/lit/ - Literature

Cons
-Faulty logic/reason/argumentation in the intro essay (although I am aware that it could be deliberate)
-Pure entertainment, no real morality or life lesson is exalted (which is what you’d often expect with Russian Literature)
-It is melancholy, but at the same time it isn’t. There is a constant nauseating confliction of emotion. This makes the book incredibly entertaining, but often at times makes you feel uncomfortable to read in long durations.
-Like I have said, there are moments when you will become frustrated and spiteful toward the underground man.


Score: 8.4/10

The Underground Man is definitely a character I'll never forget

bump for more reviews

>-There is never a moment that seems unrealistic
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Hilarious
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>Intriguingly contradicting
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>Inspirational/Inspired a lot of future writers
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-You can never escape the feeling that the author is pouring his own life experience into the story
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Existential philosophies are pronounced, in that, there is deliberate emphasis on other character’s personal human experience. The story does not simply centre on the main character’s experience of reality
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Unimportant details that do not bore you to hear them
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Morose/macabre/misanthropic
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Extremely original
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Withstands the test of time
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-The narrator’s amusing self-awareness
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-The underground man can both be loved and hated at the same time
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Personally relatable (at some kind of level) (for example, I’m sure everyone here has done things that weren’t in accordance with your beliefs, which you regret later) (Choosing to inflict sorrow onto yourself rather than endure boredom)
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Stereotypically Russian
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>>1872393
>Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Faulty logic/reason/argumentation in the intro essay (although I am aware that it could be deliberate)
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Pure entertainment, no real morality or life lesson is exalted (which is what you’d often expect with Russian Literature)
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-It is melancholy, but at the same time it isn’t. There is a constant nauseating confliction of emotion. This makes the book incredibly entertaining, but often at times makes you feel uncomfortable to read in long durations.
Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text

>-Like I have said, there are moments when you will become frustrated and spiteful toward the underground man.
Doesn't tell you about the mastery of the text

Everything you have said about the novel is nothing close in any way to a 'review' because a review tells you the quality of a product. Put simply, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on any level besides being able to discuss how you felt about the novel; which is just about what high-schoolers can manage to come up with.

Come back when you've learnt something about Dostoevsky's talent for the polyphonic novel and double-voiced discourse, things that are actually Dostoevsky's trademark skills demonstrated in his writing.

Fucking clueless idiots who don't know what they're talking about shitting up /lit/ as usual.

D&E copy-pasting something his prof once told him. Don't worry, in this cesspool, you're still the best.

>>1872409
Actually, I came to that conclusion myself in my own time. It's something I've always been quite proud of, although I've no doubt been influenced by my professors, I've gone my own way in terms of theoretical development, to my benefit.

>>1872402
http://vocaroo.com/?media=vDJbJXRYmDzhZNxPh

>>1872416

>>1872416
>>1872416

>doesn't tell you anything about the master of the text
>the master

the fuck.

>>1872398
>Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ
>Doesn't tell you anything about the mastery of the text
Oh, I think it does. It tells you so much about the mastery of the text that you can safely disregard anything under the name "Deep&Edgy".

>>1872416
Thanks. I'll probably read everything D&E writes from now on in that voice.

>>1872416

>>1872416
bahahahahahahahaha

>>1872402
>a review tells you the quality of a product

this is what people who take literary criticism seriously actually believe

>>1872416
I lol'd more than I should have.

>>1872433
Sounds to me like you're a wee bit jelly you didn't fling yourself wholeheartedly into lit crit when you were an undergrad.

>>1872441
Why are all your posts so fucking pretentious D&E?

>>1872441
>jelly of lit crits with my phd in maths and $300k starting job

lol, hardly.

>>1872433
>this is what people who take literary criticism seriously actually believe
Well, it's a little more complicated than I'm willing to get into here, because a review by an expert will tell you the quality of an object relative to the standards of an expert, which will be totally alien and not understandable (thus usually not desirable) to uneducated dumbshits, while a review by stupid people (see OP) will tell you the quality of an object relative to the standards of a useless casual, and unless it's a total piece of shit (we get plenty of those as well), will probably be understandable to and have an element of appeal to most other useless casuals (see most of /lit/).

>>1872416

David?

>>1872441
>getting a BA
>in this economy

Don't worry, I'll throw you a dime every time I see you on the street corner.

>>1872446
>make money
>miss out on literature, the greatest human project of all time

My pity for you is boundless.

>>1872447
>taking the fun out of reading
>useful

nope

>>1872452
>implying it's impossible to read and have a well-paying job at the same time

>>1872454
Who said anything about fun?

>>1872447
>because a review by an expert will tell you the quality of an object relative to the standards of an expert, which will be totally alien and not understandable (thus usually not desirable) to uneducated dumbshits
Doesn't that mean that the expert's evaluation is only for other experts and the novice's evaluation is for other novices, thus there is no better or worse evaluation of a work, just relative evaluations which only have worth dependent on who you are? I'm talking about "better" in the sense of "more pleasurable to read" by the way.

>>1872454
>>taking the fun out of reading
I'm not talking about reading, to begin with. I'm talking about criticism.

Secondly, even if we were talking about reading, that's implying that every critic who has ever written about a text somehow has not enjoyed reading it. That's patently false. While I'm sure there's plenty of people who haven't enjoyed what they've read and written about it, there's just as many who have, and indeed, some of the best critical works in history have been, almost by necessity, labours of the highest love for their objects of critical appreciation. It's your own failing that you can't see how people of higher levels of appreciation can enjoy what they do; about as ludicrous an assumption as thinking that learning to pull off combos in SFIV takes the fun out of playing it rather than opening up even more avenues for skill and enjoyment; either it does or maybe that person just didn't enjoy playing SFIV all that much, or on a higher level. tl;dr you're a fucking scrub, sorry.

>>1872447
I almost agreed with you, except for the simple fact that an expert is someone who doesn't have to use jargon to explain a point, they're adept with their topic, so it's well within their ability to break it down to the layperson. This characteristic, more than anything else, is why people on here don't recognize you as an expert. I've seen you do it before, but it's rare, and it's obvious you're less willing than you are capable. "Uneducated" and "casual" are not synonymous, your conflation of the terms is insulting to the spirit of education.

>>1872445
Because he believes being a pretentious wanker is a virtue.

>>1872464
oh ok. sorry. let me rephrase

>criticism
>useful

nope

>>1872463
>just relative evaluations which only have worth dependent on who you are?
Sure, (e,g,I'm a critical appreciator of literature so an evaluation based solely on affect has no value for me as a critical appreciator) and that obviously means there are better or worse evaluations relative to the context you place such evaluations in and the end which you want to achieve.

>'m talking about "better" in the sense of "more pleasurable to read" by the way.
Well, that's unfortunate. That's a pretty useless sense to use but you're free to concern yourself with that, I don't. In any case, something will be more or less pleasurable to read depending on the individual and his tastes. Here is a rudimentary argument; If a person has x, y, z qualities and if a text A aoppeals to x, y, z qualties, and if text B appeals to x, y qualities, then on the basis of maximising pleasure (a crude utilitarian viewpoint but sufficient for the purposes of this discussion) text A is the superior text.

>>1872413
A quick google of the hopelessly opaque jargon you used here >>1872402 demonstrated that neither your purpotedly original ideas on Dostoevski's oeuvre were your own but actually those of Bakhtin (who happened to express them in the EXACT SAME TERMINOLOGY http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Bibliographies/bakhtin.htm))

Likewise, in what way do elements like humour (>>1872127 Hilarious) and significance (inspirational/inspired a lot of future writers) not display some sort of 'mastery of the text.' Hell these aren't necessarily original qualities (if that's what you're getting at obliquely), but they certainly demonstrate Dostoevski's aptitude and skill. If your sole criterion for 'mastery of the text' is some gimmicky piece of narratological originality, then I'm afraid you have a derisably limited understanding of literature.

All in all, another arrogant attempt to belittle and patronize anon with hopelessly specious reasoning, by everyone's favourite tripfirend.

>>1872463
>I'm talking about "better" in the sense of "more pleasurable to read" by the way.

Then you're talking about it in a quite different sense than I am. The quality of a novel is not contingent on its capacity to induce pleasure, else Moby-Dick and Ulysses would fall far below a recent Grisham howler. Rather the quality is contingent upon aesthetic merits; that is, how well does the writer get his/her point across intellectually and/or emotionally? We then look at the ways language is handled, comparing the micro-level successes of this or that author (individual sentences, turns of phrase, metaphors) with the rest of the canon, as well as the macro successes (character, theme, overall voice). I'm speaking exclusively of novels now, but you get the point. Now on this basis of aesthetic merit, we (the elite critics) build standards of aesthetic merit by which texts are judged. The standards aren't objective in the sense that 2+2=4 is objective, but they are valuable nonetheless in compiling the canon--that is, those works that are more like to achieve their aesthetic ends than most other works,and which we put in their own domain for college study.

>>1872466
>an expert is someone who doesn't have to use jargon to explain a point
An expert is, pure and simple, someone who knows what they're talking about to sufficiently high degree. The manner in which an expert speaks is a matter of choice, not a 'semantic prerequisite' that has to be fulfilled for attaining the title. An expert could speak in the most esoteric terms possible, so long as such terms were, in a real social or academic context, understandable to persons of sufficient understanding; (otherwise we get people like, e.g. Derrida, who are either "radical" or just bullshitters). What you're talking about with this ability to convey in simpler terms is a virtue of pedagogy, but by no means are all experts pedagogues, although I suppose ideally they would be.

