/lit/ - Literature

Use your brains

bullshit it

don't feel insecure about it, if you're only in it for plot just keep on as you are

the upshot is you've got entire shelves of mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, action-adventure, and romance novels at your disposal

Pay attention to the technique.

It's a lot like film. Anyone can watch a film. It takes no skill to do that. But, it takes a trained eye to notice camera angles and focus and different lenses and cinematic motifs and shit like that.

Same with literature. Anyone can read a book, not everyone will notice technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(literature)

Here you go. Enjoy.

>>2855332
nothing wrong with focusing on plot but it can also be enjoying/enriching to notice thematic elements in a work. pay attention to recurring elements or things that are obviously allegorical

Not OP, but if I read decent books will awareness of these things naturally increase, or should I read critiques of books as well?
>>2855342
Plot alone can get dull. After reading enough twists and turns every journey starts to read the same.

>>2855419
critiques may help
for me though I'm just used to it because of high school lit classes; it's affected how I read literature (but with less bullshit of course). Maybe taking notes on motifs / characters etc will help

Read the Pooh Perplex.

Don't do it OP. You wont be able to enjoy books anymore if you do.

>>2856181
>you won't be able to enjoy shit books anymore

ftfy

>>2855332
>? I've started going on sparknotes and there's apparently a lot of stuff that I "missed"

That's funny—I actually began peaking at Sparknotes for the same reason: 'Am I missing stuff?' I noticed that their analyses cover some fairly obvious observations about the piece. I feel as though, if I had the opportunity to talk about the work to someone else (or were compelled to write an essay), then I would have many of the same observations. I actually tested this prediction as I was reading 'Dubliners', as I noted their analyses of earlier stories and began to see whether I could read a story & then "predict' what Sparknotes would say about it. But I don't know whether perhaps Sparknotes is not the best standard.

ask yourself questions about the choices the author makes

why this word and not that word? why this character's pov? what gets glossed over? what gets dwelt on? etc etc

Read scholarship and criticism. Hint: not by Thomas C. Foster.

Some people have touched upon this, but for me the key has always been to ask questions. If a word recurs, there is probably a reason behind it. If a behavior seems off, it may be a hint as to what is to come. When you read, you should naturally pick up on unusual or distinct subtleties in the text and when you come across them you should ask yourself why it's the way it is. Of course, searching for stylistic devices in a piece of shit book will drive you up a wall, but great writers tend to make their words count much more. Sometimes you can draw some valid conclusions just by the way a sentence is phrased.

My mother is like that. She mostly reads sic-fi, fantasy, and character-focused things. She seems to have fun reading things for plot, then learning about a theme or element that she missed.

Reading for the sake of seeming or feeling intellectual is boring, there is no "right way" to read everything, just do it for enjoyment.

If you can miss a theme, it is badly writing

>> Not making things clear so you cant be misinterpreted

Oh, right, this is lit

LOL GENRE SUCKS 2DEEP4U

>>2856563
reading and paying attention to theme and whatnot isn't boring though, some people find it enjoyable and people have to respect that instead of painting it as pseudo-intellectualism

Read books with no plot.

>>2856570
I hope you're trolling. I dislike when authors shove theme and symbolism into the readers' faces

>>2856570
If you don't notice everything every second, it is shitty living.

>>2856588
It depends on what you're reading. Most science fiction makes its allegory pretty obvious, but some of it is just interesting and creative on its own. I have difficulty respecting the guy trying to justify reading Harry Potter by saying it's an allegory for some oppressive government or the struggles of the working class.

>>2856594
Symbolism

>> Hurr durrr my interpretation based on symbols that may or may not be there is correct

>>2855419
>Plot alone can get dull. After reading enough twists and turns every journey starts to read the same.
Is this true? I'm not there yet; will I enjoy reading less when I'm older?

>>2856602
You seem to have an idea of the "purpose" of literature in your head which you perceive as objective fact. This accounts for your dodgy as fuck understanding of it.

