/lit/ - Literature

quick note for other posters, although I'm sure everyone on /lit/ knows this already, don't just post a story summary; that's, of course, not an *analysis*. You're free to post one if you feel it will help readers understand where your coming from, but as we all know from high-school, that's peripheral to an actual *textual analysis*.

The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair

Story Summary: why you should be a vegetarian, in novel form

Textual Analysis: those poor cows, the inhumanity, the inhumanity

The Barber, Flanner O'Connor

Summary: Southerners want to be your friends but they also want to hate people you like.

ITT: we copy and paste our homework from english 201

>>1822468
I don't know about those other guys but this is just something I whipped up over a cup of java to flex my reading muscles.

But please, don't just sage the thread with cynical comments. I'm sure you''ve read something recently that we'd all love to hear an analysis of on your part.

>>1822472
>to hear an analysis of on your part
What an ugly phrase.

ITT: d&e posts and a never-ending shit storm commences

sigh.jpg

>>1822473
Don't be so mean.

>>1822474
>saging a thread about literature

over-written, obvious attempt to troll /lit/ with pedantry

huehuehuehuehuheueh

>>1822483
If you're having trouble understanding Deep&Edgy's post, check this out: http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm

>>1822487
Thanks anon, I was a little too embarrassed to answer that post myself because I didn't seriously believe someone on this board doesn't know the most basic concepts of narratology.

>>1822491
>>1822487
3/10

inb4 150 replies, 20 images omitted

>>1822496
Really Leonard, and I mean this most sincerely, if I were you I'd worry less about being trolled than being able to critically analyse literature

>Raymond Carver
Not interested

Mark Z. Danielewski- House of Leaves

Story Summary- Will Navidson moves into a new house with his wife and two children where a seemingly small problem quickly evolves into a larger ordeal that tests the bonds of their relationship. There is a meta-story about a man named Johnny Truant as he becomes obsessed with the book of the Navidson Account written by a blind man named Zampano that overlays and intertwines with the story, and certain aspects are mirrored in each.

The text is a satire of literary criticism masquerading as a love story posing as a horror story. With the narrative divided between Zampano and Johnny Truant, it results in erratic shifts between clinical description and fast-paced stream-of-consciousness passages.

As a horror story it focuses well on the unnerving uncertainty of small out-of-place things. In the beginning there are no major problems, but these quickly snowball into larger issues with the discovery of an impossibly large network of rooms annexed to the house. These incidents impact the deeper love story, and we are left to watch as the Navidson and his partner are torn apart.

The text really comes into its own as an attack on literary criticism. It constantly points out the pretentiousness and smug superiority of those who profess to a deeper knowledge of literature, and ultimately condemns them for their ineffectual flexing of their elitist muscles. It makes a mockery of the moral outrage spewed forth by these intellectuals, and openly goads them by placing Stephen King, an oft-snobbed and rejected author, amongst the pantheon of modern critics and writers.
By calling these intellectuals out on their elitism, the novel truly undermines and subverts their importance. What, if any, impact do they have outside of their own very small circles? Are they performing a long-winded form of mental masturbation; ultimately pointless and solely aimed at boosting their own ego? And most of all,
Who gives a fuck?

>>1822512
Oh shi-

>>1822512
Hmm, just a word of advice; I'd work on learning the difference between ideological projection of a text and analysis of a text. Granted, it can be difficult oftentimes to tell where the divide is at, but such are the travails of proficient analysts of literature.

>>1822512

I think you just made me like House of Leaves even more.

D&E can you tell me how I can learn to analyze literature as deeply as you do?

>>1822526
D&E do you have an AIM?

i wanna talk to you about stuff like philosophy

>>1822597
As I've already said, this really isn't in any way an in-depth analysis. One or two courses in English lit and one would be easily familiar with the manner of analysis employed.

>>1822601
I don't have an AIM, and I'm not really interested in talking to most people about philosophy.

>>1822597
Yeah it's just a bullet point list of narrative features filtered through structuralist language, nothing that exciting

>>1822653
Let's not be under-appreciative now.

>>1822436

this is good analysis of a good story i wish your prose style didn't blow dick

>>1822644
What about sex chat?

>>1822661
no sorry

>>1822644
well basically if think you have a very developed perspective and comprehension, and i dislike having to trawl /lit/ for your thoughts

email? nothin? forward me a list of good books/essays to read?

i don't have your "guide to philosophy" pic, you could at least re-up that one

>>1822788
>i think you have

typo fixed

>>1822788
Gerard Genette: Narrative Discourse
Roland Barthes: Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives

>>1822788
And this shit:

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/introduction-to-theory-of-literature/

what's there to analyze. the author should lay out his conception of human nature etc so i don't waste time figuring out what kind of stuff he's thinking about

>>1822897
Your personal shortcomings in comprehension of written text are of no interest to us. This is a thread actually contributing the /lit/ board - much unlike you.

>>1822912
>implying writing complicated crap and developing hazy lit theories is an achievement

>>1822925
>writing complicated crap
pretty sure I've said multiple times in this thread that this sort of stuff is not hard to understand if you've ever taken a course in eng lit

>>1822925
>implying achievement is important

>>1822897
>the author should lay out his conception of human nature
>implying this is the goal

>>1822937
that's not what i implied.

i am claiming that literature is not in itself a source of meaning. it has to be about life or other subjects to have any content.

now, reading a work as the author intends it to be read is to go through some hoops and basically "be shown" the experiences, while analysis of the same reading is description, or "telling."

so basically, there is nothing 'creatively' to be gained by analysis more complicated than the work itself, given its function as a guide of 'mental movements.'

>>1822936
that analysis doesn't add anything to a reading, so it is more complicated than is necessary.

>>1822967
>>1822972
i think you're denying endless possibilities

read more Aime Cesaire, especially discourse on colonialism

a text can be analysis and art at the same time

>>1822967
> that analysis doesn't add anything to a reading, so it is more complicated than is necessary.
Speak for yourself. Again, maybe it's complicated for you and thus it clearly can't add anything to a reading. For you, that is. I find this means of analysis is incredibly fruitful and precise, capable of offering a suitable broad number of reliable conventions with which to approach any number of texts.
And another point, any critical analysis can only have as much value, at best, as the object of critical evaluation.

i mean, learning a "style of analysis" cannot be a regurgitating moment, just like learning a particular lifestyle is not all that interesting if all you are doing is mimicry. in this manner, a sincere child's reading of a story is more interesting than a snob grad student's effort at 'analysis'

>>1822985
see also
>>1822653

>>1822979
no it's not complicated for me. it is boring as watching paint dry or writing down an irl 'relationship chart' and say that's an analysis of life.

>>1822985
Who said analyses have to be interesting? All power to a person if that's what gets them off but there's no difference between a structural analysis being interesting and a maths equation or a chemical being interesting. They're all means and conventions to some relative. I don't see what your problem with this is.

