitably dies as something flashier comes along. So you long for a world with no history ... Couldn't take the pressure, eh?

>>1378347
>>1378355
From what I understand Tolstoy had some pretty eccentric views about Shakespeare, the Cannon, who wrote Shakespeare, who "controlled," the Cannon, and for what purpose.
I only put as much credence and care into these suppositions as I do those of his alleged racism, but it's pretty interesting stuff to read in and of itself.

>>1378361
>>1378355
>implying intelligence = linked to sekrit clubhouse writing
>implying this isn't just because the early upper class needed a means to flaunt class identity which carried on to this day

>>1378368

Intelligence is linked to secret clubhouse writing.

The lower classes are generally too uneducated to understand it.

Higher class people are generally intellectually superior because they have the leisure time in which to hone their minds.

I suggest you deal with it before you "head down t'mine" or else you won't be able to concentrate on your work.

>>1378368
And we return to the fact that you, isolated, are unable to tell good art from bad. That's all. And don't tell me it's relative, because entertainment might be, but artistic worth borne out of the evolutionary Human Condition is not.

>>1378328

I dont like Shakespeare. Never read proust. I am a big fan of Chekov's work though.

I like it because it entertains me.

Few famous books are full of artistic meric,

>>1378372
Heh, if that was particularly true we'd have a much more technocractic system in place. If anything class symbols are more used to distance groups than any actual merit. There is nothing technically valuable about fiction. I'd bet the practice is fairly popular among the upper middle class merely as a means of aspiring to status.

>>1378375
lols. We have no way of determining anything, so you really can't claim the transcendency of any art at all, let alone the fact that variation will even allow for transcendence

>>1378382
>>I'd bet the practice (fiction) is fairly popular among the upper middle class merely as a means of aspiring to status.

What planet are you living on?

>>1378388
>no argument
>resorting to ad homiem
0/10

>>1378382

Literature is a status symbol precisely because it has no "technical" value. Those free from the struggle for their daily bread have the leisure time in which to enjoy literature, to judge its merits. The ressentiment evident in so much ostensible criticism of the canon comes from envy of this leisure time and the cultivation of judgement it allows. The middle class has some time but not nearly enough, the lower class none, and so propagate the idea that it's all subjective (but still "valuable" for everyone, because they associate having leisure time with social advancement).

>>1378386
>>We have no way of determining anything

Hmmn, but we can get pretty close, right, otherwise the world would be a pretty boring place ...
If you can't see that through Art through Evolution binds Humans together look at anything in the world, because that it the common fucking human denominator.

>>1378395
yet none of what you said really justifies it as "higher" in any way at all

>>1378396
Not really, at this point people can be in wide disagreement over any number of things- art being no exception. If there is a biological "golden number", it'll take more than just personal preferences being projected (as you are doing) to find it. Again, you have no case for the merit of canon lit

>>1378390
I'm sorry if I insulted you, but you seem so out of touch I can't believe you're not a martian or a troll. By far the vast majority of people who read fiction today be it populist or in your dreaded canon do it for pleasure, not social advancement. Indeed the most bourgeoisie people usually care the least about Art.

>>1378405

It's not a justification of it as higher, it's a criticism of the idea that all other arguments can be tossed aside as merely subterfuge for class warfare.

>>1378407
heh, we have no facts to prove anything either way. In line with my train of thought regarding class origins, I projected that it should spread naturally as a part of middle class aspirations towards upper class status. There is, however, an undeniable "prestige" attributed socially to classic lit- something I would argue is more a result of constant veneration by groups attempting to project their beliefs above others rather than outstanding merit. To be fair, persons will inevitably also read "canon" lit merely because it fits their tastes, but my prime target here is that it is a construct, and a baseless one in the sense it has no real "superiority" at all

>>1378405
>>yet none of what you said really justifies it as "higher" in any way at all

leisure has always been associated with civilization and the human condition

>>personal preferences
But what you'll find is that it isn't just me, it's a handful of people like me drawn over the generations to the same aesthetically appealing work rather than the spectacles of the day. We would find it without the canon, but would surely be in possession of less, for so rare is great compelling literature that it is necessary to store it over time.