>>2856606
Yes, it's why I stopped liking most fantasy.

>>2856599
Yeah; by overly obvious thematic elements I was thinking of books like The Alchemist.

I've recently stopped reading a lot lately because I feel like I am too dumb for it. I've taken a few college classes, and did well in literature, but I've never really taken any philiosphy. I often feel like I am probably missing out on tons of themes, allusions, metaphors, etc.... when I read ,and it's very discouraging.

Anyone else feel the same way ?

>>2856641
nope

being that insecure is stupid

>>2856641
yes. I'm an English major and I feel like this all the time. My professors tell me I'm doing fine but I still feel like a complete herpaderp in classes.

>>2856570


But his first sentence is right. It's should transpire from the text as a whole, if you read A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu everything is so obvious and perfect.

Focusing on technique is the best way to destroy a text completly, if you begin to see the tricks of the trade, everything loses its taste in my opinion, just like finding the secrets behind a magician show. That's why I hate when thing are to obvious, just like >>2856594 said.

The author must master the creation of an atmosphere, and you have to feel the theme through it, I hate discussing a book in particular like I hate discussing music. It's all about the feels. You can have legion of complicated subtext, I don't think that matters for a first read. For example, Ulysses is great on its own, even if you don't know anything about the multitude of stuff Joyce injected between the lines. And I really think that all these stuff doesn't really matter.

I really think that reading a book like a scholar ruins the experience. The more you know, the more things you weren't aware of will become apparent, so the only real solution is read literature, forget about criticism, it's awful.

>>2855332
>"lay reader"
Are you actually quoting anyone there, or is that just something that, hypothetically, you would not like to be called?

It takes mindful practice in order to improve on anything. In many cases, this requires a tutor, someone to monitor what you are doing and make sure your efforts are properly targeted and focused.

In other words, taken an English literature course and take it the fuck seriously. Watch yourself dramatically improve, e.t.c.

>>ITT: English majors try to justify their major

>How to Read Literature Like a Magical Thinker Looking for Patterns Where There Are None

>>2855332
Reading books like a professor is like cutting open a beautiful woman and starting to rummage around here organs while mumbling "what's the exact make up of this beauty? How does it work? Out of which parts is it made up?" while the beautiful woman dies a horrible death and turns into a useless filthy pile of dead parts.

>>2857141
Barthes called. He said to extricate your head from your anus.

>>2857161
Except in this case it isn't a woman, it's a car, and you can put it back together with a greater appreciation for what makes it run.

>>2857161
Except the old woman isn't alive so we can put her back together again and everyone's fine! I bet you think of your first reading as your "true" reading.

>>2857161
>Reading books like a professor is like cutting open a beautiful woman and starting to rummage around here organs while mumbling "what's the exact make up of this beauty? How does it work? Out of which parts is it made up?" while the beautiful woman dies a horrible death and turns into a useless filthy pile of dead parts.
right, and you aren't even a physician, only a random maniac who thinks he's a scientist but clearly isn't.

Yes.

>>2857164
>>2857165
No, the spell will have been broken.

I understand that people are interested in the technical parts and what makes it work, but for me it fucks up the experience. I don't want to discuss brush strokes when I'm looking at a Van Gogh. It takes away attention from experiencing the work as a whole, and once you get into the habit of such an analytical, dissecting perspective, you will lose the ability to experience it in a more intuitive way.

Have you ever watched a film with someone who studies film and blathers on about it? They ruin everything. Just like musicians with music who go on about the specific aspect of the bass line or painters who start to talk about shading while I'm looking at a beautiful Provençal landscape.

I honestly believe simply emerging yourself into a work gives a much more valuable experience than picking it apart in a cold and distanced manner, in the same way that a sociologist writing about rave culture will know less about it than someone who drops ecstacy and dances his ass of in the middle of it.

