/lit/ - Literature

I don't think that's true at all.

Too many murder mysteries OP, they've warped your view of humanity.

It's a well known opinion that studying literature is the worst possible thing to do, if you like it.
It's like bombing the shit out of a city you think is really great.

my name is andy and i really hate literature. it is not very exciting and i dont want to turn the page. it is very boring.

Congratulations, OP! You've now successfully mastered Pretentiousness.

Up next, letting go of self-importance.

>>2999637
the people shitting on humanities courses are not /lit/erates. they are wandering /sci/tards and trolls. don't take it to heart.

>>2999674
Pretty much this

>>2999637

>getting away with studying literature.

From a Literature major, no one gets away with it.

>>2999663

Why is that? This is actually very relevant to my situation, as I am considering whether to pursue a degree in psychology or literature. I enjoy reading and writing but I'm not sure whether I'd like to major in it.

>gets mad at a thread basically ripping apart ignorant arguments from certain humanities
>baaaw why don't people recognize our greatness
This whole college liberla arts bullshit is fairly recent anyway, /lit/ was far more about books and writing before faggots like Deep'n'Edgy came here.

>>2999663
I agree with this. I studied literature for a year academically but noped the fuck out of there. It's probably my own fault since I didn't really have a clear picture of what it was about. It's analysing literature according to a select few methods that the literary academics like. I love literature, but I found that they were merely analysing it to death. Good literature works for me as an organic whole, something that you have to engage with as it is. Let it wash over you, so to speak. If you start picking at every little thing you kill the work as a whole. It's like the dissection of a beautiful woman. Once you start looking at individual lines of a poem according to theory X and discussing it with 30 bores in a little brightly lit room it loses what makes it great.

That said, it might have been interesting if I thought they were adding something to the world of literature by doing this. But that's not the impression I got. It felt more like a grand parasitic clothes of the emperor scheme.

>>2999989

Thank you. This post essentially confirms my worst fears. The study of literature at a university levels seems to me an exercise in frustration and futility, a test of one's ability to endure a mind numbing onslaught of deliberately obtuse theories and hopelessly dense texts that are about as exciting and passionate as a blank piece of paper. Literature is best enjoyed on one's own time, and discussed with people who you truly respect.

>>2999989
>>3000055
Typical buttfrustrated undergrads who don't understand that you must walk before you can run. Did you believe that majoring in literature would just be reading lots of books and not having to think?

Seriously though. I'm sorry you found the academic environment frustrating and difficult. However, you're painting an extremely biased picture that doesn't represent my experience at all.

>>2999989
John Williams (a long-time English professor and the author of "Stoner") agrees with you. He reckons the way literature is treated in academia has moved away from _experiencing_ the text to just picking it apart and treating it like a puzzle, which is feels only serves to disillusion people who are otherwise passionate about the subject. Basically the process of reading a book has shifted from a form of communication to a sort of onanistic word game for professors to indulge in.

>>3000086
Your experience is different because you're good at playing the game.

>>3000088
yeah but it's the social / professional aspect of academia that bothers me more

I enjoy masturbating but if I don't respect people who'd try to make a living off it.

Faulty analogy? yes, but I think it shows why the OP's logic shouldn't apply to this situation.

>>3000088

I am inclined to agree with this statement having experienced studying literature in academia.

>>3000133

>playing the game

The sad truth about success in academia.

>>3000146

I actually think it's a damn good analogy, if slightly coarse.

>>3000055
Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it.

>>3000086
Well, it's just my experience. I did expect to think, but in a more productive and less rigid manner. Seems terribly naive in retrospect of course. There was nothing difficult about it, it was mostly just uninteresting and for me destructive for my love of literature. If you like analysing books to an extreme it's the place to be. I disliked studying philosophy mostly for the same reasons. It's all very clinical analysis and lacks soul without ever becoming truly scientific or of merit in some way.

I've always been mostly an autodidact and prefer it that way. But for me personally, there's something horrible about people making a living from discussion texts in that way. I would honestly be more at ease with myself on the dole than being a literature professor. Hell, I would have a clearer conscience as a criminal.

