/lit/ - Literature

>>3888510
What a way to open yourself for judgement.

#stopshamershaming

>>3888510
Jesus. I mean, I'm the type of super librul who asks for people's pronouns and shit, but this really strikes me as a case of "political correctness gone mad"

>>3888563
I asked for you in that other thread you penis
>>3888493
#penisshaming

I think that every person has a right to enjoy whatever books they prefer without people harassing them for taste.

I also think it is good to debate the quality of books and what ones are better than others.

>>3888510

Not sure where you saw this OP, but please post this picture in reply.

>>3888609
I second this motion

That poster, who should be glad their name is blacked-out, should be ashamed of their shameful shame shaming. Should we throw out all literary criticism, now? How about a 4 year old writing about his piss-ruined bed, is that on par with Gravity's Rainbow, Shakespeare, Ulysses, &c, as long as you like it just as much? I think not. Being stupid does not mean everyone has to be as stupid as you; surely it is on you to stop being so stupid and start enjoying actually good shit. There are plenty of arguments to be made over what books are quality and which are shit (and some are clear shit), so can we not get bogged down in the down-syndrome notion that all books, all art, all thought is equally worthy of our time? Rant complete!
Sidenote:
>>3888589
you sound edgy as shit.

>>3888510
No, it's how much a book makes you think. But that's subjective until your read it.

>>3888634
I don't think you know what literary criticism is kiddo

>>3888556
same

I have no patience for people like this. It trivializes legitimate instances of judgmental oppression

I wonder what books this person reads?

>>3888510
It isn't worth discussing, the image in OP cites no antecedent works. I don't discuss tinfoil ranting.

Much like the reading of books, some opinions and ways of supporting opinions are too shameful to possess or utter.

>>3888510
I wonder why I don't feel shamed by anything. Oh, that's right: because I'm not 15 and I don't live for other people's acceptance.

Book shaming will be the new fat shaming. People need to make heart felt, piano piped youtube videos about the dangers of book shaming.

>>3888666
Literary criticism is evaluative

>Stopshamingingeneral

But the thing is, people need to be shamed. I think society could benefit from trying to repress certain decisions. Plus, that way we can get even more delight out of the decadent sins we commit in foggy rooms covered in velvet.

op here. here's an update.

>>3888798
>if I want to read a romance story I will go to a musical
>reading a performance of musical theatre
Hmmm...

>>3888798
You're the guy ranting about fifty shades of grey, right?
Come on, don't be mean, it's a good thing they read books at all and this is definitely the wrong way if you want to convince them to read better books.

>>3888798
shoulda posted mein kampf bro

>>3888813
no, it's a mutual friend. I don't really care enough about what the fuck these people are reading and I lack the will or energy to involve myself in such a stupid debate

>>3888798
I like it when people get shit-talkie on facebook

delicious

>>3888798
>especially degenerate

The degenerate card is the best one to play in Internet debates if you want maximum leftist-relativist butt-pain. They can't stand the mirror being held up to their ugly souls.

>>3888824
Calm down Schopenhauer.

>>3888634
You sound like that guy who posted the pic of himself with the stack of Lit 101 books who claimed that he was, "above all, humble."

>>3888798
>39 people like this.
I'm vomiting

>>3888845
Plenty of dumb shit gets retarded amounts of likes.
I present to you the effects of being a big-titted teenage girl with an online persona. This got 3x the amount of likes than my friend's status about earning a Rhodes Scholarship.

>>3888510
some books are just poorly written. end of story.

>>3888666
Perhaps you have 1 too many chromosomes, because I am not sure why you would defend literary relativism, on a board devoted to (although a parody of) comparing literature. But please, by all means, I am willing to defend myself against an illiterate with a pedantic streak, lets debate this:

Let me provide you some definitions pulled from a quick google search...
1)literary criticism, the reasoned consideration of literary works and issues
2)Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. (not necessarily through theory)
3) Understanding the techniques
that make a literary work effective, identifying them in the books you read
and writing a brief essay explaining what you’ve identified.

All of which are predicated on the assumption that Literature has something worth critiquing, which, for example, in an Eragon novel, there would be nothing worth discussing. If we are to assume all literature is only as good as the reader, no matter their education or reading comprehension, imagines it to be, then literary criticism will become a defunct idea. When I, and hopefully you, assess a book, I do not ask myself, "How did I like Potter's use of that robe? Was it entertaining?" I try to identify with the author to see the underline texture of the book, which means that when I judge a book such as Harry Potter, Eragon, etc, using the lense of literary criticism to judge the authors merits, I am applying capital C Criticism to make a lowercase criticism of the book.

I await your accusations of autism, and rage: How dare I discuss my thoughts on literature in a literature board!

