/lit/ - Literature

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697178]

/lit/ I have a question. Why do some people think critical analysis takes the pleasure out of reading? Critical analysis is after all just an expression of the appreciation of the composition of a text. To me it seems about as absurd a position to take as saying:

>learning the rules of football and the nuances of skilled playing takes all of the pleasure away.

>learning how to string together combos in Street Fighter IV takes all the pleasure away.

Both of these positions, of which I don't see any way in which they differ from the practice of reading and critical analysis, seem ludicrous to me for they seem to imply that the people who know how to play football, play it well, and the people who know how to play Street Fighter 4 (and well) somehow don't derive pleasure from their respective activities. Of course, that's not the case. In fact, in both of these examples learning the rules is a precondition of having any further enjoyment derived from more than simply the novelty of kicking a ball around or pressing buttons. I can appreciate a game of SFIV much, much more than when I didn't know how to string together a combo, or even pull off an ultra.

1

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697180]

Of course, I'm not saying that you're wrong if all you want to do is enjoy reading/kicking a ball/pressing buttons, far from it. What you enjoy is your own business. But to say that in any of these cases learning the rules that underlie such activities prohibits enjoyment is simply a mark of intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Of course, you can present people who HAVE learned the rules and who don't enjoy it any more than when they started or now enjoy it less. The problem here is not with having learnt the rules, the problem is that perhaps the person did not enjoy what is specific to that activity in the first place. If you do not enjoy pulling off 360 kickflips and all sorts of grabs on a skateboard, perhaps trick skateboarding is not for you: perhaps you simply enjoyed the basic entertainment that came from doing stuff on a skateboard.

I'm studying film evaluation currently, and I find it a chore to evaluate films because it seems to make the experience of watching them less entertaining. But I'm not going to say that making such evaluation would take the enjoyment out of watching films because A) I don't fucking know or have done enough evaluation to tell, and B) If I was capable of easily evaluating films and I still wasn't enjoying it that much, holy shit, maybe I don't like specifically fucking FILMS as much as I do sitting there being entertained by something. And it is the same with reading and critical analysis.

2

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697184]

tl;dr to say that critical analysis, the most appropriate and worthy means of demonstrating appreciation of a text through a recognition of the rules that constitute its production, takes the enjoyment out of reading is to say that you don't enjoy what is specific to literature all that much

3

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1697196]

>>the most appropriate and worthy means of demonstrating appreciation of a text

is this meant to be a standalone statement of objective truth?

[Anonymous No.1697199]

I have nothing against analysis unless its sole purpose is to read either "critique of capitalism/colonialism" or "affirmation of bourgeois values" into every fucking "text" ever written. If you think the point of Moby Dick is that a white man led some coloured folk to their deaths you should not be allowed to read.

Film criticism is in a horrible state. I recommend reading Ray Carney's essays on it before drinking the kool aid: http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/acad/skep.shtml (Much of what he says also applies to lazy literary criticism)

[Anonymous No.1697200]

Your analogies are bullshit and you probably have Assburgers

[Anonymous No.1697203]

there's an assumption that understanding the mechanics of a text is going to drain it of jouissance

magical thinking maybe but i don't think it's that hard to grasp where that viewpoint's coming from

[Anonymous No.1697207]

Deep Nedgy is a trolling loser who's scared shitless that his "intellectual" pursuits amount to nothing more than a bucket of dirty dildoes.

[Anonymous No.1697213]

>>1697199

do you listen to sean hannity

[Anonymous No.1697214]

>>1697207
>>1697200
same 12yr old

[Anonymous No.1697216]

Kind of flawed analogies in that football and SFIV are both games, i.e. they are designed to be competitive and encourage skillful mastery.

I think when people say critical analysis "takes the pleasure out of reading" it's because when reading your "supposed" (by author's likely intentions) to be absorbed by the fictional world and it's characters by imagery, empathy and all that jazz.
As soon as you start the "critical analysis" it's no longer a strictly aesthetic experience. Your looking at it as an engineer looks at the blueprints to a big machine, trying to see how it all comes together/works (as supposed to driving the machine itself, let's say).

If your good at music theory you can sit down a listen to Mozart and pick up on all the subtle things that make him a genius. But then you aren't experiencing the music from the true "listener's perspective" anymore, but trying to inside the head of the author instead.

I think when writing literature or music the authors do put in things that they know only the analytics will pick up on -- and think, "ah, that's clever", -- but the main reason they put it in there is not necessarily to prove how clever they are but to experiment with the affect that it has on the reader/listener.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697218]

i've heard a few people say the same thing and i never really understood it either

i don't see critical analysis as the Street Fighter thing you mentioned, however to me it is that analogy (playing SSIV now actually) i think to most people it's more akin to studying the coding of Street Fighter and looking at how every piece of code or w/e comes together after hours of work. And i think this, for some people, takes away the magic of pulling off aShoryuken to a Shinryuken and finally finishing it with your ultra combo Shroyureppa with Ken. But that's just my opinion.

