/lit/ - Literature

>*I am inclined to treat theories (with more respect)
derp

d&e, you seem like a giant dong who likes to play inaccessible, esoteric games with literature so long as there's absolutely no possibility that a woman or a brown person will outdo you

>>1734441
Nonsense, I just like to know how to critically appreciate literature in the best way. It's not a big deal.

>>1734432
D&E, I have been watching you over since I started looking at /lit/. At first I was impressed - you have just the right ideas about fantasy and sci-fi. You also seemed to have some sort of an appreciation of literary criticism.

However, what has become evident to me is that you don't find it interesting in its own right, you just like the feeling of superiority you get from posting in threads like this. You probably got out 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' from the library just to have something intimidating-looking to read in public places, you pretentious fucker.

To answer your question, Russian Formalism is utter shit because the idea of the 'estranging' literary effects that differentiate literature from normal speech sounds kind of fun on paper but just doesn't hold up in the real world.

I find New Criticism quite sexy but to explain why would be pretentious so I won't.

>>1734450
>implying ink on paper is actually something worth thinking over and not just slightly coherent nonsense for the time being.

>implying there is any outcome worth of mentioning in this topic

>implying this implicant and the others aren't just form-fillers.

yeah, probably russian formalism

it boggles my mind as to what kind of sick person would actually promote a marxist or feminist approach tbh.

anyway, if we're simply looking to evaluate a text, russian formalism, but I'd say to both evaluate and measure of the value (both of which I feel is the ultimate goal), a mix of aestheticism + russian formalism is best.

>>1734450

Just do like the rest. Try looking at the top-list at amazon. Simple bro

>>1734470
What the fuck? Do you people realise that in modern literary theory Russian Formalism is dismissed as the hopelessly archaic and logocentric nonsense that it is? Literature does not have a single 'particular purpose'.

ideological preoccupations are people trying to make something out of 'simply literature.' try looking outside of your cubicle

idk about philosophy but Last night i had a dream where i was on d&e's youtube channel and on his profile it said he believed in two gods

>>1734479
Real atoms never try, you filthy atomicistically unified non-celestial body.

Why do you think that your atoms are any less predictable than our atoms?

>>1734492
You're shit at this.

>>1734477
>hopelessly archaic and logocentric
I'd like you to explain to me how this completely invalidates a theory of literature that wasn't even a consolidated body of doctrines to begin with.

>>1734494
>implying I'm trying to be something else than the purest of the shits you have ever seen.

>implying all the reactions that you can possible conjure up within 10 minutes are not already being considered by someone. Which is statistically a correct implication considering all possible permutations.

I'd say that I find post-structuralism and deconstruction the most useful literary theories. I am also preoccupied with political ideologies and I am unhappily a nihilist. For me, artists should consider their ideological position, and the reader MUST consider it. I'm not a dogmatic post-modernist though. There are times and places for other methods of criticism. Its hardly a finished idea. Here are isms I am interested in, from various fields including literature, art, science and phillosophy.

post-modernism
post-colonialism
post-structuralism
ontological materialism
behaviorism
sociology
psychoanalysis
situationist international
surrealism
dada
conceptualism
nihilism
Jazz
anarchism
futurism
transhumanism
queer theory
feminism


Like I said, I don't ascribe to any of these fully. Simply a list of things I haven't rejected.

>>1734504
look kid the aphorisms i am writing are rather on a different level from your contentless crap.

>>1734495
It is about as simple as I can make it in the bit you quoted: Russian Formalism is hopelessly archaic and logocentric and should be dismissed out of hand. If you're going to play the 'there is no one thing defined as Russian Formalism, lol' card then I would ask why until I pissed on it you referred to it as 'Russian Formalism' and not 'X's version of Russian Formalism'.

The point remains. Saying you like Russian Formalism these days is like saying that you prefer Windows 98 to Windows 7.

>>1734507
i don't know what you guys are talking about but i'm rooting for you. although russians are cool.

>post-colonialism
>psychoanalysis
>nihilism
>Jazz
>anarchism
>transhumanism
>queer theory
>feminism

Oh god. Die in a fire.

pictorial illustration of ideal state of philosophy, and i guess lit theory as well.

