/lit/ - Literature

>authorial intent does not matter

it's supposed to demonstrate intersubjectivity and creative subjectivity are one and the same

>>1641567
so you like it?

I like it.
I've been thinking on how much bullshit this creed of non-authorial intent matter subjectivity.

>>1641570
well i dont understand your cartoon. if it's supposed to mock d&e then i like it a lot

if you're talking about thoreau is it authorial incabin

>>1641583
oh I get it!! that's terrible!!

>>1641577
How could you possibly not understand this cartoon?

>>1641588
>implying the author's intention to joke means anything

>>1641577
no it's a social commentary

>>1641613
that makes it much worse. i like imagining d&e with giant crystaline lightbulbs on his head.

>>1641626
d&e is so fucking hot onion

you don't even know

>>1641613
It's a reductio ad absurdum. I learned that in Logic class.

>>1641642
i ahve learned to resist physical and sexual urgess by my mastery of the world. all is beauty and nothing is ugly. this is only when i feel good though.

>>1641653
Did you do what Gandhi allegedly did and sit in a room full of beautiful naked people until you were cool with it?

>>1641653
>>1641671
that's amazing

>>1641671

onionring did you turn into tybrax overnight

Intent is pretty important in various areas of life Fab

I'm just glad it's not wholly constitutive of meaning in a literary text. That would be a terrible constraint on the free play of signifiers.

>>1641681
Before I read the image title I thought she was leaving a funeral or something (i didn't realize that black thing on her head was her hair), gave the pic a whole new dimension

>>1641685
no way. i am alive.
>>1641692
receptive to intent in totality, but never try to _describe_

>>1641681
Why is the "-squeak- me" written on tip ex? What was there originally?

>>1641692
maybe

im pretty butthurt over the back of my copy of dorian gray calling it a gothic horror

>>1641700
>never try to _describe
Why not if the description fulfills whatever relative end the describer might have. Same with family resemblance definition.

>>1641705
well, never be arrogant in your description and claim reduction.

btw sassure is pretty good but wrong in the bit about arbitrary determinacy. the actual answer to that bit is that intentionality, characteristic of an intent to point to objects. (this is either the same or postiori to object creation, which is the same event as sign creation)

this is the meaning of the event, not its cause. the cause may be that you need this mental faculty to live in the world and survive, but more specifically, the intersubjective nature of language points to social origins.

>>1641714
>actual answer to that bit is that intentionality, characteristic of an intent to point to objects.
You substitute the idea that what makes a tree a tree is arbitrary with the notion of intentionality, which itself is arbitrary.

>>1641725
its existence is arbitrary. its meaning is highly significant.

>>1641733
arbitrary means contingent. however, insofar that it exists, its existence is necessary.

>>1641733
>>1641725
It's like Caesar and Boudica

>>1641714

ITT: a bunch of tripfags argue about which of them has a correct understanding of philosophical ideas that are completely useless to everyday people because they are basically indepth arguments about nothing that actually matters to anyone. I know you will argue that I am a /sci/ fag but I'm not, I just come here because I enjoy reading, but then I come here and there is nothing but discussions of bullshit philosophical and critical arguments. Name one way that sassure or Lacan or Derrida actually effected anything in the big picture of things. They didn't.

So guys apparently pointing to objects is somehow exempt from being signification itself. Y'know, like how my giving you the middle finger is a sign. But apparently it's not.

>>1641757
There is no big picture, only your narrow one

>>1641758
non-snarky way of putting it; intentionality is just more signs

>>1641757
>philosophy is hard
>call it useless and denounce every practitioner as a bunch of hooligans
dat defense mechanism

>>1641767
>as a hooligan
oops

>>1641767

No I didn't mean to say that philosophy itself is pointless. Just Lacan, Derrida, and Saussure, I love Philosophers that are actually good like Wittgenstein and Heidegger. I can see where they actually contribute to a bigger picture and effect things outside of their narrow fields. But try and do that with Literary theory guys and you come up blank. Lit Theory is all BS and you guys know it so stop defending it.

>>1641774
>Lit Theory is all BS and you guys know it so stop defending it.
I guess you must hate heidegger

>>1641765
> intentionality is just more pointing

Oh, go on. Please.

I used to hate my Intro to Literary Theory class, it just seemed like an exercise in intellectual wank.

>>1641778
Also, if you had read any Derrida you would know that he raises fundamental concerns about the boundaries between literature and philosophy, and the profusion of metaphor in philosophical language, that have yet to be answered

>>1641779
You're just assuming the very thing I've shown to be under question. I'm saying that pointing is in itself not wholly constitutive of arbitrary determinacy. An example would be giving you the middle finger, which is ostensive yet is a sign itself. Ostensive definition presupposes signs in order to function.