>>1378410
But to toss aside the notion of class conflict merely because it does not suit your interests? The sword cuts both ways, you see

>>1378420
>leisure has always been associated with civilization and the human condition
Projections really. Does leisure = higher? Not particularly, in the same does civilizations = higher? Not really, in the same way does human condition = higher? Looks like three strikes you're out to me

>But what you'll find is that it isn't just me, it's a handful of people like me drawn over the generations to the same aesthetically appealing work rather than the spectacles of the day.
>We would find it without the canon, but would surely be in possession of less, for so rare is great compelling literature that it is necessary to store it over time.
Heh, this is starting to get outragous. Your point appears to beof view is that your point of view is superior to all points of view and that therefore everything you think is correct. This is fairly innate to all persons, yet hardly makes it reality. There have been thousands and thousands or people born. Does majority or minority justify anything fundamentally? Not really. Is there as much argument to say that ever person you do not identify as "correct" is actually more "correct" than you are? Absolutely

>>1378419
forget about the origins of things and open your eyes, what percentage of people today do you think read the classics for social advancement rather than aesthetic satisfaction?

>>1378431
Heh, I'm suggesting a major motivator is being recognized for reading something awarded prestige, as with all things. Is this prestige really the sign of "advancement"? Hardly, and there is no reason to suggest that

>>1378430

>leisure = higher?
Yep.

>civilizations = higher?
Yep.

>human condition = higher?

Yep.

>>1378437
Herp. Getting arbitrary, aren't we?

>>1378421

It's class struggle precisely because the higher classes have the leisure time for literature at all. The point is that excellence and class struggle are perfectly comfortable bedmates.

>>1378430
>>Does majority or minority justify anything fundamentally? Not really.

Oh but it does. Should it? That doesn't matter.
Also, you're missing the point that I don't believe my philosophy to be superior because it's mine, I believe it to be superior because I can track it over the generations against the tumultuous popular opinion.

>>Projections really. Does leisure = higher? Not particularly, in the same does civilizations = higher? Not really, in the same way does human condition = higher? Looks like three strikes you're out to me

These things bring, ultimately, pleasure. Pleasure is good.

>>1378441
heh, hardly. Canon lit does not particularly provide economic power, millitary finesse, or any number of technical skills useful in a class situation. If anything leisure is the enemy of technical efficiency. The more obvious conclusion would be it is means of highlighting class differences. Which is really not good or bad particularly

>>1378439

Leisure is the time in which you can develop your higher mental abilities (by doing things that aren't searching for today's food--maybe you'll come up with a way to have food ready for next week even!), civilization is an expression of these higher mental capabilities, as is the consideration of the human condition

>>1378439
>>Pushing relativism over the edge of validity

>>1378436
Now I ask, Why is prestige in and of itself negative? Why not take pride in your accomplishments?

>>1378448

Can you even read? Why are you returning to something that has already been answered?

>>1378444
>Oh but it does. Should it? That doesn't matter.
Also, you're missing the point that I don't believe my philosophy to be superior because it's mine, I believe it to be superior because I can track it over the generations against the tumultuous popular opinion.
Which is essentially saying "I am going to interpret broad facts as definitive based on my point of view". If something exists, is it legitimate or superior? You can never guarantee that really
>These things bring, ultimately, pleasure. Pleasure is good.
then the logical conclusion is that literature is outdated and drugs are far superior, wouldn't you agree? Or prehaps we should simply admit that the bestselling paperbacks are merely supplying greater pleasure than classic literature could ever supply

Checkmate, Anonymous

>>1378448
Republic, The Prince, The Art of War

But it's not just books about fighting. It's about the dialog between books and ideas in general, between Art and invention.

>>1378459
>>Which is essentially saying "I am going to interpret broad facts as definitive based on my point of view". If something exists, is it legitimate or superior? You can never guarantee that really

'Broad facts' does not equal recognizing my tastes in others

>>then the logical conclusion is that literature is outdated and drugs are far superior, wouldn't you agree? Or prehaps we should simply admit that the bestselling paperbacks are merely supplying greater plea

No, that's an example of the right time to use relativism.

>>1378449
To say that civilization is a result of spare time generated by the creation of farming is correct, but does reading canon fiction for the purposes of self-pleasure really compete with the likes of something like science and technology? Not really. It's more categorized as a waste of time in reality

>>1378452
>Pushing relativism over the edge of validity
>creating an arbitrary answer to solve your arguments contradictions

>Now I ask, Why is prestige in and of itself negative? Why not take pride in your accomplishments?
Well, I'm saying it's fairly considering the "supreme value" of classic lit is overinflated and not even superior at really.
>>1378453
>raging beyond all belief
herp.

>>1378460
My enemy here is fiction really, I have no gripes with any of those books.