>>1822998
>*or a chemical formula being interesting
>*some relative end

>>1822977
genuine critical analysis analyzes the text as a human artifact, i.e. a product of a kind of life. that's very much fine and genuine creative work. however, analyzing the 'structure of meaning' of a text is like learning how to walk by analyzing the mechanical engineering principles of bipedal motion.
your brain etc already does all that work of comprehension automatically, provided you read the text right. become a neuroscientist or linguist if you want to figure out the function of language and mind.

>>1822998
that's fine. i just suggest that you would get more out of 'noticing how your mind works in the process of reading' by being a neuroscientist.

>>1823007
>genuine critical analysis analyzes the text as a human artifact, i.e. a product of a kind of life.
It's pretty much a given in most 20th theory that text is artifice

>analyzing the 'structure of meaning' of a text
Who said anything about meaning?

>>1823012
w/e learn my words, i don't want to use yours.

WOW THATS SO DEEP OP

IM REALLY IMPRESSED

ITS TOO BAD IM SUCH A PLEB AND DONT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS BUT I KNOW ITS REALLY SMART AND CORRECT

ARE YOU THE BEST?

Y/N?

>>1823012
and artifice can be many things.

a wind sculpted rock
a piece of political ideology
a beautiful statue

these are different artifacts, with different kinds of 'analysis'

>>1823010
>you would get more out of 'noticing how your mind works in the process of reading' by being a neuroscientist.
Sure, but I'm not interested in 'how my mind works in the process of reading', I'm interested in discussing a text in precise, formal language that cuts through waffle and needless rhetoric without reducing the text to a series of linguistic procedures (preserving a text's 'sensuous particularity' in some sense, one might say), and I think the style of analysis I have indulged in offers such a set of tools to allow me to pursue such an end.

>>1823027
no shit. seriously you'd better start coming up with actual responses or just leave the thread please

>>1823032
so when you ride a rollercoaster, the first thing you say after getting away from it is that 'the angular momentum there was quite right.'
(as opposed to wew that was cool, i especially liked the sharp turn i felt my lung collapse)
what kind of useful study is the physics of a rollercoaster except to people interested in designing rollercoasters.

i know it's an analysis of technique, and it may 'teach' you on how to craft a piece of writing, at least for a particular kind of audience. however, this is just another artisantry, not art.

>>1823007
>genuine critical analysis analyzes the text as a human artifact, i.e. a product of a kind of life.
>an authentic [x] looks like [y], i'm the authority on this!

Let's at least acknowledge what we're talking about here before we go forward. Text is not simply product, it can also be process. I agree that it is good to weigh the human side of language, but biographical, psychological and sociological readings of text are inherently limited. nor do analytical readings of text have to be dry. that can be a failure of the author and also a preference of the reader.

>like learning how to walk by analyzing the mechanical engineering principles of bipedal motion. your brain etc already does all that work of comprehension automatically

grand subtlety can be lost without exploration. it's possible for deconstruction to be transcendent, look up "walking meditation"

>>1823034
so what relevance was your artifice comment given the different models involved

>>1823041
>'the angular momentum there was quite right.'

this can be another way of saying "that was fun!"

>>1823042
>an authentic [x] looks like [y], i'm the authority on this!
not defining it, just observing. i'll bring out tarski undefinability on this but it's too nuclear.

>Text is not simply product, it can also be process
yes i've noted the process as a crafting skill. that's not very interesting to the reader who wish to 'appreciate' the text, i.e. live through it.

>>1823046
yea to sciduck nerds, who do not appreciate the text any better than your regular excitable person

>>1823054
>who do not appreciate the text
*the rollercoaster

>>1823041
>what kind of useful study is the physics of a rollercoaster except to people interested in designing rollercoasters.
A study of the physics of a rollercoaster is only one sort of study it would be equivalent to studying the composition of a book, the texture of its pages. We're not talking about a physical analysis. One could have different studies of rollercoasters, and they don't necessarily all have to correspond to one's immediate aesthetic experience of the object. One might conduct a historical study of rollercoasters, one might conduct a study of the sign-value of rollercoasters in capitalist society, and so on. You should read Barthe's classic 'Mythologies' for an eye-opening account of how e.g. structural analysis can pop up in all areas of life.

>however, this is just another artisantry, not art.
Never said it was.

Onion, if that's what you're called, the point of the thread was to display critical output - not argue whether critical theory should be held in high value by You in particular. Just drop it.

>>1823059
no i dont need to read barthe to understand basic multiplicity of mental analytic processes

>never said it was
so okay, it is useless to the average reader.

ITT: d&e without his trip

u scared bra?

>>1823061
heyyyyyy, i'm saying this version of criticality is inert, in case you haven't noticed.

>>1823061
+1, this thread isn't about theoretical underpinnings or concerns, it's about people giving a practical application of their critical abilities. Maybe some people (who don't study literature) can't see the value in this sort of practice, but I'm sure people who've spent any time writing in English classes can appreciate having such a skill.

>>1823054
>that's not very interesting to the reader who wish to 'appreciate' the text

that's fairly presumptious

>do not appreciate the text any better than your regular excitable person

i'm going to go ahead and throw out there the possibility that people who understand a system better enjoy its success than someone who does not

at least at first. i concede that there are diminishing returns. i am no longer surprised and elated when i turn on my computer, for example.

>>1823066
The point of the thread was to display certain type of critical output - not argue whether the aforementioned critical theory(ies) should be held in high value by You.

>>1823066
inert, like the balls?

>>1823073
i don't need your help in understanding the point of the thread, and the point of the thread doesn't affect my commentary on it either.

>>1823071
well i mean appreciate the text as in reading the story. kind of like you get binoculars to watch birds, and you are interested in birdwatching not optics.

you guys are not saying anything new right now. i'm saying though, the energy spent on lit theory should be spent on closer observation of life, including perhaps literary activity itself, in order to produce better and more productive literature. you need technique to display the content/substance, but the former cannot fulfill a void of the latter.

>>1823042
>look up "walking meditation"

I did...

>"Each time you place one of your feet down, imagine that you are kissing the earth, through the sole of your foot. Each time you pick up one of your feet, imagine that a beautiful pink/white lotus is now blossoming in the place that your foot just was. In this way, our walking becomes a way of expressing our love for the earth, and of creating beauty with each step."


wtfamIreading.jpg

>>1823064
>it is useless to the average reader.
Excuse me for assuming there aren't just "average readers" on /lit/. I'm sorry but I wouldn't have any reason to direct myself to "average readers" because there would be nothing to gain on my part in terms of critical appreciation. I'm sure other people want to do that, good for them, but whether I want to address myself to people of lower critical ability that I stand to learn nothing from is my own business that I don't impose on others.

btw,
>grand subtlety can be lost without exploration. it's possible for deconstruction to be transcendent, look up "walking meditation"
is fine, but you don't need to understand the biomechanics of walking to appreciate the experience. put in other words, an attentive and carefree child enjoys walking and exploring just fine.


and DUH the rejection of theory is another theoretical move. however, its real practical expression is the lack of restrictive framework when reading.

>>1823085
that's pretty lame

i should have been more specific in designating a source. just extend the concept of meditation (being aware of breathing, sensory inputs and thoughts) into the process of walking. you walk very slow and make sure to be fully aware of every moment involved in the process of walking. eventually, your mental notation of your own mechanics of walking allow transcendence, as you may reach a point when you are no longer thinking.