Both views compliment each other of course, but they are very hard to unite in a single person. Most academics are cut off from genuine experience. Of course, most people who merely dive in often aren't capable to distance themselves from it. But I rather live through things than observe them from afar.

>>2857191
>but for me
Well, there's your problem! Some people like to talk about films while they're ongoing. Some don't.
>genuine experience
I have no idea where you're getting the word genuine from. The experiences are different. You prefer one.

>>2857164
>Except in this case it isn't a woman, it's a car, and you can put it back together with a greater appreciation for what makes it run.
Yes, and the engineers already know that, but you arne't one, so you're making a half-assed book about shit you don't really undestand. That's exactly how it works in art criticism.

>>2857198
You know there exist these things called mechanics who work on cars without creating them, right? Also, having friends who know a good deal about cars (without necessarily being engineers) helps me make better decisions when I'm looking for one.

If you honestly think you can only have two polar extremes (the ones who make and the ones who consume) then you're being childish.

>>2857191

I can only speak from a music point of view in this, but I am a musician and I'd definitely say being a musician and having an active knowledge of how music is made, how tracks are produced, etc. really increases my enjoyment of it. It really opens up a whole new dimension into the music.

>>2857212
>You know there exist these things called mechanics who work on cars without creating them, right? Also, having friends who know a good deal about cars (without necessarily being engineers) helps me make better decisions when I'm looking for one.
The analogy would be an editor, not an art critic. Editors work on text without creating it.

>>2857196
I believe dying to be a more genuine experience of death than observing and discussing a dying person, for example. The same goes for fucking and eating and dancing and all that stuff.

But of course, it's all subjective and personal and relative and all that. Still, there's a case to be made for a more Dionysian approach to the arts. Especially in a thread such as this where OP seems to think the opposite is the more superior or "less stupid" way of experiencing a work of art.

>>2857233
Deeper understanding improves appreciation of art, and is in some cases outright necessary to appreciate some works.

But that's not how "a Professor" reads or listens. Art theorists always go much farther than where the writers and the composers go - becasue, I guess, they have nothing better to do. And I haven't seen a modern art theory that wasn't competely off. Similarly, there hasn't been a major writer or composer or other artist who took literary establishment together with all it's professors seriously.

They problem with academic (i.e., not market-cenrtic) criticism is that the whole body of their understanding is often based on false, pseudoscientific assumptions and old theories that have been long proven wrong. Just look at how they still take freudism seriously int his day and age and marvel at how uneducated those people really are.

>>2857232
Well it doesn't really work as a perfect analogy, but sure, I'll give you that.

But it's still good to have friends who work on and know all about things without creating them, and can help you make informed decisions on what to get, and how to get the most out of it. This works with most anything, including literature. It's hardly fair to call it "half-assed... about shit you don't really understand".

>>2857191
This is a good point though. Do you really think it's impossible to switch from one mode to the other? (A first reading might just be to experience the story in the way you suggest. Subsequent readings would be for analysis).

>>2857259
I'll just say I've read:
>>2857256
And I don't really have much problems with what you said there.

...

...

but the author is dead though

>>2857259
>But it's still good to have friends who work on and know all about things without creating them, and can help you make informed decisions on what to get, and how to get the most out of it. This works with most anything, including literature. It's hardly fair to call it "half-assed... about shit you don't really understand".
Editors are absolutely essential.

Art critics who are honest buyer advisors are also great and necessary.

Art theorists are useless and often even harmful.

>>2857161

Made me think of this:

>Dissecting literature is a lot like dissecting a cat; it's a grisly, meticulous, and above all, tedious operation, at the conclusion of which one is left with a repulsive mess where once there was an unadulterated and altogether much more desirable whole.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree.

And this is coming from a former English major.

>>2857256
>Art theorists always go much farther than where the writers and the composers go - becasue, I guess, they have nothing better to do.

I always viewed it as their wanted to attach themselves to the talented artists that they see and admire. You can see this in relation to this board--people can't mention Bloom without automatically linking him to Shakespeare or DFW, or whomever else.

