/lit/ - Literature

Literary criticism is stupid. There's no reason to study literature for anything other than entertainment and pleasure. It's philosophy for utter plebs.

>>6296595
Mate I think you're getting confused with literary theory.
I suppose you could spin literary theory to appear meaningless and pretentious, but literary criticism is completely different and allows for a deeper understanding of the text, which believe it or not, people derive pleasure from.

>>6296628
No, I meant criticism. Theory promotes a better understanding of the way society oppresses certain groups and tries to liberate them. Criticism is just wankery.

>>6296586
My approach is to find a book I haven't read and post its cover on /lit/ with the caption "None of you actually think this is good, right?"

>>6296629
Kill yourself

>>6296629
Absolutely disgusting. Literary theory is respectable, but it really isn't applicable to the average reader. It would seem like esoteric mysticism to most and I can't imagine how anybody but the most dedicated could get anything out of it that you can't get from criticism.

>>6296629
>Theory
>Useful or good

>>6296629
Is that the same as cultural Marxism?

>>6296586
I like New Critics like Empson. "7 types" was a joy to read

>>6296652
>>>/pol/
>le antisemite face
Fuck off

>>6297013
Isn't cultural Marxism, according to conspiracy theorists, just the attempt to bring down capitalism and Western society by criticizing the culture it produces and pointing out the effects it has on underprivileged groups?

>>6297028
"cultural marxism" isn't even a real thing and it makes you look like a fucking buffoon to use that term

the unassuming plain-spoken kind if possible.

>>6297046
But isn't critical theory's purpose exactly what those conspiracy theorists say it is? Didn't Gramsci and the Frankfurt school have the goal of using Marxist theories in the cultural sphere and not just the economic?

>>6297070
No. The conspiracy theorists say that the Frankfurt School, who had some Jews in their midst, wanted to indoctrinate good little white boys and girls into accepting things like multiculturalism and political correctness because they're evil.

Critical theory, in terms of literature and broader cultural apparatuses (film,art, sculpture, etc), is just using different methods founded upon critique - Marxist, feminist, post-colonial, eco-critical, etc - in order to better understand how a text functions.

The theorist shifts focus away from the question usually asked in high school classes ("What does X mean?") and instead asks, "How does X function, and how might that function produce meaning?"

Even movements that are seemingly apolitical, like New Criticsm, operates with a theory of how to approach literature. Their intent was to look at the text itself for its own meaning, and used methods like close reading. Even though it wasn't looking for the way in which the text would reflect or subvert society's dominate ideology, it was still a theory.

Returning to the Frankfurt School, some of them took Marxist and Freudian ideas and applied them to things like literature and film, but there was no grand conspiracy like /pol/ and other right-wing American thinkers imagine and it's not as harmful as people imagine. Inside academia you'd be laughed at for using the term "cultural Marxism" because it's a misnomer.

If you want to learn more about theory & criticism and the kinds of questions people ask when approaching texts then check this out: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/01/

>>6297122
Back to OP,

When it comes to what type of criticism I find best I usually let the text decide. Chinua Achebe is pretty much begging you to use post-colonial theory with his novels, just as John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wraths just lends itself well to a Marxist critique or East of Eden can be looked at from a feminist perspective.

Some texts can even be examined through several different theoretical frameworks.

Theory isn't as useless or as evil as some believe and one can do no harm to oneself in studying the different schools and approaches.

>>6296586
I'm a published literary critic with an extensive background in Frankfurt School critical theory and Marxism in general. Here's how I like to write reviews of literature:

First I take a look at what other people say. That's the most important part of what I do I think. I like to see how people react to the book, that's almost more important than the book itself. I study other peoples reactions to it, what they get out of it, what they like or dislike about it. From that I extrapolate the kind of cultural response the book has on the general public. That's what I mostly write about, that and the book itself. It actually makes for good writing since I write for the general public, not a specialized academic audience. Doing 50 Shades of Grey was especially fun in this regard.

I try not to have a political opinion on anything, though I would say that I'm "liberal" in the classical sense of the word. I just try to get people to reflect on the things they already think and do.

>>6297070
>Didn't Gramsci and the Frankfurt school have the goal of using Marxist theories in the cultural sphere
The other guy did a long ansswer that I'm sure has some good points, but I still have to answer
>Marxism not having a cultural level from the get go
>Being just an economic theory
>Caring more for the economic aspects of marxism over the historic revisionism that made us move from the history of kingdoms to the history of its people
>Gramsci doing the same as the Frankfurt school
>Frankfurt school having a single opinion and intention
>Not knowing different people with opposing views were part of the movement, even getting to the point of openly hating on each other.

>Assuming that a simplified interpretation can't be full of ideology while being sort of close to the truth
>Implying that ideology only appears on declarations and not in omissions.

please stop this things, thank you very much.

>>6297122
>but there was no grand conspiracy
I'd like to add that there wasn't even a single opinion held by everyone just like there rarely is in a single university or institution (even if they can recognize some validity on each other's ideas). It only looks like a hive mind if you move very much away and reduce everything to basic points.

