[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 55 KB, 360x359, Literary-Theory-Since-Saussure-described-literature-the-world-became-a-symbol[1].jpg_imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Lit-Major-L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692217 No.1692217 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone read this? I'm hoping it will fill in the gaps and maybe help contextualise the few things I've learnt about lit theory so far. Thought I'd ask here first.

Pic kinda related but looks like the shittiest meme ever.

>> No.1692224

In your own words, can you tell me what literary theory is about? The aims, what it does etc. I'd be truly grateful, anon.

>> No.1692223

shitty meme is shitty for the "world' has floating between "symbol" and "icon" at least since pierce, if other metaphors are fine, since socrates. as to what concerns your eagleton, HE IS A FILTHY COMMUNIST. You might want to read him along with hobsbawm, jameson and djugashvili.

>> No.1692225

It's a decent intro. He's opinionated but at least it's painfully obvious throughout the book.

>> No.1692230

>>1692223
Read 4 books just in order to gain a basic level of understanding? Hm.

>>1692224
It's the theory of analysing and understanding how/why literature works. The wiki page has a pretty good definition.

>>1692225
Tbh I don't like most of your posts but you seem to know your shit when it comes to this so I'll take your word for it, cheers.

>> No.1692233

>>1692230
>Tbh I don't like most of your posts but you seem to know your shit when it comes to this so I'll take your word for it, cheers.
he knows only what endoxa he picked up on this very board. he has no life outside of it. prooflink:
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit/reports/post-count
a tripfag will never be able to back his opinion. those are not deductions of his own, but anon/his professor/a pirated ebook regurgiated

>> No.1692254

Although somewhat difficult, and, ignoring the fact that he was a pro-nazi, read Paul de Man. His Resistance to Theory, for me, is the best book concerning what is literary theory, and one of the finest books to understand deconstruction.

>> No.1692261

>>1692233

WOW. My mind is BLOWN.

>> No.1692286
File: 57 KB, 317x450, salman_rushdie_sat_vers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692286

Is it just me that thinks that lemur looks like Salman Rushdie?

>> No.1692288

>>1692233
lol it amuses me that the population of anons has been steadily declining while the population of trips has been slowly increasing

actually that sucks

>> No.1692298
File: 402 KB, 847x567, tired-yawn2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692298

>>1692233
Considering the amount of time I spend on this board apparently I nonetheless happen to be one of the smartest individuals posting at any one time. Heh.

>> No.1692300

>>1692298

I haven't seen one post you have made that was actually useful or smart in any thread.

>> No.1692301

>>1692300
Heh, you're a stupid faggot

>> No.1692307

d&e basically spouts a bunch of vague, self-referencing statements which in no way help the discussion. sometimes in a poetry thread he will talk about kavanagh's epic, which is apparently the only poem he's ever actually read. and that is only because kavanagh is great enough to be discussed but not to be widely known outside of ireland.

>> No.1692309

I think if you want to learn lit theory it is probably best to take a course at uni, rather than read a book about it (although I understand that not everyone has access to a university education). The problem is that it's hard to really get a full understanding from a book on such a complex subject, especially if you're not all that experienced in the way philosophy is often done. You will end up like deep and edgy, which is fine if you want to impress high school kiddies on /lit/, but leaves something to be desired as far as an actual comprehension of the subject material goes.

If you were to learn from the book, I would suggest getting the source texts and a secondary source such as Eagleton's book. And make heavy use of notes and highlighting/underlining passages. If you are smart hopefully you will come out more educated.

>> No.1692315

>>1692307
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit/thread/1690417

lol dumb ass

>> No.1692319
File: 83 KB, 360x358, Vague-Hipster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692319

>> No.1692321

>>1692315
cool, man. you can copy and paste. i feel so embarrassed.

>> No.1692333

>>1692309

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY&feature=BF&list=SPD00D35CBC75941BD&index=1

you can also download the series free on iTunes as audio or video

>> No.1692360

>>1692321
wait for it...

>> No.1692372
File: 366 KB, 445x573, comeatmeslave.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692372

>>1692360

>> No.1692449
File: 65 KB, 1024x732, flying-pigeon-on-sky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692449

>>1692372

>> No.1692461
File: 16 KB, 267x274, man-drinking-coffee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692461

>>1692333

nice trips

>> No.1692474

>>1692372
If I reply, will you respond?

