/lit/ - Literature

Because our patriarchal culture discourages women from expressing themsevles

are you for real?

>>3405183
Because women use exchanging words as a social tool, like grooming one another, and men use it to communicate.

>>3405194
It's getting better, but it is still the case

Because the literary establishment refuses to check its privilege.

>>3405197
Picking insects out of someone's fur and then eating them is probably the most meaningful form of communication possible

>>3405183
Because too many women are too busy seeing every problem as an insurmountable burden forced upon them by patriarchy, and so refuse to achieve and simply wait for someone to come along and make a path for them. They never chase success, and then act surprised when they don't get it.

There are ambitious capable women, but when you provide any demographic with an easy excuse they're going to take it.

OP, this is what you are supposed to think. Gender issues and this patriarchal villain character, are designed by the bourgeois to prevent you from discussing class struggle. Don't fall for their trap or you will be a prole forever.

>>3405216
I don't see what your point is when gender issues are inherently related to class struggle

>>3405228
My point, senior, is that not only are gender issues irrelevant to class struggle, the myth of the patriarchy is an artificial concept designed to distract you from class struggle. Sure, it may seem like women are victimized, it may seem like blacks are too, it may seem like Jews run the world, and the illuminati is in control, and to some extents these secondary effects of the primary class issue may have manifested, but these concepts are created and maintained to blur your view of reality. The longer you fight ineffectual gender wars, the longer you remain disempowered as the real issue behind these things is further obscured from you.

>>3405201
>Picking insects out of someone's fur and then eating them is probably the most meaningful form of communication possible
- woman

>>3405262
But the gender wars many feminists have fought haven't been ineffectual; just look at the history of feminism to learn a bit about that. And patriarchy isn't a myth, it's just a specific case of the more general kyriarchy, which includes classism within its domain. It's not as if anyone's being blinded by feminism into ignoring class struggle; that's just silly

>>3405461
>It's not as if anyone's being blinded by feminism into ignoring class struggle.

That is exactly whats happening.

The better question is why do women still think we live in the 19th century.

When I walk into a Barnes and Noble all I see is shit-tier books by shit-tier female authors prominently on display.

>>3405486
But she's right. Do you disagree with her?

>>3405490
True, but the literary elites would not accept those books as real literature, so they're beside the point

Genetics.

inb4 the feminista anti-science brigade spouts some nonsense

>>3405491
>But she's right. Do you disagree with her?
In fact, I completely agree that rap should be abolished.

>>3405501
What does genetics have to say about the quality of women's writing, or the sociology of the literary establishment?

>>3405491
The idea that telling people not to rape will dissuade them is absurd.

>>3405193
There.

>>3405505
I actually like some rap, but I'm pretty sure those pictures were edited in Photoshop, and they originally said "rape", just in case you didn't realize.

You have got to be absolutely shitting me.

Please see: JK Rowling, Stephenie Meyer, Mary Higgins Clark, Danielle Steel, Maya Angelou, Alice Walker, Joyce Carol Oates, Isabel Allende, Suzanne Collins, Sylvia Plath, Louisa May Alcott, Jane Austen, Harper Lee, Margaret Atwood, Lois Lowry, Toni Morrison, Virginia Woolf, Alice Sebold, Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand, Patti Smith, Diane Setterfield, Anne Rice, SE Hinton, Jodi Picoult and on and on and on and on.

>>3405512
Quality education, in this case sexual education, can actually do a lot more for a population than you think

Feminism: Coming to a book store near you.

>>3405517
>You have got to be absolutely shitting me.

In other words, either a mix of dull and obnoxious female authors who write a load of rubbish about what it means to be a woman, or shit tier genre writers. Can you do any better?

>>3405517
And for every one of those you could name 10 men

>>3405516
No. Feminists just hate rap music.

>>3405523
>In other words, either a mix of dull and obnoxious female authors who write a load of rubbish about what it means to be a woman, or shit tier genre writers

That's the point though. Even though they're shit their stuff sells in huge numbers and they're widely respected.

Women are, if anything, grossly OVERrepresented in the literary arena.

>>3405517

With the exception of Ayn Rand, all the authors you brought up are pushing a ridiculous cultural Marxist dogma in their work.

>>3405523
Which of those does Ayn Rand fall under

>>3405523

Why didn't you bother to name any good female writers?

>>3405533
>all the authors you brought up are pushing a ridiculous cultural Marxist dogma in their work.

ahaha this has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read here

The majority of the books I had to read in grade school and early high school were written by women.

The Outsiders, That Was Then, This is Now, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Bell Jar, Sense and Sensibility, Frankenstein, Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Joy Luck Club, Pride and Prejudice, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, etc

>>3405532
>Women are, if anything, grossly OVERrepresented in the literary arena.

This. I'm seeing these displays more and more, because it's what women want.

>>3405533
>Cultural capitalist dogma

Fixed that for you, pleb.

>>3405521

If you teach kids about sex, they will want to have sex, whether the other person wants it or not.

If anything, sexual education would be more likely to lead to rape than to prevent it.

>>3405522
That's the "free market" coming to a bookstore near you. Like the clothing for men sections shrink. Its just a cultural thing not a genetic trait.

>>3405548
Educating children about rape is one of the best things one can do for society

>>3405554

Children lack a sense of morality and responsibility. If you teach children about rape, they will want to do it.

>>3405555
So you think teaching ten-year-olds about rape is going to make them want to rape other ten-year-olds? I'm not so sure about that

>>3405536
Because you'll shoot them all down.

>>3405548

>sexual education would be more likely to read to rape than to prevent it.

First time back on /it/ in god knows how long, and I see this shit?

You've fuckin changed lit.

Muh...muh...muh 21st century matriarchy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rasnBGmA

>>3405557
OMG LOOK AT ALL THOSE MARXISTS

>>3405560
It'll make them want to accuse other ten-year-olds of rape.

>>3405559
The idea of men as big dumb idiots is actually a patriarchal invention

>>3405566
lel

Let me guess, it somehow oppresses women even more?

>>3405563
Somehow I doubt 11th century Japanese writers were aware of Marx

>>3405555
The way you would teach them, perhaps.

>>3405566

>>3405569
When did I say that? I'm simply saying that if you don't like how men are portrayed in the media, the feminists probably aren't the ones you want to blame

>>3405486
>implying these women aren't all bourgeois who wouldn't fight for class struggle anyways

white feminism chooses not to be intersectional not because they wanted to focus on feminism but because they already didn't give a shit about anything besides middle-class white people

>>3405572

If you teach a child "peeing on your sibling is wrong," that child will want to pee on his/her sibling. If you teach a child "rape is wrong," that child might think it is wrong in the same way picking your nose in public is wrong. So if you let children know about rape it is something that they may easily end up doing.