>>1872466
>>1872466
>This characteristic, more than anything else, is why people on here don't recognize you as an expert.

You would have me deign to the level of the ignorant on your terms, but do you deign to the level of the street-corner doomsayer on the subject of politics or religion? No, you stand firmly at the station and wait for him to arrive. You don't the Sunset Limited back the way you came.

>>1872479
>your purpotedly original ideas on Dostoevski's oeuvre were your own but actually those of Bakhtin
NO SHIT YOU RETARD, I NEVER SAID THEY WERE ORIGINAL. THAT'S WHY I SAID THEY WRE HIS TRADEMARK SKILLS, AND IF YOU READ DOSTOY, YOU HAD BETTER READ BAKHTIN.

>Likewise, in what way do elements like humour (>>1872127 Hilarious) and significance (inspirational/inspired a lot of future writers) not display some sort of 'mastery of the text.
Because you're universalising particular responses to a text, and such a universalisation is impossible and a matter of taste, without even qualifying why such a specific matter of taste is the superior one relative to the end of critical evaluation.

>If your sole criterion for 'mastery of the text' is some gimmicky piece of narratological originality
I didn't limit it to just two of Dostoevsky's techniques.

Seriously, aren't you that cluess idiot posting some stupid thread about continental lit theory a month ago?

>>1872447
In non-pretentious language D&E actually means that anything that could actually be important to the average human being is covered in reviews like the OP (though the OP has bad presentation, but it's just a post on /lit/ so I'll forgive him).

>>1872487
>by no means are all experts pedagogues, although I suppose ideally they would be

Dude, you just negated your entire point.

>>1872496
>the average human being
>the mediocore human being
fixed

>>1872501
>Dude, you just negated your entire point.
No, I didn't. At that moment I was talking in ideals under certain specific circumstances that don't currently prevail.

>>1872487
this is the problem with literary criticism. making up higher and more esoteric tiers of "understanding" and then assuming that those tiers are more valuable than a layperson's understanding.

>I NEVER SAID THEY WERE ORIGINAL
>>Actually, I came to that conclusion myself in my own time
original adj :
independent and creative in thought or action

What am I missing?

Fuck D&E and fuck /lit/. OP idea was good, and this could have been a great thread if it wasn't for that stupid tripag. Argh, this board had so much potential...

>>1872509
I never said my conclusion was original, please try again.

Well this thread is just about beyond salvageable, but I'll put in a response anyway.

>-Unimportant details that do not bore you to hear them (like getting a new fox pelt collar)
It wasn't as unimportant as you make it out to be. The collar was supposed to be an excessively fancy article that the Underground Man really couldn't afford, bought so he could show off to that man he bumped into on the street. That was the point; he was so determined to spite the man (he was a soldier, I think? I forget his profession) that he not only went further than he should, but further than he really was able to in order to get back at him.

>-Pure entertainment, no real morality or life lesson is exalted (which is what you’d often expect with Russian Literature)
Actually when it comes to Russian literature (particularly 19th Century works) I almost expect the opposite. It requires more work to get into it, but offers a lot of insight on things that are still relevant today.

>-Faulty logic/reason/argumentation in the intro essay (although I am aware that it could be deliberate)
It was deliberate. The Apropos of Wet Snow was supposed to explain how and why the Underground Man came to be the way he was, while at the same time serve as a sort of test of his own philosophy that you read through in the first part. Obviously if the two halves were switched the impact of the whole thing would have a much different feel. But the fact that he violated so many of the principles he expounded on in the first half is what makes him an unreliable narrator.

>>1872476
>That's a pretty useless sense to use but you're free to concern yourself with that, I don't.
I don't think it's useless. I think most people try to look for a novel they can enjoy, based on whatever standards they have for enjoyable. The way most people judge what they would like to read is not an entirely useless way of judging if novels are solely means to give pleasure to the people reading them.

>The quality of a novel is not contingent on its capacity to induce pleasure, else Moby-Dick and Ulysses would fall far below a recent Grisham howler.
This is obviously dependent on what you find pleasurable, though. I think people legitimately enjoy Moby Dick and Ulysses because they have different standards as to what they find enjoyable, not because they're punishing themselves for some higher purpose like medieval flaggelants. They enjoy it, but they have different standards for their enjoyment than others do.

>The standards aren't objective in the sense that 2+2=4 is objective, but they are valuable nonetheless in compiling the canon--that is, those works that are more like to achieve their aesthetic ends than most other works,and which we put in their own domain for college study.
But the standards are only useful for people who believe in those standards, correct? If so, in what sense of the word "better" do you believe the expert's opinion better than the amateur's opinion? You believe it's more credible, obviously, but in what way?

>>1872493
haha, the last time I posted a thread, 'clueless' about post-structuralism, I argued away all your sophistry pretty darn quickly. By my second post in response to your offensive posturing, you had resorted to swearing and insulting me rather than attempting to argue against me soberly which demonstrates both the weakness of your position there and the futility of any further attempt to respond to me here. Already, you have resorted to pedanticism...

I'll stoop to respond to the only point you made worth any regard, the one about the way OP and I had supposedly 'universaliz[ed]' elements of Dostoevski's appeal to demonstrate his skill. Here, you're purposely leading us onto shaky epistemic >>1872483
ground, which is fine, but also vaguely time wasting and very unacademic. My response to this challenge would be to suggest that if OP were to dig into the text, he could infer Doestoevski's intentionality for certain facets he enjoyed, and thence argue that the text should be enjoyed in a certain way but this is really verging on critical analysis.

In fact, OP's only intention is to review the book and describe why he liked it. There, there's real room for subjectivity and we can all forgive him for it. If he wanted to evaluate the text in the way you believe it should be, (in the context of a canon, from an expert perspective etc.), these same issues of perspective still apply, since evaluation involves a personal interaction with a text. You may be able to point out the way Dostoevski pioneered certain narrative technique but you could never assert that he was the best at it without involving an intense degree of subjectivity.

>>1872538
The only good post in this entire thread.

Why do you faggots constantly pick on D&E? It derails every thread he posts in.

>>1872555
It's fun and his reactions are priceless

>>1872536
>I think most people try to look for a novel they can enjoy
Sorry, I'm not interested in what's valuable for "most people", because "most people" don't know what's specifically valuable about literature; they don't what's specifically and individually valuable in a Balzac as opposed to a Kafka. That sort of ignorance is no good to people who want to read the best of the best, or people who want to promote flourishing and skill in literate.

>They enjoy it, but they have different standards for their enjoyment than others do.
I never said otherwise, but some standards are better than others in a relative sense.

>But the standards are only useful for people who believe in those standards, correct?
No, they're usually useful for many people, ordinary and better (but not the sick and degenerate) because they promote a higher standard of skill in literature overall, which promotes a higher standard of flourishing in human life.

>If so, in what sense of the word "better" do you believe the expert's opinion better than the amateur's opinion?
Relative to the end of promoting and producing more skillful works of literature and providing the best evaluation relative to a standard of textual evaluation.

>>1872564
This, but I do love his unapologetic style. /lit/ is learning though, he seems to receive a lot more stand fast counter-arguments.

>>1872538
>haha, the last time I posted a thread, 'clueless' about post-structuralism, I argued away all your sophistry pretty darn quickly.
I don't think so, especially from what I've already seen of you, although you're free to link it on greenoval.

>you had resorted to swearing and insulting me
That's not resorting, that's just addressing you appropriately.

>attempting to argue against me soberly which demonstrates both the weakness of your position there
lol, ad hominem against my use of language oh wow; my argument's weak because I happened to call you a fucking retard as well, sounds legit bro

>Here, you're purposely leading us onto shaky epistemic >>1872483
ground, which is fine, but also vaguely time wasting and very unacademic
Lol, try reading tripcodes some time you stupid fucking myopic faggot lol

>>1872571
Looks like someone's mad he just got told, HARD.

>>1872571
When did you start stooping to entire posts that are ad homs? Also, Caracalla seems a lot smarter than you so Imma have to side with him.

>>1872580
you should read that bit where I talk about how stupid people are attracted to stupid people

>>1872571

that's not myopia; you're thinking of hyperopia

>>1872582
Blah blah blah aristocratic entitlement blah blah blah

>>1872582
Meh, think what you want. He just seems less opaque and disingenuous than you, and he's a better prose stylist if that means anything.

You people are just as guilty for /lit/'s shit status by responding to his drivel as he is for forcing it upon this board in the first place.

>>1872582
Caracalla's an example of what you could be if you spent less time on 4chan and more time reading.

>>1872565

you're like a first-year physics student who believes that his understanding of momentum conservation in a frictionless universe makes him a better pool player than Jimmy the Hustler who's been playing down at the pub every night for the last 15 years.

I related to the underground man more than any other character. All those cons contributed to what made the book so good. They're not even cons, bro.

For example, just like how you hate the underground man, at times, you also hate yourself, at times, throughout life.

So much delicious d&e assmad in here...

>>1872601
He's melting down with each post. Soon it'll just be ad hom after ad hom. Can't take the heat, etc.