Now personally i think that if i learnt all about coding and how everything worked together in street fighter IV i would appreciate it more. See it as more of an art form and truly appreciate the man hours and time and dedication that went into the game, which, in turn gave me the ability to get a perfect on E.Honda etc. But i can see for some people why this would be a chore, why they want to just play SSIV (or appreciate a book) on a base level, and how there comes a point when they don't want to dig any deeper and they're happy with their understanding.

I did some film evaluation for a year or two and i kind've enjoyed it. However, it did take some of the pleasure out of viewing PARTICULAR films for me, but i think this was more because of the sheer amount of times i had to watch 'Rita, Sue and Bob Too' or 'Children of Men'

I think that critical analysis can be said to be in some ways specific to literature, as in, critical analysis is used in a special and unique way. But to those who don#t enojoy it, i would say that you can easily learn a little bit that WILL enhance your enjoyment of a text. And that it's just up to you as to when you feel that the critical analysis is starting to stop your enjoyment of a text. And that's when you should probably stop.

Pic related, it's what people who don't like critical analysis are.
half serious here

[Anonymous No.1697223]

>>1697216
Reading is also a competitive activity that encourages skillful mastery

[Anonymous No.1697224]

>>1697213
No. I'm a socialist. Just not the kind that wears Che shirts.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697231]

>>1697196
It has nothing much to do with truth, unless you want to consider a plurality of truths of varying quality, and very little to do with objectivity. About as much truth and objectivity as saying "the best way to get strong is to lift heavy weights and eat properly": there's only a certain limited number of parameters under which thse conditions can attain.

>>1697199
Thanks, I'll check him out. I have become more skeptical of much literary theory recently so this should be interesting.

On a more general note; I think people who like to straightforward just read enjoy it as maybe a storytelling experience; they enjoy the story, and all of this:
>>1697216
>to be absorbed by the fictional world and it's characters by imagery, empathy and all that jazz.
Which is perfectly good and well. My contention is that these are not traits specific to the appreciation of literature, for this can be conveyed through the verbal art of storytelling (the decline of which has been lamented fiercely) or the technical devices of Film. Of course, there's some overlap in each, it goes without saying; but literature has its literary devices of which the actual expression of specifically literary appreciation conform to.

[Anonymous No.1697241]

>>1697231
>Which is perfectly good and well. My contention is that these are not traits specific to the appreciation of literature, for this can be conveyed through the verbal art of storytelling (the decline of which has been lamented fiercely) or the technical devices of Film. Of course, there's some overlap in each, it goes without saying; but literature has its literary devices of which the actual expression of specifically literary appreciation conform to.

Yeah, I enjoy well crafted prose just like a film enthusiast enjoys great camera work. It's like, 80% of the reason that made Shakespeare such a good writer.
I don't think this is the same as critical analysis though, which tends to be the business of attatching historical, political, pyschological (etc.) context to the writing, as supposed to discussing what makes a given sentence flow sweetly or how the author went about reaching such a cathartic ending.

[Anonymous No.1697244]

>>1697231
> I have become more skeptical of much literary theory recently
how come?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697253]

>>1697241
>I don't think this is the same as critical analysis though, which tends to be the business of attatching historical, political, pyschological (etc.) context to the writing

The structuralists sketched out manners of interpreting a text which I have found as a useful guide:

A)Analysis: (looking at the devices, textual features)
B)Projection: (marxist interpretation, feminist etc)
C)I can't remember, it had to do with something specifically structuralist so I thought to myself "who the fuck are you guys kidding, this is a case of B if ever I saw it"

The point is that I believe that while it's not often clear where the line is drawn between analysis and projection, such a line can be drawn. Not ultimately, because all interpretation whether critical or ideological is a projection onto a text, but for the purposes of productive criticism.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1697272]

>>1697231
Ah.
Then the answer to your first question
>>Why do some people think critical analysis takes the pleasure out of reading?
is probably (conjecture) because so many people who promote critical analysis as the only method of truly appreciating literature seems to be joyless hacks who don't like reading for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.1697279]

I don't really remember where I read this, but it pretty much sums it all up for me:

>Dissecting literature is a lot like dissecting a cat; it's a grisly, meticulous, and above all, tedious operation, at the conclusion of which one is left with a repulsive mess where once there was an unadulterated and altogether much more desirable whole.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697289]

>>1697244
I think I have spent enough time juggling critical theories that seem to me to be more interested in internal play than anything else. I would like to spend more time for now on work that establishes what is to be valued and what isn't.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697310]

>actually spend time writing out my reply
>ignored by all
this is why i make greentext threads.

[Anonymous No.1697327]

>>1697310
probably because it was boring :/

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697331]

>>1697310
my advice would be to become so proficient at expressing yourself in the manner which you did so that you no longer consider it an act of "actually spending time" instead of a normal reply.

[Anonymous No.1697333]

>>1697310
i'd like to second both of these
>>1697327
>>1697331
and tell you to quit whining

[Anonymous No.1697334]

>>1697310

I'll give it a go, then.