"As Dr. Leonard Orr has noted, the human mind behaves as if it were divided into two parts, the Thinker and the Prover. The Thinker can think about virtually anything. History shows that it can think the earth is suspended on the backs of infinite turtles or that the Earth is hollow, or that the Earth is floating in space comparative religion and philosophy show that the Thinker can regard itself as mortal, as immortal, as both mortal and immortal (the reincarnation model) or even as non- existent (Buddhism). It can think itself into living in a Christian universe, a Marxist universe, a scientific-relativistic universe, or a Nazi universe—among many possibilities.

As psychiatrists and psychologists have often observed (much to the chagrin of their medical colleagues), the Thinker can think itself sick, and can even think itself well again. The Prover is a much simpler mechanism. It operates on one law only: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. To cite a notorious example which unleashed incredible horrors earlier in this century, if the Thinker thinks that all Jews are rich, the Prover will prove it. It will find evidence that the poorest Jew in the most run-down ghetto has hidden money somewhere. Similarly, Feminists are able to believe that all men, including the starving wretches who live and sleep on the streets, are exploiting all women, including the Queen of England."

Women wouldn't know what egalitarianism looks like if it came up and raped them.

"Now, obviously the oral system works with and for social programming. The maps and models it makes are tools of adaptation, and what they adapt us to is social roles in domesticated primate society. Thus, a Midwestern Methodist is not "misusing his brain" as Arthur Koestler thinks in constructing a Midwestern Methodist tunnel-reality; that is precisely what his brain is for, to adapt him to the Midwestern Methodist tribal system—to impose the structure of Midwestern Methodist ideology upon the myriad of data-points he encounters in his lifetime. The Chinese Maoist, the Iranian Muslim, the Feminist, etc. each has a similar, equally arbitrary, equally complex reality-tunnel. Each tunnel is also equally absurd when seen from outside."

"The baby-functions of playing with one's own body, another's body and the environment continue throughout life in all animals. This "playfulness" is a marked characteristic of all conspicuously healthy individuals of the sort called "self-actualizers." If this initial imprint is negative—if the universe in general and other humans in particular are imprinted as dangerous, hostile and frightening—the patient will go on throughout life adjusting all perceptions to fit this map. This is what is known as the "Injustice Collector" syndrome. The female patients of this imprint group become feminists; the male patients are less organized and can be found in fringe groups of the extreme Left and extreme Right. "

>>3405583

>supporting rape culture by making rape jokes

Fuck off.

>>3405585

holy shit

10/10; had a giggle mate

"True gender egalitarianism can only occur in a post-feminist society"
-Simone De Beauvoir

>>3405585

>>3405585
Rape xD

>>3405579
see, but that's not how feminism works, and you're bad. the idea isn't that every man is conspiring to oppress every woman, the idea is that through perceptions and ideas we've absorbed as a culture, all men are inherently privileged in a sense. are some men disprivileged in senses that some women aren't? of course. doesn't mean that male privilege is gone.

tl;dr, you're dumb and stupid, and should feel bad

>>3405585
>rape culture

Please stop making shit up.

>>3405588
When de Beauvoir was a little girl, she had a little quim.
When she went to bed at night she put her finger in.
Now she is a big girl, her quim has lost its charm,
I tried to put my finger in and lost my fucking arm.

>>3405585
SA/reddit fuck off pls.

>>3405585
>rape culture

>>3405566

Yeah... I'm becoming increasingly convinced that feminists only claim the 'patriarchy' hurts men is because otherwise they would only have a few white-knight males in their ranks.

/lit/ always had some misogynists, but it's really frustrating that the steady influx of people from lesser boards is boosting their numbers a helluva lot, and they're more loud and stupidly loud about it

>>3405602
hahahah

Butthurt that people don't believe in your "rape culture" fantasies?

implying virginia woolf isnt better than most of the male writers

>>3405595
Let's turn this into a thread about Something Awful.

>>3405595
>implying
/pol/ fuck off, this is /lit/, it's always had a leftist bent

>>3405601
It's easier than that. Feminists use men as the hate figure. Everyone needs a hate figure; The Jews, The Niggers, The communists, The Fundamental Christians. Fighting against some arbitrary figure seems to give life purpose.

>>3405602

Just because some of us our hostile to some of Feminism's more outlandish claims doesn't make us misogynists.

>>3405613

*are

>>3405611
Not w/ feminism

>>3405606

I like Woolf's essay 'modern fiction'. That shit is so shit, it's hilarious.

What is your favorite forum on the Something Awful forums? I've always been a big fan of the Let's Play! forum. I also enjoy the forum Post Your Favorite (or Request)

Culture Rape

>>3405602
>/lit/ always had some misogynists, but it's really frustrating tha...

Fighting for freedom and dismissing the ridiculous mewling of feminists isn't misogynist.

>>3405602

>anyone that disagrees with my worldview is a misogynist

>>3405611

>always had a leftist bent

I'd bet my left fucking nut you're new here and you're just saying that. "Left" does not have to meet your shitty neo-feminist bullshit of a definition. You've just attached yourself like leeches to an intellectual system that didn't need yet ANOTHER burden.

>>3405622
>Fighting for freedom

>>3405601
no, the patriarchy harms men because it supports the static gender roles you always complain about. you think feminists are the ones pushing for women to always get custody of the kids? no, that's republicans who think mothers make better caretakers. you think feminists (ok, some of them are idiots, and probs agree with this) are the ones saying men can't be raped? no, that's people who conceive of women as weak and men as strong, and don't consider men capable of being violated because they're sex crazed animals who want it anyways.

>>3405602
You're just like the assholes that believe if you're an anticapitalist you're a Marxist.

A deep disgust for third wave feminism does not imply misogny. Open your fucking eyes.

Not misogynist, misanthropic.

Equal opportunity hate.

>>3405612
>It's easier than that. Feminists use men as the hate figure. Everyone needs a hate figure; The Jews, The Niggers, The communists, The Fundamental Christians. Fighting against some arbitrary figure seems to give life purpose.

Exactly. But not only that. White male privilege IS the fundamentalist christian "original sin."

You're born with it.
You did nothing to obtain it.
You don't deserve it.

Only by doing what we say can you get rid of it, maybe kinda sorta.