>>1872590
it's not "aristocratic entitlement" it's common sense; similar types attract. I'm not putting anyone down for it; smart people wouldn't be smart without stupid people after all.

>>1872597
>you're like a first-year physics student who believes that his understanding of momentum conservation in a frictionless universe makes him a better pool player than Jimmy the Hustler who's been playing down at the pub every night for the last 15 years.
That analogy might hold some water if I was mistaking critical appreciation for reading, but I'm not.

>>1872571
>try reading tripcodes some time you stupid fucking myopic faggot
>you stupid fucking myopic faggot
>myopic

You all hatin' now, but without D&E's quality control, this place would start to go down the shitter with exponential rate (as opposed to the steady decline the present).
When stupid people need to get told, always bet on D&E.

Caracalla seems pretty cool too.

>>1872571
And now, you play the exact card past precedent taught me to expect you to play because there's no more room for counter-argument and you're on the defensive. I don't need to link anon anything on greenoval, it's happened again...

I'd like to point out that I didn't use an 'ad hominem' fallacy when I interpreted your use of anger as unfortunate and unintelligent. That is funnily enough a deductive conclusion. This deduction ties into my general argument that you have been conducting a boorish attack on anon rather than an arguement and that past example backs it up. You yourself used some ad hominem fallacies, if you want to be taught how they work ('you stupid fucking myopic faggot lol,' 'That's not resorting, that's just addressing you appropriately.') If I were to have simply called you an 'arsehole' and used that proposition to deductively conclude that your arguement was irrational, I would then be fallacious in the terms you have specified.

filename

>>1872565
>"most people" don't know what's specifically valuable about literature
Most people do know what they find valuable in literature, and that obviously isn't universal. If the amateur's opinion is as valuable to a random individual as an expert's opinion would be, then the distinctions between the two begin to blur (as we look to an expert for skillful evaluations of texts that will be useful to most, and when those evaluations are separate from novels as people experience them then the expert is almost useless for the majority in evaluating good novels from bad ones). (I'm still talking about value in the sense of pleasure.)

>No, they're usually useful for many people, ordinary and better (but not the sick and degenerate) because they promote a higher standard of skill in literature overall, which promotes a higher standard of flourishing in human life.
What do you think promotes a higher standard of human flourishing? Your next comment was tied to this question, so I'll let it be for now.

>>1872593
D&E is an asshole, sure, but excluding his 'i am the best tripfag on /lit/' posts, he's very on-topic, especially compared to the real shitposters on here.

>>1872594
>>1872591

dat d-ride

>>1872604
>similar types attract.
Reductive bullshit.

>stupid
>smart
>types

I love how you pull these arbitrary fixed points right out of your ass as if it makes any semblance of sense. Now go on, justify them some more: string out an abstruse recursive logic game with x, y, and z as markers.

>>1872616
>very on-topic

that's quite a different thing than actually saying something meaningful.

>>1872604

oh, but you very much are.

>>1872610
>D&E's quality control

What, calling people sub-humans and idiots? Championing elitism? Derailing every thread he's in?

He's one of the reasons this board isn't good. I'd trade D&E and Brownbear and a few other crappy tripfags for a janitor or two.

d&e you should watch some kdrama

>>1872625
>I'd trade D&E and Brownbear and a few other crappy tripfags for a janitor or two
I would too. If only.

>>1872625
I bet you read Derrida with a straight face too. Anyone not having a laugh at D&E's hyperbolic statements and over-the-top elitism is as dense as Focault himself.

but d&e does scratch the itch left by the overly rigid division of objectivity/subjectivity held by the silly types. although he does not know how it works, he senses something is wrong and struggles against it.

that same blind struggle is characteristic of continental philosophy, even when it is moving in the right direction.

trip fag circle jerk?

also, my beautiful thread is ruined.

>>1872613
>>I'd like to point out that I didn't use an 'ad hominem' fallacy
>attempting to argue against me soberly which demonstrates both the weakness of your position there

>That is funnily enough a deductive conclusion
That's an inference.

>>1872615
>Most people do know what they find valuable in literature
No, most people people know what they find valuable about reading, not literature.

>that obviously isn't universal
What's valuable about literature isn't obviously universal; it's relative

>If the amateur's opinion is as valuable to a random individual as an expert's opinion would be, then the distinctions between the two begin to blur
Sure, unless you ascribe some relative standard. And if you don't, then you're not saying anything about value to begin with, because value is a matter of relation.

>as we look to an expert for skillful evaluations of texts that will be useful to most
No we look to an expert to tell us what the literary merit of a text is. That's the job of a critic; a critic doesn't tell us how to live our lives (i.e. what will be useful to us or not)

>What do you think promotes a higher standard of human flourishing?
An instantiation of a family resemblance of values

>>1872632
replace overly rigid with metaphysical hurr me

does D&E have any real life friends that enjoy his company?

Or is he some skinny despondent pessimistic loser?

>>1872634
>>1872634

your reviews suck. they're nothing more than 'i like this, i think that worked, but these i'm arbitrarily putting as a con'

>>1872634
>>1872634

circle jerk general you say?

dooooobles

>>1872619
>Reductive bullshit.
Reductive, sure, but suitable and appropriate for the purposes of conveying my point.

>I love how you pull these arbitrary fixed points right out of your ass as if it makes any semblance of sense
It does though, sooner or later you're going to have to face up to the hard fact that generalisation is a beneficial precondition for even the most basic tasks in life. We simply couldn't live without generalisation, and the generalisations I've been making are perfectly tenable for the point I wish to convey.

It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of taking a look out the window and looking at how people live. Don't tell me you've never had to think in terms of 'smart', 'stupid' generalisations, because you have.

>>1872641
Nobody likes a critic I suppose.

You jelly (for some weird reason).

>pro/con
>book review

okay billy, it's not nice to fight with other kids. sit in a corner and cry

>>1872625
>>1872625

heyy that's not very nice, i'm one of the best posters on this board.

>>1872628
have you watched any game of thrones actually

For all you "critics".

D&E, why are you so obsessed over every minute detail of literature? I gather that you feel literature can somehow improve the world we live in, but as you've already said before, only those capable of appreciating or understanding such literary criticisms will care. And there's no way in fuck people like you are in any position to change the world, so why does your anus tighten every time you see a word misused or someone enjoying something you deem low-brow literature?

>>1872653
no. i didn't like it from reading a wiki description. seems dull and uninspired

That feel when you suspect that several posters in this thread are same fagging for the sheer fact of filling an empty void in their life.

Why isn't anyone talking about the book, the review, or some poignant observation they have noticed while reading it that they'd like share?

>>1872654
shiva and vishnu are one and the same in the life of an artist. criticism without creation is empty, but the reverse is blind.

>>1872664
>>1872664

well you really have no proof about anyone same fagging do you? it's literally just your gut feeling and has absolutely no bearing on this thread at all does it?

it perplexes me why some posters feel the need to rationalise that fact some people (god forbid) share the SAME opinion on an internet message board. Why can't you just realise that maybe two people share the same opinion? Or have similar views? Or that some posters like what some other posters have to say?

no trolling, i just want an honest answer. It's always Anonymous who are the first to shout same fag at anyone and anything involving a tripcode user

>>1872668
That's not an accurate analogy.

>>1872676
okay jamesy tell me what should i say

>>1872654
We already know that the critic is subordinate to the artist; a criticism can only have as much value, never more, than the object of critical evaluation.

>>1872657
>you feel literature can somehow improve the world we live in,
That's overly simplistic, I don't really like to concern myself with the ends of literature on such a scale. So really what's at stake, my primary concern, is the flourishing of superior individuals in society i.e. the greatest people of society (really here I refer primarily to artists, but not necessarily) that through their works enrich life, which will always be a tiny minority. That's a much more realistic goal, and a much more fulfilling one, because the mediocore and degenerate can go fuck themselves, while they provide the levelling force and the stability that keeps human society in motion, they'll never by their nature improve the level of flourishing of human life; that's what geniuses do, whether it be scientists or artists, musicians or tacticians. Now setting these few people, and future generations (because great people always emerge in contrast to evidence of the last century or so of scandalous garbage poured on the entire history of human artistic achievement) on the right path (i.e. the path not riddled with self-contradicting values and befuddlement inspired by the dominant, mediocratising masses and degenerates) is perfectly achievable.

In short, I don't do it for you, or you, or you, I do it for the best of us and only the best.

>>1872679
Its rather Brahma who creates and Vishnu who criticizes by surgically removing the bad parts.

>No, most people people know what they find valuable about reading, not literature.
No, I think they generally know what they value about the literature they read. They won't generally choose novels they know they wouldn't enjoy reading for example. People have a good idea of what they want from a book, regardless of whether those ideas might be judged good or poor by an outside party.

>An instantiation of a family resemblance of values
What are those values? And how do we determine what is valuable from what isn't?

>>1872684
Something tells me 4chan is not the field in which you should be sowing these seeds.

>>1872668
Oh I agree, and therefore believe you should have first created something worthwhile before being able to criticize someone else in that topic/field. Not because you are unable to tell if it's good or not (obviously you don't need to know how to cook to critique food etc), but to earn the right to do so.

>>1872685
fine fine whatever, i don't really like hindu figures anyway.