I agree with you that a correct analogy would be studying the coding of SFIV. Thing is, I don't think the coding is relevant in any way at all to anyone who's not a programmer. It would certainly add very little (possibly nothing) to one's skills in actually *playing* the damn thing; because see, the programmers weren't concerned that you would know every little algorithm they used, they were concerned that the game was fun to play.

I'm sure you could get a kick out of poking around the code if you're interested in programming, but I don't believe everyone who plays fighting games is, nor would have any reason why they would *have* to be.

[Anonymous No.1697337]

I agree with you D&E, often I've grown to appreciate a text much more after having analysed the nuances & composition of it.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697348]

also, as far as I am concerned the equivalent of analysing the coding of a video-game is analysing the paper and binding of a book, its markings etc. Both are materially constituted. For me a video-game's code does not have an ultra anymore than a series of ink markings on a page has a metaphor or a rock has the color grey. The word 'dog' is not equivalent to a dog. The word on an SFIV hud with the corresponding action known as 'ultra' is not equivalent, although it is certainly what it is founded on just as the word 'dog' is founded on what we see as dog, to the concept we employ when talking about ultras in SFIV.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697355]

>>1697331
>>1697331
i thought it wou;d've been quite obvious, D&E, that 'actually spending time' meant that i thought out my reply and made a long one, instead of something like this:
>>1697327
>>1697327
which adds nothing to the thread and shows that the poster did not read nor understand my post.

>>1697333
>>1697333
please post on topic or not at all thank you very much!

>>1697334
>>1697334
But that's like saying that the deeper meaning, motif's, themes of a book etc, that the author intentionally put into a text are not important. In the same way as studying the program it wouldn't actually cahnge your skill at reading the words on the page at a base level, however it would offer deeper understanding and appreciation of what the words actually mean. Much in the way that learning, for example, that it took 10 hours of coding to get a character to do a Medium Kick, increases your appreciation of the game in a way that makes you realise just how difficult it all was to bring together.

And i think that some authors are concerned with their books being 'fun to read' however i attribute this to more pulp fiction, i think some books have deeper meanings that are there to be explored and thought about and attempted to be understood. Just like crit theory isn't something every reader HAS to do, i personally just think it adds more to the appreciation and understanding of a text, like looking at the coding of SFIV or the intricate rules of football increases your appreciation of the game/

[Anonymous No.1697362]

Seriously man, do you have a job?
get a job

[Anonymous No.1697368]

>>1697355
You have no interesting points to make. Give it up.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697377]

>>1697368
>>1697368
wow what a great rebuttal i'm sure you read and understood what i said.

[Anonymous No.1697380]

>>1697355

>i think some books have deeper meanings that are there to be explored and thought about and attempted to be understood

Of course there are. But as far as I'm concerned, criticism and analisys aren't necessary - at all - for that.

>>1697348

Reading is not a competitive activity, and does not require any skills beyond literacy. Just admit it was a shitty analogy and save yourself further embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.1697385]

>>1697178
Critical analysis does sometimes hurt your view on a composition.I remember enjoying video games much more when i wasn't consciously critiquing them as i played.In a way it translates over to literary works.Analysis isn't what ruins your experience.Its when you go from being a reader to a roger ebert knock-off.The pleasure of reading is being able to take the story at face value and then delving deeper and interpreting the work in a completely different way.

[Anonymous No.1697386]

>>1697355

>Much in the way that learning, for example, that it took 10 hours of coding to get a character to do a Medium Kick, increases your appreciation of the game in a way that makes you realise just how difficult it all was to bring together.

Sincerely? As a player, all I would get out of that would be something along the lines of "boy, putting this together must've been a real pain in the ass".

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697399]

>>1697380
>>1697380
of course it's not at all neccesary, just like learning the rules of football are not neccessary to you enjoying the game. However they do drastically increase your enjoyment if you bother to learn them, which is exactly what i'm arguing for critical theory. I'm not even suggesting going deep into it, even if it's only like high school level 'what are the themes in the book' kinda deal, instead of looking at all the separate 'isms'

>>1697386
>>1697386
for me, as a player, if i sat and watched someone coding, going through step by step, a medium kick on SSIV, and afterward they handed me the control and let me do a medium kick. I'd feel like i appreciated thbe actual act a lot more, because i now know and understand the construction that the game (or text) underwent in order for me to enjoy it

[Anonymous No.1697416]

>>1697399

>of course it's not at all neccesary, just like learning the rules of football are not neccessary to you enjoying the game.

I disagree. Sports, by their own definition, need rules. I suppose one could watch a football match without knowing what the hell is going on, but I really doubt they'd enjoy it.

>However they do drastically increase your enjoyment if you bother to learn them

I studied literary theory and criticism at University level. It didn't increase my enjoyment at all, in fact it completely put me off any academic study of literature.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1697424]

aren't the 'rules' of literature just basic high school english stuff? like basic things that apply to any text.

a better example in football would be squad tactics.