>>1823092
>lower critical ability
well no, i don't think you can claim that against people just because they don't want to think about how it is possible that they can think.

>>1823095
this is the third time you've invoked the "person [a] enjoys [x] more than person [b]" argument

i think this kind of knowledge is ineffable

>>1823096
>that's pretty lame
bro, that is so lame. Whoever actually does that is a total faggot.

>>1823097
No, it only applies to people who are interested and engage in critical analysis, clearly.

and of course, one can be instructed on how to read better, notice more things, be more attentive to interesting detail. my point here is a foundational concern of what constitutes content in literature.

>>1823100
whoops, just looked up ineffabe. it means something different than what i thought it meant. i should say that saying "person [a] enjoys [x] more than person [b]" is extremely difficult, if not impossible to determine

>>1823100
where did i say 'more'
i said 'just fine' i.e. the child is not gaining any extra perceptual tools or dimensions of experience by learning about the science behind it.

hey d&e made another thread so he could argue with someone on /lit/

coolface.exe

>>1823100
It's pretty stupid really. If we were talking about the ability to play chess on different levels this wouldn't be a problem. But of course, seeing as literature is this incredibly nebulous, inscrutable affair to people who don't actually study literature here we are.

>>1823111
looks like you are not good enough to follow the argument.

>>1823111
we are talking about readers not writers. writers need to learn about this stuff sure.

>>1823113
herp maybe I don't want to follow your argument derp

get out of here already

captcha: deter belittling
>every one of your posts so far

>>1823117
yea okay enjoy a superseded area of study.

>>1823109
feel free to substitute "more" with "just as much as" or even "less", this kind of equation still remains difficult, if not impossible to state with any amount of confidence

even if it could be said with confidence, it still doesn't support your argument, because it presupposes something D&E never stated in the first place. let's make an analogy: architecture

"a child looking at a building enjoys it just as much as an architect looks at a blueprint"

or

"the average person would find a blueprint less exciting than an architect or draftsman."

you're not really say much. it could be reduced to saying "people find interesting what they find interesting."

also for anyone late to this thread

Fat Lenny cannot into Narratology lol

fuckin hilarious

>>1823125
it's not an equation. it is an argument of distinct mental activities/forms of experience.
for example, reading my post just now is one instance of 'reading,' but learning how my post works in terms of giving a structural modeling of it, is completely downstream from a correct reading in the first place.

>>1823125
addendum:
your presupposition is a broad scope of intended audience.

your contention that "critical analysis is unnecessary and boring to average people, they don't need it and people should stop doing it" is like saying "architectural blueprints are boring and unnecessary for average people"

>>1823135
again, a technician of a movie projector works in the background and has interests distinct from that of movie viewers.

my presupposition is an audience interested in reading and not in how reading works, even presuming that 'narratology' is a sufficient model of that.

I'm not interested in how reading works anymore than a surgeon is interested in how his implements are made

this is to address the confusion that meta and substantive lit crit engagements are at conflict.

for example, d&e's low rating of substantive engagements and fetish over the metas shows a seriously flawed understanding of the parallel concurrence of both. if he wishes to declare the superiority of technique over substance, that is an IDEOLOGICAL point just as i am making an ideological stand for the other side.

Sure I'm a hypocrite, but I am at an absolute loss how you trips manage to spend so much time on /lit/

Do you have jobs? Do any of you do a thing outside of post on /lit/ when you have time off?

I'm actually being a little serious about this

>>1823138
the movie projector operator is a poor analogy, a better one would be about the director

using your example, literary critical analysis can be likened to the process where people discuss Inception after they see it. they try to parse the images and narratives presented to them. the director and audience attempted to reach each other in a human way, though their tools are different.

imagine critical analysis as being like a forum where people on all levels can discuss movies. although it would greatly inform a person's perspective, it is not necessary for a person to have directed a movie to participate in such a discussion.

>>1823146
technique can be substance
the medium is the message

etc

>>1823142
you have a technical interest in the structure of a story. (and of course this 'narratology' is only one particular approach to technical analysis) however, that technical interest does not confer superior appreciation. much like a surgeon does not necessarily live better (have richer life experiences)

>>1823154
a _different_ substance than the intended reading experience, unless the work is intentionally showcasing 'skill'.

>technical interest does not confer superior appreciation.

*SIGH*

Great. We've finally arrived. No one argued this in the first place. You assumed someone was saying this.

>>1823162
d&e obviously says this.

>>1823162
and we've arrived only after he admits to it.

>>1823165
inb4 convoluted argument along the lines of:
So you thought the food was disgusting?
>Yes
And you don't like disgusting things?
>No, of course not
So you didn't like the food?
>OMFG SO RETARDED I DID NOT SAY THAT

Logic of 2 year olds, swear to god.

>>1823146
>d&e's low rating of substantive engagements and fetish over the metas
I don't have a low rating of the substance of critical appreciation, I'm just not interested in it. What I'm interested in is, as you say, metas, or the theory.

>if he wishes to declare the superiority of technique over substance
But I don't, because form and content are inextricably intertwined. Where my concern lies is with form, as a concrete historical, social, shifting number of conventions. Some content is not any better or worse than other content, as I've repeated constantly. However, form and its dialogic transformation, as reflective of some part of value systems, is open to diachronic critique, and that is what I concern myself with.

>that technical interest does not confer superior appreciation
Depends what you mean by appreciation. As general aesthetic experience, of course not, but as critical appreciation, of course it does, relative to the base of technical knowledge involved. You're taking superiority in a needlessly vast sense.

>>1823174
>concrete historical, social, shifting number of conventions
really. unless the brain changes you are going to have the same stuff. or, you just build enormously complicated technical puzzles requiring closer inspection, but conferring no extra substance, understood as an engagement with life.

it's a technical fetish as i've said.

>>1823159
>intentional showcase of skill
>intended reading experience

The two are not easily distinguished, and many people (not just authors) have made careers on exploring the relationship between them.

Inception was an easy example, along with Black Swan. Those movies are as much about moviemaking as they are about the narrative presented. Joyce, Kafka, Nabakov, Chabon and Pynchon immediate examples that come to mind for literature. I also think its very difficult to say directors and authors address their work to anyone in particular, let alone humanity as a whole.

>>1823165
Really? I don't see this anywhere.

>>1823178
>Really? I don't see this anywhere.
you can read any of his video game threads or other stuff.

>The two are not easily distinguished, and many people (not just authors) have made careers on exploring the relationship between them.
that's fine, the different levels of appreciation. artistry is also art. however, i am saying that there is nothing wrong with not knowing artistry and just being a receptive listener/reader etc. it's anti-elitism that's all.

>>1823175
>unless the brain changes you are going to have the same stuff.
This dogmatic, synchronic position (I'd call it a transcendental signified if that wasn't itself dogmatic) is exactly the reason why the sort of discourse I am engaged in is crucial.