>>1641791
> giving you the middle finger, which is ostensive

You realize that putting these words in this order is retarded, right? I'm not even sure you can speak my language. The middle finger is an expression of contempt. Ostensive words are like "this" and "that".

>>1641653

Onionring confirmed for ugly sweaty virgin

>>1641797
>An ostensive definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples
The middle finger expression wasn't great, but it still doesn't affect my claim. What is pointed out is always a sign. A "this" or "that" can only understood as such as signs.

>>1641791
Basically my argument is that of the kid in algebra class in high school who says but I'll never use it. Well while algebra and science and archeology and most other fields have the ability to move forward in some way shape or form and effect the world in some way for instance Literary Theory is basically completely useless outside of the Ivory Tower of English departments in college. There is no way that an argument about authorial intent is going to effect or change the world ever. Hell, it doesn't even effect most people who are really into studying literature. It does nothing for anyone.

>>1641802
Dude, ypu fucked up. Stop simultaneously trying to cover up your fuck up with obtuse langauge and embarrassing semiotics with the misuse of its lexis.

>>1641805
>here is no way that an argument about authorial intent is going to effect or change the world ever
Legal hermeneutics etc

>>1641807
Cool, now try addressing my claim.

>>1641805

I want to add that even general philosophy can effect people, it can change peoples outlook on life or change how they live their lives, people learn ethics which effects how they govern, I can go on like this for every field, but I can't with Lit Theory. AT ALL.

>>1641802
> What is pointed out is always a sign. A "this" or "that" can only understood as such as signs.

This is stupid, and only works if you have a ludicrously wide definition of sign. Here's an actual, sane definition: things that a community take to stand for other things.

So in my community, anyways, the roman alphabet is a bunch of signs, the numerals, and so on. In an ordinary context, a blade of grass, and a hell of a lot of other objects, are not signs. All of these non-sign objects are candidates to be picked out by ostensive definition.

>>1641812
Read

>>1641813

Let me rephrase that in a way, Nothing that is exclusive to Literary Theory, that doesn't also cross over into philosophy in general is ever going to effect anything.

>>1641814
>only works if you have a ludicrously wide definition of sign
I've been using the standard saussurean one. You're free to point out how this could be 'ludicrously wide'. Apart from that all you're doing here is totally changing the argument by redefining the terms, and as such not in fact addressing the argument put forth at all.

>>1641816
`> Nothing that is exclusive to Literary Theory, that doesn't also cross over into philosophy
You are now aware of arbitrary and generally meaningless subject divisions.

>>1641821
>discredited
>standard

lol

>>1641816
>Nothing that is exclusive to Literary Theory, that doesn't also cross over into philosophy in general is ever going to effect anything.
Learn what discourse is.

>>1641823

Basically what I want is an example of something that is unique to literary theory that actually made a difference.

>>1641821
1. Semiotics has a moved on a lot since Sassure. He is by no means the be all and end all
2. This doesn't really matter since you've misunderstood him

>>1641835
You're free to point out how my definition is ludicrousy wide bro, I am not interested in noise.

>>1641833
Name something which is "unique" to any subject area. Not that uniqueness makes any difference whatsoever.

>>1641838
Lots of subjects have things that are specific to them or they wouldn't exist as anything but a branch out of another subject not in need of their own title. And what I am proposing is that all the things that are unique to Lit Theory are completely useless. And everybody is dancing around the thing saying I shouldn't be categorizing stuff instead of giving an example of something useful outside of the Ivory Tower.

>>1641841
>everybody is dancing around the thing saying I shouldn't be categorizing stuff
They've just been telling you that you can't

>>1641800
i am the goddess of creation.

>>1641836
A sign, in Saussurean terms, has no definition if it refers to everything. This is what you want sign to mean, and if you know Saussure you'd see you've gone wrong here.

Unrelated to you guys' argument but what is literary theory actually about? or what does it include? and how is it different from literary criticism ?

>>1641841
No subject has anything unique to them. Name a principle in physics that doesn't apply to chemistry too, or to engineering. Or a something in Classics that couldn't fit into things like theology or ancient history or linguistics.

>>1641862

I am just trying to argue a simple argument and I still haven't gotten an answer to it. How does Literary Theory impact the world in a significant way? You can make it as complex as you want, but lets just downsize my argument to that simple question since this is getting more complex than I intended with all of the shit about categories, yes I concede that if you want to be a jerk about things I can find a relationship between any two fields no matter how slight if you want to that isn't what I wanted this argument to be.