>>1872684
how do you manage the effort required to type all of that crap

>>1872644
>>1872644

>no one caring about my dubs

what da 'eff is wrong with you guys?

>>1872684

>That's a much more realistic goal, and a much more fulfilling one, because the mediocore and degenerate can go fuck themselves, while they provide the levelling force and the stability that keeps human society in motion, they'll never by their nature improve the level of flourishing of human life; that's what geniuses do, whether it be scientists or artists, musicians or tacticians.

"Oh, good heavens!" Ignatius shouted, unable to contain himself any longer. Popcorn spilled down his shirt and gathered in the folds of his trousers. "What degenerate produced this abortion?"

>>1872687
>No, I think they generally know what they value about the literature they read.
Really, so most people know the value of a Balzac or a Kafka? Most people read Stephanie Meyer because it's Stephanie Meyer?

>They won't generally choose novels they know they wouldn't enjoy reading
And that's a matter of reading, as I've already said, not literature itself. There's a difference.

>What are those values?
They change over the course of history and society, culture and economy, so it would be misleading to give any one concrete set.

>And how do we determine what is valuable from what isn't?
Whether they contribute to the increased flourishing of human life.

>>1872694
well, a good artist would have the humility to take all criticism, even from the lesser. intersubjectivity blah

>>1872664
I posted >>1872524 and by that point the thread was already focused on tripfag's antics yet again, so nobody probably even read my post let alone respond to it. So fuck you.

>>1872684
What if the geniuses are the degenerates? Dostoyevsky, for example, seemed to be an awful human being from reports, and we know he had a terrible gambling problem. Where do they fit into this theory?

http://vocaroo.com/?media=v5zpsc6FbcCjPSWUb

>>1872700
Yeah I know I should really just write one garbled, unexplained line and if everyone's really lucky maybe I'll reply to myself after a minute with an equally vague remark

I have a question. Who decides upon the standards of literature?

>>1872711
>>1872711

>he went through a tripcode leak

when was this?
jees lousise get ur facts straight nawysayn

#swag

>>1872717
Deep&Edgy, obviously. How do you not get that?

>>1872708
>What if the geniuses are the degenerates?
>awful human being from reports
In what sense?

>we know he had a terrible gambling problem
Didn't stop him from producing some great literature, so it mustn't have been that big of a problem

>>1872712
i guess my imaginary interlocutor is not actualized in any person then.

>>1872634
Apologies.

A quick disclaimer before I launch in: this review is predicated on my subjective response and interpretation, and is necessarily so.

>The Recognitions, 1955.

>Pros:
-One of the most cohesive novels I have ever read. Comparable to a work of Goethe or Joyce in terms of its lack of aporia within its thematic content.
-Profoundly original still for its reponse to modern problems of existential authencity, partly because it feels to me like a modernist/postmodernist hybrid, but partly also because of Gaddis himself and the originality of his thoughts. A breathtaking feat considering the scope of the novel.
-Singular prose and unique uses of irony and appropriation (lines from Eliot's Four Quartets frequently quoted unacknowledged) create this wonderfully evoked sense of chaos that ties into the tense and arduous actualization process of the several main characters. Likewise, the narrative is structured brilliantly, almost a dadaist sculptural fusion of ancient tragic and modern suspense narrative structures.
-Passionately written. Gaddis is angered by the apathy and inanity of modern culture and his anger is self-righteous, intense but also endearing and very interesting for interpretation. Wonderful moments of cyncial humour and superb characters result.
-Out of all the postmodern novels I have read, this one corresponds most convincingly to reality (even though it frequently eschews objective reality). By reality, I mean inner reality, the psychology of human nature and endeavour.

>Cons:
-Scenarios are frequently recycled and I was tired of reading the same dilletantes at the party scene over and again by the end of the novel.
-Wyatt's actualization is kind of unsatisfying. It isn't satisfyingly realized, although this is in keeping with the novel's themes and bent, where clarity even narratival clarity is deliberately withheld the reader, and Wyatt's character, one the reader isn't allowed too much perspective.
-Frustratingly difficult to read at times. References are never accesible and always require real delving.
-not as good as Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow lol

>>1872706
I'm sorry dear friend, I accidentally skipped your post because I was skimming.

The reason why he got a new collar was so that he could look somewhat presentable in a downtown public cantina. The man who insults his honour is a police chief. The way he insults his honour is by not having the courtesy to step aside when they are passing each other.

The narrator gives a reason for buying the new collar, so that he isn't perceived by the public eye to be living in squalor (although he was).
That's what I took it as. (seems about right)

I'm sure you could expand on that, but I don't see how you could come up with any observation of that, that isn't already implied in the context.


Compared to Tolstoy's works (which are usually super preachy), Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground is far more entertaining than it is preachy. I could have done with a little more preachy, but it feels a little too less (compared to other russian authors).

It is mildly frustrating reading logical fallacies, even if it is deliberate. Although, this aspect does not subtract much from the scoring.

>>1872711
>>1872711

>Brownbear speaks about maturity and says D&E is a mature poster
where did i say that?

also it was a little try-hard, preferred the dildo's one because the voice was funnier

>>1872733
>lack of aporia within its thematic content
thematic content, emphasis on thematic, as in theme, doesn't have aporia, at most it has an opposite or a binary

>>1872733
>>1872736
Excellent review. Now it's Deep's turn.

question!

if you are reading a novel to "learn about human condition" then why don't you just study cognitive neuroscience or psychology.

differentiate between model building and data collecting

>>1872684

So basically you wish anyone who isn't a genius to do all the "dirty work" of society while the geniuses to go about creating and having a monopoly over those underneath them?

You do realize that geniuses themselves all began at the same point of not knowing anything, right? They had to be taught. So why not teach the "dirty-workers" alongside these geniuses? And I hope you realize you'd be slaving away with us construction workers in such a society, as well. You wouldn't be lofting about on a puffy couch analyzing literature, you'd be in the hot sun being paid almost nothing.

You deny the uneducated the education they would need for you to deem them intelligent, then blame them for society's faults because they're stupid. What the hell, man.

>>1872746
Yeah, if you're talking about the perfect novel but recently I've found it all too easy to happen on contradictions and problematic dichotomies in narratives. It's human for them to happen and it's a sign of a great novel when these aporias aren't present or at least indiscernible to close scrutiny.

>>1872747
I'm not interested in giving reviews, because I already know what I like and I'm not interested in what anyone else's tastes are; it should suffice to say that if you're like me (superior human being) you'll (with a certain degree of probability influenced by socio-economic-historical factors) like what I like. Here's an analysis I've written before though.

>>1872757
whoops, meant thematic content instead of narrative

>>1872752
>naivette

Don't worry, its common amongst social sciences and humanities.

>>1872754
>So basically you wish anyone who isn't a genius to do all the "dirty work" of society while the geniuses to go about creating and having a monopoly over those underneath them?
No, as I already said, they can go fuck themselves. They can do whatever they fucking want for all I care, the insects will sort themselves out after all. And I haven't said anything about creating monopolies, I've simply discussed great human achievement, which geniuses will do anyway. It all works itself out, but that doesn't mean it can't do without some fine-tuning.

>You do realize that geniuses themselves all began at the same point of not knowing anything, right? They had to be taught.
Sure, they had to build their knowledge off all that went before them, and then go a little further.

>So why not teach the "dirty-workers" alongside these geniuses?
I don't see any reason why not to, for it only increases the overall standard and thus creates a new standard against which geniuses emerge.

>And I hope you realize you'd be slaving away with us construction workers in such a society
The only society I've been talking about is the one we live in.

>>1872757
>Yeah, if you're talking about the perfect novel
No, I'm talking about what you were talking about; thematic content.

>I've found it all too easy to happen on contradictions and problematic dichotomies in narratives
Oh okay, but you were talking about thematic content when you mentioned aporia, not narratives.

I'd probably go into why the entire concept of aporia is horseshit but I've been talking enough in this thread as it is.

>>1872524
>>1872706
HEY! YOU! I replied for you!!

Here:>>1872744

>>1872776
>>I've found it all too easy to happen on contradictions and problematic dichotomies in thematic content
Really? That would be a first in the history of literature; would you care to give an example?

>>1872758

>analysis
>fitting something to an arbitrarily constructed framework and pretending it's enlightening

i can't believe my taxes are paying for people to learn shit like this

>>1872752
>if you are reading a novel to "learn about human condition" then why don't you just study cognitive neuroscience or psychology.
Because the world doesn't spin around any one sytagmatic or paradigmatic selection.

>>1872788
>>fitting something to an arbitrarily constructed framework and pretending it's enlightening
The foundation for a house is an arbitrarily constructed framework and I don't hear anyone whining about that, in fact most people are grateful for the use it has in society. Just because the foundations of literary don't have the same application to your probably meager life as those of housing doesn't mean they're totally valueless for others.

>>1872776

>So basically you wish anyone who isn't a genius to do all the "dirty work"
>No, as I already said, they can go fuck themselves. They can do whatever they fucking want for all I care

>So why not teach the "dirty-workers" alongside these geniuses?
>I don't see any reason why not to, for it only increases the overall standard and thus creates a new standard against which geniuses emerge.

Bu...you...you just said you didn't give a shit about the uneducated...So you don't give a shit about them, but you also see no reason NOT to provide worthy education?