However, is any of the books you just mentioned more useful than a geopolitics text or some similar reference material? Not really, the art of war is an example of supreme over-hyping for a book survives by being cryptic and the warrior mystique, yet is superbly outdated

>>1378466

>herping

Derp. "U mad" is not actually an argument bro.

>>1378464
>No, that's an example of the right time to use relativism.
In the same sense it's fair to say that canon lit really has no superiority at all, really

>>1378474
0/10

You tards are gonna keep me up all night if this keeps up

>>1378466
>>To say that civilization is a result of spare time generated by the creation of farming is correct, but does reading canon fiction for the purposes of self-pleasure really compete with the likes of something like science and technology? Not really. It's more categorized as a waste of time in reality

see >>>>1378460

>>creating an arbitrary answer to solve your arguments contradictions

It boils down to whether you like civilization or not. Some people can't handle it, it's true, maybe you're one of those who rather be back in the tents.

>>Well, I'm saying it's fairly considering the "supreme value" of classic lit is overinflated and not even superior at really.

1. The over inflation alone is cause for pride.
2. Tell me the classic canon is not superior with a straight face. Dance around it however you want, look me in the eye and tell me under what circumstances Under the Dome is a better novel than The Great Gatsby.

>>1378482

Oh you, can't even remember something that happened not half an hour ago :3

>>1378473
Did you miss what I said about the dialog between science and art, of course I would rather fight with a gun than with those books, but had not society evolved, through art, we would have had no inspiration for gun making.

>>1378479
Those two distinctions are utterly different, what the hell are you talking about

one is about physical comfort, one is about artistic impulse. one you can measure, one you can't.

>>1378483
>see >1378460
See: >>1378473
>It boils down to whether you like civilization or not. Some people can't handle it, it's true, maybe you're one of those who rather be back in the tents.
>again no real answer, merely repetition in the hopes of justification

>1. The over inflation alone is cause for pride.
>admiting canon lit is actually no different than regular lit
I can agree with that
>2. Tell me the classic canon is not superior with a straight face. Dance around it however you want, look me in the eye and tell me under what circumstances Under the Dome is a better novel than The Great Gatsby.
>implying that isn't what I just said
people are inevitably going to have different opinions whether you like it or not, really. You're just pushing forward your own opinions as definitive when they're really not

>this thread

>>1378495
for the 4th time, my opinions are special because a select group of people have held them for centuries

I have a precedent. My opinions are definitive, because they are the closest to our common sub-consciousness, to the artistic impulse.

>>1378495
>again no real answer, merely repetition in the hopes of justification

This is true, that wasn't an answer but an acceptance that your mind is of a lower capacity than mine and that you fear civilization and Art and are therefore unqualified to be arguing about them.

>>1378497

Neither the Great Gatsby nor Under the Dome have been around for centuries. Nobody at all has had an opinion on either for centuries.

>>1378488
And does that particularly make this work exceptionally useful or transcendent when society has aged long past it? Again, not really. Your argument does not justify transcendent importance of anything really

>>1378493
>one is about physical comfort, one is about artistic impulse
You argued that canon lit provided greater pleasure and therefore was superior, I decided to work inside your own framework and illustrate that your argument about "superiority" of one book over another was moot considering you'd ignore the fact that literature itself is outdated in that context

>>1378488

>guy looks at mona lisa
>invents grapeshot

derp

>>1378504
one is canon, one isn't

and one is superior to the other

coincidence?

>>1378497
troooooollling, troooooolllling down the river

Well then, looks like Canon lit has been dethroned. Seeing as there are really no arguments that can definitively prove superiority, my victory rests assured

umad, anonymous?

>>1378510

The Great Gatsby is the same quasi-autobiographical story Fitzgerald wrote a million times. It's not superior in any way. I haven't personally read Under the Dome since King usually isn't my bag, but I can say that Fitzgerald, by and large, does not deserve his place in canon.

>>1378509

yfw da vinci threw technology forth a century

>>1378505
>>And does that particularly make this work exceptionally useful or transcendent when society has aged long past it? Again, not really. Your argument does not justify transcendent importance of anything really

But literature is aesthetically pleasing long after it is outdated ;)

>>You argued that canon lit provided greater pleasure and therefore was superior, I decided to work inside your own framework and illustrate that your argument about "superiority" of one book over another was moot considering you'd ignore the fact that literature itself is outdated in that context

There is a difference between chemical and intellectual change ...

