/lit/ - Literature

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1486906]

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[Anonymous No.1486917]

No no no it's not with a whimper but with a bang.

You need to re-watch Southland Tales, my dear.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1486924]

>Not with a bang but a whimper.
just like half your threads on /v/

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1486931]

He said he wouldn't write those words again because he didn't mean it to be a reference to the hydrogen bomb.

But who cares about the author's intentions, amirite fellow po-mos? AMIRITE?

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1486934]

>>1486924
I deleted that thread to add "/lit/ here" in the subject field.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1486947]

>>1486931
>But who cares about the author's intentions, amirite fellow po-mos? AMIRITE?
New Criticism wasn't po-mo. Your witless teenager is showing trumouse

[Anonymous No.1486965]

>>1486947
>>1486947
looooooooooooool

d&e: 1 truman capote: -9001

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1486997]

>>1486947

You can't deny that new-criticism and univocation isn't a fundamental part of post-modernist literature.

[Anonymous No.1487010]

>>1486947
wut wus that thing 'bout dead authors and its relevense to author intentions by dat barthys fellow?
wus that po-mo?

[Anonymous No.1487011]

>>1486947
Oh my god to even say "that isn't po-mo" shows an inherent flaw in your thinking on post-modernism, Deep and Edgy. You should just stop trying to be right, when you are wrong so much.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1487012]

>new-criticism
>puts a dash in it
srsly do you happen to have the faintest clue what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.1487018]

>>1487011
Here come the faggy statues.

[Anonymous No.1487026]

>>1487012
>again using typos and misspellings as the basis for an argument

[Anonymous No.1487028]

>>1486997
> new criticism
> ts eliot
> thinks its po-mo

let 'em have it meat&veggie

[Deep&Edgy !pWIOOtoPMs No.1487029]

>>1487018

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1487032]

>>1487010
Barthes was more concerned about the author as locus of meaning, drawing on some of the ideas from Bakhtin (mediated by Kristeva) on what would come to be known as intertextuality and the deconstructionist emphasis on logocentrism.

The New Critics conceived of the poem as self-contained, entirely contrary to what Barthes would have asserted.

[Anonymous No.1487034]

Ok. Serious question. What does post-modernism actually mean. What paradigm of modernity is thought to have passed when people talk about post-modernism??

[Anonymous No.1487042]

>>1487010
not really but I can see why you'd think that, common misconception

[Anonymous No.1487060]

>>1487032
> barthes
> author as locus of meaning
no.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1487063]

>>1487060
No, obviously. Did you read what I posted

[Anonymous No.1487064]

>>1487034
It is really just modernism continued...people can't stand when the projects they are engaged in progress beyond their initial predictions of completion (e.g. the narratives of modernism produce a reaction against narratives, or rather a critical view of narratives) Either way, the "post" label is mostly for show.

[Derp&Edgy !nzo4zWOAQE No.1487068]

>>1487060
>concerned with
as in concerned with the idea of author as locus of meaning... not trying to promote the idea of the author as the locus of meaning

[Anonymous No.1487073]

>>1487068
Desperately trying to back track...

[Anonymous No.1487074]

>>1487064
Ok. I get that. But in actual everyday use of the term what do people mean?
I keep hearing it being used willy-nilly in a condradictory manner.

[Anonymous No.1487076]

>>1487064
Well its more complected than that, since you have wrapped up in the whole thing artistic, literary and philosophical movements, and its not like modernism suddenly stopped its just at a certain point one group of thinkers decided to name themselves postmoderns, the validity of that term is neither particularly here nor there.

[Anonymous No.1487077]

>>1487073
Can you read? Is english not your first language?

[Anonymous No.1487084]

The main difference, as I see it, without quoting critics that no one will know to prove how much I know, is that new critics thought there was still more or less one 'correct' meaning from the text whereas Barthes would argue that this meaning is founded more in the context of the reader. And yes, there is an element of intertextuality, where the "author" is constantly drawing upon previously written texts.

Harold Bloom does it all much better.

[Anonymous No.1487085]

>>1487068
now that makes sense

[Anonymous No.1487100]

>>1487077
I have perfect understanding of English. I invented it, and have secretly developed it, unseen to the rest of the world, into what it is today; the universal language. The language of money.

While this has made me rich, I can still see the poverty in Deep&Edgy's posts, both linguistic and intellectual.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1487109]

Man, I am so intelligent.

[Anonymous No.1487115]

>>1487109
when it comes to flippant generalizations, sure why not

[Anonymous No.1487122]

[Anonymous No.1487127]

>>1487122
Hello...

D&E's faggy statue fantasy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ILDFp5DGA

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1487128]

>this thread

[Other Anonymous No.1487188]

I've never been to /lit/ before and this is one of my first impressions.

I think I'm in love.