>>3888881
underlying*

>>3888881
>Let me provide you some definitions pulled from a quick google search...

Tells us all we need to know, really.

>>3888842
I don't claim to be humble, or post pictures, and I din't do the /lit/ equivalent of posting my penis next to a ruler, so please, tell me, how am I like that guy?

>>3888888
nice get

>>3888889
Hey, you are doing a good job debating this! Are you on a debate team or something? I ask because you seem like a masturDEbater.

>>3888888
>guys too lazy to delete & revise their posts get all the sexes
such injustice

>>3888881
Yea, opening with a dictionary attack is a bit of a summer giveaway

Perhaps you have 1 too many chromosomes, because I am not sure why you would defend literary relativism, on a board devoted to (although a parody of) comparing literature. But please, by all means, I am willing to defend myself against an illiterate with a pedantic streak, lets debate this:

Let me provide you some definitions pulled from a quick google search...
1)literary criticism, the reasoned consideration of literary works and issues
2)Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. (not necessarily through theory)
3) Understanding the techniques
that make a literary work effective, identifying them in the books you read
and writing a brief essay explaining what you’ve identified.

All of which are predicated on the assumption that Literature has something worth critiquing, which, for example, in an Eragon novel, there would be nothing worth discussing. If we are to assume all literature is only as good as the reader, no matter their education or reading comprehension, imagines it to be, then literary criticism will become a defunct idea. When I, and hopefully you, assess a book, I do not ask myself, "How did I like Potter's use of that robe? Was it entertaining?" I try to identify with the author to see the underlying texture of the book, which means that when I judge a book such as Harry Potter, Eragon, etc, using the lense of literary criticism to judge the authors merits, I am applying capital C Criticism to make a lowercase criticism of the book.

I await your accusations of autism, and rage: How dare I discuss my thoughts on literature in a literature board!

>>3888906
Hey folks, I just edited it for you. So sorry...

>>3888908
Allow me to help redirect your post here, so you know I am not trying to hide from you idiots.
>>3888909

>>3888510
spoken like someone who exclusively reads trash/young adult literature

>>3888767

At least one approach to it is.

>>3888909
mkay from Eragon v Harry Potter now try a comparative analysis of Eragon and the Dao De Jing.

>>3888909
You're dumb

>>3888899
You're just embarrassing yourself.

>>3888934
I didn't do Eragon v. Harry Potter, though...

>>3888947
>>3888908
>>3888895
>>3888889
>>3888842
>>3888666
Can one of you (if you're not the same person) please tell me, in what way, literary criticism is not antithetical to the literary relativism, in OP's picture? Also, can you please demonstrate how it is that the opinion "Literary Criticism is built upon the presupposition of literature doing things well or not..." is not only wrong, but an opinion worthy of such hate, that >>3888556,
>>3888563, >>3888589, >>3888609, >>3888676 and others did not get directed at them, but I deserved to get directed at me.
Please consider:
>>3888666 claimed I do not know what Literary Criticism is and that my not-stated definition was so wrong it invalidated my argument. So what way, beside acquiring other people definitions, could I defend my argument.
Perhaps you don't like that I got my argument from the internet? Let's say those definitions are wrong, if so, how? In what way, and how does that make Literary relativism a good thing? Or, in what way are the question I am asking wrong? Feel free to respond with, "You're stupid" or "You're embarrassing yourself..." but perhaps I just want to know what is wrong with the way I am approaching literary criticism and evaluation and I want a community of literati to correct my thinking....

>>3888985
I posted nice get because you actually had a nice get

I agree with what you're saying

>>3888995
Okay, I am glad I am not a lone, raving madman... Thanks, then!

>>3888985
Man, can you condense what you're trying to say into a single paragraph, without all the patronizing presumptions and messy indulgent frills? Just state your argument clearly. Is that what you're doing? Making an argument? Sorry, I must be autistic or really mad, but I can't even bother reading your posts and I can see why no one else has.

>The best in this kind are but shadows, and the worst are no worse if imagination amend them.

>>3889022
Or is this your post?
>>3888634
And you're asking why it was attacked? compared to other posts supposedly revealing the same thoughts, that were instead ignored ie >>3888589, >>3888563

Well, one difference I noticed is that you antagonized another poster, calling him "edgy as shit". There are a lot of other differences, but really, that should be enough.
Why are you referring to your stance as an opinion? You wouldn't be trying to hide behind relative subjectivity would you? Anyway, there are numerous flaws with your post, at least, in what I think that's your post; the 6 posts you quoted are replying to like 4 different posts, half of them deleted. By the way, why are you so edgy?