[Anonymous No.1697427]

i never said critical analysis ruins reading. it takes such critical thinking to be better at writing imo.

and also, people can enjoy reading in a variety of ways. we're all past thinking books can only be enjoyed in a particular way. some people collect old books without ever reading them. that's fine too i guess- if they're willing to work for the money to pay for them whatever.

[Anonymous No.1697428]

>>1697348

Nope. The videogame equivalent of a book's binding and general material constituents would be the hardware it was programmed/recorded/is running on.

Nice try, though.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697438]

>>1697428
>the hardware it was programmed/recorded/is running on
and lines of code are just as materially constituted as any material part of a book. I can draw the analogy back further if you want to whatever manner in which the book was put together. Coding is equivalent to the manner in which the marks on a book have been made.

[Daggermad !Tk9jKhGmZs No.1697460]

I always thought that people meant that if you start reading a text for the soul purpose of trying to fit it into a specific thing, like if I am really into one area in particular queer/fem/marx whatever, then there are some people who are going to be actively trying to find shit to fit into their own analysis the whole time they are reading the book. As opposed to reading it with an open mind and then later seeing which ways you could analyze it only after reading through the whole thing. So basically people who are partial to one area of analysis will be trying to make the text fit into their own narrow views which basically ruins the reading experience.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697609]

bump

[Hooting !lnkYxlAbaw No.1697622]

>Street Fighter IV metaphor

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697636]

>>1697622
>>1697622
why is a crouching heavy punch into Shoryuken with Ryu giving me so much trouble ;_;

[Kowloon Walled City !wyRH8Hdp1c No.1697640]

>>1697460

I basically agree with this, also this thread got caught up on the analogies.

[Anonymous No.1697648]

Italo Calvino touched on this question in If On a Winter's Night a Traveller.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697649]

>>1697460
>>1697460
those people are doing it wrong.
theory should be the forceps extracting hidden meaning, not the hammer forcing itself on the text. Change the analysis to fit the text, don't change the text to fit the analysis etc etc

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697654]

>>1697649
I'm proud of you bb critically you've become your own man

a man from the early 1900's but a man nonetheless

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1697664]

>>1697654
very cute

[Anonymous No.1697665]

>>1697649

Of course they are doing it wrong, but people who have no idea how analysis works think that is basically what it is about. Thus, they think that critical analysis takes the pleasure out of reading.

Anyone that makes that claim just has no idea what crit analysis even is.

[Anonymous No.1697682]

>>1697649
>hidden meaning

I've always found this a bizarre idea, that artists would "hide" meanings in their work.

"People always try to find 'hidden' meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? My images do not signify anything beyond what they are... I never create allegories. I create my own world. That world does not signify anything unusual. It just exists, it has no other meaning. I think symbol and allegory rob the artist. Creator brings up images which express, reveal life the way it is. They are not Aesop's fables. This manner of working would be too primitive not only for the contemporary art but for art of any era. Artistic image possesses an infinity of meanings just like life carries an infinity of meanings. An image changed into a symbol cannot be analysed. When I create my images I use no symbolism of any kind. I want to create an image, not a symbol. That's why I don't believe in interpretations of supposed meanings of my pictures. I'm not interested in narrow political or social issues. I want to create images that would touch the viewer's soul to some degree." - Andrei Tarkovsky

[Anonymous No.1697686]

>>1697682

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1697700]

is it ironic that OP's favourite author is Bret Easton Ellis?

:D

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697706]

>>1697700
>>1697700
you sure about that TY?
i know one of his favourite books is Steppenwolf, and the other is The Dice Man, but i never remember him saying anything about BEE

also, how was american psycho?

[Anonymous No.1697709]

>>1697682
Rebuttal from JM Coetzee interview with David Attwell--

"DA: In several of the essays on Beckett -- notably the one on Murphy -- you discuss the question of formal reflexivity, of fiction displaying its own conventions. However, although what you call the "anti-illusionism" of reflexive conciousness is a position you are comfortable with, you also refer to it as an "impasse." What do you mean here?

JMC: Illusionism is, of course, a word I use for what is usually called realism. The most accomplished illusionism yields the most convincing realistic effects. Anti-illusionism -- displaying the tricks you are using instead of hiding them -- is a common ploy of postmodernism. But in the end there is only so much mileage to be got out of the ploy. Anti-illusionism is, I suspect, only a marking of time, a phase of recuperation, in the history of the novel. The question is, what next."

-Doubling the Point, p27

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1697715]

>>1697706
you dont remember the thread where he asked for thesis advice or something like that? he said he liked BEE and Nietzsche. i think i remember him saying BEE was his fav in general though steppenwolf is his fav book.

american psycho was pretty fun. i didnt find any of it shocking, just more satisfying. excellent pacing how 3/4 of the book is just him going about his daily business. and just when you're about to get bored of that that he throws in a police car chase. definetly worth reading even if you've seen the movie as there's tons of scenes that weren't included or were merged into one in the film. oh yeah & throughout the whole thing shit is hilarious. less than zero is worse imo, tons of chapters where i was bored shitless. humour wasnt as good. i actually skipped one of the flashback scenes and still got the gist of it from the last two pages.