They have to "go further" because they'd otherwise not have any reason to be notable. The people who say, "Now, wait, there is more to be said about ___________'s work" are viewed as expounding upon __________'s work, and they become a part of it (or try to).

>>2857256

>Art theorists always go much farther than where the writers and the composers go - becasue, I guess, they have nothing better to do.

Why should artists be the gatekeepers of where we can go? Why do they have authority to say "No, stop"?

>Similarly, there hasn't been a major writer or composer or other artist who took literary establishment together with all it's professors seriously.

Why do we care?

>They problem with academic (i.e., not market-cenrtic) criticism is that the whole body of their understanding is often based on false, pseudoscientific assumptions and old theories that have been long proven wrong. Just look at how they still take freudism seriously int his day and age and marvel at how uneducated those people really are.

You don't actually know what you're talking about.

Did you know that literary criticism isn't science?

Did you know that Freud is taken more as an essaying than a scientist, by literary academics?

Did you know they use him because his theories can say interesting things? Did you know that we're entirely unconcerned with how 'correct' he is, because it doesn't change anything about what we do?

Did you know that we are never out to 'prove' things about a work? Did you know they we have always known we can say nothing definitive about a work?

No, you didn't. You're basically saying 'the problem with academic criticism is that it's academic criticism'. That's not a problem with the field, that's a problem with you. If academic criticism isn't what you want it to be, that's fine, but it's not a problem with the field just because you don't happen to like what it is.

>>2857274
>They have to "go further" because they'd otherwise not have any reason to be notable. The people who say, "Now, wait, there is more to be said about ___________'s work" are viewed as expounding upon __________'s work, and they become a part of it (or try to).
Obviously. But that's where they start pulling it out of their asses. Because, really, criticism of Hamlet is exactly as stupid and useless as those shitty Inception infographics.

Yes, Hamlet is a complex work. No, it still doens't take years of dedicated study to understand it - it's great specifically because it's both complex and easy to udnerstand. On the contrary: years of dedicated study makes one utterly misunderstand every single aspect of it.

>>2857267

Yeah, analysis is a violence. I'm not sure it's an entirely unethical violence, though. Because it often does do some interesting things. And I would argue that reading without analysis is impossible anyway.

>>2857284

I like you.

>>2857284

What is understanding? What is misunderstanding? How do you know?

Jeez, the total anti-intellectual attitude of /lit/ shocks me sometimes. It's like you guys just say things without having thought about them at all.

>>2857259
I've never appreciated a work more after analysis. It has always ruined it for me. I mean analysis in the academic, official form of course, not rereading and reflecting on a work yourself. I don't see any harm in that.

I've actually studied literature for a year at university, but when you see the professors get their useless claws on a glorious work of art and tear it apart with their arbitrary and overly zealous theorising day in day out it starts to rub off on you. It actually took away my love for literature and reading in general for a while. I'm glad I got out before I became one of them. They are scavengers and con-artists, utilising great art as a foundation to build their own little world of nonsense and keeping their system going with their subsidised, circular masturbatory isolated little world. It's like one of those stale ecosystems in a long forgotten cave. The only reason it still exists is that they're obscurantist enough to persuade others that they're doing something of value. They're the tailors of the emperor's invisible clothes.

>>2857283
>Did you know that Freud is taken more as an essaying than a scientist, by literary academics?
>Did you know they use him because his theories can say interesting things?
I did. See my point? They take, for example, a failed scientist and milk him for "interesting ideas", which they then apply to art.

It reminds me of those faggots using arbitrary colour or language data to arbitrarily "translate" it into music in order to impress the less intelligent sort of educated lady. It's all laughable.

>>2857294

>See my point? They take, for example, a failed scientist and milk him for "interesting ideas", which they then apply to art.

And what is wrong with that?