>>1378514
Substance over style gtfo

There is a reason none of F. Scott's other works are in the canon, it's true they are similar in story, but Gatby is sublime in subtler ways

I can't find my picture of the "to-do" list with the trollface checked off.
Sometimes /lit amazes me. I can't believe you guys got dragged into such a long and stupid conversation. Why would you even bother talking to someone who didn't acknowledge (or claim to acknowledge) the value of the literary canon?
Sage for obvious trolling. Nonetheless, 9/10. Great success, some seriously butthurt people in here.

>>1378512
What you fail to see is that style and substance go hand and hand, inspiration and knowledge, Art and science

we read the old books both because they are important and because they have passed the artistic test of time, we read them for the thrill of recognition and for their rare genius.

>>1378528
Because it is the Blood Moon Motherfucker and I have had nothing to do all night but hold these idiots and trolls at bay.

>>1378528

Arguing on the internet makes me feel sexy.

>>1378529
And there we go.
THROWIN DOWN FOR HAROLD BLOOM MOTHERFUCKERS, THE CANON WILL OUTLAST YOUR FEEBLE PROTESTS BY MILLENENIA.
I'll be back in 12 hours to take out any survivors of my onslaught.
Good night.

>>1378076
>>1378114
>>1378138
>>1378163
>>1378200
>>1378219
>>1378229
>>1378231
>>1378244
>>1378284
>>1378303
>>1378332
>>1378340
>>1378355
>>1378361
>>1378375
>>1378388
>>1378396
>>1378407
>>1378420
>>1378431
>>1378444
>>1378452
>>1378460
>>1378464
>>1378483
>>1378488
>>1378493
>>1378497
>>1378510
>>1378516
>>1378522
>>1378525
>>1378529
>>1378530
>>1378539


my new record for # of posts in a thread
feels. oh. so. good. man.

School-of-resentment-fag status = TOLD

>return from sleeping
>everybody mad
>implying canon tards can ever prove the superiority of the writing outside of personal preference

>>1378505
>But literature is aesthetically pleasing long after it is outdated ;)
>another arbitrary "my opinion is better than your opinion" statement

>There is a difference between chemical and intellectual change
>your argument rested on superior pleasure gained through reading canon lit. I just shot it down. inb4 "but it's superior because I say so and canon lit being canon proves that!11! argument

Status:
[X] Completely annihilated

>>1379358
You're not listening.

Of course everyone has their own preferences. But the people who prefer High Art have a precedent. If you had your way each generation would be artistically isolated, stuck in the popular spectacles of the day. We would have no History. And as I said, maybe you would prefer that.

What you are disagreeing with is essentially Western Civilization. So you said it yourself, yes part of the reason the canon is significant is because it is just that, timeless.

But you keep forgetting the reason these things were put on the altar. Yes, maybe it originated as a means of control, but the undeniable truth is that leisure begets intellectual advancement, which leads to sublimity.

You will say sublimity is subjective. No. Entertainment is subjective, sublimity is evolutionary.

>>1379719
> canon is significant is because it is just that, timeless.
>implying anything is timeless
>implying that anything you just said justifies the work as "higher"
0/10, "I admit to being arbitrary but it is justifiable because I like it and therefore it is correct"
>leisure begets intellectual advancement
>implying canon literature really has a significant impact on intellectual development
>implying non-fiction is not superior to canon fiction in every usable sense of applicable intellect
>implying the only thing left is to argue art = intelligence, despite the fact that there is no posible way of proving canon is superior art
>implying your argument rests on personal preference and arbitrary credentials simply because there is no other way to rationalize canon as superior
>implying your argument is therefore completely irrelevant
Checkmate /lit/

Derp anything but science is a wast of time. Do people really believe that?

Part of the point of life is to enjoy it. Try doing that without any form of art.

(by the way, I am a scientist)

>>1379769
his argument was that canon was enshrined due to superiority, when in fact I have countered that artistic "superiority" is so completely relative that the argument rests on thin air- the only alternative was to argue canon had applicable intellectual value which is completely irrelevant considering that non-fiction appears to have surpassed it utterly. There was also an argument that canon produced superior pleasure (again completely relative) and was therefore superior, yet it was again countered for that argument would conclude that literature itself is irrelevant in the face of direct pleasure such as drug use or other.

There's really no way to justify canon as "superior" in any way at all, it's merely a personal preference bandied around more often for prestige than any actual value- and I argue this is just silly, for the simple reason it is just extrapolating a personal opinion as the definitive line

>>1379762
>>implying canon literature really has a significant impact on intellectual development

Listen to yourself. Do you have any grasp of History?

>>1379796
>implying it has a timeless intellectual value forever and ever
listen to yourself. Do you have any grasp of history?