>> No.1692476

Only boring losers who know nothing about writing nor literature study theory. Period.

>> No.1692501

>>1692476
This.

It used to be said that those who can't do teach. Well, now it's those who can't do write theories about it and those who can't write theory teach.

>> No.1692504

>>1692476
>>1692501

Two retards who don't know what literary theory is.

>> No.1692506

>>1692504
Why drop trip, D+E?

>> No.1692507

>>1692476

theory isn't the study of how to write better. theory discusses the definition and goals of literature.

>> No.1692509

>>1692476
>>1692501
>>1692506

samefag who doesn't know what theory is

>> No.1692512

>>1692507
>theory isn't the study of how to write better. theory discusses the definition and goals of literature.

Yes, dear, but only writers know that. Theoreticians are just trying to steal the thunder of the writers.

>> No.1692516

>>1692512
lol'd
>>1692501
>Well, now it's those who can't do write theories
>it is those who can't do write
>it is those...write
lol'd
also lol'd because you're fucking wrong

>> No.1692520

>>1692516
Butthurt lit theoretician detected.

>> No.1692525

>>1692520

first thing you've got right in this thread

>> No.1692528

>>1692525
You will never be as good or valuable as a real writer. Get over it.

>> No.1692530

>LIT THEORY IS FOR STUPID FAGGOTS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO WRITE
No, that's not right.
>LOL Y U SO BUTTHURT FAGGOT

>> No.1692535

>>1692530
you're arguing with a troll, bro

>> No.1692539

POLITICAL THEORY IS FOR FAGGOTS WHO AREN'T ALPHA ENOUGH TO BE POLITICIANS

>> No.1692554

>>1692539

Its funny, I know a Political Science PHD who works at a liquor store because he can't find work. Nice guy.

>> No.1692578

Lit theory is the best way to remove all experiential joy from reading and replace it with snobbish overanalyzation; it's employed as a means to place the theoritician in a position of intellectual superiority over the person of genuine talent, the one who actually pours their soul onto the page, the author.

D&e is one of the better examples I've seen of this. These pomo losers who employ vaguery and obscurity as simulacra for profundity. They aren't. He simply attempts to make enough esoteric references in the hope that the average anon gets confused and concedes the point. He is a vapid child who really needs to get a hobby that doesn't involve spouting useless drivel.

tldr; go suck Harold Blooms wrinkly balls d&e

inb4 u mad trolololol i couldn't give a fuck really

>> No.1692583

>>1692578
This.

100% this.

>> No.1692584

all literature is entropy

>> No.1692585

why are ppl still posting in this thread under the assumption I give a fuck

>> No.1692595

>>1692585
>implying any of us give a fuck about what you give a fuck about

>> No.1692603

>>1692585

Every thread isn't about you. we are discussing shit, feel free to leave.

I never understood why there is even a literary theory, there really isn't much equivalent in the world of art to lit theory. Basically in the art world, the artist tells you what their intent was and what the piece is about, and you go with that. If I go to a museum and start looking at say a few Monet paintings and then decide that I think his lily paintings can be interpreted as having Communist leaning undertones I would be laughed at by everybody! Because it wasn't the authors fucking intention to be political! He just wanted to mess with color and paint some damn flowers. Things that are supposed to be political are interpreted as such!

Nobody thinks Guernica by Picasso is about anything but the damn war that he said it was about!!

Yet with lit theory I can take some childrens book and interpret it however the fuck I want, and find as many hidden oh so deep meanings as I want.

It is a crock of shit.

>> No.1692607

This thread is lol
Think about this, did you ever wonder what lit studies were about before the conception of modern lit theory? Think about a lit class without interpretation. All they did was read the books and say well that was a nice book wasn't it? Well to keep everybody interested they made it complicated.

>> No.1692623

>>1692595
There is at least one person in this thread who has tried and failed hard to troll me

>> No.1692634

>>1692623

You know if you quit wasting your time on the internet pretending your the shit and actually do something real with your life (like master all those fields in 5 years lol right) then we might respect you.

But for now you are just some faggot over the internet who likes to act like he knows shit that he doesn't. So why not just fuck off of the conversation if people are trying to troll you faggot.

