/lit/ - Literature

>>22397656

>>22397656

This is what video games do to your media comprehension

>>22397676

>>22397656
yes, he does live in a state governed by law

>>22397676
funny thing, blue curtains may suggest that Jews live in the house

That’s literally a Horror’s Call plot twist

>>22397656
also, 9.999/10 lit will never have 'feats'

>>22397691
Have a version where you can read the text I put in the grey box when I made this on my iPhone.

>>22397708
>>22397691
What does this even mean?

>>22397656
That (with a little prompting) renders (you!) the sheriff, anon. Howdy!

>>22397723
Whatever you are reading can mean whatever you want it to mean as long as you sound intelligent enough to pass the English teacher speech check.

>>22397723
Text don't contain meanings, they are hermeneutically impenetrable objects that reside across the gulf of meaning from subjects.

Subjects leap that gulf and pull the text inside them and assign meanings to texts. Subjects create meaning, not authors, not texts. The problem is that there are meanings which are "valid" by human agreed cultural practices and meanings which are "invalid."

Let us assume that we have a humanities tradition of interpretation where colours represent the colour that their word represents.

"Red is red" makes sense in this humanity, "Red is blue" does not make sense in this humanity. When the reader reads "Red is red" into being, and assigns the meaning "Red is red" to the text, their assignment of meaning will be considered valid by people following this humanity discipline's model.

For example, in the field of literary criticism it can be valid to consider characters like Anton Chigurh as symbolic or mythic structures. But there are multiple problems with this interpretation of the text:
1) Chigurh makes a choice to kill a man "outside" of the structure of his role in the cartels. Chigurh takes on a heroic role by challenging his pure survivability against the police officer and arrest. Chigurh by becoming a mythic hero cannot be dismissed as an imaginary symbol—Chigurh literally represents the penetration of the Imaginary Plain by the Terror of the Real in Lacanian terms. As such he is irreducible to merely a symbol: a man enacts the mythic form of the space occupied.

THIS IS IN FACT A MAJOR THEME OF THE TEXT THAT CHIGURH'S PROJECT AS AN ACT OF ONTOLOGICAL WILL IS TO BECOME THE SUPERMAN AND OCCUPY THE NAME OF THE FATHER. All of the other "men" or "boys" in No Country for Old Men fail to occupy the project of the man through incompetence (a Vietnam sniper misses his shot? He missed his shot on his boartooth buddy in Vietnam; the Sherrif's betrayal at night).

2) Chigurh is presented by the narrative voice as being real an in the world. The narrative voice is not internal to the sherrif as it presents things not known to the sherrif character.

3) The sherrif fails to make up a 19th century Chigurh to represent the outlandish violence of the old days, which he infact adores.

The incoherency of the interpretation of Chigurh as an imaginary is what makes it a less desirable interpretation. I would suggest the desirability of the interpretation is minimal, except that it exposes the mythic Lacanian terrain that Chigurh operates on as a hero, and that Llewellyn fails to operate on.

Learn what hermentuics, exegesis and eisegesis are.

>>22397676
This is genuinely the most reddit image i've ever seen. Something about the "fucking" screams reddit. It feels like whoever wrote that THINKS he's edgy and hip or whatever, but is in fact a little basedguzzling latte drinking fruitcake who i could kill in a single punch. I will therefore consider you a nigger for posting this drivel.

>>22397814
This image and joke is older than your internet presence

>>22397753
The author themselves is a subject though

>>22397819
And there he is. King redditor himself. Fresh off the damn boat.

>>22397753
Can you tl;dr this for us /v/ tourists?

also who would win, goku or superman?

>>22397842
Books are just letters on a page and it’s only us human schizos that create meaning. That doesn’t mean that the text just means whatever though because words and imagery have conventional agreed upon meaning and you probably don’t sincerely believe that the text means things too far outside convention

>>22397814
Read it, retard. That's a really concise and insightful post, a rarity here.

>>22397833
Only when the author is reading the text. We use the word “narrative voice” to describe the apparent presence of an “author character” in a text. Quick quiz how many layers of authorial voice are there in Lolita between you and the apparent world contained in the text you read? The text has an apparent intentionally but we don’t bother knowing what colour undies Nabokov wears. We know that it’s sufficient that Nabokov 1 and Nabokov 2 voices in Lolita are deliberately lying to us through “found manuscript wrapper” Humbert ironic and Humbert happenstance voices. Was quiltys cousin filling her cavities or is this Humbert trying to win you over to his everyone has fucked Lolita but I loved her narrative?

Authorial declarations outside the text are new texts. Sometimes (bible) hypertexts are valid. Sometimes (authorial fiat in a magazine) they’re boring.

>>22397860
Depends on what question you’re trying to answer when interpreting a work. The author’s intentions are really only an authority on what the work meant to them and maybe what the work meant in the broader cultural context if they had a lot of sway over its interpretation but that’s something people can be and are interested in. Why do you think people are so fixated on Joyce’s relationship Ireland? Sure themes of nationalism are in the text themselves but it’s pretty common for people to want to know how Joyce related to these things and not just what the work personally meant to them or meant to the broader culture

>>22397842
Monkey would win. The spirit of imagination is irrepressible. Superman is an anal stage fantasy of impotence. Monkey could seduce the entire world, and by the end of the book having learnt the power of friendship is a Buddha.

>>22397887
Reading the hypertext of Joyce’s ancillary writings other than fart fetishism adds nothing to Ulysses. The fart letters produce a hypertext that allows us to penetrate the Kirke/Penelope dichotomy and dialectacise it into an arse full of farts. And an arse full of farts is all trivial hypertext eisegesis amounts to. Ireland is not a text of importance to the phenomenology of the Irish version of Ice Cubes famous poem about good days.

>>22397857
Twelve year olds posted it in the early 2000‘s, retard.

>>22397814
>OOOOHHH THOSE HECKIN R*DDITORS MAKE ME SO MAD!!!!

>>22397914
If you understood what I meant you could actually respond instead of being mad I disagree with you. People care about authors and seek to answer questions about what a particular work means to their author and in that sense the author’s intent is authoritative. Are you going to say something about this or just ignore it?

He’s wrong. Unless we’re now in an alternate reality where No Country for Old Men was written by F Gardner.

>>22397656
He's right. QED

>>22397656
that's heady stuff anon, I''m spooked

>>22397656
After the death of the author there is a vacancy and anyone's dumbnfuck interpretation is legitimate.

>>22397723
>What does this even mean?
Headcanon is a valid academic discipline. Enjoy the trannies.

>>22397947
>People care about authors and seek to answer questions about what a particular work means to their author
People are dumb
>in that sense
People don't do lit crit

The lack of disciplinary social organisation makes it pap.

>>22397676
The curtains could be any color. The author picked blue for a reason.

>>22397676
>>22397708
Keep in mind that /lit/ is full of anons that are studying useless English-lit courses that will eventually lead to them working as high school English teachers

>>22397656
It was all a dream

>>22397842
Does goku have time to train?

>>22397924
It's time to go back

>>22397887
I think Ulysses is a bad example. It needs ancillary information to even be understood what is going on at times. In short, it leans on other texts much more than other books do which curtails the freedom of interpretation on its own terms. Ditto for the books that came after which followed its blueprint. McCarthy never was like that. He seemed to have enjoyed the aesthetics of mystique that kept everything open to all sorts of interpretations.

>>22398808
And that’s a good thing

>>22398182
I don’t think it means that all interpretations are equal anon.

>>22397656
It's both. He is real in the book but he is also a fictional character who represents the violence that seems outlandish.

>>22397656
Obviously, he's not real