>>1379797
>>Implying timelessness and Historical significance are the same thing

Civilization as come around the canon, it's undeniable

>>1379803
>implying enshrining as canon isn't an attempt to make it timeless
>implying the logical conclusion is that historically outdated material should be forgotten in favor of material "building civilization even further"
>implying this doesn't mean canon is a direct impediment to "future progress" because it is espousing outdated material at the cost of "future progess"
herp. If these really are transcendent, there would never be the need to create "canon". There are thousands of historical documents, and yet there are only a select few chosen. arguments = nullified

>>1379803
History is not an entity, history is discourse. Whatever the discourse of our time happens to be, the cannon will not cease to have value, or cease to be worth studying. If anything, it will be analyzed to reinforce whatever discourse of the day happens to be. The only way you can kill the cannon is by making it all inclusive, and as hard as some people try *that* is impossible. Even if it were possible, people would still study the historical cannon as a construct.

>>1379839
So what you're saying is that canon has value because it adds viewpoint. So the logical extension of that is that all works of writing are equally valuable because they all add viewpoint.
>implying canon is therefore still completely irrelevant as a distinction
>implying you have just admitted all works being relatively equal

>>1379793
>>his argument was that canon was enshrined due to superiority, when in fact I have countered that artistic "superiority" is so completely relative that the argument rests on thin air

Nope. Superior Art is that which speaks to the Human Condition, inb4 you say this is arbitrary because you can't understand it.

>>argue canon had applicable intellectual value which is completely irrelevant considering that non-fiction appears to have surpassed it utterly

Get out of that working-class mindset, there is plenty of intellectual satisfaction to be had from a work without practical use. What, reading a car manual would make you smarter than reading The Divine Comedy?

>>argument would conclude that literature itself is irrelevant in the face of direct pleasure such as drug use or other.

You're thinking vertically, I'm thinking horizontally. High and low art are two different spectrums.
Also, just because one thing is preferable to another out of pleasure doesn't make it a precedent for pleasure at all costs, sheesh, you think that because eating feels better than not eating we should all do Heroin?

>>1379821
>>implying enshrining as canon isn't an attempt to make it timeless

of course it is, that's the point

>>implying the logical conclusion is that historically outdated material should be forgotten in favor of material "building civilization even further"

why must one replace the other?

>>implying this doesn't mean canon is a direct impediment to "future progress" because it is espousing outdated material at the cost of "future progess"

Again, historyless humanity would not have a good time.

>>1379839

If you're saying we should have a canon, but one open to change I agree with you.

look the amount of half-witted poltroons in tt

unbelievable

>>1379856
1.Some had much more viewpoint than others.
2.Some are simply more beautiful. Beauty is objective.

>>1379856
No, what I'm saying is that what we deem valuable defines what we deem valuable.


You can't escape the cannon because you can't escape influence.

Works are cannonical either because they are so proufoundly assimilated that they define our culture, or because they are so truly weird that they can never ever be fully assimilated.

They either create, or distance themselves from culture. Unremarkable works are products of culture.

>>1379864
Whether they're trolls or clueless /sci/fags I always welcome the chance to debate something seemingly obvious.

>>1379868
>>1379868
Aesthetics and the sublime are what matter to the cannon.

Aesthetics =/= beauty.

>>1379888
>>Aesthetics =/= beauty.

Confirmed for troll. It was a fun 17 hours though.

>>1379862
>Nope. Superior Art is that which speaks to the Human Condition, inb4 you say this is arbitrary because you can't understand it.
>this is arbitrary because you can't understand it
(in other words being completely unprovable and subjective, cool story bro)

>Get out of that working-class mindset, there is plenty of intellectual satisfaction to be had from a work without practical use. What, reading a car manual would make you smarter than reading The Divine Comedy?
I'm saying that neither is really superior in any way, if anything there is more practical value to emerge from technical work because it actually_teaches_something. If you're arguing that fiction teaches intellectually, you really can't say canon teaches any better than regular fiction
>You're thinking vertically, I'm thinking horizontally. High and low art are two different spectrums.
>making an arbitrary distinction and trying to hide it (>implying the high/low distinction isn't an complete example of socially constructed distinctions for class value

>Also, just because one thing is preferable to another out of pleasure doesn't make it a precedent for pleasure at all costs, sheesh, you think that because eating feels better than not eating we should all do Heroin?
your argument rested on superiority of pleasure. I pointed out canon lit is the bottom rung on such a hierarchy and that your argument only succeeded in proving canon lit inferior. lrn 2 recollect arguments