Ah, the over-educated and their silly words about how to read books. So besides teaching, you can also use your degree to make pedantic lit theory threads on an imageboard where pedophilia and bestiality are commonplace.

>>1734441
>Russian Formalism is hopelessly archaic and logocentric and should be dismissed out of hand
Okay cool I already know what you said, now you could try explaining why either of these things invalidate the value of Russian Formalism. I'm waiting.

>why until I pissed on it you referred to it as 'Russian Formalism' and not 'X's version of Russian Formalism'.
I have always been discussing Russian Formalism under the assumption of it as an interconnected collection of theoretical stances and concepts. This doesn't affect anything.

>Saying you like Russian Formalism these days is like saying that you prefer Windows 98 to Windows 7.
Cool, now explain how that is so.

>>1734519
>Ah, the over-educated and their silly words about how to read books
no just how to appreciate literature critically

Queer Theory.

>>1734519

I'm not tripfagging. Everybody still has the chance to pretend that they're insinuating gODS.

>>1734523
>appreciate critically

How cute. You haven't studied much functional theory now have you?

Yes, this is strictly a personal offence. I hope you don't mind.

>>1734463
My dick is so hard right now. Thank-you.

>>1734535

I'd like you to tell me what you think I mean by 'critically appreciate'

>>1734523

call what you want, you're a faggot. nobody likes you, save similar douchbags. your faux-knowledge is completely useless.

>>1734520
>Okay cool I already know what you said, now you could try explaining why either of these things invalidate the value of Russian Formalism. I'm waiting.
If you read what I said before that you know why I repeated myself. Stop being obtuse.

>I have always been discussing Russian Formalism under the assumption of it as an interconnected collection of theoretical stances and concepts. This doesn't affect anything.
In the same way, I pissed on it as an interconnected collection of theoretical stances and concepts. Do you see what I was getting at now?

>Cool, now explain how that is so.

You're being obtuse again.

Windows 98 is a very old operating system. It might have worked OK in its day, but Windows 7 is undeniably better in every single aspect bar one: it requires a more powerful computer to run.

Russian Formalism is quite a cool-sounding concept when you read Eagleton talk about it in 'Literary Theory' but, as you will probably discover when you finish that first chapter, it is flawed when you try to apply it to the real world. The idea that literature is a way of 'estranging' language is fun and everything but it quickly becomes apparent that in today's world of relativism and post-modernism trying to enforce these strict definitions and boundaries on style and 'devices' just falls apart. It is a theory that might have worked OK at the time it was introduced but is now woefully inadequate.

>>1734544
>your faux-knowledge is completely useless.
It's been very useful for me, not too concerned about what use it has for anyone else.

>nobody likes you, save similar douchbags
so anyone from normal people to smart people to funny people hmm

>>1734513
Yeah, you might be right. There are lots of fucked up parts of these things. Mainly, I am interested in them because they ask questions I am also asking.

post-modernism. What is History?

post-colonialism. Does my culture prevent me from understanding other cultures?

post-structuralism. How does language affect how I think. Do parts of my language make me think in correctly?

ontological materialism. It would appear that nothing exists outside of matter and energy. Does this secular and "physicist" view of the world limit my understanding of psychology?

behaviorism. Do I have will? Are my actions stimulated by enviornment? How does the brain process stimulus into action?

sociology- What can I learn about humans from their cultures?

psychoanalysis- Do I have an unconscious? What does it do? (I'm think Lacan here, more than Freud)

situationist international. Do I like my mass society? Does it limit me?

surrealism. If representation is flawed and imperfect, how can this imperfection be harnassed to bring clarity? Does my unconscious communicate to my conscious brain via behavior and representation?

dada. Why do I like absurdism?

conceptualism. Can I understand the meaning of my own representations?

nihilism. Can I create values? Can I believe in them?

Jazz. What is spontaneity? Is it more than thrill seeking?

anarchism. Should I feel politically motivated to resist inhuman structures?

futurism. Do I like technology? What can it do for me?

transhumanism. If I am a material body, what does transhumanism present to me in terms of adjusting my identity.

queer theory and feminism. What is a non-hetero identity that is not a cliche? Is queerness an identity problem?