>>3888985
>antithetical
>wrong
>invalidated
>good
>correct

youre looking for value judgements made for you

>>3889022
Condensed: Literary merit, while subjective, is not entirely relative, and to say so is to undermine Literary criticism, and taste. Literary criticism is not a thumbs up or down, but it presupposes that literature will have merits worth looking at, and any literary critic will tell you George RR martin is diarrhea... I believe I understand WHAT literary criticism is, AND i hold that it is still presupposing that value judgments are possible. Thus, the OP pic is claiming a 4 years old's poem is on par with Dostoevsky, and I think that is shit. Look how edgy I am!

There, one paragraph.

>>3889043
Did you know that wrong, antithetical, correct, and invalid are not (necessarily) subjective? Only good holds up here and I used it to describe what I thought others were saying.... I am not looking for any value judgments, but that is all I have gotten...

>>3889178
But why do you assume literary criticism and "taste" is something necessary to uphold? Why not undermine it? What's the point of holding onto baseless qualitative measurements? GRRM could be evaluated as a masterpiece just as easily as not, the only question is if you subscribe to the voice saying so, and the only reason you might is depending on what ideology, culture, institution you've been brought up on, naively believed without justifiable reasons. Fucking fascist pig.

>>3889190
whoa, your post was the first real response right to the end, ungulate shit. I don't think what you are saying is at all true though. GRRM could be evaluated as a masterpiece (or rather the author of one) but that shouldn't make it so. It is true that art is relative to other art, though. As long as real literature--complex, tantalizing, layered, playful, beautiful--exist GRRM is shit. His writing is shit, and his shit is just shit squared. Artistic merit is a hugely abstract thing that Literary criticism, and art criticism for that matter, is one way of interpreting, but among the people who read, or paint or draw or compose or write, art, and attempt to compare it with other art, it seems we can reach a bit of a consensus on, if not the gray areas, the clear shit and the clear diamonds.

Very applicable.

>>3889216
The point is that the consensus is relative to whatever institution decides it is. There is no higher power that decides what should be called shit, groups of people take the initiative to decide what's good and what's shit, and there is nothing to point to which set of opinions and taste is right. You're saying it's shit because it's shit, because literary criticism says so, but you really mean only the literary criticism, the culture you choose to participate in, the thoughts and opinions of New York and Paris's literary world are distinct, they're distinct between the New Yorker and the Paris Review (which is based in NYC). They're distinct between individual critics for each, and none of them have any reason to be listened to, there's no reason for their authority besides them having authority. Whatever western theory of criticism they might carry is easily ignored in Japan, in Nigeria. They've no reason to care what you say, there's nothing backing any of it. You've no reason to say it, either. And our innocent girl on facebook has no duty to uphold it.

>>3889258
Also I called you fascist because I'm alluding to marxist liberals. This idea might be best exemplified in 70s gender theory.

>>3889258
You are changing the terms of the discussion.
I've been pretty careful to say that literary criticism is just one way of sorting the wheat from the chaff, and NOT an objective yeah or nay on books, so I am not sure why you are acting like I am. However, I will agree, and have already agreed, that art is subjectively experienced, and thus cultures may settle for different levels/types/flavors/etc of art, and hold it as its highest form, but, and this is a big ol' but, some art is better done than others. We can objectively say, at the very least you must concede this, that Ulysses, GR, Nabokov, [insert other lit fav here] are all more complex and textured. Now, the question becomes, are insightful, complex, and rich novels BETTER than a 4 year old's poem written in feces? (And I am getting to the crux of the argument here) Well to this I ask, "Better for what?" reading? certainly. If it is more intellectual rewarding, and it advances the very idea of what you thought possible in art, life, love, &c, then how can you not say that is better? It is better because of the very fact that it expands your mind, opens you to new ideas, and alters the very process in which you interpret the world! If that is not why you read, then that is just because you haven't been exposed to the literature which has made you open to these new ideas, and you aren't getting joy from individual growth, but rather from dragons shitting out flaming icebergs, or whatever...
Again, no book can fit firmly into the yeah or nay category, and lit crits certainly don't even try to do that (else they're shit - shall we argue this too?) (really? I don't know what lit crit is?) (really 2 parenthesis in a row?)!

>>3888510
Here’s how I see it: the division between pleb literature and great works is merely a factor of time. That is, let us start with something like a non-debatable fact—that we all, as creatures that decay, will one day die. We have a finite, limited time; my criterion for populating my “great works” category is that, with this fact in mind, these books save me a great deal of time in the world. In a sense borrowed from James’ notion of homeness, and Connolly’s idea of a “resonance machine,” we come to exist more fully in the world—we participate better in the economy of things—the more we devote ourselves to understanding it’s infinite intracacies. Our knowledge, matched by the extent that we articulate and test it through experience, increases our sense of “being at home” in the world. It is a deepening and thickening of our ability to get along in life—and I truly feel like that has been the accomplishment of great books for me. They have extended my knowledge over domains that I otherwise would have spent exhaustive energies seeking to understand or comprehend. Behind this stands the entire practice of human history. Listen to this shit:

“Herodotus of Halicarnassus here presents his research so that human events do not fade with time. may the great and wonderful deeds—some brought forth by the Hellenes, others by the barbarians—not go unsung; as well as the causes that led them to make war on each other.”

