/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11080193]

Leave this board and never return if any one of these apply to you:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

[Anonymous No.11080264]

>>11080193
Care to extrapolate?

[Anonymous No.11080512]

>>11080193
Lemme explain this to anyone confused.

Op is a massive faggot whose asshole itches when not filled with penis

[Anonymous No.11080531]

Leave this board and never return if the following applies to you:
>You read

[Anonymous No.11080544]

>>11080193
begone.

[Anonymous No.11080546]

>you read for entertainment
Maybe I am misunderstanding this point. Can someone explain why I should not enjoy reading?

[Anonymous No.11080547]

>>11080193


pseudowoodo

[Anonymous No.11080555]

Wow let's turn this board into a subreddit with 3 people with shit taste

[Anonymous No.11080570]

>>11080546
There's a difference between enjoying reading and reading explicitly to be entertained. It's the difference between the pleasure of insight and the satisfaction of mindless occupation.

[Anonymous No.11080576]

>>11080570
>There's a difference between enjoying reading and reading explicitly to be entertained.
this is what pseuds actually think

[Anonymous No.11080585]

>>11080570
Ok pseud

[Anonymous No.11080597]

>>11080555
reddit is the opposite of novalis anon

[Anonymous No.11080601]

This board has probably helped thousands of otherwise artistically lost young men cultivate good taste and keep alive literature and philosophy that may have otherwise been completely obscured. If it means allowing some people to have a silly opinion, then that is well worth it. It is your job as a self professed aesthete to stomp out bad opinions and arguments when you see them. If you didn't get the other poster to respond in the face of good reason then hopefully a silent observer took notice of it.

[Anonymous No.11080604]

>>11080193
Make me leave nerd

[Anonymous No.11080626]

>>11080193
based

[Anonymous No.11080638]

>>11080193
But I want to learn from /lit/. How can I learn if I must leave? Only started reading yesterday.

[Anonymous No.11080821]

>>11080193
why a pic of novalis everytime

[Anonymous No.11080910]

>>11080193
>everyone leaves and there's no one left

[Anonymous No.11080920]

>>11080547
>>11080576
>>11080585
>>11080626

[Anonymous No.11080924]

Does someone have that old meme 'pynchon too hard? Stick to goosebumps'

[Anonymous No.11080935]

>>11080920
>There's a difference between enjoying watching films and watching films explicitly to be entertained.
>There's a difference between enjoying listening to music and listening to music explicitly to be entertained.

[Anonymous No.11080941]

>>11080531
But that means everyone will leave the board, right? I mean, right now you are reading...

[Anonymous No.11080944]

>>11080935
You are correct.

[Anonymous No.11080947]

>>11080570
If you aren't enjoying what you read, forcing yourself through it likely won't improve your understanding. Even the most staunch, dry philosophers understand the need to capture both attention and intention: without a stable entwining of both, your work is doomed to the wastebin of history.

[Anonymous No.11080954]

>>11080944
No, you're so fucking stupid and spooked that you can't picture yourself doing something because you enjoy it. There is no factual difference between the two and you're using a cheap rhetorical trick to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11080961]

>all this gatekeeping

This is why nobody likes 4chan outside of 4chan. You go to the music board and everybody is wanking over their rare superior patrician obscure music and laughing at anybody who doesn't listen exclusively to pirated FLAC on their hard drive with $500 Sennheisers. You go to the vidya board and get shit on for playing on console or playing games that are too casual. You go to the literature board and faggots like this tell you to leave if you haven't read the complete Western Cannon and spend 5 hours a day jerking yourself off to John Donne and Immanuel Kant

[Anonymous No.11080969]

>>11080961
*canon, I apologise

[Anonymous No.11080973]

>>11080947
I never said you should force yourself to do something you don't enjoy. Reading things you feel you ought to read is a sure way to end up hating reading.

[Anonymous No.11080983]

>>11080954
Calm down and think rationally for a minute, bud. You think there is no difference between entertaining someone and enjoying someone?

[Anonymous No.11080985]

>>11080961
As it should be. Elitism keeps the laypeople out, otherwise we'd turn into /tv/. I want a peer group that talks about Tolstoy and Homer, not Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.11081052]