>you just build enormously complicated technical puzzles requiring closer inspection
Value critique isn't an enormously complicated technical puzzle, although it might seem that way given the accumulated brainrot of more than two millenia of necrotic western thought, it's caught up with social and political issues, lived issues; the base goal is the, for brevity's sake, "human emancipation" of critical theory. Of course, that's hopelessly naive so we have to come up with an alternative. The best alternative is to address the best and brightest of society, and the rest, the mediocore and deficient, can go fuck themselves. But this thread isn't about that so let's not get into it.

>>1823186
i think you should :embrace: more of life. because you sure are not evolving by working on brain teasers.

>This dogmatic, synchronic position
well, i am not saying there is nothign to study in it, just that the proper base line science is neuroscience linked. for sure, stuff like narrative focus, different degrees of reader naivete, are interesting, but ultimately they showcase brain functions.

>>1823186
>This dogmatic, synchronic position (I'd call it a transcendental signified if that wasn't itself dogmatic)
tl;dr I'm dogmatic, but I want to pretend I'm not.

>>1823175
again, a puzzle is not complicated to those who are familiar with its rules. a puzzle IS substance for someone who enjoys solving puzzles.

i'm attempting to locate your argument. let me try a few of these and you pick one that sounds close:

- "For the average person, the experience of scrutinizing a mechanical process is less enjoyable than experiencing the product."
- "An average person and a person familiar with mechanics enjoy the product of a process equally."
- "Indulging the senses is more enjoyable than learning by what means the stimulus arrives."
- "Mechanics is dry, experience is wet."

or come up with your own. i genuinely am not understanding what you're getting at.

BTW,

saying stuff like

>accumulated brainrot of more than two millenia of necrotic western thought
is really placing yourself against progress in very real sense of the word.

>>1823192
my argument is simply calling d&e out for his elitism.

>>1823192
>a puzzle IS substance for someone who enjoys solving puzzles.

look who you are talking to. i am the last person to not see this.

>>1823190
Of course, but I use it to highlight to someone else who isn't aware that they are too.

>>1823195
Yeah sorry for favouring the best humanity has to offer

>>1823188
>just that the proper base line science is neuroscience linked
Ehhh, I'm not sure how far you could take that tbh. You might be able to link some group of phenomena to neural circuits, but neither would it necessarily tell you anything nor would it necessarily give you the complete picture.

ITT:

People who think you need literary analysis to understand everything important there is to a book.

IRL: It's really just a book review.

>>1823199
sure, not all knowledge of the brain has to be reprsented as electric circuits. i mean come on.

>Yeah sorry for favouring the best humanity has to offer
that is everything wrong with your view of the relationship between analysis and simple reading of pleasure.

>>1823200
Nigga b 2 cold

>>1823198
again, if i like my korean dramas for the love story etc, am i being inferior in terms of my life experience. i can also analyze why it works and stuff, but that'd make it boring.

>>1823188
>embrace life
>not evolving by working on brainteasers

one person's way of embracing life does not necessarily resemble your idea of it. what if a person embraces life by working on brain teasers?

evolution need not be a goal. we don't need goals at all, curiosity and exploration for its own sake can be enough, barring hypothetical examples involving unconsented physical harm. secondly, i think it IS possible to evolve by creating, solving and studying the process of making bainteasers.

>>1823201
>view of the relationship between analysis and simple reading of pleasure.
I've never said that one is superior or inferior to the other, except with regard to some relative end (which is all that could ever be meant in the first by a term like superior or inferior). You simply deem to throw ends that are irrelevant to what I am concerned with at me.

>>1823212
so why are you acting all snobby about it

>>1823195
what makes his perspective elitist, and what is your counter-argument?

that critical language is esoteric is practically a given, i don't think D&E feels any superiority over anyone for being familiar with that language.

yeah because you're the only one to have taken undergrad level lit theory

don't deny that you like spewing jargon regardless of your actual stance on the subject if only to generate a shitstorm instead of getting an honest discussion going

4/10 cause i replied again

>>1823201
Check this out:
http://ifile.it/1o5c9v/ebooksclub.org__23_Problems_in_Systems_Neuroscience__Computational_Neuroscien
ce_Series_.l_56x3665k0x13x9k.pdf

Chapter 22 is rather relevant.

>>1823220
some patterns of behavior in the past. idk, just felt like picking on him

>>1823204
>if i like my korean dramas for the love story etc, am i being inferior in terms of my life experience
That would depend on whether liking korean dramas for their love stories was inhibitory for or in opposition to an individual's maximal flourishing, and that's an empirical question, a specific one I don't care about in a larger set. In any case, in this context of critical appreciation, I'm not concerned with anything as large as "life experience", so it has no place here.

>. i can also analyze why it works and stuff, but that'd make it boring.
I've already spoken about this. Let me first put forward the classic phrase "A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS JUST AS SWEET". Have you considered that maybe you just don't like korean dramas all that much if you're not interested in how they're made, what the nuances of them are? If someone watches a movie but doesn't like cinematography, get this: maybe they just don't like movies all that much, maybe they just enjoy the experience of watching something. Same for casual readers who enjoy reading but not critically appreciating a text. And there's nothing wrong with that so long as they don't mistake their inability to appreciate something on a critical level as "boring" for other people who are. Put simply; if you don't like pulling off combos in street fighter IV, maybe you don't like street fighter IV all that much, maybe you just enjoy playing games and the rush of experiences that go along with them.

so guys whats the betting I can keep making Fat Illiterate Lenny raise his mad meter to ten

>>1823226
>That would depend on whether liking korean dramas for their love stories was inhibitory for or in opposition to an individual's maximal flourishing,
im pretty sure it's not but LOL i don't care

>maybe you don't like street fighter IV all that much, maybe you just enjoy playing games and the rush of experiences that go along with them.
again, it is quite simple. they make it so that it sells to teen girls/boys. i don't see much artistry in it except marketing research

>>1823215
i don't see snobbishness at all. what i see happening is D&E working with a certain vocabulary, one you are less familiar with. instead of attempting to understand this vocabulary, you dismiss it as elitism or boring. then you invoke a hypothetical "regular person" to support your interpretation

familiarity with vocabulary is not in itself elitist, unless we all agree to a competition wherein the goal is to "be the one most familiar."

>>1823231
>i don't see much artistry in it except marketing research
Your personal shortcomings ect.

>>1823236
nah i understand it okay.

>>1823226
Maybe people just like reading and appreciating important books the way they were intended and not with all this made up mumbo jumbo.

Just Saying.

>>1823237
so you are saying that korean drama and for that matter current american tv shows are worthwhile subjects of artistic analysis

>>1823241
i mean, they are good junk culture material. but you should seek more refined products for in-depth analysis.

>>1823236
Where has onion shown a misunderstanding of the vocabulary?

If anything this post just shows your desire to hide behind it.

>>1823241
Read David Foster Wallace's" A supposedly fun thing I'll never do again" to gain an insight (or at least appriciate the view) to what modern TV is about.
In short, yes.

>>1823241
Theres artistry in everything, Even in farting.