>>1641858
>A sign, in Saussurean terms, has no definition if it refers to everything. This is what you want sign to mean
No, I'm simply saying that a sign refers to an object. But this object is itself inescapably a sign (feel free give me an example of an object that isn't itself a sign). The referent is never fully present. Thus a sign refers to another sign. That's a completely different statement to "a sign refers to everything"

>>1641886
this sentence is false
true things are true
it's true until it isn't
all is god.

problem sets for today

>>1641873

Fuck off ok?

There really is not any way that it impacts the world, are you happy now? Go back to /sci/ and leave us in peace.

>>1641893

Trolling you guys has been like pulling teeth.. it just isn't fun and your board is so inactive that it takes ten minutes for you guys to reply to shit that is on the front page..

>>1641908
Welcome to /lit/.

It's the literature board. Our horizons for reading exist far outside the realm of this board. Therefore in order to keep up it needs to move slowly, which it naturally will if everybody else is of the same condition. That's why the board exists.

>>1641966

you are wrong sir this board exists for Brownbear to have a place to jerk off

>>1641986
I thought D&E's chest existed so Brownbear could have a place to jerk off onto.

>>1641994

no thats my mouth bro

Authorial intent does not have primacy.
It can still matter, but it has to be significantly argued and it does not stand alone. I think (I'm going out on a limb here, I know) Foucault actually offers this slight counterpoint to Barthes in that there is a very real social as well as legal framework to the author-concept.
Also, to the guy who said "This doesn't apply to anything!" You might want to look into modern practices of government like judicial review. Authorial intent (precedents) and interpretive discourse is the essence of many court appeals.
I have no idea what is "entirely unique" to literary criticism. Provide a subject within it and I'll think about it, even though I'm the amateur who's usually aimlessly studying it in my free time.

>>1642029

Let me rephrase once again, I'm talking about Literary Theory as in, the discipline that basically starts with Russian Formalism in 1910(if I wanted to be really mean I could start with 1950 which is the date that wikipedia gives). Judicial review has been around since the late 1700's. To be specific about my question once again, name somehow that Literary Theory has impacted the world in some way since the 1900's. I really didn't expect this to be such a hard question lol, I thought I would get a million answers and I would walk out with my tail between my legs.

bump

>>1641986
>>1641986
>>1641994
>>1641994
oh you two just kidding you're a samefag!

>>1642032
>>1642032
>name somehow Literary Thoeory has impacted the world in some way since the 1900's.

is that a serious question?
or are you just pretending to be retarded?

>this thread
>argue argue
>namedrop namedrop
>waaaaaaaa

Authorial intent is important...to the author. It is also important to others if they want to understand the author's intentions, motivations and influences. But if you feel that your interpretation is more relevant, than there is no problem with that as long as you can prove it textually. A text becomes a part of the public when it is published, so the public can interpret it how they want, and the only source they need to check their theory off of is the text itself. This entire argument is retarded.

>>1643010
Well good job not helping the guy Brownbear, jeesh, what a jerk

>>1643010

I don't think he was serious but I was looking into it to try and find something to use as a come back, but I couldn't find anything.. So can you answer it?

>>1643036
you're my hero you might even be cooler than d&e :)

a good board ruined by tripfags, what a surprise

>>1643039
>>1643039
literary theory has been applied outside literature and has changed the way we view the very nature of the world and society and how both are built up

>>1643036

This was moved by Roland Barthes, a french literary critic where in his essay 'Death of the Author', the artist might as well die after he finishes his work because he has little or no say in the interpretation of it. This idea is accompanied by the birth of the reader as an active entity in the interpretation of literature. 'The Fate of the Artist' by Eddie Campbell directly deals with this issue, expressing that you cannot take the creator out of its creature, or in this case, the author out of the novel. Roland Barthes's approach has been critiqued with trying to kill the stylistic personal identity of the artist and much skepticism has been applied to this idea, mainly by the essay 'What is an Author?' where the author is shown as the main functionary of crafting the ideology of the novel in question and shaping the meaning that the reader can take out of analysis with an unspoken pact between reader and author. It is quite interesting.

