/lit/ - Literature

>>6670424
>too stupid to use the word pretentious properly?

>>6670430
>too stupid to use greentext properly

>>6670424
Just read middlebrow/midcult like Hemingway, Mailer, Franzen, Kipling, Wilde, etc etc

>>6670434
>too stupid to use greentext properly

>>6670438
w-wait I thought Hemingway and Wilde were highbrow

>>6670451
They are but they're the easy highbrow writers

>>6670451
Nope.

>>6670459
Yeah, Hemingway and Wilde are totally on the same level of depth and craft as Proust, Joyce, Pound, Gogol, etc. Yikes.

>>6670467
Why not?

>>6670479
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/macdonald.pdf

>>6670479
They aren't bad but I would put them in the same category as Salinger, Huxley, Vonnegut or Kerouac.

>>6670492
Thanks, will read.

>>6670503
Writers that have good works but simple writings?

>>6670512
Simple, good, and stuff that probably influences my tastes to this day, but if I had read it after high school I would have not liked it.

>>6670525
I see. You don't disqualify the works, but nowadays your phenomenology (or experience, whatever) changed.

>>6670564
It's important to remember low/middle/high art distinctions aren't necessarily correlating with bad/okay/good, and relates more to the style and structure.

>>6670438
>>6670451
>>6670467
>>6670512

>Pleb tier
All YA and genre fiction

>Entry tier
Orwell, Vonnegut, Kerouac, Bradbury, Fitzgerald

>Respectable tier
Hemmingway, Wilde, Camus, McCarthy

>High tier
Faulkner, Pynchon, Melville, T.S. Eliot

>Patrician tier
Sterne, Gaddis, Pound, Joyce, Milton

>>6670451
>hemingway
>highbrow

>>6670581
>tfw I'm now reading both bradbury and joyce

>>6670581
Where are Pynchon and DFW in your breakdown ?

>>6670606

He has pynchon you illiterate pleb.

DFW is in Respectable tier, although reaches up to high occasionally (no matter how patrician he wants to be)

>>6670576
bad/okay/good = Impressions of the reader?

But to consider a work of art low/middle/high what do you need? Analytical thought? Comparative literature? How one person can identify that a certain style or structure high?

Nowadays a good structure is insanely differente from what we have in the XVIII sec. So how to define high art in contemporary writing? Or we just have to wait Bloom says so?

>>6670616
Sorry, American authors all have similar looking names when you just through them quickly.

>>6670430
>pretending to be an authority on the use of the word pretentious
Did you just open a dictionary for the first time in your life or something?

>read literary novel
>unable to distinguish themes
>unable to parse significance
>unable to read
>only come away with vague feels
>look it up on Wikipedia
>"Oh, that's why I got that feel."
>convince myself I did understand on some level after all
>feel smart

>>6670618
Just read the essay I linked above: >>6670492

>>6670581
>Just English literature

This a good list. But you could put some literature of other languages.

>>6670636
naw, op really did use it wrong

>>6670639
>>unable to distinguish themes
>>unable to parse significance
This is a 6th grade reading level. Read "How to Read a Book".

>>6670649
What was the correct term in this case ?

>>6670636
>pretending to be authority on words
I'm going to need definitions of "did" "you" "just" "open" "a" "dictionary" "for" "the" "first" "time" "in" "your" "life" "or" "something" and just so that we're on the same page, "I'm" "going" "to" "need" "definitions" "of" "and" "so" "that "we're" "on" "same" "page"

>>6670639

>read a literary novel
>unable to distinguish themes
>unable to find psychology in the characters
>unable to appreciate prose style
>only come away with disappointment
>look it up on wikipedia
>turns out there are no deep themes or character
>turns out it's a secret pleb novel

>>6670646
Will read.

I just get excited. It's not every day that I can have a good discussion in here without shitposting.

>>6670639
I do this too anon.
>finish book
>Yes, this book was Good™!
>read analysis, criticisms, etc.
>I knew all this but just couldn't articulate it, maaan
>post facebook critique
>get 5 likes

>>6670655
stupid

>>6670650
>try to read a book
>find out I'm too stupid, /lit/ tells me to read a book on how to read a book first
>still too stupid to understand this one
>I have to begin by reading a book on how to read a book on how to read a book

>>6670662
I didn't mean to be dismissive, it's just I don't think I'd be able to explain it as well as MacDonald has, plus he has plenty of examples (including one by Hemingway). If you have any questions or comments after the essay though, I'd love to discuss that.