>>1823231
>they make it so that it sells to teen girls/boys
thanks for blowing the lid off consumer society there Karl. This is simply a very primitive statement about the structure of our society. And yet, it's truly a beautiful thing that in such a society people can achieve mastery, or artistry, in many areas of life, whether it be video-games, critical analysis, baseball or whatever.

>>1823239
>Maybe people just like reading and appreciating important books the way they were intended and not with all this made up mumbo jumbo.
If you had read your Tel Quel you'd know that books, as they were intended in capitalist production, are meant to be read, its meaning readily consumed and disposed of (this is why the Author as center of meaning in texts, the God-figure, was so dominant for a large period) to make way for more production. And if you were familiar with this you would realize that the highlighting of the insolubility of the author and such a means of approaching the text in general is supposedly a powerful way of "embracing radical difference" in texts, something that goes against the totalising nature of capitalism. ppppfffffthhhaHAHAHA lol, just kidding, that was just continental garbage from a bunch of french assholes.

>>1823248
yea but the conclusion should be, as he already made it, "i'll never do it again."

>>1823250
okay. but is it pretentious i.e. dismissive of naive farting.

>>1823256
>yea but the conclusion should be, as he already made it, "i'll never do it again."
You ignorant motherfucker.

>>1823255
okay, so you want to defend a life of just playing video games and think that looking deeper into it means flourishing?

>>1823250
Like you can do it fast, or in bursts, or just let it whistle out gradually, peaking at the end as a cresendo. It is a beautiful thing, but underappreciated. They need to invent a vocablary so that we can critically analyse and discuss it in greater detail. Truly.

>>1823261
i thought it is clever.

ITT: summerfags feeding the local triptroll


I bet you also enjoy playing with your own feces.

>>1823263
No, I'm not interested in defending a life of just playing video games.

>think that looking deeper into it means flourishing
No, but I do hold that a critical understand lends itself to certain individuals' flourishing

>>1823274
okay, but not looking too deeply into it is okay too.

>>1823255
>And yet, it's truly a beautiful thing that in such a society people can achieve mastery, or artistry, in many areas of life, whether it be video-games, critical analysis, baseball or whatever.
Yeah, check it out, I'm the world's best dad and I don't even have children.

>>1823239
This line of thinking involves so many assumptions:

- All books have a similar intended audience
- There is only one way to enjoy a book (in your case, reading about it and not thinking or talking about it with other people)
- All authors intend for their books to be simply read by a predetermined audience and this is the only way we can approach a book
- Mumbo jumbo can only be made up by critics

i dunno man. your take on this is a little extreme. out of all the posts in this thread i'd say yours could be the most easily characterized as elitist.

Onion, if that's what you're called, the point of the thread was to display critical output - not argue whether critical theory should be held in high value by You in particular. Just drop it.

>>1823278
Of course, an ignorant mediocrity is necessary for both the elite and the downtrodden inferiority

>>1822496
>>1822496
>>1822496

never change, /lit/

never change

>>1823286
innocence != ignorance

>>1823286
So this is how you justify naval gazing?

>>1823293
Forgot pic

>>1823282
>reading books and not thinking or talking about them with other people
I think that the regular english language consisting of 80,000 words is more than adequate to discuss books to any extent or depth that you would require

>All books have a similar intended audience
I cant argue against this. If there is some sort of "hidden code" so to speak that authors weave into their text that only others who are "in the know" can appreaciate. Then that is very clever and kudos to the author for writing a good novel and encoding this hidden stuff too. But I dont really think that's what happens to a great extent.

>>1823291
we are all complicit whether we like it or not in a system, a code specifically, that gives us our identities (the gift of the self). To speak of 'innocence' in this system is almost farcical and to say of others outside this system that they are 'innocent' is just as laughable because it is a judgement made inside the sign-code and projected out from it. So no, it's not a question of innocence in the structure of our society, it's a question of ignorance, and not so much an ignorance that is willful.

>>1823290
i felt like i was engaging genuinely with D&E and onionring and not being trolled at all

i regret nothing, nor has your prediction been verified in the way you imagined

>>1823310
> you had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them all out of you

you're welcome

>>1823310
yea so you cannot into >advanced ontology of levels

>>1823309
>the english language is adequate

The point was not to question whether the English language was adequate, but to point out that saying "we should just read books and enjoy them the way they were intended" assumes there is a uniform way of enjoying books that excludes critical analysis. I also think that all languages are always inadequate, and i think this is confirmed by the fact that languages have acquisitive vocabularies.

>But I dont really think that's what happens to a great extent.

Okay, so then you can't say "all books are intended to be enjoyed in such-and-such way." This means critical analysis is not only possible, but can also be a legitimate practice.

>>1823341
>inadequate inadequate inadequate
Using a word over and over doesn't make it mean anything.

>>1823341
>we should just read books and enjoy them the way they were intended
btw if you think this is my claim you are vastly mistaken. i am saying that more advanced forms of analysis does not supersede/displace the genuine pleasure of reading performed by less 'advanced' readers.

>>1823321
what's that you say sonny? something about not being able to into
>capitalist metaphysical abstractions

At least I have the good grace not to deceive people and put myself outside this stuff

>>1823351

>>1823351
Out of nowhere, Foucault.

>>1823349
eek grammer

>>1823310
this is actually parallel the kind of thinking i've been doing about poltics, economy and civics today.

all individuals, especially americans, are complicit in expanding a system they don't agree with. how can you go to an iraq war protest, drive home in a car and say you've done your civic duty?

most western europeans and americans would say they are opposed to military aggression, expansion, domination and the stifling of democracy, but they buy into a system that promotes such action every day. i would argue that these people have a genuine innocence and, when informed, would actually change some of their habits.

here's a tl;dr for anyone just arriving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8PD8KvNgzE

>>1823361
yes but you are actually in support of my point rather than d&e's confusion over descriptive vs performative/expressive ontologies

>>1823361
>military aggression, expansion, domination and the stifling of democracy, but they buy into a system that promotes such action every day.

Okay buddy whatever just stay well away from me with that tosh.

Why am I such a silly girl?

>>1823377
why are you such a mad little boy

>>1823377
Are you a girl?

>>1823349
i was responding to >>1823239

>>1823344
Okay. This is a separate argument from >>1823282 but here goes: The English language is often ill-equipped to describe the reality it intends to describe. This state of inability to describe what it seeks to describe means that it is inadequate. Example: When the first information processing machines were developed, we didn't have a word to describe them as objects. To overcome this failure we designate a new meaning for the word "computer." Designating new meanings to old words or appropriating words from other languages (such as "entrepreneur") is what it means to be acquisitive.

The fact that languages have an acquisitive vocabulary shows their constant state of inadequacy.

Remember, this is a seperate argument that has little bearing on the popular elitist attitude of "them fancy word faggots need to shut their traps and just read 'em books like the good lord intended!"

>>1823385
>popular elitist attitude
that's anti-intellectualism, which is quite a bit different from naivete/sincerity that i'm advocating.

>>1823385
seriously we get that you want to turn the tables on people using the word 'elitist' but in all fairness stupid people aren't and never will be elitists

>>1823370
u mad ur integral in a system of natural resource consumption that requires ever expanding political hegemony?