>It reminds me of those faggots using arbitrary colour or language data to arbitrarily "translate" it into music in order to impress the less intelligent sort of educated lady.

I have no idea what you're talking about. However I am seeing a grander trend is just wanting to attack literary critics personally. I think that's a bit disturbing. Why the grudge?

Are you going to address any other part of my post, by the way? Or are you conceding those points?

>>2857292

English graduate here.

You have no idea just how much I want to buy you a beer right now.

>>2857292

I'm seeing a trend of you guys being failed students. I just wanted to point that out. Might explain why you all take this so personally.

>>2857291
>What is understanding? What is misunderstanding? How do you know?
This sort of rhetorical pseudoquestion gets one laughed out of a classroom, you know.

>>2857305

You should be ashamed of yourself. You're like a self-hating Jew.

>>2857301
What's wrong with it that there aren't exactly a whole lot of flourishing independent literary criticism schools, because the whole endeavour is incapable of securing it's own right of existence in the real world without the protection of some larger educational institution which they have conned into patronship.

>>2857308

You didn't answer the questions.

It really seems all you anti-intellectuals have are personal attacks. That's revealing.

>>2857310

>What's wrong with it that there aren't exactly a whole lot of flourishing independent literary criticism schools, because the whole endeavour is incapable of securing it's own right of existence in the real world without the protection of some larger educational institution which they have conned into patronship.

What on earth does that have to do with the application of Freud's ideas to literature?

You're mad they can't exist in a market economy? Is that how you gauge something's quality?

>>2857292
>>2857305
Brofist to both of you.

Music theory major. I actually had to stop listening to new music for a whole year after I graduated before I could go on enjoying art. Instruments of full understanding are one thing, applying arbitrary, made-up theories to dissect art is another.

>>2857313

Follow-up question: Should all universities be reduced to what's capitalistically viable? What can sell, in other words?

>>2857309

Yeah, see, those are years of my life wasted on masturbatory bullshit I'm never getting back, which still didn't do jack shit in the way of getting a fucking job.

Everything he said is true, and then some.

>>2857311
Not a failed student, not an English graduate. Just a CS major who's taken a few creative writing and literature classes on the side. I think he's brilliant. I'd also like to buy him a beer.

>>2857319

Universities aren't vocational schools.

>>2857321

I really don't care what some code money thinks about art.

>>2857305
>>2857292

Did you guys ever think that maybe you're in the wrong field? I mean, what did you expect college to be--that you sit around and read books and go:

"Oh, man, that was awesome!"
"I know man, It was awesome."
"I wonder if this other book is awesome."
"Oh, I read it, I give it 2 awesomes."
"Only 2 awesomes?"
"Yeah, bro. I give it 2 awesomes...on a scale of 2 awesomes!"
"Haha, awesome joke, bro. We're awesome. Well, I'm gonna read this awesome book then. Cowabunga."

You both seem to be upset that college required actual thought and coherent explanations for things like themes, theory, character development and the like.

Maybe you should have been garbagemen who read awesome books on the side? No?

>>2857301
>>See my point? They take, for example, a failed scientist and milk him for "interesting ideas", which they then apply to art.
>And what is wrong with that?
It's a stupid waste of time. Nothing wrong with it, though.

>I have no idea what you're talking about. However I am seeing a grander trend is just wanting to attack literary critics personally. I think that's a bit disturbing. Why the grudge?
I am one, learned from them, went to class with them, worked with them for a year. I know the people inside and out. They keep their love of art and their knowledge of art in two seperate corners of their mind and it's abominable
.

>>2857318
>Follow-up question: Should all universities be reduced to what's capitalistically viable? What can sell, in other words?
Actually, something that nobody needs is worthless, capitalism or no capitalism.

>>2857323
>can't even type "code monkey" properly.
No, that's the sort of thing we outsource, or give to people who went to vocational schools.

Also, who's the one going on about personal attacks again?

>>2857325

>It's a stupid waste of time. Nothing wrong with it, though.