I think r/feminism needs to go to bed.

reddit.com/r/Feminism

>>3405611
>implying there's anything leftist whatsoever about your misandry

Honestly I could give a fuck about what women want. If it were up to me they wouldn't be allowed to vote or anything, they'd have no freedoms at all. It'd be perfect.

>>3405630
>A deep disgust for third wave feminism does not imply misogny.
I agree with this, but that doesn't change the fact that this board has a bunch of misogynists

>>3405640
>misogynists

and what? you're going to root them out? If we were to go to a feminist haven, say, reddit, would it not be equally applicable to say "THIS PLACE IS FULL OF MISANDRISTS!" ?

What do you think you accomplish?

>>3405640
>this board has a bunch of misogynists
The burden's on you to prove that. I don't see any. What I see are mostly egalitarians who want equality for both sexes and are sickened at how far the pendulum has swung towards feminism, particularly the brand of extreme feminism that its second and third wave proponents espouse.

If you want to see some real misogny, take a little stroll over to /pol/.

>>3405629

The patriarchy doesn't enforce gender roles, biology does.

>>3405648
Then we need to restructure social issues to counter the male biological advantage.

>>3405635

Who do you mean by 'we'?

>>3405647
>If you want to see some real misogny, take a little stroll over to /pol/.

Even better, /r9k/.

>>3405640
This board is about as left as 4chan ever gets.

Is is true that feminists just secretly wish to be men?
Is that why they envy us white males?

>>3405649
Who is this guy? An actor? I recognize his face, but can't tell.

>>3405647
just fucking
>>3405639
>>3405197
>>3405267
>>3405501

>>3405650

How? Run through some possible solutions for me.

>>3405645
>reddit
>feminist haven
you sure are stupid, aren't you?

>people unironically using "rape culture" and "privilege"

What are you people doing here? Why can't you just stay on SA or /r/SRS?

>>3405654
True, but that's because it's the only board with an intellectual focus

>>3405652

>who do you mean by 'we?'

I should have said "they." I'm simply referring to third-wave feminists and those activists that espouse white-privilege as their scapegoat just as immigrants, jews, etc are espoused on the other extreme.

>>3405648
>being this dumb
aggregate=/=individuals, you are dumb as fuck

>>3405659

A few troll posts don't prove shit.

>>3405655
They're just greedy women who want more and more. Honestly I wish the U.S. would be taken over the taliban so the sluts can appreciate what they have and stop bitching over non-problems

>>3405666

>only board with an intellectual focus

I raged hard. You got me.

omg why are women oppressed they don't even make up half of wikipedia and open source contributors

>>3405655
>Is is true that feminists just secretly wish to be men?

Actually, there is a common disorder known as 'penis envy.' Feminists absolutely hate it too.

"A significant number of critics, activists and feminists, have been highly critical of penis envy as a concept and psychoanalysis as a discipline, arguing that the assumptions and approaches of the psychoanalytic project are profoundly patriarchal, anti-feminist, and misogynistic and represent women as broken or deficient men."

>>3405659
You're using obvious trolls as an example. Like I said, I don't see any real misogny.

Also, what OP implied is absolutely absurd. Some of the wealthiest and most celebrated authors in literary history are females. But that's not good enough, apparently.

That's the question I often have for second and third wave feminists. When is enough enough? When all men are forcibly castrated, like Valerie Solanas wanted?

>>3405666
Yeah, that must be it.

>>3405672
I agree with you about that Taliban part at least

>>3405662
>reddit
>feminist haven
>you sure are stupid, aren't you?

-reddit.com/r/Feminism
-reddit.com/r/WhereAreTheFeminists
-reddit.com/r/feminisms
-reddit.com/r/againstmensrights

>>3405650
What about the biological advantages of the tall, the smart, the beautiful? Should we amputate, cut out brain parts, throw some acid on their faces?

Just to make sure that everyone is on an even level, of course. It's egalitarian so it must be Good, right?

>>3405669

No I'm not, if a gender is predisposed to doing a particular thing, then it's completely reasonable to suggest that biology plays a part. I never claimed there were no exceptions.

>>3405677
>>3405678
He/she left out /sci/ but for the most part, they're correct.

Please prove him/her wrong instead of just using tired reaction images.

>>3405659
Those were obviously posted by feminists for something to rage against.

>>3405675
>not knowing freud was wrong on pretty much everything
>2013

reddit actually has a variety of different weirdos, it's not just creepshots or whatever

>>3405676
Valerie Solanas didn't actually believe those things

>>3405681
Please, don't bring this here. I don't know what the other guy told you, but there is no reason for you to think we are familiar with reddit. You guys can take this conversation outside of /lit/.

No one else here is actually playing the feminist role for real, right? We're just trolls trolling trolls, right?

>>3405685
>only board with an intellectual focus
>prove me wrong

>god is reel
>prove me wrong

yea that's not how this shit works. I browse a lot of boards on 4chan, saying this is the only one with an "intellectual focus" whatever the hell you think that means, is outright absurd.

Because they are not that smart. They prefer sex and gossip.

>>3405694
Please don't use logical fallacies to try to prove a point. Lord knows you third wave feminists already do that enough.

>>3405689
>Not knowing that his 3 tier model of consciousness is built on by nearly all modern psychoneurology.

>>3405193

You are 100 years late, and then some. All day, women are encouraged to express themselves, it's just that they don't have all that much to say, so they're frustrated and prefer to think the system is keeping them down.

When the system kept Dostoyevsky down by sending him to the gulag in Siberia, it didn't keep him down, he still wrote.

Women have it way better than all male authors of the past. Even a man who could only move an eyelid managed to write, so give me a break.

>excuses
>women's best friends

>>3405681
>15k subscribers
>617 subscribers
>16k subscribers
>~1700 subscribers

r/mensrights
>60k subscribers

you sure are stupid, aren't you?

FEMINISM

IS THE WAY THE POWERS THAT BE KEEP THE WORKING CLASS FROM AN EFFICIENT STRUGGLE AGAINST THEM

YOU MORONS BOUGHT IT, LINE, SINK, AND HOOKERS

>>3405697
Atheist trolls threads occur on literally every board.

/lit/ is the only board where I've seen fairly deep and sometimes even profound discussions into continental philosophy, deconstructionism, postmodernism, critical theory, literary criticism and so on. All of these are inherently intellectual spheres.

>>3405708
MY CLASS STRUGGLE WILL BE INTERSECTIONAL OR IT WILL BE BULLSHIT

>>3405709

You must be really fucking new here.