“The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not refelect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.”

>>3889316
The first is drawn from Herodotus, the second from Thucydides. I’ve said it numerous times before, but it is worth repeating: the first histories ever written were attempts to educate man such that he may avoid, in generations to come, the devastation of war—in a word, to save posterity the time of learning its causes for themselves. To somehow claim that the likes of E L James or the hunger games could ever legitimately compare as an instrumental tool for deepening one’s sense of homeness more rapidly (and here I truly believe that, in an Aristotelian fashion, the continuing quest for knowledge opens oneself infinitely more to the world and its exceptional treasures—and hence a moral issue for the individual subject, much like the “unexamined life is not worth living” kind-of cliché), for saving one the time by learning from other men who have lived and died before them, and for thus acknowledging the central fact of man’s pitiful existence: it will inevitably end, so you ought to make the best of what is available.

>>3889320
In my view, those who read pleb lit therefore act not only nonsensically, but immorally. They reject reality on a fundamental level, reaching more toward Whorf’s great quote that “the mind is the great slayer of the real.” They waste time, and reject the somber legacy of those such as Herodotus et al. One might compare it, as I saw someone do yesterday, to eating popcorn: they said something to the effect that occasionally eating popcorn does one no harm. That strikes me as a weird way to look at it. I want to say: “fine, I’ll even grant you that if you want; but then let’s look at it like this: there will always be those who indulge their sweetooth, who eat their popcorn and enjoy it. But there are others who spend their available resources attempting not to indulge, but to improve. The one sitting there eating sweets all day can have their cake—but they cannot expect to then sit at the same table as those who digest more difficult things. It’s like what Berlin said of Machiavelli: that his great contribution was to show the pluralism at the heart of political existence, e.g. that one could either practice Christian virtues or ascend to greatness viz. the Romans. The two systems of belief/practice, though perhaps mutually valid, were incompatible. So it’s the same for pleb vs. legitimate lit: read whatever it is you want, but if it’s shit literature, you cannot get mad when others who have used their time to learn new ideas applicable to this reality then ignore you, so when you are sitting there posting another beta thread on /b, that dude who has disciplined himself is out there leading a concretely more grounded life, getting more from and contributing more to this world, and fucking the chick you wish you had.” I know, without doubt, that I will die before I have read every book in my library. In this light, I cannot imagine ever reaching for Susan Collin’s above Cicero, GRRM above Homer, EL James above Goethe, etc.

>>3889316
>>3889320
>>3889323

TL;DR

>>3889316
>>3889320
>>3889323

>>3889323
ah nigger, everyone's got to relax and take in some entertainment. whether it's a day spent at the beach or a night at the theater or some pulp indulgence before you get to sleep, what difference does it make? You can't be working to your greater ends every waking minute of your life, maybe you've refined your entertainment to a higher, perhaps more complex, degree, you know, like caviar over popcorn. I can dig it, I'm sure it genuinely is a higher level of enjoyment for you, but then, why can't you dive in the other pool, and see what there is to learn in the so-called low? The pulp, indulgent, libidinal side of expression really is not as shallow as you think. Just ask Caravaggio.

>>3889323
I have a feeling that may be a quote, but nonetheless it is exactly correct. I would go even further, though.
>In my view, those who read pleb lit therefore act not only nonsensically, but immorally.

I would say that this is not immoral JUST because they reject reality, but also, if we are to function in a democratic country, a democratic world, where ideas have power and are important beyond belief, then the citizens, the voters, the rebels, the nay and yeah-sayers, the contrarian, the prole has a duty to elevate the discussion, and to enter into unfertilized ground, plant the seedlings of ideas, and watch them nurture or die. What is not needed are facebookers high-fiving one another for reading the latest Langdon novel!
.

>>3889377
Nope. This is not the difference between caviar and popcorn, it is the difference between advancement of a culture to a higher ideal and drooling lifelessly in streets running with shit.

>>3889386
Oh come off it, you advocate advancement while wholly disregarding the last century of art and philosophy? What I mean is, you advocating a higher ideal is regressive, it's totally ignorant of postmodern thought, it's adhering to a silly narrative and trenched in ancient ideas. You're making a terrible example.

>>3889386
>drooling lifelessly in streets running with shit

aren't those the people who make your life and library the cornucopia that it is? or are you maintaining we can elevate everyone to the same standard in anything by removing anything other than the nitrogen oxygen mix or maybe gravity?

