/lit/ - Literature

>>15250163
>striking inability to rise above the emotional and intellectual limitations of its author.

What the fuck kind of criticism is this? Every author is limited by there own limitations. What is she even trying to say?

>>15250178
*the're

>>15250178
I think she doesn’t understand because she’s a women, if Mishima would have cams to terms with leftism and modernity at the end she probably would of got wet writing a rosing review

>>15250241
>cams
*clams

>>15250241
You could say that the real weakness of her critique is its inability to rise above the biological limitations of the author's being a woman.

>>15250254
*came to terms
not claim to terms

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

>>15250304
>claim
*cleaighm

She got filtered.

>>15250163
>is its striking inability to rise above the emotional and intellectual limitations of its author.
This has to be the dumbest attempt at sounding smart I've ever read.

>>15250163
It's one of the best works (actually four works) in world literature. Re-framing the peculiarity of Mishima's world-view as limitation is just a cheap shot. You could as well call Borges's fixation on Metaphysics a limitation.

>>15250163

>"The outstanding weakness of this, the final novelistic effort of Mishima Yukio—and indeed the major failing of the bulk of his work—is its striking inability to rise above the emotional and intellectual limitations of its author."

Why I don't like this:

1. PASSIVE VOICE
Academics do this to try to sound detached and objective. They just sound gutless.

2. SNARK
To be specific, that nasty little passive-aggressive jab "novelistic effort". Screw you, Marleigh Ryan. You're not fit to polish Mishima's Katana. (Not that he'd want you anywhere near it.)

3. ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Obviously a writer can't rise above his own emotional and intellectual limitations. THAT'S WHAT LIMITATIONS ARE, YOU STUPID BINT. What she means, presumably, is, that his limitations are too much in evidence, or they're too much of a problem for the particular type of book he was attempting.

So, she could have said something like this:

>"This, Mishima's last novel, is primarily weakened (like most of his work) by his emotional and intellectual limitations."

But if she'd said that, her book would only have been 30 pages long instead of 200, and she wouldn't have been able to sell it for $24.99.

>>15252625
>PASSIVE VOICE
?

>>15252985

I meant the use of gerund-based syntax. Things like "it has a striking inability to do X" instead of "it can't do X". Nouns are passive compared with verbs.

>>15250163
its a woman trying to read Mishima, what the fuck were you expecting

maybe if you want to critique an argument you should read the argument instead of reeeing at a single sentence from it

>>15252625
I wish I could write like her it's the trick to succeed in academia

>no passive voice!
>show don't tell!
>adverbs BAD!

>>15253284

It's really not very hard. Just write what you want to say and then wrap it in three layers of cowardly involution.

>>15252544
I really don't think so. The first two books are obviously wildly superior and absolutely as good as you say. The third book is still good, especially later on, but a bit disjointed between the two segments and the social satire stuff feels a bit flat to me. The last book is clearly half-finished. It has a more inherently interesting premise than the second book, but everything is flimsier.

Dude was in too much of a hurry to die.