>> No.1692635

>>1692634
There is at least one person in this thread who has tried and failed hard to troll me

>> No.1692743

Thanks for derailing my thread guise.

>> No.1692755

For an intro to lit theory this Open Yale course if pretty good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY

It's available in audio format on itunesu

>> No.1692757

>>1692233

Interesting link, actually - some of the only interesting tripfags (Scout, for example) have only posted a couple of hundred times, while the absolute faggots (D&E, Woof, Fagulous etc) are posting thousands and thousands of words of shit every day. If they actually applied that output to something constructive, they may actually acheive something, but instead they're on here 8 hours a day with their "lol we so witty /lit/ owes us" routine. The capacity of the human being to waste its precious time on this planet never ceases to amaze me.

>> No.1692758

>>1692634
> (like master all those fields in 5 years lol right)
I'm sure he's actually trying (and failing) to do that

>> No.1692763

>>1692757
I like vriginia woof, I think he's kind of funny, and also he's not a total douche

>> No.1692774

>>1692763

He has his moments, but he's still 75% douche.

>> No.1692780

>>1692300
>>1692301

>Heh, you're a stupid faggot

Way to prove that other guy's point, you indecribable prick.

To OP - David Lodge on literary theory is very informative and accessible.

>> No.1692781

>>1692780
I've got the Modern Criticism & Theory Reader if that's what you're talking about. Has he done anything else worth picking up?

>> No.1692783

>>1692781

The Art of Fiction is very good: that and the reader were required reading when I was at uni, and provide a pretty solid basis for learning more about theory, if that's what floats your boat.

There's also Nice Work, a novel set in the world of lit crit, which is pretty cutting and shows that Lodge isn't entirely happy with Literary Theory. It's a long while since I read it, but I remember a guy who starts out writing about the influence of Shakespeare on Eliot, but in order to satisfy the vagaries of pomo theory, and ensure his funding, he changes it to the influence of Eliot on Shakespeare - saying that anyone who reads Shakespeare now reads it through the prism of Eliot.

I think that pretty much sums up prefessional acedemic criticism.

>> No.1692791

>>1692783
Thanks bud, I just downloaded Nice Work and will have a look for Art of Fiction. Appreciate it.

FYI reason I'm asking for all this is because the Lit Theory course at my Uni has been underwhelming. We've just been looking at essays particular to different movements in the Lodge Reader with no attempt to contextualise.

>> No.1692797
File: 544 KB, 900x603, confetti death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692797

To the OP:
Eagleton's book is pretty well written though i thought he was too opinionated and bias towards certain segments. He also likes to write a lot of obvious things...

i would also suggest
An Introduction To Literature Criticism and Theory (th edition is the newest) by Bennett and Royle, for hands down one of the best BEGINNER criticism and theory books i've ever read.

>> No.1692799
File: 7 KB, 251x189, Reaction Derrida (1299961426094).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692799

>>1692797
I'd listen to this man, he seems well-informed and interested in the topic at hand.

Cool image, you know the source?

>> No.1692812

>>1692780
>Way to prove that other guy's point
That he was a stupid faggot? heh, thanks I did pretty well

>> No.1692823
File: 5 KB, 150x225, small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692823

>>1692225
D&E:
> It's a decent intro. He's opinionated but at least it's painfully obvious throughout the book.
Brownbear posting later:
> Eagleton's book is pretty well written though i thought he was too opinionated and bias towards certain segments. He also likes to write a lot of obvious things...

Another day, another stupid Brownbear post stating retardedly obvious things.


I'd recommend Lois Tyson's Critical Theory Today. It's what introduced me to theory and it's pretty fucking great. I still find myself going back to it.

>> No.1692830

Of course Eagleton is biased he's an avowed MARXIST CRITIC, you fucking retards.

Brownbear, D&E, please do fuck off, you're just a tragedy. although if only one of you goes, let it be D&E, please

>> No.1692832
File: 77 KB, 1336x304, anons getting TOLD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692832

>>1692823
>>1692823

heyy look it's another post by that fat lenny guy no one gives a shit about
and oh boy, he's ignored everything that was actually said AGAIN!
what a fucking tweest.

>>1692799
>>1692799
yeah i remember that

>> No.1692848

>>1692830
>Of course Eagleton is biased he's an avowed MARXIST CRITIC
That doesn't imply he would write a book as opionated as he did.