>>6670678
Can you point where he discusses Hemingway ? Can't ctrl f through the doc and tehre's no way I'm reading all that shit

>>6670689
and you people wonder why you're not good readers.

>>6670678
I'll read the essay now. If I have some questions or comments, I'll do you a reply.

>>6670655
It just doesn't make sense, Are you trying to say you're pretending to be too intelligent for pleb literature, or that you're actually too intelligent for it?

>>6670467
Hemingway and Wilde are better tahn POund

>>6670703
Neither. I'm implying that I'm not intelligent enough for superior literature and that I'm too pretentious to associate myself with inferior literature. Intelligence doesn't have to be invoked in both parts of my greentext for it to make sense.

>>6670716
>i'm too pretentious to associate myself with inferior literature.
I hope to god that English isn't your first language.

>>6670696
Look buddy I'm already funposting on quite a few tabs and watching a movie, I just can't cram reading 40 pages before going to bed on top of that

>>6670721
We got a resident sherlock holmes multi tasker going on here - you're also making a phone call right? ;)

>>6670720
It's not. Care to point what's wrong with this excerpt you greenquoted so that I don't make the mistake next time around ?

>>6670467
>Pound
he is a thirdrate village-man

>>6670729
I think the best way to address this problem is to come up with your own definition of pretentious, then look at how dictionaries define pretentious. You will then realise why people are confused by your useage.

>>6670728
Yeah...
...with your're mom ;^]

>>6670739
prétentieux :
>1. Qui a des prétentions, désireux d’attirer l’admiration d’autrui.
>2. Où il y a de la prétention, de l’affectation, de la recherche.

Which is exactly the sense I conveyed in my original greentext =)

>>6670739

Accord the Merriam-Webster: "having or showing the unpleasant quality of people who want to be regarded as more impressive, successful, or important than they really are"

>>6670754
I don't know why you're looking up the French word instead of the English. Admittably my French is poor and I might be mising some nuances but the definition you given (the second in particular) is not what the English language associates with "pretentiousness".

The first definition seems to miss that pretentiousness supposes that it is actually less capable than it really is. The English definition is not so much that they want to attract admiration but that they pretend that their work contains more intelligence and thought than it really does (although like I confessed earlier this might be a misreading of the French, so let's try keep this in English and we are talking about the English useage of words).

>>6670758
Thanks mate.

>>6670754
The thing is: A person who is pretentious needs the admiration of the others, but you can read pleb literature for youself and get high untill you can read serious shit.

Since you are french, consider to read "L'etranger" from Albert Camus. It's a serious shit but easy to understand (I guess).

Kek

>>6670786
No because you get to share what you read and I'd rather tell my friends that I'm reading Gravity's Rainbow than le Game of thrones books

also I already read La Peste years ago, don't plan on reading Camus again

>>6670784
>I don't know why you're looking up the French word instead of the English

Because French is a more universal language and a superior literary language so the definiton in French should be used as a reference for all of us.

>>6670800
>Because French is a more universal language and a superior literary language so the definiton in French should be used as a reference for all of us.
b8 confirmed ;)

>>6670784
The French is exactly what you were trying to get across, he just posted the definition in French so we wouldn't argue the nuances of the French language's individual words in the definition, because he knows he used the word "pretentious" wrong in the OP. It's essentially the exact same thing as the mirriam-webster definitions of having an affect of pretension/ displaying ability that one does not actually possess.

>>6670808
so the OP shouldve been

>>Too conceited for pleb literature
>>Too dumb for serious literature

?

>>6670807
;^)

>>6670689
Around the middle where he transitions from discussing Masscult into Midcult.

>>6670698
For sure.

>>6670704
Maybe, but that still isn't the point.

>>6670704
I'm not sure Wilde's fiction is better than almost anyone's to be honest with you. His non fiction is pretty decent though.

>>6670660
What is Lolita, alex?

>>6670831
Thanks.