Herodotus is less of a real world reflection than "This one time in band camp..."

>>3889400
Wrong again. The dialectic in itself is valuable. Post-modernism is impossible without its precursor, and its very existence poses an argument to the presupposed fundamentals of 'ancient ideas,' and only through that dialectic do I find meaning.

but you aren't a timeless observer, anon, though if the paper gets you the grade you aim for, then your timeless critic who sees culture as a linear progression from one historical society to another, works for you in that context

>>3889412
Elaborate.

>>3889429
who you talkin' to?

>>3889433
On which or all?

>>3889452
>aren't those the people who make your life and library the cornucopia that it is?
I want to be clear what you are claiming here before I respond to it...

i appreciate your attempt at flowing between the periods of philosophy that you are aware of, and trying to make a coherent point out of it, but it is still not sexy enough to spice up the whole point of your approach which is

>stop liking what i don't like

so 4/10

>formalism

>>3889436
debateclub anon who sees it the duty of the contemporary literary critic to advance a notion of culture stolen from Zeus himself and handed down to us mortals

>>3889467
I don't appreciate you adding nothing to this discussion and just thinking anti-relativism is

>stop liking what I don't like

so 0/10.

>>3889459
the cup can't overflow if there's no point at which to overflow. higher culture exists because there is lower culture, higher intelligence because lower and so forth. since you're making a claim to a higher order it ought to be clarified how it is higher and who set that scale? if not by comparison, how would it retain its higher status. if it is without exception- by whatever unillustrated means of implementation- this utopian vision can't be moral as it is an externally imposed requisite, and cannot be distinguished from mediocrity in quality across the scale.

>>3889473
no really im not trying to be condescending in that post. but that you cannot see yourself outside of the cultural project you outlined when it is transparent that what you wish is for us in this thread, right now, arrive at a neutral framework in which to say this work has more merit than that one, and then go on to say afterward, well, that was a nice, deep discussion, time well spent, good job /lit/, so glad i come here.

That is all what an ahistorical basis for criticism can hope to achieve and why your initial post was not very palatable. Choose as you will to fill the barrenness of your existence.

>>3889386
Caviar smells like the inside of a garbage can, and tastes horrible.

>>3889501
um, no? The elevation of a cultural (and by elevation I mean morally, btw, but let us not, now, debate normative ethics, please) does not mean the flattening of culture. At least it doesn't necessarily mean that, although it is possible. There can still be the stooopeds and the brights, the prole and the rich, the low-brow and the high-brow in a culture/world/nation where the higher class of today isn't equal to the higher class of yesteryear... This seems obvious... to take a dubious example: IQ test have to be readjusted once and a while to accommodate the new average intelligence. Today's 100 was, perhaps, the 1940's 137 (and yes this means your grandfather is probably, legally, retarded). A less dubious example would be health care, infant mortality, etc. I do not need infants to die for mine to live (disregarding possible population caps, because we aren't necessarily at max capacity, yet), I do not need some to starve for me to eat, and I do not need down syndrome to exist for Oppenheimer to be smart enough to split an atom. Clearly for there to be a smart, there must be a dumb, but if all are elevated, then the brights and the stooopeds get to be smarter, healthier, whatever...

>>3889515
Isn't it amazing that I agree?

>>3889515
>>3889539
unexamined food is not worth eating. stay pleb motherfuckers!!

>>3889537
>in a culture/world/nation where the higher class of today isn't equal to the higher class of yesteryear...
>yes this means your grandfather is probably, legally, retarded

dun goofed there

>>3889545
i examine it like salty mouth bubblewrap on crackers

>>3889503
Do you wear a diaper or do you just shit right into your overalls? There is so much garbage in your post that I don't know where to begin! The biggest problem is here:
> that you cannot see yourself outside of the cultural project you outlined
"Whoa ther', Billy, but ain't nothin' wrong with dat! One mus' queschion deir presupposichions"
Ick, you fucking hillbilly, don't talk like that. What you seem to fail to understand is that literature is an art that takes the viewer, the reader, into the mind of another individual, granting perspectives you may not have otherwise taken... through literature you can see your own culture from an outside point of view. Especially through reading philosophy (you seem like a Slavoj fan, yeah?). Higher literature does this better than low-brow garbage. That is what makes it so good... I can't imagine that you haven't experienced this, so I will take this as an oversight on your part.

>>3889550
No you.

>>3889566
NO U.
if you're arguing a canon full of legal retards are the higher culture to which one ought aspire, then I did mistake your original point.

>>3889571
Pretty much I am claiming that our society would, rightfully, hold people like Isaac Newton (a mystic) as strangely irrational, yet oddly brilliant... I am also certain that I called IQ tests dubious, can you not read? This would be part of what makes it so dubious, it was just a convenient example.