>>1872795
>The foundation for a house is an arbitrarily constructed framework

False premise.

>>1872795
>The foundation for a house is an arbitrarily constructed framework

i guess d&e is really a hobo after all

>arbitrarily constructed framework

That wrong.

>>1872790
what if the framework for neuroscience is by definition causally and ontologically and concrete.

>>1872776
The perfect novel would have the perfect thematics, would it not? Therefore, you've provided another pointless distinction.


>Oh okay, but you were talking about thematic content when you mentioned aporia, not narratives.

Pointed out my typo here>>1872757.

If you're sceptical about deconstruction, you probably don't quite understand how it works. An aporia is not an area where something can be found of a transcendental order and importance to understanding, just like Jung's synchronicity does not refer to the fact that events can have transcendental causation (but that they can be linked not only by causation but also by symbolism or meaning, I digress). An aporia is actually just an area where there is such contradiction within a structure that there needs to be amendment (cf. the development of gender theory from freudian feminism, the theory of hybridization when marxist post-colonialism wasn't a perfect correspondence to history).

My use of aporia here isn't in sense of deconstruction anyway. It's just a badly shaped, contradicting thematic interaction.

>>1872798
Seriously dude you're not following what I'm saying so I suggest you stop responding to me, it's okay, it happens all the time.

>So you don't give a shit about them, but you also see no reason NOT to provide worthy education?
That's not doing specifically them a great service, that's improving the overall standard of life against which genius arises from. Seriously, you seem to be under the mistaken impression I hate or want to keep down the mediocore and degenerate, I don't.

historically labeling groups of people as insects and degenerates has been a prelude to genocide (cf germany, rwanda, the balkans), thank goodness d&e is unlikely to attain any position of power

>>1872795

the framework of a house is necessary, without it the house doesn't go up.

your framework was constructed after the object you're fitting to it.

Your "analysis" is about as insightful as those 3rd-grade part-of-speech classification exercises

>>1872809
>by definition
So onionring when's the last time anything that is 'by definition' told us anything particularly informative about the world?

>>1872704
>Really, so most people know the value of a Balzac or a Kafka? Most people read Stephanie Meyer because it's Stephanie Meyer?
They may not value Balzac's or Kafka's insights because their books and ideas may not be fundamentally valuable to them. Meyer, however dubious we may be of her value, is valued by certain people.

>They change over the course of history and society, culture and economy, so it would be misleading to give any one concrete set.
I think this makes the values rather nebulous, however. How are we to determine those values? And aren't values that promote human flourishing the same across all times? If we're to evaluate literature in each age by how conducive they are to the goal of human flourishing then you would expect the general values to stay the same over time, with few if any variations.

>>1872819

Every act of genocidal proportion requires a moral backing. It is usually supplied by the fallibility of the subject matter as Sinners against some code.

So you are kind of wrong.

>>1872815

How the hell could I not assume that when you call yourself a superior human, and refer to the uneducated as insects? Thus far I've assumed you didn't care about them, because you've only discussed having society revolve around the elite, only mentioning the lowclass when you wish to call them stupid.

Maybe you're right and I misunderstood you, but honestly, your word choice can't go unfaulted.

>>1872825
pfft. you know what i meant. intrinsic nature of that cognitive space, definition only pertains to the representation of that system in order to make reference felicitous, not that the system itself is constructed by definitions.

>>1872825
In fact its only axiomatic principles that are windows into the nature of the world for human mind.

>>1872810
>The perfect novel would have the perfect thematics, would it not?
Lol, maybe if you were a platonist

>not an area where something can be found of a transcendental order and importance to understanding
>deconstruction
>not an area where something can be found of a transcendental order
No shit, please tell me more; this is new and fascinating

>An aporia is actually just an area where there is such contradiction within a structure that there needs to be amendment
Woweee, what a scoop

Seriously fuck you dude, you can tell me when I probably don't understand deconstruction when you're capable of telling me the 'why' of a concept instead of reciting the descriptions of them. Because that's understanding.

>It's just a badly shaped, contradicting thematic interaction.
I'd like you to give me a contradicting thematic interaction

>the framework of a house is necessary, without it the house doesn't go up.
Only if you want the house to go up, it's not necessary if you want to tear it down, or if you want to sleep in the open

>your framework was constructed after the object you're fitting to it.
I'm not fitting it to an object, because texts aren't objects out there in the world; and in fact, textual criticism is conducted using the very tools it sets out to criticise.
And in any case, so is a house's framework, it's fitted to a concept or a need (shelter) in exactly the same way.

>>1872815
Who's Anonmouse? Another tripfag?

sigh, typical thread hijacked by d&e. Could have been interesting, but quickly degenerated into his diarrhea of the keyboard, followed by people with valid points who are ignored because of semantic bullshit about language. Someone with aspirations to contribute to philosophy might want to learn how to communicate on a basic level so that every discussion he contributes to doesn't turn into a childish "I'm better than you" chant that is only possible because of obstinate refusal to consider anything else besides what's in his own head, without having communicated anything substantial

>>1872828
>their books and ideas may not be fundamentally valuable to them
Great literature isn't valuable to them in other words

>is valued by certain people
Yes, certain people whose values aren't the same as people who value Balzac, Joyce and most other writers as masters of literature in the canon. Again, you're failing to ask on what relative standard are such relative values better or worse than each other. You'll find that if you do suppose that standard, you will get a definite answer. But of course, you're content simply to sit there parrotting "DERP A DERP PEOPLE OVER HERE DERPA DERP PEOPLE OVER THERE HURP".

>How are we to determine those values?
By reference to the social-cultural-economic-historical conditions we live in presently. What's nebulous about any of this?

>And aren't values that promote human flourishing the same across all times?
No, of course not. We're not the same as people in the middle ages. We're not the same as people in the victorian ages even.

>If we're to evaluate literature in each age by how conducive they are to the goal of human flourishing then you would expect the general values to stay the same over time, with few if any variations.
I don't, and that's not a problem.

>Oh look, a discussion about one of my favourite books, this should be interesting...
>Oh wait, /lit/ shitstorm with 90% of posts unrelated
>Why do I come here.

>>1872831
>but honestly, your word choice can't go unfaulted.
No-one's paying me to be polite on this board, sorry. Not any fault of mine if people want to get mad over my choice of words.

>>1872809
>what if the framework for neuroscience is by definition causally and ontologically and concrete.
Srs answer? I'd try pulling off the capitalist ideology goggles.

>>1872869
>Srs answer? I'd try pulling off the capitalist ideology goggles.

i am just a poor little student. not a capitalist

>>1872872
I am mocking both of you.

>>1872780
Sorry; I had pessimistically given up on this thread but seeing as you're still trying I will too.

>Compared to Tolstoy's works (which are usually super preachy), Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground is far more entertaining than it is preachy. I could have done with a little more preachy, but it feels a little too less (compared to other russian authors).
Admittedly I haven't read as much Tolstoy as I have Dostoevsky (who is one of my favorite authors) but I haven't gotten that feeling from him. If anything it feels to me that Dostoevsky is the preachier of the two.

Anyway, I was originally going to add this but felt discouraged given the course of the thread: I'm somewhat intrigued by the publication of NfU since it tends to come bundled with The Double. The reason for this interest is the chronology of their original publication, since The Double came shortly before Dostoevsky's arrest and exile, and Notes from Underground was one of the first major works after his return. The two seem kind of polarizing with NfU having a markedly high approval and The Double serving as kind of the black sheep in Dostoevsky's literary career. That plus the Dostoevsky that emerged after his mock execution and sentence served in Siberia is the one most of the world knows and loves, while the author at the time of writing The Double you could say was more naive and less experienced spiritually. So I don't know if putting the two works together is meant to showcase this difference, or if it's pure coincidence but either way I find it curious.

>>1872854
>semantic bullshit about language
>semantic bullshit
>about language
>language
>semantic
wow never saw that coming

>>1872848
Haha, no need to invoke plato, son. Hell, it's an ideal that will never be achieved etc etc, but that's irrelevant. If we were to deal with a hypothetically perfect novel, as you yourself choose to do here >>1872746, we would always be dealing with a novel that has perfect thematics. If it had imperfect thematics, then logically there could be a novel better than it. If you try to say that there couldn't be a perfect novel, there's little room for you to deny the fact that a novel's entertainment factor and intellectual gratification as well as style and format could be optimized pragmatically.

All I wanted to say was that it was difficult to create cohesive, non-selfcontradictory thematic structures particularly when the z factor of time is considered (vaguely a non-structural concern i know, but pragmatically one we ought to consider).

A case study of Judith Butler to satisfy you on my understanding of deconstruction. In traditional feminism, there was an uneasy relation between gender and sexuality when homosexuality was considered. In fact, gender identity and sexuality contradicted at points where gender would suggest certain freudian psychologies and sexuality others. This led Judith Butler to develop gender theory wherein gender identity is in essence performative and predicated on sexuality.

>>1872848

>I'm not fitting it to an object,
no, you're fitting the object to the framework, not the other way around. see how the word order makes a difference there?

>because texts aren't objects out there in the world; and in fact, textual criticism is conducted using the very tools it sets out to criticise.
so, you're saying you're incapable of abstract thought?

your house analogy doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

>>1872878
why would you mock me. :/

>>1872891
Both of you are intelligent victims.