No, it's an interesting waste of time. It's never purported to be anything else.

>I am one, learned from them, went to class with them, worked with them for a year.

Oh dear. Taking a year of undergrad courses doesn't make you 'one of them', my friend.

>>2857313
>>2857318

Nope. I just don't think it's fair that people who have no interest in the dated idea's of Freud being applied to literature are paying for the dated idea's of Freud being applied to literature.

If I were to say "guys, I have this fun idea, we capture frogs and put them on a grid and based on which squares they hop into we put their answers through the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and decide their type" that's all fine and dandy, but I wouldn't try to claim that it has any business being practised at universities.

>>2857329

>Actually, something that nobody needs is worthless, capitalism or no capitalism.

Okay. No more art, then.

>>2857330

Pointing out typos? Really? That's the level we've descended to already?

>>2857331
>Oh dear. Taking a year of undergrad courses doesn't make you 'one of them', my friend.
I've studied music and musical theory for 6 years of school, 4 years of college and then 5 years in the conservatory. It's probably analogous to graduating from a university in the US.

Count yourself if it's one year or more.

>>2857332

Alright. We put university subjects to the vote. We can watch as everything except hard science goes away. Is that what you want?

Actually, it probably is.

>>2857337

Did you think you were on the music board?

>>2857334
>>Actually, something that nobody needs is worthless, capitalism or no capitalism.
>Okay. No more art, then.
Don't be stupid, art is absolutely necessary for even the least educated. Modern people can't imagine a life without music, tv and literature.

>>2857340
Art criticism is the same in all fields. And I also studied literature on my known, using my knowledge of art history.

And, anyway, /lit/ is the 4chan /academic art, nonfiction and philosophy/ anyway. Only half the thread are actually about literature.

>>2857341

You think anyone could possibly live in a world without literary criti...

Yeah, no, I can't even type that out with a straight face.

Years of my life. Never getting them back.

Sigh.

>>2857341

I can't imagine my life without literary criticism. Can I keep it now?

Or is it a majority rules thing? Because if so, then we're only talking about the lowest common denominator stuff. They only 'need' Twilight, Two and a Half Men, and Nicki Minaj. The rest is unjustifiable minority stuff.

>>2857349
>I can't imagine my life without literary criticism.
YOU POOR FUCKING SOD.

>>2857344

>Art criticism is the same in all fields.

No it isn't. I don't know what else to say. That's simply false.

>And I also studied literature on my known, using my knowledge of art history.

I don't care about what you failed to teach yourself.

>>2857338
Your average citizen can probably be persuaded or is already aware of the importance of history, political sciences, anthropology, ethics et cetera. There are fields which are capable of having actual value.

Things like Freudian analysis of The Canterbury Tales are a lot harder to sell. Because it is totally useless for people who don't like the very analysing the Canterbury Tales in a Freudian manner.

I don't think you have the inalienable right to be supported by society to fuck about as you please with your useless theorising. You can make a yahoo group and a cool blog for that or something, along with the conspiracy theorists and chaos magicians.

>>2857351

So now we're in a "stop liking what I don't like" mode?

Man, I wish you guys would stop reminding me that I'm on 4chan. I thought /lit/ was better than this.

>>2857353
>No it isn't. I don't know what else to say. That's simply false.
Yes it absolutely is. I've studied two fields: literature and msuic, and I can speak for these two, at least. Which two fields of art criticism have you studied of which you've found comparison utterly impossible?

>>2857354

I think I'm going to leave this thread. The personal attacks are starting to make me angry, and I'd prefer not to be angry.

It's nice to know that /lit/ has a complete hatred for people who think about literature though. Really says a lot about the board.

>>2857356
No, we're in the you poor fucking sod mode.

>>2857363
>The personal attacks
Eat a fucking dick.

Youw ant a personal attack. Want to see what it looks liek? Eat a freaking dick, homo. That's a personal attack. FAGGOT.