>>3889571
Let me add: I do not want everyone to aspire to be authors.... nope.... I am not insane. I do want everyone to be able to compare their ideas and presuppositions (I am overusing that word today) against others... is this so controversial? Are you against books in general?

>>3889537
1994 called. They want their statistics back. Also, while we're hashing nostalgia, Stephen Jay Gould would like have a word with you.

>>3889562
man fuck you

what do you even mean by high literature. name off a list of authors whose work you'd unironically call "high-brow", hardmode: only people born in the last century.

What, Nabokov? Vidal? Mailer? Miller? Pynchon? Delillo? I mean, how much goddamn sex, shit, gore, faggotry, transexuality, racism and drugs do you have to write to not to be considered low trash, "in streets running with shit". You go ahead and declare the western canon crap, turning instead to African fucking tribalism of all things? You run around crashing cars and cheering fascism? Spend your days fucking prostitutes and getting drunk, and you're still "high art" label? Get real.

>>3889588
Let me help you out...

du·bi·ous
/ˈd(y)o͞obēəs/
Adjective
Hesitating or doubting.
Not to be relied upon; suspect.
Synonyms
doubtful - uncertain - questionable - shady - equivocal

>>3889573
>Isaac Newton (a mystic) as strangely irrational, yet oddly brilliant

is this your conception of retardation.

the larger part of what makes IQ tests dubious across time periods- rather than in and of themselves, or across cultures- is that lack of self objectivity another anon is talking to you about: we cannot see that we're at best strangely irrational, occasionally brilliant, ultimately wrong mystics to the people ahead of us. With that in mind, I cannot see how you uphold canon- which has consistently proven itself wrong- above anything with any sense of certainty, let alone make Herodotus a moral imperative. Especially when a lot of what we uphold as valuable in canon now was not received as such at various points, and we have no reason to suspect ours will be.

Finally, I'd suggest not going offensive like you do when experiencing cognitive dissonance- implying someone can't read just means they're less likely to tell you their sources, and it's not worth the win. You're cutting off the means to your advancement with this grandiosity and placing yourself amongst your own philistines. No, I'm not wowed by your hitting on campfire stories from ancient Persia or a review of IQ testing accuracy I've seen better handled in newsprint- assuming you've got game enough to make me shake in my boots over a Can you read just loses you a miranda, Caliban.

>>3889594
> how much goddamn sex, shit, gore, faggotry, transexuality, racism and drugs do you have to write to not to be considered low trash

I didn't know I was arguing with an 8 year old puritan. Faggotry? You, sir, are a bigot, an asshole, and a v-card carrying white 20-something with an unshaven scrotum for a neck.
I want to hear you say it then, go on. Say Harry Potter is not low brow and Pale Fire is no better than it. Say it, you god damned twat. Because that is what is at stake here. That's whose side you are on. Tell me that your retarded cousin's short story about a lady-bug with diarrhea is as worthy of attention from the human species as Nabokov, Vidal, Mailer, Miller, Pynchon, Delillo! Because, if you can't bring yourself to say it than slit your facial scrotum ear to ear and leave the rest of us alone.

>>3889608
I've never read Harry Potter, but I'll tell you I'd take a whole lot of trash scifi over Pale Fire any day. The art as a puzzle trope makes me cringe more than any commercial children's fantasy. Unreliable narrators, dual narrators, even proto-hypertext! what a load of trite shit. I don't care if it might not've been then, I've no interest in Pale Fire, as little as I have for Harry Potter. Whose side I'm on? What's yours? The New Yorker? Bloom? Sounds like a lot of fun, I hope you're real happy with yourself and your self-image because all I am is a fucking punk!! Ask anybody

>>3889605
Ah the mistake you've made is assuming there are only two people in the world: you and me! You see, I never mentioned Herodotus. That would be someone else.

Furthermore, I never said my concept of Retardation includes religious nutbags. I said that legally, I will use that word again for you because you seem to skim a lot, LEGALLY he would probably be considered retarded. You do know that it is defined legally, yes? Not because of his mysticism but because of his relative (by definition) IQ. There has been an upward drift in IQ for years... please, remember, I hate my own example, IQ is not good, I'm so sorry for bringing it up... Newton would be derided as a strangeling indeed, if he were to share some of his thoughts on mysticism today, at an astronomy conference... again, is this controversial?

Thnx, btw, I love repeating myself in print. This is why I have to ask you "Can you not read?"

>>3889627
Stop the presses everyone! This nigger just made an evaluative claim about a book! N, sir, you forget, your side is: No book is better than another, just read what you want.

>>3889627
Stop the presses everyone! This nigger just made an evaluative claim about a book! N, sir, you forget, your side is: No book is better than another, just read what you want.