>>1872892
i am not a victim. you just don't understand me and you think you do.

>>1872865
I feel your pain brother, really I do. In fact that was almost exactly my thought process.

>>1872895
I don't need to. I understand your 'teachers' and your 'texts'. That's more than enough.

>>1872897
oh? list them for me

>>1872881
Yes, his biography is truly fascinating.
I remember reading a mini-bio that touched on the fact that he used his adventurous life experience for his writing. Because of this, his written works often became a biography and confession in themselves.

They even alluded to the possibility that Dosteyvesky may have raped a young girl (given the explicit detail he gives of rape in one of his novels (I forgot which)).

My awesome jewish World Lit prof said something about his mock execution in class, that seemed to explain the effect it had on Dostoy: "Well, believing that you are going to undergo an execution, then getting pulled out of it at the last second, must do quite a number on your head".

True that.

War and Peace spoiler: In war and peace, Pierre undergoes a mock execution that corresponds very similarly to Dostoevsky

>>1872898
I will be more abstract because I only understood in the abstract sense.

When what you believe it based on fallible material what you become is fallible people.

>>1872901
:/

>>1872885
>If we were to deal with a hypothetically perfect novel, as you yourself choose to do here >>1872746,
No, I don't

>we would always be dealing with a novel that has perfect thematics
I'll make it clear, there is no such thing as perfect thematics, theoretically or otherwise.

>If it had imperfect thematics, then logically there could be a novel better than it
No because, there is no such thing as imperfect or perfect thematics, there are only thematics

>a novel's entertainment factor and intellectual gratification as well as style and format could be optimized pragmatically.
What the fuck does 'entertainment factor' even mean?
'intellectual gratification' lol contradictio in adjecto if I ever heard one

>All I wanted to say was that it was difficult to create cohesive, non-selfcontradictory thematic structures
It's even harder to create cohesive, contradictory thematic structures, because thematic structures don't contradict

>In traditional feminism, there was an uneasy relation between gender and sexuality when homosexuality was considered. In fact, gender identity and sexuality contradicted at points where gender would suggest certain freudian psychologies and sexuality others. This led Judith Butler to develop gender theory wherein gender identity is in essence performative and predicated on sexuality.
Wow, that tells me what Judith Butler's known for; Butler and Spivak draw on deconstruction big fucking deal. What does this have to do with your understanding of the concepts deconstruction?

>>1872887
>you're fitting the object to the framework
texts aren't objects out there in the world; and in fact, textual criticism is conducted using the very tools it sets out to criticise.
And in any case, so is a house's framework, it's fitted to a concept or a need (shelter) in exactly the same way

>so, you're saying you're incapable of abstract thought?
I don't know how you came to that conclusion

>your house analogy doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
It would have to, otherwise you wouldn't be capable of saying that in the first place.

>>1872898
philosophical investigations, whatever dennett, kripke and their diseased ilk wrote and bits and pieces from the eastern tradition to make it fresh

>>1872913
nope. this is my teacher

now, how is it possible that you can say, 'nature!' from looking at this picture

>>1872885
As for a contradictory thematic concern, I point you to Yates' Revolutionary Road. There are two central themes to consider: the cloying oppression and inanity of the suburbia the characters live in; their snobbish and self important attitudes. Throughout both factors manifest all too frequently, and yet inconsistently. It is within the z factor of time that they particularly contradict (as this arguement is just working off the fact that themes can contradict and not by any structural principles, this is not specious). There are times when one of these factors will dominate to such an extent that the other factor becomes completely irrelevant for consideration. At the beginning, suburbia is hell; in the middle, the wheelers are terrible people and hypocrites that are overtly snobbish about their conditions; at the end, suburbia is again hell. This is how specifically the themes contradict.

>>1872863
>Great literature isn't valuable to them in other words
No, they just don't think that great literature is so great, in other words. By what values are you judging them to be wrong?

>By reference to the social-cultural-economic-historical conditions we live in presently. What's nebulous about any of this?
And from those how do we determine the values by which we should evaluate a work? I hate asking the same question over and over, but you're not giving any way to determine which values by which we should evaluate a work. Maybe you have a great theory, but to me it seems somewhat nebulous since I keep getting dragged around without a proper explanation as to what these values are or how I'm supposed to go about determining which values will be conducive to human flourishing in which age and how they link to the way in which we're supposed to evaluate literature. So I'm curious: how do we go about deriving values from social, cultural, economic and historical conditions?

>Again, you're failing to ask on what relative standard are such relative values better or worse than each other. You'll find that if you do suppose that standard, you will get a definite answer.
I would like to know how to go about determining the worth of relative standards besides this change of arguments from "human flourishing", but unfortunately you haven't explained that yet.

>No, of course not. We're not the same as people in the middle ages. We're not the same as people in the victorian ages even.
Our ideas of what values we want has changed, but what we would evaluate from our position now as positive to humanity overall wouldn't change simply because we were in an era where slavery was acceptable. We could evaluate works that supported or tacitly approved of slavery through that lens, sure, but the values within those books would hardly be conducive to human flourishing in that age or any other.

>>1872913
Hey, I'm new to /lit/.

I heard Quentin mention you were his friend a lot on his trips to my board.

You must be utter shit.

Complete, utter shit.

>>1872921
>A challenger appears.

This is mine.

>>1872930
not that different.

>>1872934
If the previous word was "Nature", I wonder what it was now.

>>1872904
Prove to me in simple, non-specious logic how your assertions about thematics are in any way real, true or plausible.

Intellectual gratification exists but considering that you think that Grisham is more entertaining than Joyce, you would have little conception of how that might work.

I outlined the mechanism of deconstruction with real clarity in my case study of Judith Butler. It's increasingly becoming apparent that you don't have the aptitude to argue with me further. It would tax me to explain every detail to school your conceited ignorance and you're starting to irritate me.

I've heard from acquaintances that you are quite a lot older than I am which is quite an indictment on your brand of boorish elitism haha

>>1872921
Derpa derp because of its logical form derpa derp

oh wait do you want the philosophical investigations answer that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know (oh woow it's all language games, language is fiiine, stop being a retard looking for absolutes) without actually doing the hard work of the clarification of problematic concepts (oh wait, the answer there is; do whatever you need to relative to your end, man that's so helpful, thanks witt)

>There are two central themes to consider: the cloying oppression and inanity of the suburbia the characters live in
Okay, but these don't contradict each other. One isn't by any means the negation of the other.

>inconsistently
Okay, not seeing any contradiction yet, just inconsistency

>It is within the z factor of time that they particularly contradict (as this arguement is just working off the fact that themes can contradict (LOL BEGGING THE QUESTION) and not by any structural principles, this is not specious)
Cool, whatever, but you've yet to tell me how they contradict. Your credibility keeps dropping immensely btw.

>There are times when one of these factors will dominate to such an extent that the other factor becomes completely irrelevant for consideration. At the beginning, suburbia is hell; in the middle, the wheelers are terrible people and hypocrites that are overtly snobbish about their conditions; at the end, suburbia is again hell.
Okeydoke, but where's the contradiction?

>This is how specifically the themes contradict
Where was that? You just said different things happened inconsistently

>>1872907

>I don't know how you came to that conclusion

why else would your perception that they're not "objects out there in the world" prevent you from fitting them to a framework?

>>1872937
"how does it work"

>>1872944
>conceptual analysis
that bit too is outdated i'm afraid

the point is actually about the distinction between reference and representation, as well as the reason why people easily confuse the two and produce either paradox or abuse of logic.

>>1872944
the contradiction is that one theme necessitates the negative of the other is well outlined for anyone with any real intelligence to perceive

>>1872944
btw w's point about 'logical form' (and this applies to stuff like intuitionistic mathematics) is one of epistemic priority and the limiting result of the reliance on our body. it is a rather naturalistic result tbh tbh

>>1872957
well okay, the logical form is demonstrated in the tractatus if you overlook certain overreaching parts. the pi is more second order analysis of the thinking creature, instead of the world in her view.

>>1872927
>No, they just don't think that great literature is so great, in other words
Great literature isn't valuable to them in other words.

>By what values are you judging them to be wrong?
Where did I say anything about being wrong?

>And from those how do we determine the values by which we should evaluate a work?
You're just asking me what I've already answered: by reference to the social-cultural-economic-historical conditions we live in presently.

>you're not giving any way to determine which values by which we should evaluate a work
I am, by reference to our present conditions as explained already and the history of literary achievement.

>I keep getting dragged around without a proper explanation
I guess you don't understand how to refer to anything, to make judgements based on or influenced by, etc. That must suck

1/2

>>1872899
>They even alluded to the possibility that Dosteyvesky may have raped a young girl (given the explicit detail he gives of rape in one of his novels (I forgot which)).

My guess would be Demons (aka The Possessed), since that sounds closest to what you mentioned. I never heard about that myself, but that's an interesting claim that I'll have to look into.

>My awesome jewish World Lit prof said something about his mock execution in class, that seemed to explain the effect it had on Dostoy

When I read The Idiot, I distinctly remembered a scene when Myshkin is describing the live execution he witnessed while staying in France. The details were so descriptive and the entire passage was so poignant, it really struck a chord with me. Learning afterwards what happened to Dostoevsky for his involvement in the Petrashevsky Circle further convinced me of the significance of that part. It was almost as if I was reading Dostoevsky's own recollection of his thoughts and emotions leading up to what he thought was his last moment alive.