>of course it is, that's the point
>implying that makes it innately anachronistic in terms of current value towards "progressing society" as you argued and therefore no more relevant than any other material
>why must one replace the other?
I pointed out the irrelevancy of canon lit as a "path to superiority" eternally as being suggested. If you're saying none should replace any other you're obviously agreeing that canon lit is actually not superior to regular lit at all
>Again, historyless humanity would not have a good time.
>implying canon lit better represents history than regular lit
derp
>>1379864
>too lazy to read thread
>post random insult instead
failtroll/10

>>1379876
>No, what I'm saying is that what we deem valuable defines what we deem valuable.
>implying you just admitted canon lit is therefore no more valuable than regular lit in every sense of the word for inevitably people will deem things differently based on perception

>You can't escape the cannon because you can't escape influence.
>implying influence = supreme value
herp
>Works are cannonical either because they are so proufoundly assimilated that they define our culture, or because they are so truly weird that they can never ever be fully assimilated.
>implying you believe works are canonical for value as opposed to simply as a means of enshrining personal preferences
>implying absolute supremacy is even possible when you just admitted preference is entirely subjective
>They either create, or distance themselves from culture. Unremarkable works are products of culture.
>implying you just contradicted yourself by claiming cultural history creates value even though you cliam canon is superior by defying cultural history

>>1379907
>samefag post as a means of creating artificial ending
>claim false "victory"
Derp, I think I already did that like 5 hours ago

>>1380095
Except of course it was legitimate in the sense that you had not, and still haven't been able to prove canon lit as superior to regular literature. Your arguments have been completely weak and relying on the supremacy of your own personal point of view

>>1380089
>>you really can't say canon teaches any better than regular fiction

yes you can, that's why it's chosen to enter the canon, because it's artistically superior

>>canon lit is the bottom rung on such a hierarchy

Who's being arbitrary?

>>none should replace any other you're obviously agreeing that canon lit is actually not superior to regular lit at all

That makes no sense, whenever a superior work is written it simply goes into the canon.

>>implying canon lit better represents history than regular lit

That's only half the story for the fifth time, that's why we have a canon, what goes in is based on pure aesthetics.

And the whole second part of your post, again you forget the reason things are enshrined, universal beauty.


>>1380095
not samefag

>>1380132
>>supremacy of your own personal point of view

Yes. Because it's MY personal view? Or because I appreciate sublimity.
>>inb4 derp arbitrary sublimity

>>1380095
loll not samefag u mad some one on your team's been failin son?

>>1380136
>yes you can, that's why it's chosen to enter the canon, because it's artistically superior
>"it's artistically superior because I think it's artistically superior and you should too because I think it's artistically superior"
Herp. Prove it (Oh wait you can't)
>Who's being arbitrary?
Lols, I took your argument to it's natural conclusion and now you're trying to deny it. This only reinforces the reality that canon is no better than any other form of literature
>That makes no sense, whenever a superior work is written it simply goes into the canon.
>this is what canon tards actually believe
Herp
You just stated canon lit should not be replaced by "transcendent lit", even though you argued that canon lit was valid for being "intellectually important" earlier, and therefore that it was a means of progress. The obvious conclusion of this argument was that if a higher generation of literature was introduced canon lit should merely be replaced. You denied this, and therefore admit that even if canon lit is "intellectually superior" (which there is no evidence for to be honest), it should not be any more important than conventional lit
>That's only half the story for the fifth time, that's why we have a canon, what goes in is based on pure aesthetics.
>aesthetics being utterly subjective

>And the whole second part of your post, again you forget the reason things are enshrined, universal beauty
>trollolololol, again utterly subjective and there is really no reason to believe that the creation of canon lit was based on "universal" as opposed to "what I think is best"

Gotta hand it to you, you're actually getting denser the more this argument progresses. "I'm not arguing based on my personal opinions and trying to justify them based on "universal" (EG: subjective and totally unprovable even if we consider biologically determinist positions considering we have no way of gauging art scientifically) truths. Calling troll

>>1380158
>answering it's own question by recognizing it can be legitimately be viewed as arbitrary because it is arbitrary
>>1380186
>implying your arguments have failed so totally you have to resort to trolling as a means to justify your shit-tier arguments

umad bro

>>1380208
>>I think it's artistically superior
>>Me and the majority of the educated world think it's artistically superior.