>>3889633
LEGALLY, Newton's dead.

I agree that we have a duty to improve ourselves.

However, when we do indulge, as needed, is it so bad to read low brow literature? Are you saying that we corrupt our relationship with the written word by doing so?

>>3889661
you are just wasting your time, which is okay as long as you think you have time to waste... which you don't btw... none of us do. We still got a lot of shit to do to get this place in working order...

>>3889655
Miss the point much? perhaps you are just out of real things to say!

>>3889639
Gosh, I guess nao I have to take back the comment i made about your penis named Vindicator.

I think /lit/ is too childishly critical, some of the sarcasm's alright, but it's been getting more and more genuine. It's fine to point out the flaws in someone's writing, that's great, but it's obnoxious to take it so strongly. All authors are trying to do something worthwhile, if it doesn't work out for you it's not a big deal, and yeah some books really don't work out at all, but still.

Hey /lit/,
How come when somebody posts, "Ulysses is a shit novel, very third rate" ya'll get hot 'n' flustered, but when someone else tries to defend the very idea of a book being good you argue against it?

>>3889676
and?

>>3889663
Should we devote ourselves solely to improving so that our progeny can indulge their desires? At some point it must stop. I don't think there's many who can stay motivated without indulging. A good balance makes more sense to me.

>>3889667
i just wanted to shout LEGALLY since all the cool kids were doing it

>>3889679
because agent still hasn't called back and muh existentialism

>>3889682
&?

>>3889688
No... your utopia involves obese, chronic masturbaters reading shit novels all day long, and chowing down on butter soaked popcorn?

You are always indulging. When you think you're imposing strict writer discipline in your routine and try to finish that chapter on this date, you're indulging every literary professor you've met. You can improve all you want, write the most lucid prose, cloak your most private experiences in technique.

The rest of us still do not owe you shit.

>>3889706
What else would you do in a utopia?

>>3889716
:(

>>3889706
You keep positing an ideal end state for those who reject your naive foundationalism. There is none, you true believing Platonist cockslider, that's what we've been saying all along.

>>3889722
I'm curious. Do you mourn for my ignorance of the greater utopian pursuits, or for the lack thereof

>>3889732
b-but but... muh golden age

>>3889732
Nope. You must be hallucinating. Please point out where I 'posited an end state'....

>>3889737
I mourn for the fact that you pursue a utopia at all, but furthermore, I am upset that if you die, and go to heaven, that is what you want to find...

>>3889639
That's not my side, my side is, maybe somewhat unseriously, thinking you're a fuckwad (who, also half-jokingly, probably has bad taste and is poorly read or some shit) for actually believing in the high low brow dichotomy and the cultural utopia narrative and like, even bothering to pay attention to Harry Potter or Game of Thrones.
Don't think I don't judge, I judge all the time, but for things being trite, boring, commercial, appropriated, diluted, stale, tasteless, pretentious, worthless, etc. not low brow. If I don't get anything out of it, if it doesn't hold my interest or say anything prescient or isn't written admirably or plays to my taste, then I don't really have much reason to read it. Critics have the duty to explain the book to a large group of people, to offer a critical evaluation, so that their readers can figure out whether or not to buy it, what circuit it gets run through. The profession is unimportant to me outside of that service. That actual individuals sometimes emulate the idea of a critic in a misinformed attempt to reach some tasteless aesthete status is a grotesque malfunction of literary culture. Nigger, (good) critics read books repeatedly, they read through the authors entire oeuvre, through the lens of strict critical theory, before forming an opinion. You should just read for whatever you can squeeze out of it. Read while fucked up, read on an ebook, read half the book. You're not being held against any meaningful trans-individual standard, do whatever the fuck you want. I still think you're a fuckwad.

>>3889748
Okay, well fuck you... I guess?

>>3889747
What is the point of improving ourselves and society if not for reaching some kind of utopia, whatever that may be? What is the end game?

>>3889760
Yeah, I think so. Later, dude.

>>3889764
That's a silly question... Let me ask you, do you only exercise if you are going to be the perfect specimen, oozing sexuality, and rippling with greased muscles? Do you only continue your existence with the hope of never dying? What is your endgame? I just want shit to get better... is that not a noble end game, anymore? Should we abandon all human endeavors to alleviate suffering if we realize we cannot alleviate it all? The logic behind your question is bewildering...

>>3888798
Ha, the edgy 4chan user comes off the weakest of all. I agree with her post, anyway. Taste elitism is outdated and becomes more superficial with every passing year.

>>3888798

OP, all you had to do was post mein kampf and it would've shut her down completely without you having to lower yourself to actual debate.

But no, you had to sperg out like it was a /lit/ thread.

>If I want to read about sadomasochism

Who actually says this to normalfags?


Ya blew it.