Saying that art criticism is useless, and with reasoning, too (even if you think the reasoning is faulty), is not a personal attack.

>>2857364

You're just trying to make someone feel bad about enjoying something. That's like /v/-tier stuff.

>>2857369
Turns out half of us are or were in the field ourselves, so we have all the rights to do that.

>>2857363
I have no quarrel with your hobbies as long as you don't pretend them to be a genuine profession.

To society you're pretty much like a guy who's on the dole in order to play with miniature trains all day, but you ask for more money and don't even have the virtue to be honest about your parasitism.

>>2857373
>We made bad decisions and found out we couldn't hack it with the big boys, so we can say what we like.

I don't think so, chum.

>>2857375
Yes, but are you done sucking Freud's cock while reading Hamlet upside-down yet?

>>2857368

>You can make a yahoo group and a cool blog for that or something, along with the conspiracy theorists and chaos magicians.

That's a personal attack.

>If I were to say "guys, I have this fun idea, we capture frogs and put them on a grid and based on which squares they hop into we put their answers through the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and decide their type" that's all fine and dandy, but I wouldn't try to claim that it has any business being practised at universities.

That's a personal attack.

>This sort of rhetorical pseudoquestion gets one laughed out of a classroom, you know.

That's a personal attack.

>I always viewed it as their wanted to attach themselves to the talented artists that they see and admire. You can see this in relation to this board--people can't mention Bloom without automatically linking him to Shakespeare or DFW, or whomever else.

>They have to "go further" because they'd otherwise not have any reason to be notable. The people who say, "Now, wait, there is more to be said about ___________'s work" are viewed as expounding upon __________'s work, and they become a part of it (or try to).

That's a personal attack.

Deny it all you want. This thread isn't simply "literary criticism shouldn't be in universities", it's "literary critics are sad, awful little people and I'd like to hurt them".

>>2857379
There are numerous personal attacks of this insubstantial magnitude from teh other side, too. Especially the "you're all failed students, fuck you" refrain.

>>2857379
>>2857374

>To society you're pretty much like a guy who's on the dole in order to play with miniature trains all day, but you ask for more money and don't even have the virtue to be honest about your parasitism.

This is also a personal attack. Apparently we're "Sad, awful, parasites" now.

You guys really hate literary critics on a personal level. It disturbs me, a little. You'd probably murder me if you could get away with it.

>>2857385
>You guys really hate literary critics on a personal level. It disturbs me, a little. You'd probably murder me if you could get away with it.
Yes, and have sex with your sister afterwards. Consensual sex, too.

>>2857385

Awful? Not necessarily.

Sad? Yeah, most definitely.

I do find devoting one's life to someone else's work without adding anything of any value to it to be pretty sad.

As for "murder", Jesus, cut the drama, would you?

Dear OP, if you want to appreciate literature on a higher level, I suppose the following books should be a nice starting point:

>How to read literature as a professor (what your reading right now)
>Reading like a writer (by Francine Prose)
>Beginning Theory (by Peter Barry)
>Western Wind: An Introduction to Poetry (J.F. Nims)

there are a few others.. the "beginning..." books and all the "very short introductions" are nice.

Have fun!

>>2857389

You don't have to pretend like you think my life is worth being. You've already described me as a parasite. What do you do with parasites?

>>2857396
Ha ha, on the ruins of this thread comes this faggot.

>>2857398
>You've already described me as a parasite. What do you do with parasites?
Pay you salary and give my children for you to teach for double the price, what else? Also, you probably control the sales of my literary output.

I just read through this entire thread and i give it

2 awesomes

hyuk hyuk

>>2857460

NO way, bro. Only two awesomes?

This thread is worth at least three. I would pay money to see such rousing comedy live.

Lol what happed in this thread?

Delicious. All the well putt disdain for literary critics warms my heart.

>>2857385
> You'd probably murder me if you could get away with it.

Look at this dramaqueen. I would though.