/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10229746]

Do you think it tortures book critics that they will never be the star. they will never be special. they are just reading others great work and translating the genius for the stupid masses in hopes that they will get a tiny bit of spillover that they are a genius too for recognizeing the other one. Imagine what a fucked up parasitic life that is.

[Anonymous No.10229766]

>>10229746
Yes, that's why the majority of "critics" are negative, resentful losers that can only focus on an authors shortcomings. Cliff rarely does that if ever. I think that's the main point of his channel -- to praise great works.

[Anonymous No.10229751]

>>10229746
Do you think it tortures /lit/ postures to know that their favorite writer's would all trade places with cliff to review books for $500 a pop?

[Anonymous No.10230356]

>>10229766
I must say, this is actually a good point. An academic friend of mine once remarked that he has always felt there was something perverse about speaking of poetry and literature when one cannot produce it themselves. I also believe it was Harold Bloom who said that all critics are failed poets.

[Anonymous No.10230362]

>>10229746
Yes and no. Criticism too is a part of literature and there have been unquestionably many critic-stars, especially over the last 150 years. See Oscar Wilde's The Critic as Artist.

[Anonymous No.10230369]

Clement Greenberg is more important to the artworld than 99% of the contemporary artists from the 60s onwards.

[Anonymous No.10230382]

If you can't do, teach. If you can't teach, critique. Critics are the lowest of the low. I have never listened to a critic in my life.

[Anonymous No.10230477]

http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/1305/

[Anonymous No.10230487]

>>10230356
>>10229766
plebs, this is the real booktube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw4zMSpHStc

[Anonymous No.10231140]

He is a avid /li/ visitor.

[Anonymous No.10231613]

>>10229746
I don't think there is too much intersection going on. Someone who loves writing, won't waste their time writing about the works of others, while someone who loves analyzing and writing about their opinions, is clearly not too interested in writing their own work.

[Anonymous No.10231656]

>>10231613
>People who love writing don't write about others even inadvertently because they live in a vaccuum

[Anonymous No.10231700]

>>10231656
>ven inadvertently because they live in a vaccuum
Is quite different from actually making a career out of writing about others.

If you like playing football, you might enjoy talking about it too, but you sure as fuck won't choose to become a sports writer or a commentator instead of a player.

[Anonymous No.10231921]

>>10230382
And that's why your writing is shit.

[Anonymous No.10232016]

>>10231700
>choose to become
chosen to become, rather.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10232166]

[Anonymous No.10232206]

>>10229746
There were several quite successful writers in the past who also engaged in literary criticism – you don't seem to be particularly well read if this strikes you as an oddity.

Cliff, on the other hand, is a likeable hack. Likeable, because of his friendly, inviting, masculine mannerisms – like a cool older brother, who seem to have his shit together. A hack, because of his shallow, unoriginal, copy-paste parroting excuse of a review – like an annoying younger sister, who shows no signs of an internal monologue and soul searching.

He's got a great gimmick going on, so good for him. I for one found his latest review of Lautremont laughable; literary citing facts about the author from wikipedia, only to proceed by reading an original analysis of it from someone else's blog.

[Anonymous No.10232960]

>>10229746
>Do you think it tortures book critics that they will never be the star.

Actually, no. I think critics are motivated by different things than writers. Being a failed writer doesn't automatically grant you the capabilities to critique literature. If you've ever read decent literary critique there's much more going on than "waah i couldnt get published".

Maybe they are more interested in the culture and community of the art-type as a whole, and have no plans on seeing themselves a part of it. Perhaps the very aesthetic of evaluating and categorizing works is what drives them.

It's true though that I can never take a reviewer seriously as a content creator. I could never see Cliff being published, or any other reviewer of any other format. JG Keely, a very strict voice in evaluating genre fiction, once published a chapter of his own writing, and it was pure steampunk nonsense that seemed to flout all the rules he himself set down. It's like they've sold off too much of themselves that the magic goes from them.

[Anonymous No.10233012]

>>10232206
>masculine

There's nothing masculine about him. Watch his France blog video thingy. He's a fucking skinny dork with short pants.

[Anonymous No.10233703]

>>10229766
It's easier to praise works that are universally deemed great than it is to critique a solid work. I can go in reading Dickens knowing his works are "classics" and fall into the mindset that what I'm reading is truly great, and push aside any kind of criticism because, hey, who am I to question this literary master?

[Anonymous No.10233746]

>>10233703
The problem is casual criticism of books, like you'd see on booktube, is often something like "so and so held very sexist views and this is problematic because..."

Praise and criticism can be thoughtful or lazy. So I would'nt say one is easier than the other

[Anonymous No.10233749]

>>10229746
The line between artistry and criticism was effaced with Barthes, Derrida et al

[Anonymous No.10234633]

Unwatchable.

[Anonymous No.10234653]

>>10233749
Sam Johnson, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Hazlett, Charles Lamb, John Ruskin, Walter Pater.. this trend begins much earlier in English. In French it begins in earnest with St. Beuve, Charles Baudelaire...

