/lit/ - Literature

>>21729267
I was told this didn't exist and was just a right wing boogeyman.
Is this a shoop?

>>21729267
>This new edition provides in-depth coverage of the most common approaches to literary analysis today: feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism, reader-response theory, new criticism, structuralism and semiotics, deconstruction, new historicism, cultural criticism, lesbian/gay/queer theory, African American criticism, and postcolonial criticism.
Why wouldn't you critique the works you read through these lenses (if applicable). The only thing not covered is 'pasty white boy afraid of shadows'.

>>21729533
Why would you look at anything through the "lens" of niggerfaggotry?

>>21729533
>the most common approaches to literary analysis today:
>feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism, lesbian/gay/queer theory, African American criticism, and postcolonial criticism
It's genuinely admirable how women managed to destroy both literature and academia in barely half a century

>>21729533
People have a right to fear something that is foreign. Mingling with the strange can corrupt someone metaphysically and morally

>>21729672
Most women glow so it comes to no surprise

>>21729680
Yeah if you're twelve

>>21729533
Sounds like a good read. OP is a huge smelly faggot and all reactionaries are huge pussy faggots.

>>21729270
>assuming you mean CRT
It’s absolutely psychotic how they’ve spun around claiming it’s not real and only limited to a judicial theory. I’ve read multiple books now wherein the woke author promotes the use of the CRT lens in all aspects of society but especially sociology and the humanities. It seems more and more controversial topics get bounced around the absurdity of “it’s not happening you psycho, and besides it’s a good thing that it’s happening”.

>>21730421
The good news is that's why they lose on these indefensible issues.
The bad news is that they aren't given the death penalty for trying in the first place.