>>3000088
That's very nicely put. I agree.

probably because academia revolves around bringing out the absolute worst in reading.

The entire thing is just a closeted interest group trying to project their opinions to those who study under them. That is basically all.

>>3000195
rigid? Yeah. let me phrase it in a way that your criminal mind can understand.

In undergrad you aren't thinking for yourself. You're learning all of the tools and theories and histories and discourses that will enable you to productively contribute to academia and culture. In grad school you have a chance to follow your own agenda of study and actually apply what you learned in undergrad.

>>3000213
>In undergrad you aren't thinking for yourself. You're learning all of the tools and theories and histories and discourses that will enable you to productively contribute to academia and culture. In grad school you have a chance to follow your own agenda of study and actually apply what you learned in undergrad.

Yes, that is, indeed, the theory, very well explained; it sounds like it could come out of a brochure. I don't think, however, that it's an accurate depiction of the reality. On either end, really.

>>3000213

so, essentially, the undergrad experience is worthless on its own? not everyone goes to grad school, you know.

>>3000231
as someone who is currently being paid to do a PhD, I beg to differ.

>>3000088

Really? That's not what I got out of Stoner at all. In fact, it helped me make the decision to pursue an academic life.

>>3000213

That hasn't been my undergrad experience. In fact, facing grad school now it seems like I'll be enjoying a good deal less freedom regarding my work.

Soon-to-graduate Lit Masters student says this shit is awesome. I love these classes. Most of my professors say "choose a topic, I'll approve if I think you can get somewhere with it, and find enough sources to support your argument." I love the freedom and I love the research. The only thing holding me back from the PhD track is the debt and lack of career options when finished.

>>3000159

But it's a really fun game for some of us.

>>3000265
what are fellowships

or do you english lit people not get those

>>3000246
That wasn't an interpretation of his work, it was me paraphrasing something he explicitly stated in an interview. The interview was conducted in 1985, the year he retired. Stoner is a depiction of the old academia that he grew up with.

>>3000298

Oh, okay.

I get the same feeling as some people ITT in terms of studying English. Currently doing my second year of an English degree, but in Scotland so I don't start doing my degree "properly" until next year, so I'm doing Italian and French with it.

I agree with the point that literature has an organic feel to it. I really like poetry in particular and sometimes when doing in-depth analysis of a poet or poem I like, I can get a bit frustrated. Sometimes I just want to say that the poet has used a specific word or form because that's just what they felt worked best in the context. I write my own poetry and whilst I don't claim that I'm anywhere near as good as the great poets, I know that I don't meticulously think through every single word I use, a lot of it is fairly instinctual. As a result, the leaps sometimes made can feel very strained.

However, I think it does these writers a disservice to suggest that it is entirely organic. Most literary canon has the status is does because the author did carefully construct the work.

The conclusion I've arrived at is that English criticism is based on extremes. Just like with history, english academics have to base all of their works upon fixed, unchanging things: they can't analyse nothing; existing texts must be used. As a result, to get noticed they have to seek extreme points of view. For example, New criticism rejected everything except the text when analysing it. Reader Response criticism rejects the role of the author: no matter what meaning the author intended for the reader, the reader is ultimately right. Then you have feminist readings, where simply by being female, a woman has a right to read a book in a way a man cannot because pretty much all literary study is dominated by the patriarchy.

>>3000311

(cont.) Without criticism, English couldn't exist as a subject: it would merely be reading. Criticism exists to provide a framework to the study of the texts. It would be wrong to call it a necessary evil, but I would agree that a lot of it appears to be academics trying to be radical to continue being relevant.

>>3000311

>Then you have feminist readings, where simply by being female, a woman has a right to read a book in a way a man cannot because pretty much all literary study is dominated by the patriarchy.

Wow what. Are you sure you're a literature student?

>>3000311
check your cis, white, male privilege, you pig.

>>3000341

How come you trolls always take this non-existent stance that people talking about privilege are like, judging people angrily?

Privilege isn't something to be ashamed of. It's not like, an insult. It's just something to be aware of. It's like just trolls talking to trolls now.