[Anonymous No.1697729]

>>1697709

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that what he's arguing here is that the postmodern tendency to highlight that fiction is, in fact, just fiction, is limited.

I don't see what that's got to do with any "hidden meanings" or anything of the sort.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697731]

>>1697709
>The question is, what next."
A bunch of slack-jawed charlatans wanting to be patted on the back for being sincerely sincere apparently

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1697898]

hidden meaning is a pedagogical word and hiddenness is not universal ie to the observer, rather it is to only one party of the conversation.

now be quiet you kids your goddess needs a nap.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1697910]

>>1697898
and [as always?], what is important is left unsaid.

the above post can apply to first person reflection as well, you are multitude

[Anonymous No.1697956]

You want to know the main reason that people hate critical analysis? High school.

They force students to read a bunch of books, most of which they will not enjoy to begin with, then take even the ones they do enjoy and force them to analyze the shit out of them. I mean, I read Animal Farm on my own, and came away with the understanding that it was about communism. Analysis over. If it had been something I'd read for school, I'm sure I'd have had to write a five page paper on how it represented George Orwell's suppressed lust for farm animals or something.

Point is, sometimes you just want to take something at face value. Nowadays, when I read a book, the only thing I ever analyze is the characters and maybe certain elements of the plot. I spare no attention for symbolism or whatever else, I limit my analysis to stuff that I find personally interesting.

tl;dr I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people just don't enjoy critical analysis, and so trying to force them to either do it or listen to yours just makes them hate both you and your stupid book.

[Anonymous No.1697962]

[Anonymous No.1697966]

>>1697180

>film evaluation

What is it with you guys and your fucking rinky-dink study programmes? Brownbear seems to veer between Dante and fucking Foucault - you used to be all "oh yar, critical theory herp derp" to pretend that you were at college and not, in fact, unemployed and living with your mam.

Doesn't anybody study a proper fucking degree anymore?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1697977]

>"we need the rules. In art, if someone hasn't learned the rules he wouldn't be able to make an aethetic judgement. In learning the rules, you get a more and more refined judgement;in fact learning the rules actually changes your judgement."

Even Witty knows the importance of learning the rules of your game folks. He goes on to shit on everything by wailing SO MANY WAYS OF APPRECIATION DERPA CULTURE DERP WE NEED TO DESCRIBE EVERY FUCKING THANG but at least he knows the importance of rules.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697980]

>>1697966
>>1697966

yeah you study different texts in University buddy, maybe you'll make it one day, it's a glorious place where they make you study more than one thing. Can ya believe that huh?

[Anonymous No.1697981]

>>1697977
But even though you tout yourself as knowing the rules, you like shit books. Why is that?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697985]

>>1697981
>>1697981
>he thinks books can be objectively bad

[Anonymous No.1697991]

>>1697980

Dude, I finished university while you were still teaching yourself to wank using your mum's knickers, and I studied English Literature, which didn't involve reading Dante, or fucking Chaucer in modern translation, or Films, or fucking iCarly or whatever they let you piss about with at Macclesfield University of Macrame and Performing Arts or wherever the fuck you're pulling your pud at now.

And you know what? My studies involved ENGLISH LITERATURE - from Middle English to the modern deay, we didn't fap about with fucking bullshit. Your education is only just a step above trawling the internet for factoids, which is why your debating skills are those of a fourteen year old. Try a Seminar at Cambridge or Edinburgh to test your 'wit and intelligence': they'll fucking eat you whole, you nonce.

[Anonymous No.1697992]

>>1697985
>He wants to suck D+E to completion.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1697994]

>>1697992
that's not funny

it's not cool to be a homophobe

gays like me and bb are fighting for our rights every day and all you can do is spit in our faces!

[Anonymous No.1697997]

This thread is so brainless it's unreal even for /lit/.

Where are these 'rules' of literature published? If your college tutors are telling you that literary criticism is about unearthing the rules of books, then that angry swearing guy is correct - your college is fairly weird, and probably shit.

Why not just go and fill out hte MacDonalds application form now, and save yourself the massive and crippling student debt? You'll still be able to read enough on your breaks to maintain the standard of literary 'thought' you contribute here.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1697999]

>>1697991
>>1697991
>he got a shitty 2.2 and thinmks he knows shit about literature
>he resorts to namecalling whilst thikning books are objectively bad
>he thinks i go to Macclesfield
>he thinks studying Dante and Chaucer are bad things when studying them in relation to translations
HAH
enjoy your second-rate metropolitan university education bro

[Anonymous No.1698001]

>>1697994
I don't think there's anything inherently homophobic about the repulsion one feels when they see someone else jumping headlong to get their mouth on D+E's dick.

[Anonymous No.1698004]

>>1697999

Aww, shame. So close to being right I got a First from Glasgow, and did my post-graduate studies at the University of Amsterdam and The Hague

I'm extremely glad you proved my point about your Middle-school level debating skills though.