>>1823368
please explain/contextualize/expand/clarify, i'm not sure i understand you

>>1823391
but turning tables is so vindicating

:(

>>1823220
>i don't think D&E feels any superiority over anyone for being familiar with that language

Are you new here? If you don't think D&E considers himself superior to people who don't engage in critical analysis, then apparently you haven't spent much time in /lit/. Typical thread:
Anon: D&E, dude, quit being a pretentious faggot who argues around people using obscure vocabulary
D&E: Aww, if you don't understand, that's ok, don't post. It's just that you're retarded; I'm always perfectly clear in my arguments. Also, I'm the only one on /lit/ who went to college, because if you had gone to college you would understand.

If you want to critically analyze texts for your own enjoyment, that's fine. It doesn't make you superior to other readers, and it's really only useful to writers.

tl;dr for this thread: typical circlejerk for tripfags with too much time.

first captcha word: snafu. Not even kidding.

>>1823399
>u mad ur integral in a system of natural resource consumption that requires ever expanding political hegemony?
I ain't even, because having gone deeper, I realise that the very ability to pose such a question, the sort of form that question is, with all its constituents derived from a play of sign-based relations in a capitalist code, (this is very much the old "how is ideology critique possible" chestnut) are one of the very many functions which facilitate such expansion and consumption.

>>1823401
yay backup <3333

>>1823399
basically, being innocent (never thinking about the larger picture) is different from holding the wrong larger picture. the intricacies of hierarchy vs limited complexity is what i meant by descriptive vs expressive, but we don't have to talk about it here.

>>1823401
i'm not new, and i don't think he GENUINELY feels any sort of superiority

i think he posts "i am the best" and such just to piss off people who don't attempt to understand

i will agree that D&E makes his arguments very clear to himself at the expense of being clear to others.

i should also mention that i'm not opposed to tripfagging in general, so i'm a little biased when it comes to identity disputes on 4chan

>>1823385
>Okay. This is a separate argument from >>1823282 but here goes: The English language is often ill-equipped to describe the reality it intends to describe. This state of inability to describe what it seeks to describe means that it is inadequate. Example: When the first information processing machines were developed, we didn't have a word to describe them as objects. To overcome this failure we designate a new meaning for the word "computer." Designating new meanings to old words or appropriating words from other languages (such as "entrepreneur") is what it means to be acquisitive.
That shows the very opposite, that a language is more than capable of accommodating new descriptive terms.
>The fact that languages have an acquisitive vocabulary shows their constant state of inadequacy.
Doesn't follow
>Remember, this is a seperate argument that has little bearing on the popular elitist attitude of "them fancy word faggots need to shut their traps and just read 'em books like the good lord intended!"
Heraclitus is more relevant than half baked mimicry.

>>1823408
for a guy whose generative idea of social progress is mastery understood in this limited, technical way, i think there is some ground for calling him elitist, or at any rate, hugenerd

>>1823405
what if my machine was plugged into a solar battery charger? be wary of a tendency to rationalize comfort. i'm working on it myself.

>>1823407
interesting. i'm inclined to agree with you, but i think this argument exists in a separate context from the earlier debate in the thread. the first being about critical analysis, the second being consumer choices as political choices. if that's not the case, then i'll try to connect the dots.

>>1823408

Well that's probably true. People who genuinely feel superior to others don't feel the need to assert that superiority on the internet.

And as for pissing off people who don't attempt to understand, why piss them off? I simply don't think there's anything wrong with reading lit without expending the effort to learn all this vocab. Most people wouldn't gain much from it, and that does not make them less intelligent.

Also, I'm not against tripcodes, I'm just against the epeen measuring contests that some tripfags seem to enjoy. Never change, /lit/. Actually no, please change.

>>1823401
> critical theory
> useful to writers

lol no

You think Shakespeare sat around reading second-rate academics? No. He just wrote amazingly well and produced all of critical theory as a by-product.

>>1823414
- i'm not sure that capability precludes inadequacy.
- i don't know who Heraclitus is

let's start over, yes?

"Maybe people just like reading and appreciating important books the way they were intended and not with all this made up mumbo jumbo."

My problem with this attitude is that it means all authors intend for their books to be read in the same way, and that this way excludes critical analysis. I think it is implausible that all authors intended (and continue to intend) that their books to be read by all people in the same way. This also means that all authors produce books with the same audience in mind. I also find this implausible.

>>1823426
>why piss them off?

why does the troll troll? for laughs, probably. force of habit too.

unfortunately, D&E's trolling gets mistaken for his genuine insight, and vice versa. i'd say he trolls a lot less than he feels sincere about his arguments. also, trolling and insight can happen at the same time, on wondrous occasions.

>>1823428

Actually I tend to agree with you there. There might have been some writers who were extremely technical and conscious of the techniques they used, but not many. Most just wrote good shit intuitively; that's why lit is an art, not a science.

Also, D&E, sorry your thread got shit on. I may not like you very much, but if you want to make a critical analysis thread, then you should be able to do so. Still, this thread had already gone to shit when I came in (as I'm sure you knew it would-- sometimes I still wonder if you're trolling), and you seem to enjoy arguing, so I don't feel too bad.

>>1823405
>implying the english language is a capitalist construct

stick to the literary theory d&e, leave the economics and linguistics to the big boys

>>1823439

Yep troll of /lit/. Still don't know when he's trolling and when he's arguing forreals sometimes. Shit, maybe long ago he just wanted to do critical analyses with people, and unfortunately has found out that no one gives a fuck.

>>1823429
>it means all authors intend for their books to be read in the same way

this is pretty ambiguous so define 'read in the same way' before you go further in your argument.

id argue that the opposite is also true, that people read things into books and describe them in ways that the author never thought about or still to this day couldnt care less about.

>>1823449
There's no difference. There's no sincerity in his arguments, he just likes to argue.

>>1823452
I can't define it and would prefer that >>1823239 do so, as it's HIS (your?) argument.

I can say, however that "read in the same way" entails a process that excludes "mumbo jumbo" (interchangable with "critical analysis").

>>1822660
this guy hit the nail in the head.

op, english isn't your first language, right?

oh it's quite okay to write meta books, experiment with style and the limits of comprehensibility etc etc functions. however, what makes literature great is still the ability to showcase life and/or substantive engagement with great themes in life.

this may not be exciting or :academia: enough, but whatever.

>>1823472
d&e is romanian

>>1823472
Yeah he's a pretty bad writer.

>>1823467
yes that was me. what I mean is that an author may know nothing about literary theory and write a great novel, then all the theorists come in and analyse it and break it down in insignificant ways. It's like punditry that is only meaningful for a few spectators and no one else cares.

>>1823493
Well, I don't think lit theory isn't without it's merit. It's more or less useless but fun nonetheless. I do believe that all theory amounts to differing readings of Shakespeare.

When you get writers who start out with theory it ends up limiting their work.