>>1872967

>how do we go about deriving values from social, cultural, economic and historical conditions?
By evaluating the contribution or deterioration such sets of actions that we deem to instantiate or exemplify any values make to the relative end of the flourishing of life.

>I would like to know how to go about determining the worth of relative standards besides this change of arguments from "human flourishing", but unfortunately you haven't explained that yet.
I'm tired of explaining it to you, actually.

>Our ideas of what values we want has changed, but what we would evaluate from our position now as positive to humanity overall wouldn't change simply because we were in an era where slavery was acceptable
Of course, I didn't say it had to

>the values within those books would hardly be conducive to human flourishing in that age or any other.
Really, you don't think that slavery in greek civilization helped that civilization to flourish, or slavery in most civilizations allowed such civilizations to flourish? Because that's human flourishing; human flourishing isn't some abstract, it's the aggregate of civilizations, the most superior ones (those that have produced ways of living that encourage maximal flourishing in other words) at that.

d&e isn't looking to reach a consensus just in case anyone is mistakenly trying to convince him or show him some mistake just fyi. by this move he's of course being unconvinceable but also incapable of convincing.

>>1872951
>the contradiction is that one theme necessitates the negative of the other

¬c = a
is not a contradiction

>>1872974
>d&e isn't looking to reach a consensus just in case anyone is mistakenly trying to convince him or show him some mistake just fyi. by this move he's of course being unconvinceable but also incapable of convincing.
I don't convince, I inspire and demonstrate

>>1872982
nice, now couple that with the progression of the novel and the contradiction is dere.

Please outline your conception of thematics

>>1872986
okay, but others do it too without theory.

>>1872987
>nice, now couple that with the progression of the novel and the contradiction is dere.
Up your ass in other words, fuck off

>Please outline your conception of thematics
No, because you're going to change your conception and oppose it to mine, fuck off

>>1872987
>>1872987
>>1872990
>>1872990

this caracalla guy is a bit like scout (and jamesbond), lots of bits and pieces of freshman continental stuff (stupid science shit in jame's case)but if you crack at them for a consistent step-by-step argument it all starts to fall apart and they have to do a lot of arm waving and bullshitting to get from one piece to the next

never change undergrads

do you understand the difference between representing elitism and demonstrating such qualities

>>1873006
>they have to do a lot of arm waving and bullshitting to get from one piece to the next

your method of not responding is clearly a better way to deal with it

as in, when christ said 'i am the son of god' did he say that you are not. thus did that self representation as elite necessitate inequality between people

>>1873006
Don't try to make out that you've made any insightful counter-arguments so far. The vast majority of stuff you've contested on the grounds of semantics, which does nothing at all to the validity of the argument. The stuff you've been completely unable to argue against, you haven't tried to properly, (my conception of deconstruction, my arguements regarding the validity of OP's arguement). You've succeeded in arguing against my idea of thematic aporia but that's because you're working off rigid structuralist guidelines and I'm trying to forge new post-structuralist methods (something I'm perfectly entitled to do). You haven't described your own position on thematics because you know its inherent weakness and the protean nature of thematics when development and time is considered and the way that outdates any conception of thematics on a rigid atemporal structural level.

All in all, an embarrasingly poor performance from a postgrad with such supreme delusions in his own abilities he has to argue himself into the ground and rely on fallacy to support them. And no, this is not ad hominem although your post above is.

>>1873055
>The vast majority of stuff you've contested on the grounds of semantics
Woow, no shit dude, maybe you were expecting to fight it out with knives or some shit.

>rigid structuralist guidelines
wow sentential logic is structuralist. I'm just arguing with sense, you're doing the same addressing yourself to me in order to make yourself sensible. Don't try that shitty continental tactic of reducing what people are saying to structuralist rhetoric, you're not half educated enough for it (try reading Lyotard), and you're using language that is just as indebted to the very thing you're criticising.

>I'm trying to forge new post-structuralist methods
Don't label your hokey, fallacious rubbish as 'post-structuralist' please, which would be useless consideringbreadth of such a useless uninformative label as 'post-structuralist' , that's not something YOU get to decide for yourself.

Squirm for me some more bro

>>1873091
Here again, the semantics. Because I'd hoped you'd be perceptive enough to get my insinuation that the 'semantics' you were dealing with were petty and pedantic as here, I left it 'semantics.' But oh no, DE's gotta be told about things (forgot about your professors, sorry dawg).

The second is just an ill-disguised strawman arguement. Read your Derrida, before you prescribe me any reading, son.

The third is simple ad hominem.

Three fallacies in a row. Great job!

>>1873130
You need to try harder all of that was terrible

>>1873141
Is it bad that I sometimes read your debates with people and fantasize about fucking you angrily?

>>1873141
haha, really?

A fallacy is an irrational method of argument. Therefore, every single little part of that last post was demonstrably untrue...

Try hard to find something cogent to respond to me next time. I've been waiting for some good argument behind the specious and fallacious for quite some time, in fact all the time I've been posting

>>1873151
okay come back when you're going to do more than scream 'fallacy' im not really interested otherwise, that's not even worth laughing at

>>1873156
Maybe I'll come back when you're gone then

that's about the only time you're going to get away with your stupid shit so that's a good idea

How do human's flourish?

>>1872968
Hey, in NfU, didn't you get the feeling that the prostitute (forgot her name) acted much more lady-like than an actual prostitute would. I say this because after the prostitute visits the underground man, he shames her terribly and leaves money for her on the table. She, in an act of dignity, does not accept the money. Wat?!? She sucks dick fo money, but she won't accept an assholes money? We reflected in class that that made her a better person than the underground man (who spoke hypocritically of dignity). Was the prostitute going to change her ways and stop sucking dick fo money? Highly unlikely....hmmmm....I guess it could be rather comedic. The underground character is so hated that a prostitute will not even take his money LULZ

Hi /lit/, I'm new to this board. Is this Deep&Edgy guy always such a tremendous faggot?

How do humans flourish?

>>1873181
Long answer, yes.

Short answer, yes.

>>1873181
Yes. Speaking for myself, I occasionally pop on here to see if anything interesting is being discussed (maybe once a month), but it generally devolves into his masturbatory bullshit the second he shows up, driving me away again. So, I mean, I guess if seeing someone with the mindset of a 4-year old stomping on his toys with the vocabulary of a pretentious college student amuses you, he could be useful

>>1873198
What a coincidence. I do the same.

I've generally learned to ignore him, though.

>By evaluating the contribution or deterioration such sets of actions that we deem to instantiate or exemplify any values make to the relative end of the flourishing of life.
As a case, let's take the rise of Rome. What does the expansionism of the Roman Republic after the Second Punic War have to say about how we should judge literature at the time, with regards to human flourishing? I think it's one event that exemplifies Republican Rome after Hannibal's death, but the events that compose this time period are rather bloody. It's almost strange to say that these events contributed to the flourishing of human life when, in reality, it led to the deaths of thousands. It exemplified Rome, and the republic and then empire that later flourished, surely, but values that exemplify civilizations do not necessarily lead to human flourishing overall, let alone individual human flourishing.

The point is that one could make value generalizations with regards to the maximal human flourishing one way or the other from events in history. Reality has no inherent moral narrative, only a moral narrative we can fashion both relative to their time and our current perspectival bias of what values conducive to human flourishing can and should be drawn from a civilization. Since that narrative has little weight beyond ourselves (since it is almost impossible to ascertain how much our perspectival biases affect us in our evaluations of values conducive to human flourishing), we cannot pass accurate judgment over the critical narratives of others when they conflict with our own as those values are largely self-extensions.

What does human flourishing mean?

>>1873198
>someone with the mindset of a 4-year old stomping on his toys with the vocabulary of a pretentious college student

This is what I see every time a tripfag posts on this board. I can't tell if they are masterfully trolling or if they really ARE this ego-centric and self obsessed. Either way it doesn't matter because the effect is the same :D

>>1873180
IIRC, she (Liza was her name I think) was relatively young and probably just recently started prostituting, so she probably still had a shred of dignity left. I think that is evidenced by the Underground Man's story to her about a different prostitute that whored herself until her looks were gone, rending her completely useless. He told that story in a moment of superiority to say "look, don't turn out like that. You still have a chance to get out". Again, IIRC (some of the details have become a little fuzzy) he told her to come visit him should she decide to heed his advice, which she did. So I think it's either she still had the dignity to refuse his gross insult or, like you said, the Underground Man was such a despicable person that he couldn't win favor with even a prostitute.

>>1873259
I think we can consider it both at the same time. Dark humour indeed.

>>1873370
That works for me. By the way, I want to thank you for encouraging us to have a discussion on the book. Truly it was a breath of fresh air and quite honestly this sort of thing is what I originally looked forward to at /lit/'s genesis.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for more of your threads in the future (assuming this is the OP I'm talking to) and happily participate.

>>1873181
>>1873190
>>1873198
>>1873203

cry moar bitch niggaz

This is my first time on /lit/. Is it like this all the time?

>>1873467

just consider any thread d&e argues with someone in to be a lost cause

other threads can be pretty cool tho

>>1873471
>any thread d&e argues with someone in to be a lost cause
Everyone interested went ahead and talked about what they wanted in the thread, I don't see a problem

>>1873467

Yeah.