>>3000321

Whoops, you're right. That came out wrong. It's meant to say that some feminist critics and the one in particular i'm basing this on, Judith Fetterly, argue that women are forced to read books from the viewpoint of the universal reader: a viewpoint which is inherently male. As a result, women must adopt a viewpoint distinct from the male reader because, as women, they identify with things men cannot. As such, reading from a male viewpoint ruins their appreciation of the text.

>>3000346
>on-existent stance that people talking about privilege are like, judging people angrily?
Have you ever read the more popular radfem forums or the shit they cite?

>>3000346
Privilege is used as an insult by the kind of people who believe in it.
It's not something for anyone to be "aware of", it's a faith-based concept like the Patriarchy™ and God.

>>3000348

Rad fems are insane. Why are you taking them as exemplary?

>>3000359
Because they are exemplary of those who propose the re-definition of privilege.

>>3000363

No, that's false.

>>3000365
Outside of very tight-knit academic circles who publish write-only documents and are actually disliked by the rest of academia?
Yes, it is.

>>3000350
>choosing to "believe" in privilege

you counter trolled me pretty well, fuck

>>2999663
Analyzing literature (studying it) made me love it even more.

>>3000369
You've re-defined a word to mean majority groups relation to minority groups and how it's an inherent part of society.
It's requires an active effort to place faith in an unproven politically-motivated claim.
Hence "belief" in "privilege".

>>3000375
It's impossible to have or not have faith in the existence of a concept if the concept can be explained.

>>3000380
The Concept of God and the Belief that God exists are two very different things.
You seemingly argued, so far, that your re-definition of Privilege exists in practice.
That is a faith-based belief.

Try to be more precise in your arguments, it helps a lot with making the Liberal Arts more respected overall.

>>3000375
Privilege isn't unproven.

>>3000398
What evidence is there of it?
The write-only papers are just a tautological that constantly flips between the dictionary definition and their newly minted one when it suits them and at best put forward the writers opinions as facts.

>>3000398
What evidence is there of it?
The write-only papers just amount to a tautological mess that constantly flips between the dictionary definition and their newly minted one when it suits them.
The only thing that keeps it going it seems is that fringe academics like the idea.

>>3000404
When my grandparents bought their house in a upper middle class neighborhood there was a clause on the land lease that specified that the house could not be re-sold to anyone who was of asian decent or ethnicity.

>>3000213
It's all a pile of shit anyway. What's redeemable about studying literature academically? That's the real question.

>>3000412
And?
Personal discrimination. About as systematic and applied as violent crime in certain ethnic groups.

>>3000425
my bad for letting you straw man me

Move along, troll.

>>3000428
It's funny how you fail to see your own lack of arguments.
Not to worry, the rest of Academia doesn't.

>>3000428

RE: Privilege.

You can be a straight, white, middle-class male but if you're ugly as fuck then you ain't better off
than anyone else.

People who throw around the word 'privilege' are kidding themselves if they think it's inherent to background and that anything but beauty and intelligence matter.

e.g. A beautiful, intelligent and charming black woman will have an easier time getting ahead in the world than an ugly, awkward white man who happens to come from a moneyed background.

>>3000626
Beauty is a privilege, then. Why not mention height? There's studies that show that taller people get paid more on average, among other things. Attractiveness is just harder to get people to rally around because not many people are going to say, "I'm ugly and I'm proud." Why do you put faith in an extension of the concept but not the concept itself?

sage in memory of the thread's original topic

>>3000654
>There's studies that show that taller people get paid more on average

WHY?

>>3000626
Since when were intelligence and awkwardness opposites?

> A beautiful, intelligent and charming black woman will have an easier time getting ahead in the world than an ugly, awkward white man who happens to come from a moneyed background.

Isn't 'getting ahead' just getting money anyways?

>>3000663

Isn't that what people are talking about when they talk about privilige?

It boils down to 'that person has more money than me, let me think up a reason for this phenomenon that isn't my own shortcomings'.

>>3000654

Then surely everyone is privileged in some way - surely everyone has something they're better at than someone else.

If a big guy got a warehouse job that required heavy lifting and I didn't, I wouldn't play the 'he's got that bigger muscle privilege' card and demand that I get employed too.