[Anonymous No.1698011]

>>1698004

should have been AND IN The Hague - there's no university here.

And Dante is not fucking ENGLISH literature. The only English degrees that indulge in shit like that are piss-poor colleges in the Midlands who think they're all edgy and pomo by saying EH LETS IGNORE 'T CANON AND TEAR UP 'T RULE BOOK. WHO SAYS SHAKESPEARE IS MORE IMPORTANT AND FITTED TO STUDY THAN EASTENDERS.

[SPOILER] fucking everyone, that's who[/spoiler]

You'll find out for yourself when you leave DeMontfort Polyversity or wherever, and you've got your little 2:1 in your hot little hands (just like every other fucker), and you show up to a job interview (r even better, a scholarshi review, oh boy that would be funny), and they tell you that it's basically not worth wiping your arse on, and that twenty grand in debt that's now making your life a misery means hey, you have to go and work for the gas board in a call centre and take orders from some guy who's been working there since he left school and is now the manager at twenty. And he is going to whup the intelectual right out of you till you go home crying every night. Enjoy your bright future of letters and intellect, laddie.

[Anonymous No.1698013]

Why are there so many fucking Scots and Irish on this board?

[Anonymous No.1698017]

>>1698013

because the dirty mics couldn't jack off enough all over their british master's faces with the IRA and choose to shit up this board with their slack-jawed, shit-stain inducing, intellectually catatonic horse shit

fuck drunken mic scum and sage for d&e the faggot who trolls /v/ when /lit/ doesn't fully fumble over itself racing to grasp every one of his fifteen miniature testicles to shove into their mouths

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1698018]

>>1698011
>>1698011
i'm on track to get a first
also we were studying translations in a separate unit which was just a supplementary to Sir Gaiwan and the Green Knight.

enjoy your made up degree bro!
you're kinda projecting your own life on here in that last part so i'm going to ignore it, we can talk if you're unhappy though?

[Anonymous No.1698023]

>>1698018

Shitbird, I am probably almost twice your age, and I have had the kind of life you can probably only dream of. None of it has involved going to Midlands universities, except one time when I taught a summer school in Leicester.

Seriously man, get over yourself. You're a wee boy in a big man's world, and you are going to get wanked on when you get out of your pisspoor redbrick university. Seriously. Especially since you appear to spend 6-8 hours spilling your seed all over this board.

You're a joke.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1698029]

>>1698023
please don't be too harsh with him

it's obvious he has some sort of irregular problem that you and I cannot even begin to truly sympathize with

I think he might be simply repressed but the symptoms are not indicative of something so simple

[Anonymous No.1698027]

>>1698017

>mics

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1698034]

>>1698023
>>1698023
you keep trying to stroke your own ego and lie about your life on 4chan bro
you must be living the dream.
it's okay to talk about your feelings with me, this is a safe place

[Anonymous No.1698035]

>>1698029

You can fuck off as well, you gobshite. Anyway, fuck you all - this insomnia can't last forever, and I'm going to bed to see if I can finally sleep. It's 3am, and I actually have a real life, that doesn't consist of greentext bullshit about tesco wraps and imaginary bitches.

[Anonymous No.1698038]

>>1698034

Yup - can't prove a thing to you, don't have to and really don't feel the need to. I'm done here, so carry on with whatever you were doing before.

see >>1698035

[Anonymous No.1698042]

the fuck is a "tesco wrap"

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1698053]

>>1698035
>>1698035
you've got insomnia, you're apparently 26 and you post on 4chan at 2am
(although apparently it's 3am where you are)

keep living that dream bruv

[Anonymous No.1698066]

>>1698053

errm, are you aware of the things that people call timezones?

Of course you are.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698071]

>>1697997
>Where are these 'rules' of literature published?
It's neither not about publishing nor anything as general as literature. And of course, the rules are conventional and they themselves change (although this change can questioned; who incites change, under what historical conditions did such change occur, is this a change for the better or the worse according to the conditions which prevail in contemporary society). These rules concern textuality and textual criticism.

[Anonymous No.1698074]

>These rules concern textuality and textual criticism.

Doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.1698079]

>>1698074
>Doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Par for the course, then.

Y'all faggots posting in a troll thread.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1698085]

>>1698066
>>1698066
YES I WAS QUITE OBVIOUSLY REFERENCING THAT IT'S 2AM FOR ME AND 3AM FOR HIM

eh capslock was on by accident, cba retyping

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1698086]

>>1698035
you seem to have the same problem he seems to have

this is kind of funny

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698083]

I guess I'll have to note that the most resentful haters post after midnight european time

predictable

[Anonymous No.1698096]

>>1697956
Orwell WAS a communist, he wasn't speaking out against it. You interpreted wrong.