>>Prove it (Oh wait you can't)
Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion, etc etc etc

>>Lols, I took your argument to it's natural conclusion and now you're trying to deny it. This only reinforces the reality that canon is no better than any other form of literature

I'm saying neither of us are allowed to be arbitrary. Is that too much to ask?

>>Herp
You just stated canon lit should not be replaced by "transcendent lit", even though you argued that canon lit was valid for being "intellectually important" earlier, and therefore that it was a means of progress. The obvious conclusion of this argument was that if a higher generation of literature was introduced canon lit should merely be replaced. You denied this, and therefore admit that even if canon lit is "intellectually superior" (which there is no evidence for to be honest), it should not be any more important than conventional lit


lrn 2 discretion. The canon is about the balance of beauty of significance.

>>aesthetics being utterly subjective
Well if you really believe that I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you now what a lifetime should have taught you.


>>what I think is best
>>what the educated majority thinks is best

>>considering we have no way of gauging art scientifically
>>no way of guaging art scientifically if we discount academia because 'it's only opinions derp'

>>1380216

>>1380158
>answering it's own question by recognizing it can be legitimately be viewed as arbitrary because it is arbitrary

Do I have to spell this out? Beauty is not arbitrary, it varies over culture and experience, sure, but it is fundamentally homogeneous.

>>1380186
>implying your arguments have failed so totally you have to resort to trolling as a means to justify your shit-tier arguments

>>implying the fact that I corrected you means I'm trolling

>>1380264
>Me and the majority of the educated world think it's artistically superior.
>citing abstract generalizations that don't particularly prove anything regardless

>Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion, etc etc etc
>no actual evidence to prove the eternal superiority of canon lit over all others
>I'm saying neither of us are allowed to be arbitrary. Is that too much to ask?
>"I want to be arbitrary in my arguments and justify them as fact but you can't be arbitrary"
Herp

>lrn 2 discretion. The canon is about the balance of beauty of significance.
>no argument, falling back on abstract and arbitrary "superiority" with no grounds
lrn 2 create effective arguments

>Well if you really believe that I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you now what a lifetime should have taught you.
>My arguments are so poor I have to rely on abstract generality to justify anything

>what the educated majority thinks is best
>implying canon lit = educated
>implying the well-educated = majority
>implying majority = best
>implying best isn't completely arbitrary
0/10
>no way of guaging art scientifically if we discount academia because 'it's only opinions derp'
>implying you just admitted you have no evidence at all

If you're admitting you have no arguments, it's pretty obvious Canon lit is not superior in any way at all. For the second time, I claim victory

>>1380280
>Do I have to spell this out? Beauty is not arbitrary, it varies over culture and experience, sure, but it is fundamentally homogeneous
I like how you claim it's not arbitrary when the diversity of pre-contact artistic forms indicates it's almost completely arbitrary
Considering you admitted to having no evidence for biological determinism or biologically proving the superiority of canon lit as an art form, you're really just walking on air here.

>implying the fact that I corrected you means I'm trolling
>implying you admitted you samefagged the post in order to prove you didn't samefag it and therefore your "opinions" are most likely just as deceitful
Could you fail any harder, brah?

>Mfw when thread archived

>>1380289
>citing abstract generalizations that don't particularly prove anything regardless
>citing abstract generalizations that do prove something regardless

What's wrong with abstract generalizations anon, lrn 2 debate

>Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion, etc etc etc
>no actual evidence to prove the eternal superiority of canon lit over all others

DERP
It doesn't matter how you feel about these elements of literature, society has evolved around therefore they are significant

>>abstract and arbitrary "superiority" with no grounds

What are beauty and significance again? Are they - gasp - grounds?

>>My arguments are so poor I have to rely on abstract generality to justify anything

Why don't you offer up a reason for your brilliant conclusion that beauty is subjective, one better than Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion and the plethora of elements that form the Western concept of beauty.

>>implying canon lit = educated
Yep.
>>implying the well-educated = majority
The majority of the educated.
>>implying majority = best
lol what's your problem with Western Civilization
>>implying best isn't completely arbitrary
Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion, etc etc etc

>>implying you just admitted you have no evidence at all

You actually believe the people who dedicate their lives to science and art have opinions worth no more than the common man. derp.

>>If you're admitting you have no arguments, it's pretty obvious Canon lit is not superior in any way at all. For the second time, I claim victory

This is the fault line down the middle of your world view: Everyone's opinion is the same.

There's a reason people spend time learning things, to keep up with the Great History of the West.