[Anonymous No.10234672]

>>10232206
This past year he has become a lot more self-aware about his reviewing and mannerisms. He probably browses /lit/. He's a nice guy despite the stuff /lit/ hates him for; I really dig his positive attitude.

[Anonymous No.10234775]

>>10232206
people like this always rise to the top. see chris stuckmann. the c student at play

[Anonymous No.10235345]

>>10234653
fair point
I guess I was thinking more the distinction between "theory/criticism" and "literature"

[Anonymous No.10236530]

>>10229746
criticism with intent to destroy is hacky

criticism with purpose to understand is useful

writing books to answer a question is useful

good criticism is a necessary step in finding the next answer, be it the writer or critic who is doing the criticism.

if criticism is not useful (aka doesnt provide narcissistic supply as you describe), then what is the purpose of critical thinking?

[Anonymous No.10236562]

>>10236530
critic with reddit spacing is ?

[Anonymous No.10236582]

>>10236562
dude who gives a shit about formatting is ?

[Anonymous No.10236602]

>>10236582
I'm just memeing you pal. carry on my wayward son

[Anonymous No.10236608]

>>10236602
i fuckin hate the internet atm. 90% noise to signal ratio.

go back to school/uni you children, get off my lawn.

[Anonymous No.10236614]

>>10236602
that;'s a fuckin ancient camera in her hand btw

[Anonymous No.10236866]

>>10229746
Absolutely. Abso-fucking-lutely. Critics are the worst kind of people. Any critic of a subjective art, who does not have a similar level of experience actually doing that art, is simply not qualified to judge it. There are some academics who might have some knowledge of it but should still not be taken seriously. "Criticism" in the sense that the critic simply dissects what the artist is portraying is different, that's actually extremely helpful, but these fat faggot professors in their sweater vests with an unathenticated autographed copy of The Da Vinci Code from eBay on a shelf next to their framed diploma who trash starving artists from their ivory towers just to feel superior are trying to fill their emptiness with hatred, and they deserve e lifetime of despair that they're digging themselves into with their own actions. Death would be too good for them.

If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.

[Anonymous No.10236888]

>>10229746
I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>
I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>
I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>

[Anonymous No.10236911]

>>10236866
Keep fighting the good fight, anon
Don't let them discourage you

[Anonymous No.10236974]

>>10236866
>fat faggot professors in their sweater vests with an unathenticated autographed copy of The Da Vinci Code from eBay on a shelf next to their framed diploma who trash starving artists from their ivory towers just to feel superior
lol what the fuck

[Anonymous No.10237095]

>>10236974
He's young, retarded and quite clearly mad at someone. He can't even get his strawmen right, that the fuck.

[Anonymous No.10237164]

>>10237095
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. If you're not in 100% agreement with what I said, you clearly have zero experience creating true art from your soul, in which case you should just leave this board, and maybe even reconsider why literature is a hobby for you. If you're not in it for the art to touch your soul then you're probably in it to feel intellectually superior to others. Please, please, please, I beg you, buy an industrial strength 9-inch nail gun, put your penis and testicles on a cinder block, unload 5-10 nails through your genitals and the cinder block, then jump into the ocean and sink to the bottom and die.

[Anonymous No.10237205]

>>10237164
>HUURRR look ma im beein edgy on 4chan agin hehehuehe

[Anonymous No.10237216]

>>10237205
Shove a fire hose up your asshole and have someone near the button turn it on

[Anonymous No.10237326]

>>10230356
that academic friend quoted ezra pound

[Anonymous No.10237394]

>>10236866
>If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.
including Milk & Honey?

[Anonymous No.10237413]

>>10237164
>>10237216

Stop being this edgy. It's edge to a corny degree.

We get it. You genuinely appreciate art and the hacks of the world annoy you. Cool. Stop posting like such a heated teenager about it, your very hot take on the situation is heat enough for one thread.

[Anonymous No.10238297]

>>10236866
>If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.
Every worthwhile project changes you as an author. For me it did with Tales Untold, although I'd hope more people would read it. I think it's an absolute masterpiece.

This'll be my last message on /lit/
Goodbye

[Anonymous No.10238365]

>>10230369
modernism was already happening 30+ years before greenberg published the first of his little essays
the reason his fame obscures most contemporary artists is probably because fine art is at an all time low regarding its projection and social value. nobody gives a fuck

[Anonymous No.10238389]

>>10237216
If a man has access to the hose, why not turn it without the help of somebody nearby?
What would prevent him from pressing the button on his own

[Anonymous No.10238400]

>>10229746
It's not like any of us here on /lit/ is ever going to produce anything of any literary value, so all we can do is critique those that do...

[Anonymous No.10238485]

>>10230369
contemporary art is shit because it's less relevant than its own critique

[Anonymous No.10238492]

>>10236614
can't make out what it is

[Anonymous No.10239895]

>>10229766
>>10229746
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.10240022]

>>10229746
I read the NYT book review, most of them are stuck-up and have no idea what quality is. When they talk about "classics," they're some third-world name that I've never heard. Many articles insult Trump as if by mandate.

[Anonymous No.10241893]

>>10229746
>He doesn't realize that critics are the true artists.
Get some sleep, op