/lit/ - Literature

>>8631904
True, but the same could be said about reading in general, that everyone who reads has banded together by the psuedo-literarate-intellectual-complex and now thinks lower of anyone who doesn't read. Since all "true" definitions of what something is or isn't stem from the larger beliefs of a community or society, then it makes sense thay a community of people who often read books and prides themselves on their abilities to properly critique could define what a "good" book is. That is not to say the subjective opinion of an individual is incorrect, moreover it just cannot be applied aptly to a group outside oneself.

> Most people have an artistic quality definition of "Whatever gives me joy"

Disagree, people involved in literature are involved in academia so they would not use "joy" as a metric to evaluate a work (however very frequently people involved in a field will find joy in works that have literary qualities). If joy were the metric then bestseller's lists would be the focus of academic thought and research.

Not being involved in academia I would guess that they focus on content such as the flow of sentences to paragraphs and paragraphs to chapters, depth and development of characters, attention to overall form, using descriptive language effectively, developing motifs and combining all of these things to effectively express yourself.

>>8631927
but from that we would follow that best is something that is as complex as the community can maximaly understand, thereby cutting themselves off from the ess read most efficiently.

This isn't the case however, while goodness does have obstruction inherent in it in literary critique, it is not at all as centra as you would expect from an attitude chiefly concerned with cutting oneself off from others.

>>8631904
Requesting meme of neckbeard who can understand that furniture, music, and film can be quantified by quality, but rejects that literature can be.

>>8631904
As a college instructor, I'm not sure you really have academics pegged there. Almost everyone grows up taking joy in reading from junk, genre fiction, comics, and children's books, long before they hit the academic canon. I'm not going to argue that Bradbury creates more complex, profound, or meaningful literature than Nabokov, simply because I had more fun reading Bradbury when I was younger. Confusing personal taste with quality is more typical behaviour among those who are outside of academia, actually.

So music academics and aficionados shouldn't criticize Nikki Minaj and Beyonce?

Should film buffs keep their dislike of Transformers and Game of Thrones to themselves because people enjoy them?

Is it wrong for a chef to say microwave meals are terrible food even though millions of people love them?

This is ridiculous, if you spend your life doing something you're gonna have some elitism within your community. It doesn't make you smarter it just means you care more.

You all know what I am about to do to this thread.

>>8631904
Wrong

>>8631904
>There is no way to force others to agree with your definition of literary quality.

But I can, through memes

>>8631904
you forgot to mention the munchhausen trilemma

anyway

>academia agrees with itself and is not pluralist

>>8632839

get a load of this fuckin spook master, "uhhmmmmm every1 knos that if MY college says an art is poor quality then it is, everyone knows that MY PARTICULAR ACADEMIC FRAME OF REFERENCE IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH ALL ARTISTIC MERIT SHOULD RIGHTLY BE MEASURED" lmao

Alrighty. With my stirnerposting concluded I leave you all to your thread. Whatever it's about.

>>8634302
i want all pictures like these to somehow be rounded up and set ablaze in a large bonfire for all to see

>>8631904
So if I scribble a character that vaguely looks like a letter on a sheet of paper, I can call that a novel and say that it's the greatest ever, better than Cervantes or DFW, and I'm correct in my own way?

>>8631904
DUDE SPOOKS LMAO

>>8634488

I want all of YOU to be rounded up and set ablaze, you profligate faggaroni stromboni

>>8634334
Swing and a miss there, anon. That bears no resemblance to what I said. Try reading more slowly, perhaps.