[Anonymous No.1698100]

>>1698096
He was a socialist. Learn the distinction.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698194]

bumping before I go to bed

[Anonymous No.1698226]

literature does not have inherent rules like the other things you listed. the authors did not write for the purposes you propose and thus it decreases the experience

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1698252]

>>1698226
>the authors did not write for the purposes you propose
really?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698261]

>>1698226
>>1698071

[Anonymous No.1698269]

poopy analogies

who cares

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698279]

Man, such wonderful analogies.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698915]

bumping again, probably the last time

[Anonymous No.1698932]

>learning how to string together combos in Street Fighter IV takes all the pleasure away.

This does become tedious at a certain point.

[Anonymous No.1698937]

>>1697178
ITT our most vapid and uncreative tripfag pretends to trump what's in the writer's heart.

The writer is king. You're just a leech posting on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.1698947]

>>1698937

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698948]

>>1698932
The True Warrior is never bored, for he is always striving towards ever-increasing mastery: the True Warrior cannot afford tedium for it is a mark of idleness

>>1698937
no it's got nothing to do with being better than writers or whatever you're talking about

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1698952]

>>1698948
>true warrior
>mashing buttons on a controller

i'm going to be serious here for a moment. get your head out of your ass and maybe humble yourself enough to get some friends who can share your little quest.

[Anonymous No.1698955]

>>1698948

>no it's got nothing to do with being better than writers or whatever you're talking about

We know. It's all about wanting to have something to do with literature when you've no talent to actually write any.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698956]

>>1698952
'True Warrior' is simply a reference to one of the SF movies, this is more of a general statement which applies to every way of life.

Like cutting and filing,

Grinding and polishing

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698957]

>>1698955
tryhard one trick pony troll detected

[Anonymous No.1698959]

>>1698955
He doesn't even read literature, let alone write it.

The bitch reads books. Crappy, crappy books.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698961]

lol I guess Ovid's Metamorphoses, Crime and Punishment and Paradise Lost are crappy books lol dumb

[Anonymous No.1698962]

Deep&Edgy: Best troll on /lit/

Never change.

[Anonymous No.1698963]

>>1698957

Not the same poster you were replying to.

And how about instead of LOL U TROLLING you give me an actual argument as to how that's not true?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698972]

>>1698963
>Implying I'd give a tryhard one trick pony troll the steam off my piss

[Anonymous No.1698973]

>>1698961
But, Deep Nedgy, you only pretended to read Crime and Punishment. And the excerpts of Ovid you posted were the same ones over and over.

It's more like you just read the Wiki pages. How do you account for that?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698974]

>>1698973
>Implying I'd give a tryhard one trick pony troll the steam off my piss

[Anonymous No.1698977]

>>1698974
So you really have no answer.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1698980]

>>1698956
okay~but you need to read some pragmatist to appreciate the importance of experience in all this.

but ganbatte kudasai little warrior

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1698989]

>>1698961
d&e you gave the impression that you didnt like any of those straight after reading them.

[Anonymous No.1698991]

>>1698972
>>1698974

>Implying you could give either post a real answer if you tried

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1698997]

>>1698989
'liking' is not the same as, though it is hardly totally extricable from, 'appreciating'. I appreciated in the way I could as an individual situated in a specific historical horizon

[Anonymous No.1699033]

>>1698023
>Shitbird, I am probably almost twice your age, and I have had the kind of life you can probably only dream of
then why do you choose to go on 4chan of all places?

[Anonymous No.1699376]

>>1698100

No - he was a communist, but he was opposed to the totalitarianism he saw as inevitably growing out of the communist movement while he was fighting in the Spanish Civil War

[Anonymous No.1699404]

the critic's mind is not inherently creative, yet he envies the artist for his ability. he wants to be the artist so his only recourse is to strive to create something from that which has already been created.

certain people are attracted literary analysis and criticism, though those who are artists in their own right are exceptions.

[DoomBear !43I7g8HDIs No.1699576]

>>1699404
I think that this is the case, the vast majority of the time.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1699602]

why are people under the illusion that this has anything to do with critics whether we're talking about literature or SFIV

A critic != critical analysis
A critic != appreciation

People saying this shit sound soo stupid; it's like saying a guy who understands and appreciates SFIV mechanics necessarily must want to be a pro SFIV player and envies him and all this other baloney. Total nonsequitur garbage.

[Anonymous No.1699649]

i use the word "critic" as an umbrella term to mean those who apply critical thought and analysis to texts through close readings. these are the (literal) critics, the academy and the students it trains.

[Anonymous No.1699656]

>>1699602

It's your own crap analogy, man.

And for the record, I sure as hell envy people who can play on a professional level.

[Anonymous No.1699675]

This thread went to shit quick.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1699691]

>>1699656
>those who apply critical thought and analysis to texts through close readings. these are the (literal) critics, the academy and the students it trains.
too broad, and still absolutely nothing follows

>>1699656
It's a perfectly fine analogy

>>1699675
It went to shit roughly 12 hours after its inception actually

[Anonymous No.1699795]

>>1699675
Yeah. But I'll throw my two cents in nonetheless.