>>6296629
What's wrong with wankery? Wankery can be pleasure giving.

>>6297155
>Frankfurt school having a single opinion and intention
The Frankfurt School back when it was the "Institute for Social Research" certainly had what we would call now a "party line." This was how the chose what would and what would not go into the journal, and who would or who would not get paid.

Why do you think Horkheimer refused to fund Marcuse? Why did they refuse many of his submissions to the journal?

The Frankfurt School was initially conceived as a western version of the Institute for Marxism in Moscow. They had a Leninist line.

>>6297169
Back in their day they had some editorial regulation, but when we think about those authors now we read their individual works and usually add posterior stuff. Any tendency they tried to force is meaningless for our current reading.
But yes, their main publication was a main line. It still had different ideas that opposed each other inside that line, just like you have different members of the same party having to discuss things to reach a middle ground.

The similarities become vague when you read more into each author, I guess it happens with any group.

>>6297181
>Any tendency they tried to force is meaningless for our current reading.
Do you really think that? I agree that various members of the school went their separate ways, but at one time they all collaborated together on a single project. That's important for understanding them, no? It gives a certain cohesiveness to their ideas at the time that is important to think about.

>>6297189
Marx and Striner also worked together at a certain point. If we were living at their times it would be something to consider, but now that we can see their full body of work from start to finish we have to take it as some sort of larval stage in most of their cases (I can't really recall if everyone moved on to write stuff, I'm guessing not).
It's important as historical stage, but not as "frankfurt thinking" since it changed through time and much less "frankfurt school thinkers" since they quickly went different ways. It's like talking about democrats and republicans only taking in consideration the first 10 or 20 years of each party.

>>6297155
>>6297122
I'm still not convinced. If Marxism had a cultural aspect from the beginning doesn't that mean the Frankfurt school's analysis is just a continuation of the initial Marxist plan to bring down bourgeois society?

>>6297251
There is no marxist plan to bring down burgoise, Marx considers them inherently revolutionary and vital to eventually get to communism. Usually we get people who only read the capital and think that's all there is, you seem to not even be there.

You do know that Marx wrote a lot of books, right? it was like his job for decades.

>>6296586
first read up on critical theory. then realize you were mixed up prior to reading. then apply what you have learned. deconstructionism is where we are out now. it sucks.

>>6297257
So it's a plan to bring down capitalism.

>>6297251
no Glaucon you stupid faggot it doesn't mean that at all

>>6296628
>deeper understanding
>implying approaching the scribblings on paper of a dead guy can be done in ways that are 'deeper' than other ways

100% unadulterated ideology

>>6297310
No, in a falsely simplified way it's the theory that capitalism has to bring down monarchy and it will open the doors for a dialogue among the remaining classes where communism is the logical step for both of them and eventually a completely free system without regulatory systems because we all understand that the rest of the world just wants to have a fulfilling job and enough free time to pursuit other interests, both tendencies that will help everyone else.

Of course this end game is just as dumb as perfect life after death or perfect life under a stable market. Meta narratives are a dumb epilogue added to convince people who won't study the important "right now" aspects but are still needed for the work.

>>6297319
Who the fuck is Glaucon?
>>6297338
So you don't believe in a communist utopia but you're a Marxist?

>>6297345
>Who the fuck is Glaucon?

>Read on the level of plot
>Read on the level of character
>Look for any blatant symbolism, metaphor, analogy, synechdoche, etc.
>Apply a few different forms of theory to the text (Formalism, Close Reading, Psychoanalysis, (Post)-Structuralism, etc)
>Attempt to place the work in a socio-historical context and rate it based on relevance to budding or widespread literary, political, social, and economic movements of the era

At least, that's how I approach it.

>>6297345
The glaucon thing is a reference to a very funny pic, you are either pretty new or just ahd bad luck and never saw it.

I'm no communist, I just have a better understanding than you and you're saying dumb things. I do enjoy Marx's take on history, focusing on population changes and trying to understand how power was applied to reach political goals instead of divine or capricious tendencies.
As anyone vaguely tolerant of postmodernism I can't see metanarratives as more than political tools, just like religion. I think that at no point Marx sincerly believed there was a heaven on earth to be reached after communism, I doubt he even fully believed in what we understand as communism. His ideas are just ground work for better relationships between the classes and a more just society. Still, no one older than 17 really should care about that aspect of his work when his insight in politics and history is much more constructive and revolutionary.

>>6296586

I just read books for fun

>>6297384
>revolutionary
So you admit Marxism is a revolutionary set of doctrines?

>>6297391
The ride never ends with this one

>>6297391
In terms of our interpretation of history, politics and social interactions it revolutionized, and at some level invented, those fields.
Marx was also in favor of revolutions, like the bourgeois revolution in France and the industrial (and also bourgeois) revolution in England.
You should read him.

>>6297406
If you don't get mad the trolls never win. Some would say that wasting your time is their victory but there is no good use of your time in 4chan anyway.

>>6297453
Responding at all is losing m8