/pol/ and /mu/ fucking ruined this place

Sure is a lot of "I want to be seen as not being racist or sexist or bigoted" up in here.

Yeah, let me know how that turns out.

Fuck trying to control how others perceive you, and that counts just as much for minorities wanting to be seen as not being inferior as it does for women not wanting to be seen as objects, as it does for wasp male privilege who want to be seen as "not the bad guy"

Fuck "Thought Crimes" you're never going to get there. Just focus on peoples actions,

"But I don't want to be wrongly judged based on my skin, or my sex or the advantages I was born into."

Tough shit, you were born into the remains of a battlefield that has been raging since the human epoch began, be grateful you have been born late enough to enjoy indoor plumbing, donuts and the internet and stop bitching because you've been unfairly labeled by one party or another. Because accepting that you're never going to be fairly represented in the eyes of strangers is what adults do, motherfuckers.

>>3405705
Thirty three thousand angry feminists (not including the numerous smaller boards) isn't a haven? Jesus, what do you want, lady, that's higher than the population of some countries.

>>3405714
nah, not gonna lie, i took a multiple month break, but this place has gone far down hill

>>3405704
The problem, also, is that women tend to look up to the completely wrong women (a lot of men are also egregiously guilty of this too).

Helen Keller goes ignored while women like E. L. James are venerated.

>>3405711
>All of these are inherently intellectual spheres.

Oh dear lord.

>>3405705
well he left out r/shitredditsays and r/twoxchromosomes, and I'm sure many others. You'd be pretty stupid to think that Reddit isn't very liberal

>>3405735

it is clearly a troll.

>>3405728
Saying "Oh dear Lord" does not refute my statement. It only makes you look like an anti-intellectual simpleton.

>>3405735
reddit's very liberal, but it's very middle-class white male militant atheist fedora liberal, not feminist anti-racist liberal.

>>3405557
How could you guys possibly have left off A.S. Byatt? Have y'all niggas even read Possession?

>>3405739

that was actually a different person. You just need to go on some different boards is all so you can learn how absurd what you said is. That's just baseless elitism at its finest.

>>>/int/
>>>/g/
>>>/sci/
>>>/ic/

even >>>/pol/ would be classified as "intellectual," although it's associated with far-right neo-nazi intellectualism. Don't be such an asshat.

>>3405744
It's both. They don't have one culture that you can sum up in a string of buzzwords, they have fragmented fractaled boards that represent a full spectrum of opinions.

>>3405739
Buddy, just because you can regurgitate the shit you hear at uni does not make you an intellectual, alright? You're a pathetic name-dropping poseur with a demonstrably extremely limited view of the intellectual landscape, pretending to be something that clearly are not.

We're all anonymous here, you can drop the fucking mask.

>>3405744

what? are you fucked in the head? The two "movements," if that's what you want to call them, are allies, one group is just massively larger than the other and thus doesn't fully control the website. They still tend to agree on most issues, however.

>>3405757

pretty much what this guy said.

>>3405760
r/mensrights
>60k subscribers
r/feminism
>15k subscribers

i don't know, the numbers say more redditors aren't fans of feminism.

What am I talking about? I'll tell you:
It's about those agnostics who want to bitch about Atheists and Believers going at it.
It's about independents and third party members who bitch about Conservatives and Progressives going at it
It's about white people who aren't racist who bitch about minorities and white supremacists going at it.
It's about normal men bitching about Feminists and Misogynists going at it.

It's about those people who are not engaged in political/philosophical battles who just want to whine and bitch because other people are. "Your cultural conflicts are spoiling my good time. Why can't you people with scores to settle go out and hang out on the fringes of society instead of having to argue all the time?"

Because they do. They do have to argue all the time, that's the point, idiot. Feminists of all different philosophical variations really do have to fight the rapists and genuine oppressors, and vice versa, in the areas where men are oppressed they have to fight against the misandry
The atheists really do have to fight against the believers and the believers really do have to fight against the atheists, and the far right and the far left really do have to shout at each other over everything, and the white people really do have to fight against "reverse racism" (which is just racism") and the minorities really do have to fight against all of the fucked up white eugenics bullshit.
Your society is in flux, cultures are clashing, They deserve to clash, it's their right,
So stop pretending they're arguing over nothing. just because you were born into battles that you didn't start.

>>3405768

>aren't fans

so to you the two groups are inherently at odds with one another.

That is really, really funny to me. I'm gonna go make some coffee and let you think about that for a few minutes.

Twenty-five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
And I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?

>>3405771
Nope. I never have to deal with atheists, feminists, faggots or niggers in real life. Nor do I go out of my way to find them, or spend time arguing with them when I do meet one.

>>3405776
Found myself to be quite relieved that this wasn't a serious poem considering it was atrociously poorly written and femenistic

>>3405773
>being this stupid
you think men's rights is even remotely compatible with feminism? "the patriarchy sucks for men sometimes? DEMON FEMINISTS DID IT, THEY WENT TOO FAR, EVERYTHING'S ALREADY EQUAL, PAY SCALES ARE BULLSHIT ANYWAYS! why don't they wanna have sex with me..."
why don't you learn shit before you act like a smug condescending fuck.

>>3405757
I think the word you are looking for is "pretentious".
The reason feminism is a joke is because young women use their sex to make themselves immune to criticism. This is why people rage when they see "I need feminism because weighing 300 pounds is sexy," or "I need feminism because buying me coffee doesn't mean I'll have sex with you." Contemporary feminism has nothing to do with gender equality and everything to do with young women thinking they are completely infallible by virtue (pun intended) of having a soggy, reproductive crevice in between their legs. It insults everyone and makes true gender equality impossible while everyone is arguing over whether or not being morbidly obese can be construed as "sexy".

>>3405757
>>3405754

No one said /lit/ or its posters are smarter or more elite than anyone else on this website. I already conceded that /sci/ is an intellectual board as well.

You need to go look up the word "intellectual" I think. There's nothing intellectual about /pol/ or /int/. In fact, a strong argument can be made that both boards are anti-intellectual. As for /ic/ rarely do I see intellectual discussion about aesthetics and art. Instead I often just see people posting self-drawn anime pictures and begging for critique. That's perfectly fine, but to call it intellectual is a rather big bit of a stretch, I believe.

After you're done looking up the word intellectual in the dictionary, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of this book and read it. Fervent anti-intellectualism has trained you to believe that intellectualism = elitism.

>>3405789
haahahahahahahah

>>3405789
Stop acting like a child. You make Anon look bad.

>>3405793
holy fuck could you be any more pretentious?