>>11080193
>you read any form of genre fiction
Both Tolkien and Dick are essential reading. If you aren't reading either, then you're severely limiting your literary scope. Either eat the end of a shotgun, or remove the stick from your ass.
>you barely know your classics
Absolutely true. You must read the classics-- never limit the breadth of your knowledge.
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
All work is justified on an artistic level, regardless of whether you like it or not. What you must accept is that some art is trash.
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
Indeed. Argument is the essence of learning.
>you speak a single language
No. Fuck off.
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
To ignore the soul of intent is to be shoved up darkened and messy asshole. Your teeth stink of shit; your ears leak dumb. So long as the intent and meaning is preserved, then all you promote the exclusively arbitrary. Though I will relent that it is more fun to read in their native dialects.
>you read for the plot
Fuck off, no-fun fag.
>you read for entertainment
See above.
>you rarely read nonfiction
Expanding your intellectual horizons is paramount: nonfiction will indeed expand said horizons. Agreed.
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
Few long-term users have neglected their philosophy, and the newfags are generally eager to learn. Do you intend to restrict learn to the prior learned and bourgeoisie? How listlessly boorish.
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
hurr durr u don undrsond thing! u dum!
Careful, your pseud is showing.
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
Agreed.
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
Agreed again.
>you mostly read contemporary literature
Isn't this addressed vicariously through 'read the classics?' In any case, agreed.
>you believe 'the author is dead'
Who genuinely believes this? What audience do you seek to entice? Your perception of the environment you inhabit is terribly skewed.
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
Agreed-- ideological stick-in-the-muds are a cancer upon intellectualism.
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
Absolutely agreed. Purple prose is a lie, and those who push the dumbing of narrative are lowly pseuds.
>your rarely read poetry
Agreed. I recommend starting with Divina; it's a lovely bridge between the worlds.
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
Depends on the work, but Rhythm and Rhyme are necessary for any serious author.
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
Agreed.
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
Agreed again. You must be able to defend your ideas; anything else is heresy.

[Anonymous No.11081060]

>>11080570
>>11080576
>>11080585
>>11080601

My two cents: you should always enjoy the act of reading, but strive to make what you're reading something other than merely enjoyable. "Entertaining" literature is a better phrasing. Anyone can sit down and be entertained and enjoy by reading easy genre fiction or a magazine. You can also enjoy reading something challenging. But challenging literature also improves you: reading comprehension, imparting wisdom, giving you new perspectives. Challenge yourself and enjoy the challenge. That's the true love of literature.

[Anonymous No.11081068]

>>11081052
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
Also agreed. You must be able to defend your thoughts; to not is to be an unread profligate.
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
No. To read is to read: setting such arbitrary limits is the mark of a leeching NEET. Though, once more, I will relent that reading in what spare time you have is encouraged.

[Anonymous No.11081083]

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>your rarely read poetry
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism


All me

[Anonymous No.11081092]

>>11081052
All wrong

[Anonymous No.11081097]

>>11080985
>I want a peer group that talks about Tolstoy and Homer
Same, where I can find one?

[Anonymous No.11081107]

>>11081092
Even what I agreed with? Nice job outting yourself for not having taken the time to 'read.' Absolutely disgraceful.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081111]

>>11081052
>So long as the intent and meaning is preserved, then all you promote the exclusively arbitrary.
Imagine being this parochial. Art is primarily aesthetic. It doesn't matter whether or not you attempt to preserve the "meaning" of a work, when you turn it into something else that process necessarily destroys the thing the original artist created. Reading a weird synthetic hybrid work by the original artist and his translator is only acceptable when you have no other recourse, i.e. you don't speak the language. If you speak English, not reading Shakespeare in his original form is a just laziness.

[Anonymous No.11081127]

>>11081111
>quads
Nice.
Also, I was already on the fence with this particular point, for I myself greatly enjoy the original prose over any lackluster translation, and agree that any watered-down version thereof is likely but a pale imitation of the artistic intent. So I suppose I must relent once more. Well reasoned.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081131]

>>11081127
What the fuck, i've never seen someone concede a point on /lit/ before

[Anonymous No.11081134]

>>11081097
this

[Anonymous No.11081151]

>>11081111

I agree with you, to a degree. It depends on the intent and form of the work. Poetry and complex prose certainly are going to be lost in translation; anything where the form of the text itself is meant to convey beauty will lose its essential weight being transformed into a different language. However, I don't know that anything critical is lost when the author's intent is to carry a universal message or broad meaning; obviously this isn't the case when metaphors or flowery prose run through the philosophy. But a work like Aurelius's Meditations has value because it is so easily carried across languages.

>>11081131

Same.

[Anonymous No.11081156]

>>11081131
That's because you're shit at arguing

[Anonymous No.11081205]

>>11081111
>Art is primarily aesthetic
Right, and a modern retelling of a classic is just an update of the aesthetic. Sure, a lot of the original aesthetic is lost, but unless you're an arbitrary puritan and have no desire to expand your concept of what it means to appreciate good literature, you could very well appreciate what the modern version has to offer.

I feel like this board is inhabited by a bunch of Anton Egos from Ratatouille, I swear.

[Anonymous No.11081228]

"Relevant" is just about one of the most subjective and abused words in contemporary thought; I jeer at it whenever possible.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081271]

>>11081205
>and a modern retelling of a classic is just an update of the aesthetic
Transmuting 17th century verse into 21st century prose isn't just a matter of updating something to conform to contemporary norms. Otherwise beauty is just a formula that changes from generation to generation, and in order to create a great work of art all you have to do is follow the formula. What made Shakespeare aesthetically beautiful is insuperable from the linguistic and formal standards of his time.