>>1734551

how has it been useful to you? if you assert that bullshit you better back it up. useful to you in making threads on 4chan?

>>1734550
I already know what you said, now you could try explaining why either of these things invalidate the value of Russian Formalism. I'm waiting.

>but it quickly becomes apparent that in today's world of relativism and post-modernism trying to enforce these strict definitions and boundaries on style and 'devices' just falls apart.
how so? cmon bro start explaining what you're saying instead of calling me obtuse

>>1734543
I think you are deliberately using oxymorons in your careful phrasing of "approximating critically" because you enjoy leaving room for irritation while seeming to want something.

There is no such thing as that. You are either on the verge of it or you're not. You either do have the formulae for the approximate or you have the formulae for the critically correct. You can't have both my dear brother.

yet..

>>1734558
It's useful to me in that it contributes to my understanding of the difference between good and bad works of literature, which influences my reading habits and what I value in literary works. So yeah overall my quality of life is better now that I don't waste my time on shit and know what to look for in literary works.

Hey D&E not to make a personal attack here, as I see you are already engaged heavily with another poster about russian formalism, but I have a question.

A while back you argued with me that your prefrences were superior to mine (I believe we were discussing modern art). While you did engage in rational debate for a period of time, you conclueded that you simply has a more masterful view, and that I was using slave ideology. If your beliefs are truely superior (and let me tell you I know nothing of russian formalism, so this isn't specifically about that) what good is asking your initial question of "what theory of literature offers the most productive tools with which to critically evaluate texts?"

I did answer the question (see 1734554) but I find it strange that you would even care what others find useful. Also, do you think your ideas on your perfection are contradictory to post-modern ideas on subjectivity?

>>1734579
when he's saying slave ideology he's just saying you are not trolling as hard as he is.

>>1734554
you forgot:

post anco. Am I really all the things that are outside of me?

by trolling, you should know already, asserting the brutal superiority of his opinions. but we can't call them opinions, no no no

>>1734558
You seem to have deep psychological balance. You are, in contrast to everyone else in here, rational and objective. You are everything you want to be and nothing more needs to be achieved. You are better then THEM all.

Please continue to the next room for clothing..

>>1734581
Honestly his point was correct. I do not consider myself in a position of power either theoretically, socio-economically or martially. I consider oppresion wrong, not because of some universal human rights bull shit, but simply because I fear the powerful and the things they have done to me and others like me.

>>1734579
>If your beliefs are truely superior (and let me tell you I know nothing of russian formalism, so this isn't specifically about that) what good is asking your initial question of "what theory of literature offers the most productive tools with which to critically evaluate texts?"
jesus dude am I not allowed to ask what other peoples' opinions are?

>Also, do you think your ideas on your perfection are contradictory to post-modern ideas on subjectivity?
What do you mean by post-modern ideas on subjectivity? Do you mean interpellation, the objectified subject or radical subjectivism?

>>1734572

good and bad are subjective to the indivisual, and all theory is shit. the only thing people should look for in literary works are personal enjoyment and enrichment. you don't know anything worth knowing in comparison to an avid reader without your useless education.

>>1734564
Forgive me for presuming that you had at least some powers of deduction. I'm calling you obtuse because you're being obtuse: instead of actually responding to my arguments you're just crowing on about how I'm not explaining things, even though I JUST DID explain things in my last message. Nevertheless.

The premise of Russian Formalism is that what differentiates literature from normal text is that literature deviates from normal conventions of informal communication and draws our attention to these differences; it 'makes strange' normal writing through the use of 'literary devices' like metaphors, allegory, symbolism, so on and so forth.

The reason why it didn't really work even then is that it fails to realise that these 'devices' are by no means exclusive to literature, and it tries to provide a way of objectively identifying something as literature when such a thing is impossible due to the term's inherent subjectivity. It is even more irrelevant today because of post-modernism and relativism. Would a Russian Formalist identify Waiting for Godot as literature? Probably not - but it is undeniably the case that is is literature.

Is that enough explanation, or am I still asserting things? :P

>>1734583
Never heard of post-anco. I'm fairly convinced that there are things that are not me. Solipsism doesn't seem like a ontological problem, but possibly an epistemological problem. Does my perception affect what I consider reality? I'm fairly convinced the answer is yes, although I'm not a total subjectivist ("nothing is knowable because we all have different views"). Perhaps the question I'm left with here is whether things are different or other. Can things be compared?.