What I don't get is why women writers worry so much about a male audience. Female money is just as good and there are more female readers than male anyway.

>>3405789
>why don't you learn shit before you act like a smug condescending fuck.
Sage advice, friend.

>>3405793
Oh it's you again, that explains things

>>3405789

>learn shit before you act like a smug condescending fuck

whatever you're preaching, I can smell the bullshit from here. No thanks.

>>3405787
>that this wasn't a serious poem
I think it was serious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1UDrB-hM

>>3405711
>Literary criticism
>Deconstructionism
>Postmodernism
>Inherently intellectual
Inherently pretentious and useless, yes.

>>3405806
>>3405797
>>3405795

>all this inability to argue
protip: acting like you're winning the argument is different from actually winning the argument

>>3405811
>saying something is useless as a negative on a literature board

>>3405754
Nothing wrong with the political leanings of intellectual debate, with the proviso that it doesn't stem from "Hurr durr muh anti-Semitism

>>3405768
The numbers say nothing given both are self-selected groups on a website of self-selected members.

In other words: those numbers are literally meaningless.

>>3405813
>arguments are to be won
>>>/pol/

>>3405800
>>3405804

I'm waiting for you to stop acting like intimidated children and refute my original statement: continental philosophy, deconstructionism, postmodernism, critical theory, literary criticism and so on are intellectual spheres.

"Intellectuals include not only philosophers, interested in epistemology, but also others in the arts and sciences, plus the humanities, with no boundaries as to fields of study."

There's literally nothing pretentious about any of my statements or the above definition. You either need to stop projecting or get a better grasp on what "pretentious" and "intellectual" mean. Or perhaps both.

>>3405823
How is "hurr durr muh anti-semitism" any better or worse than "hurr durr muh anti-patriarchy"?

>>3405813
>acting like you're winning the argument is different from actually winning the argument.
More sage advice.

>>3405811
I could see how if one does not understand deconstructionism one could be led to believe it is pretentious, but what exactly is pretentious about literary criticism?

>>3405813

You're responding to like 3 different people, dumbass. Also it's not an argument, as you've made no argument.

I've never even been on reddit's "men's rights" or "feminism" boards. I just think it's hilarious that you feel the two are fundamentally opposed to one another, and that you see no way in bringing movements that should have the same goals into one. Perhaps an r/egalitarianism? perhaps??

>>3405838
>r/egalitarianism
That board exists too.

>>3405821
Not as a negative, but ascribing it positive satus seems a little too far as well, given that literary theory is the biggest load of horse-shit ever

The senseless fury that is being generated in this discussion of feminism, and it seems to be roused every time the subject comes up, in a way demonstrates that feminists in general are just angry women with nothing to say, very stubborn women with nothing to say.

>>3405826
>continental philosophy, deconstructionism, postmodernism, critical theory, literary criticism

Are you implying that non-continental philosophy is not intellectual? If so, why? If not, why specify continental?

Do you know that deconstruction and critical theory are fucking types of literary criticism? If yes, why mention them specifically and the group in general?

>>3405838
I know I am, I was saying the same thing to all of them.

And they're fundamentally opposed because men's rights is more or less anti-feminism, a reactionary movement claiming they've gone too far.

>>3405844
Opinion =! Fact

Stop being anti-intellectual.

>>3405851
>And they're fundamentally opposed because men's rights is more or less anti-feminism

They're anti-2nd/3rd wave feminism. Which has gone too far and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with equality or egalitarianism.

>>3405828
Didn't say it was, I don't like patriarchy either, I just don't think it exists

>>3405846
>implying all feminists are women
>implying there's something wrong with being an angry woman
>implying women should only feel whhat you want them to feel
>implying you haven't just shown your misogyny

>>3405844
>given that literary theory is the biggest load of horse-shit ever
Please continue

>>3405847

thank you. I'm too busy having a discussion with this other person to keep telling that guy why he's dumb. You take it from here.

>>3405826
Why not cite something more interesting and intellectually valuable, such as maths, other types of philosophy, real schools of importance, non-imaginary socio-philosophical perspectives and superimposition of ideas onto a fucking book.

>>3405847
I listed things I see discussed here quite often. I see continental philosophy discussed here more often than any other. In no way am I implying other forms of philosophy are non-intellectual.

Again, stop moving the goalposts and refute my original statement.

MRAs are worse than feminists.

>>3405856
You just lost the argument. Congrats.

>>3405858
Again, opinions =! fact

You're only proving my point about anti-intellectualism. Thank you for that.

>>3405865
>I see continental philosophy discussed here more often than any other.
That'd be because it fits better with literature than the other philosophies

>>3405867
I hate the people involved, but they have a point in terms of the justice system's preferential treatment of women.

>>3405859
>addressing the concerns of women who aren't white and the pervasive unspoken misogynist assumptions of society that harm women has nothing to do with equality
>women make less money, are shamed for expressing themselves sexually, considered less competent
>feminism has gone too far

>>3405854
>Not liking my subject = anti-intellectualism
I support intellectualism, but in more important and actual fields such as maths, science, history, geography, anthropology, etc.It's not my opinion, it is a factual statement that nothing of value has ever come from literary theory. Unless ou have some counter-evidence to consider?

>>3405869

make a post on /pol/ telling them that you won or something.

I really don't give a shit. Arguments are not made to be won. If you don't understand that, as a feminist especially, then god help you and your movement.

>>3405872
You're still not refuting my original statement. You're just speaking in circles now.

>>3405861
>Implying nobody is going to force their misogyny down your throat if you don't shut up

>>3405486
>>3405505
>>3405530
>>3405618
4.5/10 would smirk again

>>3405881
>it is a factual statement that nothing of value has ever come from literary theory

>>3405871
>Supporting other types of intellectualism
>Must be anti-intellectual
Stop giving your literary theory primacy over actual knowledge-gathering subjects. Your terrible ad hominems prove nothing

>>3405885
I'm not fucking arguing with you, I was just explaining why it's frequently found here

>>3405880
I'm actually starting to think that this ISN'T an elaborate trolljob.
This worries me...

>>3405894
>Implying a reaction face is a refutation of an argument
Waiting on that evidence

>>3405777
I'm not requiring you to deal with them, I'm not asking you to take a side or argue with them or engage in any way whatsoever.

I'm just raging at the people who think that other people's struggles are "optional." These people who do go out of their way to argue with people not because they want to espouse one side or another, but because they are offended that other people have strong opinions. y'know?

These "Baby's first dilemma resolution" advocates who think "all I have to do is be equally dismissive of everyone."