[Anonymous No.11081310]

>>11081271
>What made Shakespeare aesthetically beautiful is insuperable from the linguistic and formal standards of his time.

Yes, I agree entirely, and yet the existence of modern renditions of his work doesn't somehow retroactively negate the existence of the originals. It's not exactly like 1+1=0.

[Anonymous No.11081342]

>>11081111
hey man did you to post on /mu/ a lot like 5 years ago

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081406]

>>11081310
No one's saying that the existence of translations negates the original. Only that if one doesn't take the initiative to read the original, despite it being written in their native tongue, then that person is a fucking lazy pleb. 14 year olds read Shakespeare. He's not that difficult.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081412]

>>11081342
on /fa/ too

[First Post No.11081419]

>>11081406
>14 year olds read Shakespeare. He's not that difficult

[First Post No.11081425]

>>11081205
>Right, and a modern retelling of a classic is just an update of the aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.11081429]

>>11081092
this
>>11081107
sorry anon you're gonna have to end it

[Anonymous No.11081440]

>>11081406
You're definitely the faggiest namefaggot on this board

[First Post No.11081441]

>>11081052
>Both Tolkien and Dick are essential reading
>>you speak a single language
>No. Fuck off
>I recommend starting with Divina

[Anonymous No.11081460]

>>11081425
Yes, it literally is. I never said it was a BETTER update, hell many of them are absolute trash. But, as anon pointed out, so long as the core themes and message remain the same, it really is, in essence, just an updated aesthetic.

The fact that you have a knee-jerk reaction to this tells me you're only really interested in Shakespeare for "Shakespeare's" sake, devoid of all sense of experiential truth.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11081490]

>>11081460
The aesthetic is the thing in itself. If you were to take the composition of a renaissance painting and arrange it as a photograph, would it be of similar value to the original?

[Anonymous No.11081521]

>>11081111
first time this dumb tripfag says something intelligent

[Anonymous No.11081527]

>>11080193
how many times has the same green text been posted?

[Anonymous No.11081531]

>>11081460
There is no difference between exposition and truth you fucking retard.
The writing is the only key for understanding a text and the trace of its possible truth.

[Anonymous No.11081534]

>>11081527
Not enough to stop catching newfags, if only it stuck

[Anonymous No.11081537]

>>11080193

Man none of these are a good reason to leave this board.

The real reason you should leave is so you can find a nice girl to marry and impregnate (in that order) that way you might be able to actually leave a lasting legacy on this world because that book you're working on, hehe well we all know where that's gonna end up

[Anonymous No.11081543]

>>11080920
based

[Anonymous No.11081552]

>>11080935
the pleb stumbles over himself in ignorance

[Anonymous No.11081657]

>>11081441
>he doesn't start with the divine comedy
>he doesn't like Philip or Tolkien

[Anonymous No.11081682]

>>11080983
>Calm down and think rationally for a minute
no u
stop making false equivalences and stop using cheap rhetorical tricks
>>11081552
I know about you, but what about me?

[Anonymous No.11081717]

>>11081052
unnecessary attention seeking
>>11081131
its happened numerous times this week sperg

[Anonymous No.11081741]

>>11081717
Fuck, aren't you a joyful person? Welcome to 4chan, newfag, where everyone spregs over everything and the only entertainment is that which you create for yourself.

[Anonymous No.11081747]

>>11081741
unjustified joy is as sinful as unjustified hatred. What is there on this Earth outside of a woman's bedside embrace, a child's earnest smile reflecting in the eyes of his parents, the unsteady steps of a newborn mammal or the expanse at the summit of a great mountain that warrants joy? Do you feel joy when you get your burger with your friends? Are you joyful when you ACE your exams? Are you joyful when you get a raise? Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.11081756]

>>11081490
second time this dumb tripfag says something intelligent although its point would have been better illustrated by referring to modern or premodern art but he most likely doesn't like modern art because he's a dumb tripfag

[Anonymous No.11081759]

>>11081747
>Are you joyful when you ACE your exams?
y-yes

[Anonymous No.11081783]

>>11081747
And what is sin then? The culmination of your own mistakes, or perhaps the contempt harbored in pleasure of the misanthropic? Forgive me, anon, if I find it hard to believe that you are free of such a burden. To what end is your derision for the joyful and, as such, your indulgence in the bored and boorish? Do you think highly of yourself? That wisdom has been bestowed upon you threw the glass-eye lens of grey dreams and grey droughts? What pathetic insect such as you can possibly know of Passion? You are the rigid corpse kicked bad and bloody from the cancerous roots of a bygone era. Remain in your grave: it is better for the lot of us.

[Anonymous No.11081844]

>>11080961
hehe try $1000 sennheisers faggot

[Anonymous No.11081976]

>>11080193
>you believe 'the author is dead'
Haha, this brainlet believes in an author