/lit/ - Literature

>>13866368
>We have to separate the art from the artist
That's literally the exact opposite of what liberals think.

>>13866368
>O.M.G did you said you like Pynchon? But- but isn’t he like a sexist bigot that makes nazi technology look cool ? Have sex incel!

>>13866368
But we do have to separate the art from the artist.

>>13866368
>we have to separate the art from the artist
This is the opposite of what so¥s say
>42
What does this mean? It’s just a number

>>13866423
6 x 7

>>13866368

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T USE A COMPLEX WORD WHEN A SIMPLE ONE WILL DO!!!!! PUT AWAY THE THESAURUS!!!!!! YOU HAVE TO WRITE CLEARLY AND SUCCINCTLY!!!! STOP USING SEMICOLONS!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAS;LKGNHAWUIERUIERUIERUIERUIERUIERGASDUIGHAUBKJSBGVHSZBZXCVBAW4UTQAH2WUWVEHUAEEZFBVSDRHB

>>13866423
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference

>>13866788
you just used a semicolon there bud

>>13866752
Have 6.

art must not be separated from the artist
but this has nothing to do with how people usually mean it

>>13868183
dial 8

>>13866912
hitchhiker's guide was big like 40 years ago what the fuck are you on

>>13868692
Actually, there was a movie that came out maybe ten years ago and that ignited some interest in the novel again. Also, the secret of life being 42 is a pretty well-known reference, I don’t know what to tell you.

>>13866379
This. Try talking to one about Updike or Woody Allen and they explode at you

>>13868726
God forbid you bring up Polanski, Last Tango in Paris, or Jodorowsky

>>13868726
>>13868737
He's talking about fucking Dante, you retard. Fucking /pol/tards.

>>13866788
What's going on there, big guy, you just used a semicolon?

>>13868760
...who is talking about Dante?

>>13868692
almost exactly
the original radio series was aired in 1978
the first book came out in 1979

>>13868760
>he’s talking about Dante
OP’s strawman? Regardless, advocating for the separation of art and the artist (outside of an aesthetical discussion about art requiring an artist, which is a different conversation) isn’t a /pol/ position. In fact, both the generalized far right and far left have trouble drawing distinction between art and artist.
>Woody Allen was a degenerate, Jewish pedophile, I’m not watching that
>Jodorowsky was a misogynistic rapist, I’m not watching that

>>13868792
He is talking about the relevance of theology to Dante, not the relevance of biography to some retard cinematographer.

>>13868792
The inability to separate art from the artist is the biggest sign of a pleb, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think people realise just how many artists do things or hold opinions that they wouldn’t like.

>>13868851
Art is what is plebeian. A very recent idea, which has unfortunately gathered momentum amongst the charlatans.

>>13868826
Who is ‘he’? Anon who the FUCK are you talking about? It says ORWELL not VIRGIL, god fucking dammit. Is that where you’re getting this ‘Dante’ nonsense from?

>>13868865
Dante is the most obvious example of a versifier whose "art" should NEVER be demarcated from its theology.

>>13868869
Oh, so we are just talking about OP’s strawman after all.

So where do you draw the line in terms of reading the author’s biography into the text (dante’s religious affiliation as part of his biography, obviously)? In less obvious examples, doesn’t that just lead to assumption, or reading authorial intent into a work where it doesn’t exist? I’m not saying that we shouldn’t, necessarily, for it can definitely enrich the text (the divine comedy being a good example), but doesn’t it set a poor precedent for criticism in general?

>>13868893
There is no line, as far as I am concerned. Verse should not be evaluated based on how virtuous it is, within the context of some emotional reaction, but how virtuous it is, within the context of logical teleology.

>>13868914
So you evaluate works based on their ‘virtue’ and how they well they achieve their aims? You read works through an ethical lens, always?

Harry Potter

>>13868960
No. But when they are wilfully sinful, that is, wilfully anti-teleological, then I have a problem. Alice's adventures in Wonderland, for instance, is whimsical, and fun, so I enjoy it on some level, and it deals with mathematics and something utterly non-teleological, such as chess, which I also enjoy. I guess you have a point. But those verses which are non-teleological should be valued on a lower level than those which are teleological, and they should never be taught seriously at university, or school.

Have a Xie as an apology for the misunderstanding.

>>13868969
Hmm, certainly an interesting take on criticism. No worries, this board is mostly one large misunderstanding

I unironically believe that having convictions is the single most obvious pleb marker