>>1823498
its like watching loads of basketball and thinking that will make you a great player

>>1823444
I'm not talking specifically about the english language, and I'm certainly not talking about pre-modernity societies

>>1823493
>then all the theorists come in and analyse it and break it down in insignificant ways.
Here is a little tip because you clearly don't know anything about literary theory, and I would encourage you to do some reading on it.
Most literary theory is not analysis for the sake of analysis; a marxist theorist, for example, would break down an author's text as indicative and reflective of class struggle and would highlight both the socially and historically constructed status of both the author and the text. This is not very insignificant if you're concerned about bigger things than writing.

I sure hope you don't write like that and you've change your prose in order to keep trolling at maximum.

>>1825488
Haven't you ever written an academic essay?

>>1825502
says this while yapping about capitalist production.

>>1825502
a what?

that sounds like you're talking about a alien

Stay gilded, D&E.

d&e reading raymond carver = <3

bump

>>1823405
>having gone deeper and understanding the ability to pose such a question is part and parcel of the system...

and this understanding exempts or absolves you of complicity?

>>1825700
I don't know man this Carver stuff just seems like middle class americans doing boring everyday things, i mean is this supposed to be deep or well written or something

>>1825724
Of course not, and I'm not interested in any such thing

Existența ta pe board nu aduce absolut nici o contribuție, poți masca elitismul tau in orice maneră posibilă, insă te aduc la curent că mascaradul tau nu ține mult.

Te rog abține-te de postare si pleacă.

>>1825828
>I'm not interested in any such thing

Why not? I'm genuinely surprised. Do you look at the CIA, Exxon, etc and what they do with some sort of Zen tranquility?

>>1825857
Speak english please or go to /int/

>>1825859
>Do you look at the CIA, Exxon, etc and what they do
What do you mean by 'what they do'?

>>1825870
Why? Are you insecure about replying in your native language? Interesting.

>>1825876
No, I just don't want to bother my arse parsing it in babelfish. get over it.

>>1825887
gypsy detected

go back to romania you fucking scumbag

>>1825895
how am i a gypsps?

>>1825906
niggers gonna nig.

stay classy durr&hurr

>>1825870
Hire and train private armies to topple governments, stifle socialism and democracy worldwide, administer their own governments, harass rivals with deadly force, drown voices of reason in a deluge of noise, propaganda, rumors, ignore the values of their constituents, etc

for contemporary/unfolding examples, see:
- honduras
- venezuela
- iran
- haiti
- yemen
- syria
- libya
- bahrain

historical examples abound. i'm saying that your (and most other americans/western europeans, and now australians') lifestyle supports this kind of political process, even though you don't agree with its occurrence.

>>1825916
but how am i a gispy?

Is D&E Romanian now? I was told he was German.

>>1825921
> cant write in english
> annoying
> very annoying
> doesn't realize he's a giant shithead
> annoying
> spends all day playing with kids on /lit/

can u BEE any more gypsy?

>>1825919
>Hire and train private armies to topple governments
What's wrong with that? Is your problem, like, moral outrage at this or something?

>stifle socialism and democracy worldwide
Why do you use the word 'stifle' here? I don't know, maybe if someone put their hand over my mouth and I couldn't pull it away I'd use that word too when I went home to mom.

>administer their own governments
see the first greentext

>harass rivals with deadly force
This is another lovely turn of phrase you've used. I especially like how you use 'harass' instead of 'encroach upon' or 'not be capable of being deterred', and the term 'deadly force' is a nice way to say 'force that cannot be withstood'

>drown voices of reason in a deluge of noise
This is a bit boring so I'll make it quick; "prevent people of one ideology from speaking through overcoming their ability to respond and be heard"


>ignore the values of their constituents
"Respect their own values"

And so on and so forth, this sort of slave rhetoric is very boring to hear. Read George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language', and then turn Orwell on himself. That or learn what power relations are.

>>1825931
> and so on

Zizek, you are not. Go back to your caravan.

>>1825926
but I can write in english

>>1825934
also stop responding to posts that have nothing to do with you, the one butthurt faggot in the thread

>>1825828
right. a read a great review on amazon about him saying his stories were "around the house and in the yard" stories. or something along the same lines. the man reminds me how unreal the everyday reality can be. this is just my opinion.

carver is subtle with his tension. that's his art. controlling tension and letting it rumble right on the line without ever going over. that, and his minimalist prose. i like his "no heroics" attitude when it comes to prose. there is room for poetics with his language too. i like his poems and i'm not much for poetry.

>>1825936
> saging a literature related thread
> projecting

lolololol

can u BEE any more mad?

>>1825939
Yeah you're probably right to a good extent and I'm being a little harsh on the guy. I read a lot of really short Dave Eggers stories there a few months back and it's put me off these sort of stories because it was kind of like Carver except there seemed like there was virtually no art to it at all and it's just like something you could hear from someone over a watercooler. I don't get that with Carver though. I kind of get that from what I read of T. C. Boyle and it's just as irritating. But yeah the Raymond Carver stuff I like, I'm just being a little hard on him for the content. which is unjustified.

>>1825947
> reads carver and eggers

can you BEE any more entry-level?

>>1825931
Okay, great, you've demonstrated your ability to boil down rhetoric. This is a dilemma for me, but maybe it isn't for you because you've rationalized away ethics and morals in your trawling through the annals of philosophy. That's presumptuous on my part, but I don't really know where you stand on this kind of issue so I'm just assuming one scenario because you're not already agreeing with me.

I oppose the killing or torture of civilians. It is especially unjustified when the reason for their death is the decadent lifestyle of a people that live thousands of miles away. This is a problem for me because civic demonstration (the traditional routes of reform or political influence) is useless. I think if one is opposed to the killing or torture of civilians, they should do everything in their power to enervate the financial wherewithal of the corporations that minimize their costs by hiring private armies to do such things as topple governments and set up client states.

sagin cuz nobody likes /new/ in their /lit/

>virtually no art to it at all
>implying you comprehend the concept of art.
>Deluding oneself with assumptions that you actually know two cents about art.

Stop saying art, stop using art, stop talking about art.
You, and about half the population of the world has no idea what they're spewing each time they talk about it.

inb4 d&e gets mad

>>1825957
>you've rationalized away ethics and morals in your trawling through the annals of philosophy
Not really, just ethical prescriptive statements and strict moral universalism.

>>1825961
I was using it in a loose sense, and I'm confident my interlocuter understood what I meant for the purposes of our discussion. But in any case here's the best conception of art you will ever come across:

First, subjectivity and objectivity is more or less irrelevant in coming to understand how we use the term 'art'. All we can really use a term like 'art' for is to refer to that set of human works we wish to exemplify or set above the rest, as accepted by the main. What other use could we have for such a term? It's a term used to facilitate communication of a subject; I say "hey dude lets talk about Art" and we will fairly surely have a general idea about what each other is talking about.

Now, with regard to subjectivity in art; this is best represented by the term 'taste'. Everyone has their own tastes which are subjective etc etc. The point is that this doesn't matter when we employ a term like 'art' because we don't use it to refer to subjective tastes, we use to to refer as above. Now, let's take my previous discussion and interpret it like the moron who misuses the term 'art' treats it:
"Dude let's talk about art"
"But art is subjective"
"Yeah but you know what more or less know what I mean when I raise the subject right?"
"sure"
and so discussion continues without a problem
Now, if someone considers something controversial part of that set, there still isn't a problem because all that needs to be done there is to see whether one needs to expand the set or not to suit whatever relevant need is required in that situation. Expand if you need to, contract if you need to.