>>3889778
My end game is a world where people can pursue what they want, indulge as they are inclined, to the extent that it does not harm anyone elses freedom to do the same. To the degree that it is possible; free from disease, hunger, violent conflict, you name it.

And when that is achieved, there would be nothing left to do but indulge our desires, because beyond any religous persuasion, there is no purpose.

>>3889799
But Mein Kampf doesn't prove anything unless you're dumb enough to believe that liking a book is the same as subscribing to its ideology. Face it, she's right. Some of you are just so rabid about shoving your internet learned elitism down everyone's throat that you can't see that less taste shaming is a good thing.

>>3888798

i bet you're heaps fun to be around bro

heaps fun

pic NOT related? Really?

>>3888857
WAIT
I KNOW WHO THIS IS
LIKE I KNOW HER PRETTY WELL

who are you what's going on

>>3889822
epic of gilgamesh isn't a masterpiece or an example of high art lmao stay basic /lit/

>>3889829
It appears in Harold Bloom's canon, so it indeed does.

>>3889827
(not that i'm defending har, i'm just super curious about who goes on lit in (probably) my extended friendgroup

>>3889837
oops forgot to end the parenthesis

also
*her

"Stop making quality judgments on works of art! What gives you the right to have opinions?"

lolno

>>3889835

it does a masterpiece or an example of high art?

>>3888556
>Asks for peoples pronouns

Haha holy fuck. Retard detected.

>>3889846
hey man, if it's someone of no descernable gender then it's easier, and I'm not even
>>3888556

>>3889845
Yes.

4chan truly is outdated. It's interesting to read the posts here laughing at anti-shaming campaigns and pronoun sensitivity, knowing in the back of my mind that these things are the way of the future and that 4chan is really just an island of irrelevant dinosaurs. The world is moving on, we're embracing and accepting people for who they are and 4chan is falling behind. It's like a living piece of the past.

>>3888857
#Nickvernet

>>3889856
I think the anti-shaming, gender pronoun, even the privilege, level of modern liberalism is a little bit misguided, too far-reaching, as well. It has its home largest on tumblr. It's an island of idealists, maybe an archipelago. Time will balance the two ends out.
I'm pretty sure, much more than all the buzzfeed, twitter, new inquiry propaganda, the largest contribution to a dissolvement of these constructs, our old boundaries, our incoming paradigm shift, will be the internet itself, with its extreme globalization and secularization, but also its total specification, its michro-niches and ultracultures (ie our islands), and it's underlying lack of authority, the general sense of resistance and anarchy and virtual indulgence. It might seem a little overconfident to claim our generation is special, but the level of world understanding and accessibility of information to anyone who developed with access to the internet is really incredibly expanded compared to the greatest generation just 50 years ago.

>>3889856
PC culture will never succeed, because it encourages extremist "holier-than-thou" thought and the reduction of language into gibberish.

It's harmless in it's moderate form, of course. As long as people attach a context to a word like nigger, people will get mad at it's use - but PC culture idealize attaching context to EVERY word, rendering language useless as a means of expression. Which is silly and people all eventually think it's silly.

And if you write even a single word in opposition to my opinion, then you're a bigot and I don't have to care what you think.

>>3890021
Exactly what do you think the removal authorial intent is about?

My gripe is that a lot people just assume that society naturally progresses towards something better. History has shown several times that highly advanced civilization has fallen numerous times and been exchanged for long period of something that was worse. What i'm saying is that PC culture will succeed as long as people buy into it. Just look at religions such as Islam or even Christianity at one point. They used shaming techniques to stiffle thoughts. I guess what bothers me is that people use the shaming argument to actually stop debates and arguments.

>>3889892
>Forgetting that no man is an island.

Art is a touchy subject. It's neither subjective nor truly objective. Taste is too big of a factor for that.

Whoever claims it to be either is an idiot.

>>3889849
No, because you've bought into the fear of offending someone so much with one word that you are willing to sacrifice your personal liberty and start censoring yourself.

What we should be looking for is a world where the word doesn't matter. Where it's alright to be wrong.

"Anyway she went over there too..."
"OH MY GOD DO YOU KNOW HOW UNSENSITIVE IT IS TO YOU FUCKING RACIST BIGOT NAZI WHITE MALE"
"I-Im sorry, please dont sue me"

OR

"Anyway she went over there too, and the she picked up the groceries and went back home"
"Ah, alright thank you. By the way did you know that she perceives herself as he"
"Oh I didn't know that he did that"
"It's cool"

>>3888798
the person that says 50 shades of grey are for degenerates is right though

>>3888510
Shaming is important
>#stopfatshaming
>#stopgayshaming
>#stopbestialityshaming

>>3888510

Why the hell would /lit/ care? There are no smart people here anyway.