When they rage against the political movements of minorities, white supremacists, feminists, misogynists, atheists, believers....etc. They're essentially just whining "Why are people having strong passionate disagreements of which I'm not involved?"

It frustrates me. People who think that somehow they can opt out of huge conflict clashes, not by avoiding taking part, but by telling everyone else not to fight.
People who don't realize that they are going to be surrounded by these issues all of their lives.

We're finally at a point in time where most of this shit is fought out through words. You all realize how lucky you are that the battle over your "privilege" is fought with words. People lament about political correctness V. Offensive language, while forgetting that in other parts of the world, and even some parts of here in the present and very recent past, this shit wasn't about what people from other movements were "lobbying" and writing books, and blogs, and university seminars about. This was fought in blood.

>>3405880
>women make less money

False. You just need to adjust for education, experience, age, hours worked, family status, etc. Women out-earn men by a significant amount. Stop talking about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.

>are shamed for expressing themselves sexually

Mostly by the feminists themselves, the vast majority of whom are the sex-negative variety that froth at the mouth any time a woman's ankle is exposed. Contemporary feminism infantilizes women and tells them they are incapable of making their own choices "because patriarchy". Especially the choices they make in their sexual lives.

>>3405903
i'm starting to think that you're an anti-feminist reactionary. this doesn't really worry me, because i'm used to it

>>3405883
>as a feminist especially,
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Someone stated that this board is the only one with an intellectual focus. I said he's mostly right, but corrected him by saying /sci/ also has an intellectual focus. I haven't discussed feminism once in this thread.

>Arguments are not made to be won
Rofl.

heard a feminist on the radio talking about Andy Gray's recent comments.

She said that, in her opinion, Sky Sports were right to sack him because sexism is completely unacceptable in today's world, but that she was not surprised by his comments because he's a man and men are naturally ignorant.

>>3405905

>This was fought in blood

Hence why the world was male dominated for so long. Reduce things back to their natural element and all talk of "privilege" becomes simply "the way things are."

Not that that's relevant to this discussion, it's just an ever present truth that always stays at the back of my mind when discussing these sorts of things.

>>3405913
if she actually said it like that, then she's bad, and she should feel bad. that doesn't discredit feminist ideas though, just her as an individual.

>>3405913
Sounds like an excellent parody of him

>>3405912

>Rofl.

christ what are you 18? Taking your first "Intro to Lit" class or something?

>>3405896
>Your terrible ad hominems

What ad hominem? You do realize throwing around that phrase, while misspelling it, makes YOU look pretentious, right?

-Why do Japanese Sumo wrestlers shave their legs?
So you can tell them apart from feminists.

-What's the best way to piss off a feminist?
Rape her.

-What is the opposite of feminism?
Realism.

-What's the difference between a feminist and a lesbian?
The spelling

>>3405896
You still haven't explained what's wrong with literary theory

>>3405930
I laughed at the third one

>>3405926
Stop projecting. You've been doing it all thread and it's quite embarrassing.

>>3405927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad Hominem" That's the correct spelling. Your entire argument thus far has been to trivialise the things I say by claiming I'm anti-intellectual. This is clearly not true and I am waiting for you to produce a coherent argument which doesn't rely on name calling and the assumption that you're right. So provide something which will repudiate my claims.

>>3405930
-What's worse than a Feminist?
A Nigger

>>3405932
It's various forms are dense and require effort to understand, so it MUST be wrong

>>3405939
'Radical Feminism for Dummies' - well who else would it be for?

>>3405937
rofl

>>3405938
Your wiki link proves nothing. "Ad hominems" is how you spelled it. The plural of ad hominem would be "argumentums ad hominem." An intellectual would know this.

>>3405932
- Provides no further knowledge of the world around us
- Provides no further knowledge of concepts (as discussed in, for example, most other humanities)
- Systematises art
- Imposes individual interpretation onto things which don't require it (E.g- Marxist readings, feminist readings etc)
There are plenty of others

>>3405954

- How so?
- Not true. An application of theory to a text can glean major insights.
- That'd be capitalism.
- All things, by necessity, require individual interpretation
- Which?

>>3405953
>Knowing latin makes you an intellectual
Brilliant.
>Not understanding that common usage determines the meaning of language
>Attempting to support your earlier argument with facetious latin grammar
I'm still waiting for your argument, faggot

>>3405955
>- That'd be capitalism.
I would love to hear your explanation on this one.

>>3405954
>using the words "imposes" and "systematizes" to describe literary theory

In other words, you have no idea what literary theory is. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you once heard Marxism attributed to literary theory and that was the end of it for you.

>>3405959
>implying I'm going to engage in a debate with someone that just called me a faggot after calling me out on my non-existent argumentums ad hominem

Nope.png

>>3405963

>how does a system geared toward profit-making enable a systematization of production

Seriously?

>>3405963
How capitalism has systematized art is more than self-evident. Are you dense?

>>3405971
>>3405975
Yes, seriously.

We have greater artistic diversity at this point than any other previous time in history. Not just in writing, but across every artistic medium. And capitalism is the cause behind it.

What the hell does profit have to do with systematization? In what way is capitalism a "system" at all?

>>3405981
There would be greater artistic output if art was restricted to government bureaucracy.

>>3405955
> How so?
Science is valuable because it gives us knowledge of the things around us and how they work. Literary theory does not do this, therefore it has no value as a descriptive empirical study.

>Not true, an application of theory to a text can glean major insights
I'm going to need an example of this, then. All that can be produced is a hypothetical line of reasoning about theoretical, non-existent things.

>That'd be capitalism
No, capitalism doesn't necessitate the imposition of rigid study onto something which, by its very nature, cannot be accurately systematised.

>All things...require individual interpretation
The meaning is known by the author, so you needn't analyse a hidden meaning where there isn't one. That is obviously ridiculous

>>3405984
That sounds like a reasonable position to hold, anon.

>>3405981
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU FILTHY REPUBLICAN!

SOCIAL REALISM WAS THE APOGEE OF ART, YOUR FILTHY CAPITALIST PIG ART JUST SERVES THE SYSTEM

>>3405981
>We have greater artistic diversity at this point than any other previous time in history.

You can't actually believe this. The music industry, the film industry, the book industry and so on have become self-recursive nightmares of infinite regress and THAT is because of capitalism, or more specifically, cultural capitalism.

>>3405992
*socialist

>>3405994
OK now you're just le trolling, we'll leave it at that.