>>6670808
Hello, I'm a third party whose first language is something other than English.

I still don't get the problem with "pretentious".

"Too pretentious for pleb literature" makes perfect sense for me. Doesn't it imply that "his self appraised feeling of importance and elitism doesn't allow him to appreciate pleb literature"?

>>6670667
>>post facebook critique
>>get 5 likes
If you want validation on fb just post a motivational quote in another language, works every time.

what is serious literature to you? most of /lit/core is highly accessible

>>6670853
Since I felt like reading it again too, it's on page 41 of the essay or page 22 of the PDF.

>>6670867
I'm just outta high school and have only Harry Potter under my belt so pretty much everything feels serious tbh

>>6670861
There is no problem. There's just one kid here who thinks he's some sort of authority on the English language today.

>>6670876
Honestly outside a few suggested reading lists this isn't the right place to be. You will get a very warped view of literature if only read /lit/'s comments and take them at face value. If you've really only read Harry Potter then I suggest you read some slightly more challenging young people's fiction (something like a discworld novel perhaps) and then try something like The Great Gatsby. It's short, it's easy to understand while also having some depth and is just a good story.

>>6670876
>tfw I read HP 5 during junior high just because I wanted a GBA
People told me that I was pretty intelligent just because I read.

>>6670800
Dude, I'm not even that big on Camus but La Peste was pretty lame and he has some other works worth checking out. Maybe check out The Fall. It's a fun read.

>>6670886
Thanks.

Ok this will clear something up for me: are you too pretentious for pleb literature in the sense that you are incapable of enjoying it? Because pretentious doesn't make sense here.

Are you too pretentious to associate yourself with pleb literature? Pretentious makes sense here.

>>6670492
This text seems awfully different from every kind of social critique I've read until now, and it makes it a lot less believable. The style is nowhere close to those translated (mostly) from French, and coming (mostly) from the post-structuralist era.

What's the reason? Being written actually in English? Difference of école?

>>6670904
It works it the first sense if you're so far up your own ass that you can't even enjoy anything which contradicts some specific image of yourself you want to give off.

Here's three different dictionary defintions of pretentious so everyone can understand why they are/aren't using it correctly:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pretentious

Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed:
>pretentious art films
>the pretentious jargon of wine experts

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretentious

1
: characterized by pretension: as
a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the pretentious fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him — Richard Watts>
b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature <pretentious language> <pretentious houses>
2
: making demands on one's skill, ability, or means : ambitious <the pretentious daring of the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake — American Guide Series: Vermont>

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pretentious

trying to appear or sound more important or clever than you are, especially in matters of art and literature:
> a pretentious art critic
> The novel deals with grand themes, but is never heavy or pretentious.

>>6670915
Yeah, it reads very different from, say, Adorno's The Culture Industry. Probably a combination of personal influences, audience, school of thought, etc.

Allan Bloom writes in a very similar way.

>>6670925
How can you be falsely giving an air of being above something but also in actuality be above it? You are either truthfully above the capability of enjoying pleb literature or you're not, in this sense. Is the word you're looking for prideful?

>>6670932
Which is funny because OP works with all three :3

>>6670951
Can you please explain how? >>6670949 has already pointed out the logical contradiction of it.

>>6670650
"How to Read a Book" is actually really deficient when it comes to reading fiction. For expository books they go into a lot of detail about identifying propositions and argument structure and stuff, but for fiction they just tell you "figure out how the plot is organized and how the characters and setting fit together." They don't even mention themes or symbols or other literary devices.

>>6670951
OP's saying only one person is contradicting his use of pretentious, I know for sure I'm not alone in this, but I'm pretty sure he's the only person coming to his defense.

>>6670964
The guy saying that it's just one kid against my use of the word pretentious wasn't me.

Now I guess I'll piss off since I'm tired of clicking burgers.

>>6670667
>>6670667
>>Yes, this book was Good™!
>>read analysis, criticisms, etc.
>>I knew all this but just couldn't articulate it, maaan
this is me! i hate that i didn't take more of an interest in literature in high school when I actually had a chance to discuss novels. when I finish a book all I want to do is talk with someone about it.

>>6670948
Thanks for the response.

>>6671028
Wish I had something a bit more substantial to say about it.