>>1734589
asserting your power != oppression.

>>1734586
12 year old retard get out of here.

>>1734599
I think they're referring to Animal Collective. In one of their songs, 'Am I really all the things that are outside of me?' is a lyric.

I think they might have been making a joke.

>>1734602
>>1734601
So predictable..

Oh the irony gOD...

>>1734592
>good and bad are subjective to the indivisual
You can't mean subjective, because nothing is subjective (nor objective), and there is no such thing as the concrete individual, although it is a handy concept we can use to refer to others in a pinch I guess. So really all you're saying is that what is good and bad is relative to different individuals. Which, of course is the case. What is going to be good literature for someone familiar with what makes literature good is not what is going to be good for someone who doesn't know the slightest thing about literature. I am only interested in what is good for the people who know what they are talking about, anyone else is free to like whatever they want.

>only thing people should look for in literary works are personal enjoyment and enrichment
Of course, and that is what people who can critically appreciate literature do. Just on a different level. It's really not that difficult to get.

>>1734614
Even for /lit/ you are quite fantastically pretentious.

>>1734598
>>1734598

>The premise of Russian Formalism is that what differentiates literature from normal text is that literature deviates from normal conventions of informal communication and draws our attention to these differences; it 'makes strange' normal writing through the use of 'literary devices' like metaphors, allegory, symbolism, so on and so forth.
Defamiliarisation is only one concept, the most recognisable, of the many concepts involved in Russian Literature. Try Jakobson's poetics, which is much more interesting and also partly constitutive of a basis for narratology and structural approaches.

>The reason why it didn't really work even then is that it fails to realise that these 'devices' are by no means exclusive to literature, and it tries to provide a way of objectively identifying something as literature when such a thing is impossible due to the term's inherent subjectivity. It is even more irrelevant today because of post-modernism and relativism. Would a Russian Formalist identify Waiting for Godot as literature? Probably not - but it is undeniably the case that is is literature.
Sorry, I don't see an inability to properly label works as this or that as a convincing argument that an entire field.

>>1734614
predicting a contingent system as though it has a god. i would not do such a thing.

continue to spin like a top while i make my new world.

>>1734618

Pretentious. Typical teenage angst-rhetoric.

You should start using the word "grandiose" instead. It atleast has a subtle touch of compliment, which makes it so much more degrading. Feel free to add a subjective after the noun if you wish to feel a little open about your despise. Ex: Grandiose borgois. or, grandiose swine. Or maybe the all fitting grandiose elitist. (Just don't use elitist alone, that will just degrade you) . Remember: don't use the word pretentious again, you just make a fool out of yourself.

I think you need a role model and they key to fitting in i..

>>1734632
>>1734641

both of you don't sound that different really

>>1734664
wellllllll, im a bit addicted to this way of talking atm. it's a phase.

well, Russian Formalism had both its flaws and its achievements. after the weird misreadings made by the French structuralists (specially Todorov) on Formalists and Bakhtin (considered an "anti-formalist"), most of the theory was abandoned and just some of its more popular aspects went on. but when Culture Semiotics by I. Lotman et al. emerged, some modern theorists found very fresh and interesting readings on Formalist theory (specially on so-called Late Formalism). you should check Itamar Even-Zohar whose research is some kind of mix of Russian formalism and Cultural Semiotics.

>>1734664
I was about to call you predictable and make you think you are [even if youre not].. it's all getting so old and people are just getting more and more suspicious. What will happen with this world?

Who'm is there left to lie for and decieve? (feel free to steal that perfect phrase).

>>1734681
cheers

>>1734692
What If I'm in a catatonic state typing on the keyboard with the help of a fMRI scanner connected with edgy electrodes deep inside my neocortex?

How to cheer then. Not much more to cheer for then is it you insensible ATHEI..

cheers to you too...

i like structuralism...

Everybody needs to stop saying cheers. I'm finding it too humble and innocent for my taste i'm afraid. It's not Faustian enough.

>>1734740
>>1734740