>>1380303
your face when pre-contact art is fundamentally identical and differs only according by the landscape, derp

>>implying you admitted you samefagged the post in order to prove you didn't samefag it and therefore your "opinions" are most likely just as deceitful
Could you fail any harder, brah?

confirmed for troll

archive nao

>>1378076
>>thus_begins_the_epic_shitstorm_of_our_time.jpeg

ITT: O NOES I CAN'T TELL WHICH IS BETTER, SHAKESPEARE OR TWILIGHT LOL I'LL JUST SAY THEY'RE THE SAME

jesus fuckin a

>>1380339
>implying u madder than mad

>What's wrong with abstract generalizations anon, lrn 2 debate
0/10
>It doesn't matter how you feel about these elements of literature, society has evolved around therefore they are significant
>implying canon has created society more than society has created canon
>implying this even means anything at all
>implying this creates eternal significance

>Why don't you offer up a reason for your brilliant conclusion that beauty is subjective, one better than Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion and the plethora of elements that form the Western concept of beauty
>shitty philosophy doesn't hold water
>try and shift argument to hide flaws
Subjective in the sense that things are going to be perceived differently as we are innately separate entities. Not very difficult to understand.

>>1380339
>Symbolism, research, economy of language, rhythm, pivotal historical significance, allusion, etc etc etc
>arbitrary value judgments to claim superiority
You really don't have the data to prove canon is biologically superior and the greatest fulfillment of all our needs- so everything you just cited is really fluff. This does not create eternal value superior to all other forms of literature in any sense
>You actually believe the people who dedicate their lives to science and art have opinions worth no more than the common man. derp.
>no evidence
>random insults to justify arguments
pathetic
>This is the fault line down the middle of your world view: Everyone's opinion is the same.
more like everything may be perceived with equal validity and "good"/"bad/"/any other judgments are completely arbitrary. This is recognition of the fact that nothing is really "better" than anything else because the conditions are completely perception. You're attempting very vainly to impose an absolute answer, when your foundations are composed of completely arbitrary judgments and you simply fail to admit that. Further, even if we accept some arbitrary things the reality is you have no means of proving "canon superiority" even within that. It's really just a way of justifying what persons like as "superior", even when the reality is it's not fundamentally any"higher" or "lesser" than anything.
>There's a reason people spend time learning things, to keep up with the Great History of the West.
This does not mean the "great history of the west" is superior, and you have consistently failed to prove the transcendence of canon over regular non-fiction- which if we take your schema for granted realistically provides a more effective educational viewpoint over any "benefits" provided by canon lit.

>>1380342
>your face when you compare inca abstract artistic forms of precontact and medieval spanish art forms of the same period
Derp. You are imposing similarities brah

>confirmed for troll
>archive nao
Confirmed for troll

umad artfags

>>1380377
>>1380378
I spent ten minutes responding point by point then mistyped the captcha.

So I'll condense it, because I have to go eat dinner.
I accept that different people prefer different things.
But.
There are different classes of people. Some have a precedented artistic appreciation. Some don't. That's cool. It doesn't mean I'm any better than you. But the reason a canon is worth having is so that people like me, who would be otherwise unsatisfied with the work of the day, have things to read. You can read whatever you want.

You're right, one can't prove definitively the superiority of the canon as it relies upon the validity of experience, but, my original intention was not to prove its categorical superiority but to make an argument for its existence.

>>1380387
They both painted, sculpted, sang songs etc

>>1380459
thread, you're both right

you can't prove the canon's superiority to someone who doesn't get it, but that is no reason not to preserve for yourself

>>1380459
Meh, I can live with most of this. But I really doubt the significant "superior intellectual merit"of canon literature simply because it is canon. If anything, the selection process really boils down to academics projecting their opinions on what is "superior" into a conglomerate which is then projected to English literature majors as a "definitive guide to written word" and serves to justify a sense of elitism which helps to maintain the the curriculum.

I also earlier linked it to upper-class attempts to use "high culture" as a means of flaunting class identity and segregating classes, and by no means for intellectual reasons really. I would speculate this helped create the foundations of popular perception for what is "canon", which could then be adapted by university professors.

I do not believe being "canon" signifies intellectual merit, and the selection process itself does not prove this either. To read canon simply because it is canon is not really the most effective way of choosing intellectually stimulating material, especially considering even definitions of intelligence and value is fairly intangible and disputed. It is an attempt at achieving this, with admittedly some merit in it's attempt- yet to consider this the ultimate guide is really quite foolish. I suspect we have reached or are very close to reaching a consensus

>>1380478
seconding this anon