>>6671005

Well, at least you have /lit/.

>>6671037
Nah, it was very comforting even to find out that my observation wasn't wrong. Also, I didn't know about Allan Bloom and you made me look him up.

>Read book or watch movie
>Look up discussions about it's theme and story
>One theory says Z
>"Yes, I totally agree!"
>One theory says X
>"Yes, I totally agree!"
SOMEBODY HELP ME FROM THIS

>>6670581
What tier is Steinbeck on?

>>6671727
Definitely midcult. So on that chart probably Entry Tier.

Again, don't take this to mean you shouldn't enjoy Steinbeck.

>>6670438
Maybe add Herman Hesse to that list. Thoughtful, but still pretty accessible.

>>6671450

read more literary criticism, try and think harder about the claims they make instead of just digesting them. learn some basic logic and stay on the lookout for common fallacies.

>>6670639
>read literary novel
>prose was pointlessly esoteric
>realize that there is actually no meaning to be found
>realize that everyone on /lit/ is pretending, like so many peasants in The Emperor's New Clothes
>realize that "high literature" is a joke played by schizophrenics on the intelligentsia
>only read books by actual authors like Asimov or Zelazny from then on

>>6671450
>>6671766
i would agree with this to some extent, but keep in mind that one of the cool things about art is that there can be multiple meaningful interpretations, there is not necessarily a right one.

>>6670639
>There's a line that was added for no reason other than detail
>You obsess over the line and stay on the page for fifteen minutes

>>6671450
Everything you see posted on the usual discussion forums will be incorrect. Know that, and you'll go far.

Most books and ESPECIALLY most movies have absolutely no valid theme or worthwhile plot whatsoever, so you've probably already got them all figured out anyway.

>>6671988
>tfw you read and re-read Roger's thoughts on how much he loves Jessica at the end of Part 1 of Gravity's Rainbow
>tfw no gf

>>6671760
Absolutely.

>>6670424
What so you read like Murakami or something?

>>6671727
Entry. I think he's by far the best of the entry tier though.

>>6671872
>only read books by actual authors like Asimov

Mah nigga.

>tfw will never care about themes and characters as much as I care about prose even though I know it is slightly less important
Sorry Dosty, I'll never love you like Joyce or Melville.

Read. Actually read. Be honest with yourself. Listen to you. Do not make hasty conclusions. Read letter by letter. Feel everything.

>>6672405
>jus b urself

could you be cheesier please i couldn't quite taste it from all the way over here

>>6671972

right, it's all about what sounds right to you. don't refrain from rejecting someone else's analysis just because there can be multiple interpretations, put pressure on their assertions and you'll both come out the wiser.

>>6672442
Don't worry. Someday you will also understand.

>>6670424
>>Too pretentious for pleb literature
>>Too dumb for serious literature
This is why I stick to philosophy tbh

>>6672464
mm smugcheese, delicious!
What other flavors can you do?
I want more!

>>6672493
It's a misunderstanding. I was calling you a retard.

>>6672502

hmm this cheese is getting sharp!
don't stop now cheeseman I'm almost full!

>>6672518
I'm sorry. English is not my native language and I'm not sure as to what are you trying to say now.

>>6672530
really

i can explain if you like

but only if you say "please, explain it to me daddy"

>>6672544
please, explain it to me daddy

>>6672544
Please, explain it to me, fatty.

>>6672544
please, fuck me hard daddy

>>6672544
daddy, fuck me pls.

>>6670581
>Ranking that hack Faulkner above Papa

>>6672567
>>6672567
>>6672568
>>6672572
>>6672588
this made me laugh enough that I'm actually now happy to explain for foreignbro on the offchance that he's actually here and interested.

basically your advice seemed like pompous bullshit. that's what's implied by "cheesy"
cheese also comes in several varieties, it's a pun you see.
so when you talked down to me again in your cheesy pompous way, I complimented the smugness you managed to sneak in, to show you that I see what you're doing and don't give a fuck, because you aren't shit.

Then you got edgy and called me retarded so I taunted you by complimenting the fine edge of your sharp cheese. More puns, you see, because things like sharp cheddar exist.

now thank daddy for fucking his baby bitch

>>6672670
i wholeheartedly agree with this post