>>1825971
can u BEE any more wrong?

>>1825971
ahhh, reminds me of Marquez in 100 years of solitude:

"At that time Macondo was a village of twenty adobe houses, built on the bank of a river of clear water that ran along a bed of polished stones, which were white and enormous, like prehistoric eggs. The world was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point."

>>1825971
Exactly my presumption, what you've elaborated on was just a generalization of the term itself, as perceived by the vast majority, which is exactly my point, the concept of art has been perverted and dismembered to such petty and trivial matters that it sickens me to hear it from casual conversations.


It's amusing and ironic at the same time to read such a general reply from someone with the name deep&edgy.

>>1825988
Okay buddy, I guess if you don't like people using words in ways you don't like that's your business.

>>1825988
Yeah, art really started to go downhill when the liberals, hippies, commies, niggers and unwashed masses started tainting its purity with their doodles, scribbles and murmurs. Wish we still had people with divine inspiration like Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Wagner and Shakespear to show these imposters what art is really about!

>>1826001
Then i suppose you would just love it when everyone would use 'story summary' when describing a 'story analysis'.Clearly, why bother rooting out and learning what is already established when we could just indulge ourselves in meaningless banter while using terms as we see fit just because everybody else deems it to be correct.

>>1826012
>Then i suppose you would just love it when everyone would use 'story summary' when describing a 'story analysis'
I wouldn't give a shit what they used so long as they gave an acceptable, understood response relevant to the discussion at hand.

>>1826020
I do not wish to deviate your thread any further, feel free not to reply.Point was that you should do your research on the matter before using it in your speech, regardless of how much ignorance/affiliation/assumption you bear to the subject or the word itself.

>>1826012
Poor analogy, for a number of reasons.

- You propose a confusion of two terms whereas D&E's definition is only about the expanding (and contracting) the meaning of ONE term.
- Even if the term "analysis" expands to include other meanings, I don't see this is an inherently good or bad thing. This is how language works. It's fluid, it's dynamic, it's supply-side driven as much as it is demand driven. Look at some of the words that are inducted into the holy, impenetrable, irrefutable canon of Merriam Webster's dictionary: "D'oh", "irregaurdless", "truthiness", etc

>already established

By who? If you look up the entymology of any word, it usually involves a process like...

>meaningless banter while using terms as we see fit

It's not meaningless. When someone refers to Duchamp's urinal as art that is not any more or less meaningless than when someone refers to a Vermeer painting.

>just because everybody else deems it to be correct.

This is more or less how language operates. We'd still be speaking Latin if this weren't the case. You don't have control over how people use words. Deal with it.

The force of your belief in a particular conception of art doesn't make it true.

>>1826026
>I do not wish to deviate your thread any further
It's cool bro it's been deviated since yesterday

>you should do your research on the matter
But there's nothing to research because there is no matter, just two guys talking

>>1826028
hey, this guy's alright!

>>1825971
>just ethical prescriptive statements and strict moral universalism

care to share? or are you just mocking me?

>>1826039
Okay, put very simply I would hold that ought statements are untenable along with the sort of moral rules that purport to hold for all people regardless of some set of properties specific to the individual or social, etc.

I suppose I would gravitate around moral noncognitivism or nihilism, although lately I have warmed quite a bit to naturalized virtue theories.

>>1826058
I think access to capital as a citizen of empire engenders some responsibility to divert excess cash and effort to a place where it is more greatly needed. There really is no excuse, especially when an empire's dollar buys fifty dollars of a given client state's dollars. I also think that its possible to reduce the ordinary citizen's unwitting sponsorship of war crimes.

Imagine a version of Mill's harm principle that accounts for corporate sovereignty and delimits an individual's relative power in global society instead of enumerating his/her rights and freedoms. Polite suggestion: "hey, if you don't like this, maybe you shouldn't buy a car." Surely this is not unreasonable.

The universality arises when we consider all human beings experience pain in a comparably similar way and have the same needs in terms of food, shelter and water (bare minimum). The duty is incurred when we accept that individuals have a rational capacity and ability to meet the needs of others, and the aid-givers would take such aid if they were in a similar position (empathy, sympathy). I realize this is all extremely idealistic, but it's been eating up my thoughts as of late.

>>1826073
>the ordinary citizen's unwitting sponsorship of war crimes
Aren't we begging the question just a little here? And besides, I'm sure whether it's sponsorship if it's unwitting.

>I think access to capital as a citizen of empire engenders some responsibility to divert excess cash and effort to a place where it is more greatly needed.
Really? I don't see where at any point having money in a wealthy country generates a positive duty to contribute to charity, although I wouldn't see where at any point duties and rights emerge to begin with

>Mill's harm principle that accounts for corporate sovereignty and delimits an individual's relative power in global society instead of enumerating his/her rights and freedoms
Is that a "should" I hear there good buddy? If we're being reasonable, then maybe one can say that one has a postive duty to prevent harm to the relevant parties, but that doesn't invalidate an individual's right to non-interference. And we don't want a situation where a state can violate a person's rights, because that would surely be unreasonable. But then it's a matter of choice for the individual whether he wants to charity, and specifically charity, because that is what is at stake, rather than any presupposed duty to alleviate the suffering of others.

>The universality arises when we consider all human beings experience pain in a comparably similar way and have the same needs in terms of food, shelter and water (bare minimum).
We're all universally similarly constituted, but I don't see how this incurs any sort of moral universal claims.

>The duty is incurred when we accept that individuals have a rational capacity and ability to meet the needs of others
But how does a rational capacity and ability to meet the needs of others incur any duty at all?

>>1826095
>one has a postive duty to prevent harm to the relevant parties
And the key thing to remember here is that there is no consensus over what extent, if any, the wealthy are responsible, and the wealthy of the 21st century no less, for any harm done to the poor

still entrapped by humanity. you are a scientist, an engineer of society. act like one.

>>1826115
I'll start behaving when I start getting published

>>1826095
Those are all legitimate points, and I will digest them. Obviously I'm still working with my conceptions here, they're far from complete. Basically what I'm driving at is that people's money are instrumental in doing things they aren't aware of, and if they were aware of those things they wouldn't put their money there in the first place.

>>1826138
Okay man to be fair rights issuesand poverty aren't really what I'm into so I can't really respond to you as well as I'd like, but you seem to have it together fairly well anyway so good luck

Are you shy?

Charles Baudelaire, Les Fleurs du Mal

As the title suggest, this is a story of a couple of flowers being evil. Killing people, destroying things, mocking the disabled, you know, that kind of stuff. But, eventually, the winter comes and they all freeze in silence. The last pages are a terrific tour de force, showing the flowers dying in the snow, but also showing the seeds buried in the ground, waiting for the spring. Some has suggested this is implies a second part that Baudelaire could not write, because he left Paris in order to fight the vikings/