/lit/ - Literature

Ulysses and Mason & Dixon are better than both.

>>2883622
How are pleb tastes superior to patrician?

>>2883622
I disagree.

>>2883627
>pleb
>patrician

Do you really think any one would or should listen to you?

I absolutely love Finnegans Wake, so perhaps I would agree with you on that one. As another anon has mentioned though, Mason & Dixon is truly a force to be reckoned with.

Man, I wish I weren't too stupid to comprehend Finnegans Wake. People seen to love it so much

>>2883646
Why do you like Mason & Dixon more than Gravity's Rainbow

>>2883639
>implying you haven't listened when you clearly have
Maybe it is this poor reaoning that destines you to have inferior tastes?

>>2883660
GR is great, but M&D is less dark and has a great cast of real characters.

I'm not sure if that really explains it. When I first read M&D I felt like it was THE novel for me. It's like Pynchon doing Don Quixote or something.

I can't read Finnegans Wake, but I like to listen to Joyce reading it.

>>2883659

no one gets that book, they just feel better by pretending to

>>2883675
Also, astronomy.

>>2883666

That was so idiotic that I actually had to stop lurking and type up a hard to interpret captcha, just to tell you that you should feel bad about yourself.

It makes me sad that people are this stupid.

>>2883666
>semantics

>>2883677
no one even pretends to understand it. you don't need to understand a work of art to appreciate it.

Moby Dick + Confidence Man will see you all, and raise you fifty, sirs..

>>2883677
There is a method to the madness, though. Don't think that there's nothing to be gained by coming to terms with the whole concept and, eventually, the quasi-narrative, itself. It's very beautiful.

>>2883688
>poor workman blames his tools

>>2883690
>you don't need to understand a work of art to appreciate it.
lol

>>2883747
I suppose Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time does nothing for you, right?

>Implying you've read every book published in the 20th century

>>2883769
why would you suppose such a thing?

Finnegans Wake is a portmanteau storm, a gimmicky mess. No real value there except in it's novelty and uniqueness.

>>2883780
Because you laughed at the idea that you don't need to understand a work of art to appreciate it. Was that not obvious?

>>2883747

T.S. Eliot said something eloquent about this. You definitely get feeling from art before you get the whole meaning and understand it. This is especially true with modernist novels & poetry. IMO it really makes it that much more beautiful, because there is so much room to explore it over and over again in your mind, because you'll never really fully comprehend it. Pound's Cantos and Finnegans Wake are the most engaging examples of this I would say.

>>2883785
The poetry's beautiful. The book's language exists entirely separate from our own, but it's just close enough to give a paragraph several possibilities for interpretation, often producing a hallucinatory effect, using a very accomplished understanding of world mythology and history. And sometimes it's funny. Try harder.

>>2883794
>You definitely get feeling from art before you get the whole meaning and understand it.
appreciating art without understanding it, is not appreciating art, it's fetishizing it

you get feelings all the time from everywhere.

"there is no such thing as good painting about nothing" until you arrive to that something, a work of art is invisible.

I'll agree with you on Finnegans Wake, but I think there's stronger stuff out there than Gravity's Rainbow. Ulysses, for one.

>>2883888
Music is art. I think I just broke your argument.

trolling is an art

>>2883925
>Music is art

occasionally

>>2883949
>occasionally
1/10, I consider it possible that you're serious.

>>2883925

Why don't you understand about music? As far as art goes it's one of the most straightforward.

>>2884075
The point is that it has no inherent meaning/doesn't necessarily represent anything

>>2884084

Well maybe not all music, but that's a pretty broad statement.

>>2884129
Yes, it's justifiably broad. The majority of great music doesn't represent anything in particular. You could of course shoehorn some interpretation onto any given piece, but so much can be done for any art form, and it probably wouldn't be very convincing

>>2884084
It's not art based on that single prescriptive definition. In my opinion, that definition is retarded, but an argument on it isn't going to be productive.

>>2884173
>It's not art based on that single prescriptive definition.

Yeah, that's my point.

>>2884155

>The majority of great music doesn't represent anything in particular.

It represents emotional catharsis.

>>2884197
No, that's one of its effects on a listener, not what it represents

>>2884206

It represents emotional catharsis on the part of the composer.

>>2884214
That's not really anything concrete, though, and it's not even really true in most cases.

>>2883888
So do you think Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time is a good work of art?

>>2884277
It is an old picture of naked people so yes

>>2884281
And your dictum is that a work of art cannot be properly appreciated without its meaning being understood, yes? So would you care to explain to us what the meaning of Bronzino's painting is?

>>2884228

But I could make the same criticism of any form of art.

>Does anyone agree with me?

Women and teenagers, probably.

>>2884596
Yes, exactly. There will always be such examples no matter the form

Ulysses
Gravity's Rainbow
In Search of Lost Time
The Sound and the Fury

>>2884635
What do you think are better?

>>2883659
>Man, I wish I weren't too stupid to comprehend Finnegans Wake.
The whole point of the book is that you be a monkey and still understand it.

Just read it. Feel something? That's it. That's what it's for and that's how you experience it. Finnegans's the direct opposite of intellectually taxing. And I mean it literally. It's readers with far below average and far above average intelligence will understand equally.

>>2885961
i feel what you're saying

i feel, therefore i understand

>>2885961
no, the whole point is the sheer number of multilingual puns created from the most complex idioglossia I've ever seen.

finnegans wake: a book of puns
by james joyce

>>2886067
There's a bit more to it than that.