>>1643041
>god tier
stagolee
onionring
d+e

>good tier
brownbear
korohemoth
tybrax
w00f

>shit tier
truman

there really arent any others worth mentioning

tom i love u bby

ive kind of fallen a tier in the last few months. i cant control /lit/ anymore i failrure at everything ;(

please god kill everyone on this thread

>>1643067
please don't do that to yourself

you'll only end up in a place worse than the one you're in now

one day ill sweep you off your feet and we can live in seclusion in the countryside of france together

>>1643067

HAHAHA "CONTROL /LIT/"

HAHA

also stagolee is a fucking joke, I used to think he might be okay but goddamn have the scales lifted from my eyes

i don't usually like conventional wisdom but i am having trouble finding tripcoders who aren't shit

>>1643073
i dont care what you call it. i could get emotion from you guys when i needed it but i cant anymore. im not sure if im just losing everything or you guys got bored.

>>1643073
d&e and isabelle huppert are good. ty is ok. the rest should poop back and forth forever. ))<>((

>>1643076

you are pathetic and pretty _
also i replace _ in your posts with "smurf" because it makes you less crappy, so you should do it for real

>>1643082
no smurf.

>>1643087
why do you post pictures of him?

he's a girly boy

you're cuter

>>1643081
>isabelle huppert
>implying that bird hasn't flown the coop

>>1643063
at this point Deep&Edgy is the only one who makes posts I like to read

>>1643094
?

also fabulous you make me want to send that email.

>>1643099
what does that mean?

i'm not giving you enough love?

nvm

>>1643087

yea smurf

you make me feel so smurfy because you give me smurf

>>1643109
>>1643109
why don't you just let love in

>>1643118
how can you look into these eyes

>>1643133
i understand you

The two tripfags: just go get a room!
Or at least a private chatroom, faggots.

>>1643181
homophobe

>>1643187
homosex

>>1643193
nosex virgin

>>1643198
Yes. I'm as pure as the driven snow. Why would I allow some ___ to defile me? Dirty-minded Fabulous.

>>1643198
how did you guees, homo-boy?

>>1643198
>>1643219

At least have the decency to sage if you're going to devolve into ad-hominems.

>>1643219
dont take your sexual ineptitude out on me you silly boy

>>1643222
dont mock me

>>1643223
>doesn't know what ad hominem is

>>1643226
Looks like someone's upset. Did I hit a nerve?

>fabulous trolling stupid anons without even trying

heh.... what a star.....

>>1643226
like you didn't asked for it

>>1643238
Nice troll, Deep&Edgy, but I think you know better than that.

>>1643238
>tripfag trying to brownnose other tripfag

>>1643268
>D&E
>needing to brown nose another tripfag
i guess i'm flattered

>>1643233
cliche response

this entire thread after post about 55 has been nothing but cliches and fat virgins patting themselves on the backs

>fat virgins
Yes Fabulous?

>>1643288
and you aren't helping it

Geesh, this thread really proves how worthless Fabulous is to this board

Actually, to be honest, I don't think the tripcode users (at least those who are regulars) have contributed anything of value to this board in a while. It's mostly been Anons making interesting conversation, where interesting conversation is to be found

>>1643288
>using big words without knowing their meanings
it's not 'flattered', it's 'flatulent'

>>1643299
dont be silly tom

>>1643303
holy shit youre so clever!

>>1643307
i made a cool comic

>>1643310
two of the tripfags in this thread know more than the anons itt combined

not talking about me and tom

>>1643314
>big words
wat

>>1643331
Neither Deep&Edgy nor onionring has posted anything of value in this thread.

>>1643341
oh

well i think theyre smart and contribute to the board

they do a little bit, right?

>>1643344
maybe, but they only really seem interested in pushing their respective philosophical agendas, not so much talking about literature

>>1643344
a little bit more than you, right

tripfags are the cancer that has killed this board

I am the best tripfag on 4chan

>>1643373
at least you're not the worst

>>1643366

Not exactly. Hipsters, people who decry the works of others while offering nothing substantive of their own, and posters who want to wank about or hate on something and never ever shut up about it long enough to contribute or stop shitting up the contributing threads are a big part of the cancer on this board.

Tripfags just happen to be particularly guilty, or at least memorably guilty.

>>1643366
Tripfags and the idiots who reply to their trollthreads are the cancer that has killed this board*
Trips have always been around, but it was never them preying upon idiots like it is now.

>>1643350
maybe but that isn't so bad

>>1643359
no need to be snarky

>>1643381
shhh

>>1643383
I don't troll

i speak my mind and tell the truth and that happens to come into conflict with the ideals and fantasies of others

>>1643341
who are you to determine what is contributing and what is not. for one, you have not understood a single thing i've said.

>>1643465
so cool

i want to be like you when i grow up

>>1643468

>>1643473
i wanna look like you when i grow up

>>1643473
are you sad that you can't ever be as good as me