>>3405965
Then you would be wrong

>>3405968
>Implying you've provided a single valid argument thus far

>>3405971
By systematisation of art I don't mean the production of a commodity in the form of art. What I mean is that art isn't there to be analysed and categorised, but appreciated.

>>3405578
Do you have a mental disorder?

>>3405753
It is woefully incomplete.

>>3405992
I know you were attempting to be facetious, but it mostly failed. There's a great deal of truth in that statement, particularly the latter portion about serving the system.

>>3405997
That isn't how to engage in a debate. Prove me wrong, or don't say anything at all.

>>3405955
>Which?
- Failure to produce material innovation
- Failure to produce any consistent truth
- Failure to provide a valid economic asset
- Failure to produce social utility (may run contrary to social utility given that people doing literary theory would be better off studying medicine or economics etc.)

>>3405183
>Why are women so marginalized and underrepresented in the literary arena?

They don't have the drive to be "geniuses" like men do. I think it's probably genetic.

Men are more disposed to extremes of intelligence, so we have more dumbasses but also way more geniuses as well.

Some studies have shown men are greater risk takers than women. In elementary classes boys are more likely to blurt out answers than girls, they aren't afraid of being wrong. Girls are much more reserved.

It's all genetic actually. Even when men are homeless or in jail they still can create extraordinary things; diogenes was homeless, cervantes was in jail.. NO EXCUSES.

Women are great at making excuses, plus they have no evolutionary need to create or take risks, since they are usually housewives taken care of by men.

>>3405998
>>Implying you've provided a single valid argument thus far

And you have? Where's the validity in calling me a faggot immediately after saying I was committing "ad hominems"? As far as I'm concerned it only further invalidates everything you've said thus far. There is no intellectual debate or conversation to be had.

>>3405994
>The music industry, the film industry, the book industry and so on have become self-recursive nightmares

You couldn't be more wrong there, cupcake. Music now has the widest range of genres and new content than it ever has at any period in history. There is a pyramid structure that you can apply. At the very top we have what the mass market wants, the Justin Beibers and Will. I. Ams, because people have the freedom to decide what products they want. Below the very tip we have a wider base than has ever existed before. I can easy find musicians making post-jazz funk electro to ones making new-folk. We have thousands of genres and sub genres. Music is thriving because of capitalism. I hope your not one of the 'If you're one of the real music fans who likes Zeppelin'?

If you took away the capitalist freedom, and said the government is in complete financial control over what music gets created, what do you think would happen?

>>3406008
>Some studies have shown men are greater risk takers than women.

Its due to testosterone. When men have low testosterone they experience symptoms similar to being a woman. More complacent, less aggressive, less creative, less competitive, can't think deeply or concentrate for too long, etc.

Low testosterone is terrible, I can't imagine what it's like to be a woman.

>>3406009
I'm still waiting, you've provided nothing of merit yet

>>3406014
>Low testosterone is terrible, I can't imagine what it's like to be a woman.

If I remember correctly, men produce about 8-10mg of testosterone and women produce 0-3mg.

>>3406015
>If you took away the capitalist freedom, and said the government is in complete financial control over what music gets created, what do you think would happen?

And just like that, you've shown your true ignorant colors. You believe that taking away capitalism MUST imply Marxism and total government control. This is a shitty dichotomy that the cultural capitalists want you to be stuck in, "cupcake."

Capitalists know the price of art, but not the value. This is more than self-evident.

>>3406021
You may as well have just typed "NO U!"

Like I said, stop projecting. It's embarrassing.

Men commit actions; women commit gestures.

Women are adorable and men are admirable.
Some men are different. All women are alike.

The greatest problem with women is how to contrive that they should seem our equals.

Woman submits to her fate; man makes his.

Beauty is the wisdom of women; wisdom is the beauty of men.

To find fault with a woman's intellect you must first find her intellect.

This is the worst thread I've seen on /lit/ in ages. OP should be banned.

>>3406030
>Capitalists know the price of art, but not the value. This is more than self-evident.

The capitalist doesn't decide the price or value, society and the consumer does.

>>3406030
give me a system of economics that doesn't require governmental control, other than capitalism. oh wait, you can't.

Women can write more interestingly than men on the really important topics of civilization: dress, food and furniture.

>>3406040
>oh wait, you can't.

>>3406044
ok, im about to go read the wikipedia article on this gimmick. brb.

>>3406047
There's that violent anti-intellectualism again.

>>3406044
parecon is dumb as hell though, doesn't it require every member of a society to sit down and decide on all their needs for an entire year? and then iterate that process several times?

that's dumb as fuck, and not really a serious response to the problems of human society

>>3406044
>Workplace decisions might be through majority vote, requiring 50% majority. Sometimes a higher percentage, such as a 2/3 majority, or 80%, or even consensus might be needed. For instance, upgrades to a plant that would require a great deal of time and effort for all workers might need greater than 50% vote, as workers would be affected adversely by the decision
>So, to achieve an equitable division of labour, it is proposed that each individual do different tasks, which, taken together, bring an average desirability and an average level of empowerment.
>The proposed participatory planning procedure would be a periodic (probably either annual, bi-annual or quarterly) event where citizens participate to determine which and how many goods to produce.

lmfao. sounds a lot like central planning to me. Free market is way more efficient than this bullshit. get out of here with this bullshit.

>>3406063
>>3406060
>Dumb as fuck
>Bullshit

Behold, desperate 21st century forms of pro-capitalist argumentation.

Read the book, not a shitty Wiki article about it, then we can talk like adults.

>>3405986
>The meaning is known by the author, so you needn't analyse a hidden meaning where there isn't one.
this guy. there is no correct meaning, because meaning is not what books are about. even authors don't completely know the meaning of their books, they just have a rough idea of what went into it.

>>3405986
>The meaning is known by the author, so you needn't analyse a hidden meaning where there isn't one. That is obviously ridiculous

holy cow

>>3406116
Stop right there.
The author is the final arbiter as to what he's trying to say with his work.

>>3406140
it's not about what they're trying to say. if the main point is to send a message, write a fucking letter. the point is to engage the reader, let them connect with it on a personal level. it's not about finding a different objective meaning, it's about finding out what it means to you.

>>3406151
I don't follow.
So if I see a sophisticated political commentary in the song "Crawling" by Linkin Park, then that's a valid interpretation of their work?
Could I surmise that Quentin Tarantino is actually a fascist, because that's how I interpret his films?

>>3406140
>The author is the final arbiter as to what he's trying to say with his work.

True.

Now try to understand the difference between trying to say and actually saying.