It's one of the reasons I almost never bother coming to this board anymore.

>>1873476

it's not a problem for the arguing parties but with all due respect it's just not very interesting for the rest of us

>>1872493
Yeah but you didnt cite the source either.
kinda tried to pass em off as your own for a little bit there....kinda makes it awkward for the rest of us enjoying our punch and pie

>>1873514
Everyone who knows what double-voiced discourse and the polyphonic novel will automatically know who I'm referring to.

>>1873484
Then I should expect it doesn't bother anyone who's not interested either way, just get on with whatever you're talking about.

Look, again, I'm awfully sorry about Deep. I know what you'rea ll thinking, and the oppurtunity was there when he was a child. He was in the bathtub and I got the urge to drown him. And I did up to the point of brain damage, but not enough to finish him off. Sorry, world. I'll go punch myself in the womb repeatedly as pennance.

>>1873481
>It's one of the reasons I almost never bother coming to this board anymore.
You don't come to the board because you don't like seeing a lot of my posts in one thread? We're probably better off without you.

>>1873535
Deep? Dinner's ready. Take your hands off your penis and come eat your birthday cake.

>>1873467
There's more than just this thread on /lit/, I hope you realise that

>>1873535

>one of

Reading comprehension much?

>>1873547
Even still, that's a pretty stupid reason on its own or a part of other reasons

>>1873467

Yar. The basic rule is when Herp and Derpy arrives, thread's dead.

Just move along, nothing more to see here, just a thick fucking paddy revelling in his own crapulence.

>>1872441
LOL
Oh wait, you're serious?
Liberal arts fags..... LOL

>>1873583
>The basic rule is when Herp and Derpy arrives, thread's dead.
Except people are still posting in it and everyone who wanted to talk about what they wanted to did so

I always wanted to know what D&E looked like in person...

>>1873597

>bumps thread for self-indulgent reasons
>Self-parody are just words in the dictionary
>Fucking paddy

>>1873606
I bumped the thread because i'm still replying to people

I request a photograph of D&E

>>1873198
>it generally devolves into his masturbatory bullshit the second he shows up
>masturbatory bullshit
is that like your word for being intelligent

>>1873604
Pic related

>>1873628
Lol'd. D&E is a poster child for assburgers.

>>1873231
>It's almost strange to say that these events contributed to the flourishing of human life when, in reality, it led to the deaths of thousands
So did the second world war etc people die wowee big fucking deal

>values that exemplify civilizations do not necessarily lead to human flourishing overall, let alone individual human flourishing.
Of course not, I never said they did. But in this case they did; which is not surprising considering that period of history.

>The point is that one could make value generalizations with regards to the maximal human flourishing one way or the other from events in history
Sure, but the fact two people disagree on such a matter does not prevent a conclusion from being made

>Reality has no inherent moral narrative, only a moral narrative we can fashion both relative to their time and our current perspectival bias of what values conducive to human flourishing can and should be drawn from a civilization.
Okay, but nothing I've said has anything to do with morality.

1/2

>>1873650

>Since that narrative has little weight beyond ourselves
But we're only concerned with ourselves, so that's not a problem

(since it is almost impossible to ascertain how much our perspectival biases affect us in our evaluations of values conducive to human flourishing)
That's not a problem either, because perspectival bias is taken for granted in making such evaluations; it's simply a matter of what level of bias we're willing to accommodate. Stop being such a drama whore, it's no big deal.

>we cannot pass accurate judgment over the critical narratives of others when they conflict with our own as those values are largely self-extensions.
That depends on what level of accuracy we're willing to settle for, again. You seem to think this is an everything-or-nothing type of evaluation, it's not, unless you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, and it's your own problem for assuming it is.

All you've given me then is a bunch of relativistic slippery slopes

2/2

no wonder I over-looked this the first time, I'm so used to seeing this useless shit it passes right through me

niggy&wiggy was on webcam for maybe 5 minutes one day

he reminded me of this fag except with a beanie and a keffiyeh

think about this the next time he says "lol undergrads"

DEEP AND EDGY DEBATE TEAM

GREENTEXT ARGUMENTS THE SIZE OF WHICH NO HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE CLUB HAS EVER SEEN

>>1873799
>>1873799
>>1873799
looks bad ass

very deep

very edgy

oh dear i did it again

>>1875023
>>1875023

stop it onion, very naughty

>>1875042
you can go fuck yourself you naughty little boy

>>1875044
>>1875044

ooooh baby i love it when you talk to me like that

Alright. That is enough silliness.

>>1872684

>We already know that the critic is subordinate to the artist; a criticism can only have as much value, never more, than the object of critical evaluation.

There is no subordination - the margin can also be the text. And you're a cunt.

>>1875051
>>1875051

jesus christ strad who the fuck do you think you are? you're not someone who police's this board, just fuck off

>>1875059

And I will not ever believe myself to be either.

I will just not stand for certain fellows causing silliness in a perfectly good board. No matter how well intentioned

>>1875067
you are the only silly one here.

>>1875067
>>1875067

you don't believe yourself to be yet you insist on acting superior to everyone by saying they're 'silly'
if you had actually read the thread you'd realise there was some actual literature discussion going on here, and you feeling the need to show your face and your 'mature' attitude is ridiculous.

you rpost was unneccessary and unwanted, all you did was add fuel to the fire and give people something to reply too.

you might think d&e and caracalla discussing literature is 'silly' but this happens to be a Literature board.

>I will just not stand for certain fellows causing silliness in a perfectly good board.
who the fuck are you to decide that this thread is silly?
if you don't like a thread, don't post in it, you're an insufferable bastard sometimes
>>1875069
>>1875069

you love it you filthy girl, how have you been anyway?

>>1875059
>>1875059

>police's

Fucking hell.

>>1872758

This will make a fine 2:2 essay if you ever get round to writing it. Your writing is atrocious, I'm afraid -- excessive use of parentheses is only your most egregious problem, but there are others.

It's not clear why you'd refuse to write reviews on the basis that you "know what you like". Presumably if you're not a radical subjectivist, you don't think that the purpose of a literary review is to tell everyone what you like, but, rather, to analyse a text according to the criteria which is a function of the socio-cultural-historical context to which you keep referring, but which you can never define. I assume that you avoid textual crticism on these forums like the plague because then you'd have to put your vague references to some objective criteria into practice.

Alas, I don't think you're going to make the cut if your vision of a Platonic/Nietzschean world is realised. You're a clumsy writer and a worse thinker.

>>1875077

>you're an insufferable bastard sometimes

Hey, Pot! Kettle's on the phone - says you've got a mucky arse.

>reply too.

Seriously, are you high? You can't even write today.

or r u just mad?

>>1875077

Just try not to be an embarrassment Brown bear. I am certain you are a smart fellow and when you get a little older you might be able to exhibit it.

ITT: sick and spiteful men

>>1875077
i am pure as the summer snow.

>>1875096

>This will make a fine 2:2 essay

Actually as someone who marks English papers for a living (yay, summer!), this wouldn't be a 2:2 so far - it's like reading a thesaurus, not an essay.

PROTIP: We're not impressed by words like diegetic - we have to read that sort of shit all the fucking time, and what we want from students is clarity, originality and a well-presented argument.

This kind of shit gets marked 45% from the first paragraph - I've read a thousand essays that start this way, and I know how they all end.

(this may not apply at shitty universities, I dunno, I work at a decent one).

>>1875097
>>1875097

not even mad

>>1875101
>>1875101

yeah is this like that time you said i was too young to fully appreciate Jesus Christ?
You're just insufferable strad, you come across as condescending and a bit of an arrogant prick, you just ignored everything i said in order to bring my age up.
you're 23 right? i'm 19.
that isn't a large age difference bro.

just stop being such a condescending prick who thinks that everyone and everything that he doesn't agree with is 'silly' INCLUDING this thread which happens to have literature discussion in it.

but you ignored that in my last post, so i'm sure you'll ignore it this time.

act your age, not your shoe size kid.

>>1875130

>you come across as condescending and a bit of an arrogant prick

huehuehuehuehue

>>1875108
>>1875108

glad to hear it sugarbunny

>>1875161

Why are you posting that shit in here, you dullard?

>>1875174
>>1875174

why are you posting THAT SHIT in here you pleb?

Who the fuck is Megan Fox?

>>1875184
>>1875184

not sure if seriois

>>1875187

I'm not sure if seriois either, largely because seriois isn't a word. I am serious though - who the fuck is she, and why are you posting endless pictures of her?

>>1875202
>>1875202

woops, i made a spelling mistake.

i dunno, you know what would be handy though? if there was like some kind of huge...i dunno, engine maybe? like to search things? I think we should call it a search engine. So wouldn't it be great if there was some kind of search engine we could search things on? Like on the internet.

Damn if i invented something like that, i'd have to name it something catchy...like Google.
maybe.
i don't know yet.

hey d&e what are your thoughts on tao lin?


serious question.

>>1875223

Obviously I can google it you twat (and thanks for wasting so much time on me with that last post, btw) - but when I typed "who the fuck is Megan Fox and why the fuck does Brownbear keep posting pictures of her?" it didn't really give me a useful answer, except pic related.