0/10 try again

>> No.1692860

>>1692848

>Marxist critic
>opinionated

Also which critic isn't opinionated? Criticism is the expression of opinion. You really aren't that bright, are you? Poor cunt.

>> No.1692863

>>1692832
Way to photoshop the earlier post as the latter one.

Fucking dumbass.

>> No.1692865

>>1692832
You changed the posts around. First comment you made was that stupid herp Derrida uses language to showcase ideas. An anon called you on it and then you replied back with a generic statement that could as well be applied to Saussure or fucking anyone.

>> No.1692873

>>1692860
It's never been a question of whether one is opinionated or not, the degree to which is more important. Try again kid.

>> No.1692910

>>1692863
>>1692863
>corrected myself
>lol no i just look at da first post u r a dumbass!

okay fat lenny, keep trying to play with the big boys kiddo

0/10

>> No.1692915

>>1692873

>the degree to which is more important

That makes little sense, and is no kind of an answer. Want to have another pop at it, kiddo?

captcha nubster but

>> No.1692917

>>1692915
>That makes little sense, and is no kind of an answer
Of course it does, and yes it is. Try again.

>> No.1692923

>>1692910
That's the weakest denial of error I've ever witnessed. You clearly got called on being a dumbass and spouting shit. If anyone here is trying to play with the big kids it's you desperately trying to suck D&E's dick. Plus you're max 17 years old.

Also
>implying I'm a guy.

>> No.1692925

>>1692917

No. You're a moron, and I can feel my IQ dropping to meet yours every time I read one of your posts which just greentexts a quote with some 16-year old invective.

Yeah yrah, you schooled the anon or whatever. Truth is, I'm bored of you, and I think I'll go back to my original policy of just ignoring you.

>> No.1692926

>>1692925
>No.
Yes actually

>> No.1692939
File: 38 KB, 360x360, banana_pancakes_mmm_tasty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692939

>>1692926
>>1692917
>>1692873
>>1692848
>>1692812
>>1692623
>>1692585
>>1692372
>>1692315
>>1692301
>>1692298

>> No.1692937
File: 40 KB, 435x435, disapointment 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1692937

>>1692923
>>1692923
0/10 bro
>implying age matters
hah okay old sport

>> No.1692947

>>1692939
He's not as bad as Brownhole.

>> No.1692948

>>1692939
careful or I'll bore you too

>> No.1692977

>>1692939
>>1692947
The difference between the two is that D&E is some grad/phd student who comes to /lit/ to condescend to high school kids, whereas Brownbear is some high school kid who tries to think he's a grad school student and knows shit about literature but really all he does is play Halo and spam /lit/ with greentext fantasies.

>> No.1693003

>>1692977
>D&E is a grad student
nope

>> No.1693019
File: 55 KB, 640x1099, 1-girl-scout.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1693019

>>1693003
whatever you say, scout

>> No.1693065

>>1692977
Could you BE anymore wrong?

>> No.1693083
File: 157 KB, 484x661, tall showcases big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1693083

>>1693065
Keep acting like you're not insanely embarrassed and not in massive denial.

You
are
dumb.

>> No.1693226
File: 29 KB, 366x440, dsfdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1693226

>>1692578
mfw this is an argument in theory

>> No.1693328
File: 54 KB, 471x480, cantbelieve.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1693328

>>1692603
>>1692603

NIGGER, WHAT?
1. This is an outrageously stupid non sequitur.

>hrmm because lit theory doesn't really have an equivalent in art, lit theory is a crock of shit.

2. Anyway, there is so much theory in art, I almost think you have to be trolling. A person couldn't be so stupid. How do we define art? What is art for? Is literature art?

3. What is this drivel you are spouting about "intent"? You're arguing a central focus of theory, and YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. There are entire schools of thought, developed by people much smarter than yourself, which argue this idea.

Basically, your argument about art (which somehow translates into an argument about literature--or rather, doesn't) is that art is strictly an aesthetic enterprise. That's fine, but this argument is an engagement in theory.

>> No.1693348
File: 29 KB, 500x377, u mad dog in a hat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1693348

>>1693083
>>1693083
HA
0/10 bro
you mad as fuck