Hamburgers. I'm trying to explain physics to you. Is that clear?

>>3406167
no, it's what you got out of it. it doesn't mean that's what they said, it's what you heard.

>>3406167
>So if I see a sophisticated political commentary in the song "Crawling" by Linkin Park, then that's a valid interpretation of their work?

As long as you're able to justify it on reference to the text.

>Could I surmise that Quentin Tarantino is actually a fascist, because that's how I interpret his films?

No, that would be making the same mistake as before - assuming that the interpretation you get out of the thing is the same as the one the author put in. Remember that the whole point we're making is that one's interpretation of a film is not necessarily the same thing as what the author thought about it. But it could be a valid reading of Tarantino's films to say that they're fascist - it means you look at them as being fascist and find a fascist meaning in them.

>>3406167
>So if I see a sophisticated political commentary in the song "Crawling" by Linkin Park, then that's a valid interpretation of their work?

Yes.

>Could I surmise that Quentin Tarantino is actually a fascist, because that's how I interpret his films?

No. You can't make claims about the filmmaker.

In all actuality, a good writer will get noticed regardless of gender. Female writer submissions aren't being tossed in the trashcan. The NYT Best Sellers List often has many female writers, so people are buying the books.

>>3406179
But how could Crawling possibly be a political commentary? That's not what they're expressing in the song.
Surely the fact that we can't agree on the correct interpretation of something doesn't mean that there isn't one?

>>3406206
No such thing as a correct interpretation of art

>>3406206
There are bad interpretations, sure, but that doesn't imply that there is only one good one

>>3406212
But that's I'm suggesting - why can't there be? Why can't the author know what his piece means, since he created it single-handedly? Was there some other force that acted upon it? His subconscious or something?

>>3406206
>Surely the fact that we can't agree on the correct interpretation of something doesn't mean that there isn't one?

Actually, yeah it does.

>>3406224
But if there are bad, there must also be good ones, yes? But what makes one better than another? It must be that the good one is closer to the ideal, to the perfect, than the bad one is?
Which of course would mean that there is a perfect, ideal, objectively correct interpretation, i.e. the author's one.

>>3406225

>Why can't the author know what his piece means, since he created it single-handedly?

You mean he invented the language in which he wrote, and is the only person to speak it? Then yes, he is the only way we can know what it means.

But for people writing in languages that they DIDN'T invent, they didn't do anything 'single-handedly'.

>>3406227
How so? Why isn't the author's the correct one? Why isn't his "interpretation" authoritative?
And how can Crawling be a commentary?

>>3406231
Bad ones, in my opinion, are those that stem from those trying to read depth into a work, and looking at overly obvious signifiers and plumbing them for base associations, whereas good interpretations come from a reader's personal engagement with the work, and an understanding of more subtle dynamics.

It is methodology that validates results.

>>3406225
Well, first of all, because looking at the great works of literature, we see that the things created are greater than the author's knowledge or intent could have made them.

>>3406231
Fidelity to the text makes an interpretation better or worse, but there can be several different interpretations or readings or arrangements of the facts (that is, the elements of the text) which are equally valid in respect to fidelity.

>Which of course would mean that there is a perfect, ideal, objectively correct interpretation, i.e. the author's one.

Even if I agreed that there was a Platonic reading of a given text, there's no warrant for that reading being the author's.

>>3406239
>overly obvious signifiers

A subjective term. What's obvious to one is not obvious to another. You're going to lose to this authorial intent moron.

>>3406234
So it's to do with the vagaries of language? So the author really does know what he's expressing, but it somehow gets confused in the process of him writing/sculpting/composing it? And so his opinion is no more valid than anyone else's? Is that what you're saying?

>>3406244
>So the author really does know what he's expressing

No. He knows what he's trying to express. Please try to keep up.

>>3406243
All right, valid. I don't know how to get it across, but basically, I understand people's frustrations with the idea of the death of the author, because it means dumbass pretentious high schoolers are technically just as right about what the book means. I'm trying to express what separates their awful, ridiculous interpretations from more valid, nuanced ones.

>>3406252
before people jump on me, take out valid, it's a silly word to have where it is

>>3406252

But there isn't any essential difference. It's just a difference of opinion. Convention dictates what is a good interpretation and what isn't. That's it. There's no actual hierarchy, because if you claim there is, it's going to end at the "Most Correct" interpretation, which is an idea some people still subscribe to, but it's going away.

>>3406240
> the things created are greater than the author's knowledge or intent could have made them
That sounds reasonable enough, I suppose. But I don't see why you couldn't ascribe the greatness to the author's own genius. I mean, the intricate weaving of plot lines was his own conscious doing.

>Fidelity to the text makes an interpretation better or worse
Well if it wasn't true to the actual text then it couldn't claim to be a legitimate interpretation of it, now could it? If I interpret Crawling with the wrong lyrics then I haven't really interpreted Crawling at all.
There must be some other criteria which make an interpretation better or worse. And there must be some extra agent acting upon the author, if he's not the final arbiter.

>>3406251
Calm down. That's semantics. The point is that the author knows what he's "trying" to express, but as he's writing it it gets subverted in some way and expressed differently? Is that it?

>>3406268

You're going in circles now. Stop being obnoxious.

>>3406268
>But I don't see why you couldn't ascribe the greatness to the author's own genius. I

I would ascribe it to his genius, but that doesn't mean that it was all part of his conscious and explicit intent, or that everything in it was part of his plan.

>Well if it wasn't true to the actual text then it couldn't claim to be a legitimate interpretation of it, now could it? If I interpret Crawling with the wrong lyrics then I haven't really interpreted Crawling at all

Right, as I said above, any interpretation has to be justified by reference to the text.

>And there must be some extra agent acting upon the author, if he's not the final arbiter.

The complexity of the process of making art.

>>3406276

Big Booty Butt Cheeks. I'm trying to express how sad I was on my fifth birthday.

>>3406278
But my initial query hasn't really been answered :/
I still see no reason why an author's interpretation is less than correct, or how Crawling could be a political commentary if it wasn't intended to be, or how an interpretation can be better or worse without specific criteria.

I think you're getting too emotionally involved. Go have a fag.

>>3406279
Ok, that actually makes sense. I still don't necessarily agree but I can at least see what you mean.

>mfw this thread

>>3405953
actually it would probably be argumenta ad hominem or even argumenta ad hominibus.
do you even latin,intellectual?

>>3405199
Why would they want to?

>>3405834
"Pay no attention to Wimp Lo, we purposely trained him wrong... as a joke. "