First of all, I think there's a fundamental problem with OP's analogies. Football and Street Fighter are competitions that are performed live. They are not scripted or created in advance for the viewers' enjoyment. Football players and coaches, or video game players, must make snap judgments and act from one play to the next, and the principal source of enjoyment from watching these games is analyzing the effectiveness of each play in attempting to win the competition. Games are not watched so that the total sum of these plays can create a certain effect. If the game in its totality does create such an effect, it must be purely incidental, because the game as a whole could not have been predicted or planned.

This is not so with literature. Literature is of course created in advance and is not a live performance or competition. A novel can be created to produce an effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. For some people, analyzing these component parts might ruin the effect that the novel would otherwise have produced.

[Anonymous No.1699797]

2
Up to this point I have assumed that you intended the analogy to apply to people who watch football or video games. That probably is not accurate; perhaps you intended it to apply to people actually playing these games? In that case, I tend to agree with your argument. I think the people who most enjoy critical analysis are people who are writers themselves. So someone who plays football or Street Fighter might be considered an "author" of the game (the game meaning the specific match he plays, not "Football" or "Street Fighter IV"), and thus would have a greater interest in the techniques of playing; so too with real writers.

Understanding the rules of football or Street Fighter is totally different from understanding the techniques involved. In my view of the analogy, that would be more akin to understanding the rules of the English language as opposed to understanding the techniques that make one a better writer.

[Anonymous No.1699823]

Really though, I think that writers will critically analyze a text automatically. It's simply their way of thinking. In the same way, I would guess (I honestly don't know) that a lot of writers create their works with a lot less conscious thought than "critical analysts" will put forth in examining them. It's not that writers don't think about it; it's just that they've internalized the "science" of writing so that it becomes an art. Really, I've spent hours discussing lines from books or plays that the writer probably cranked out in 10 minutes and revised once.

[Anonymous No.1699851]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701119]

>>1699795
Two cents are what they turned out to be worth
You're misunderstanding my analogies. my analogies aren't of the games themselves, they are of the appreciation of such games. I am also not talking about football players or video-game players.

.>Football and Street Fighter are competitions that are performed live.
not necessarily at all, so no go.

>They are not scripted or created in advance for the viewers' enjoyment.
Neither is a text. Your interpretation of a text is not "scripted" nor in place in advance. You don't interpret a text until you start reading it, and there's nothing concrete about such an interpretation.

>Games are not watched so that the total sum of these plays can create a certain effect
Let's just ignore all the people who enjoy watching a game for the certain effect of THEIR TEAm WINNING.


>the game as a whole could not have been predicted or planned.
Of course not, not even the ones where boxers take dives! Pure scientific logic. Same goes for books; there's nothing that would logically guarantee a text could be predicted or planned in toto.

1

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701120]

>Literature is of course created in advance
No, a book is. But you're free to tell me specifically at what precise point the TEXT, which is the only thing I am concerned about, came into BEING: really, I'd love to see you pick it out given a text's intertextual composition.

>A novel can be created to produce an effect that is greater than the sum of its parts
No shit, and so can football or whatever. You think a bunch of people kicking shit around is on its own vaguely interesting whereas a bunch of scribbled marks on their own is? In both cases rules are used in order to produce something greater than the some of their parts.

>For some people, analyzing these component parts might ruin the effect that the novel would otherwise have produced.
And maybe they don't really like novels as such because that is what constitutes a novel, just as how maybe people who enjoy people kicking shit around but analysing play tactics etc don't like the fucking sport that is its product.

>>1699797
>Understanding the rules of football or Street Fighter is totally different from understanding the techniques involved
LOL, absolutely and completely not, because techniques are simply more rules: probably rules that are derived from overarching rules. The only other explanation I think one can give is that they are behaviours which are produced by the rules.

>that would be more akin to understanding the rules of the English language as opposed to understanding the techniques that make one a better writer.
Oh I guess we'd better arbitrarily and merely stop at grammar and syntax instead of all of the technical devices which produce great works of the English language in order to keep your analogy going so then.

2

[Deep&Edgy !!2j10kf5mjfT No.1701131]

>>1701120
God, you're a fucking fag. Read Saussure!

[Anonymous No.1701133]

If I wanted to write a kind of fucked up H-Game (no loli/shota, but monster-fucking/creepy crawlies/scat/filth/etc, would any of you guys like to help out?

[Anonymous No.1701137]

why are there so many deleted posts in this thread? Is it normal to delete your own posts out of shame here?

[Deep&Edgy !!2j10kf5mjfT No.1701144]

>>1701137
All too normal.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701200]

>techniques are simply more rules: probably rules that are derived from overarching rules. The only other explanation I think one can give is that they are behaviours which are produced by the rules.
hope onionring doesn't give me shit for this actually it's pretty deluded

[Wildweasal !00Up2u/cfo No.1701230]

>some people think critical analysis takes the pleasure out of reading
Wait...Some people believe this? OK, let's say that people do believe this, but why are you baiting them?

The people that believe this are going to be the same people who would rather be uninformed instead of knowledgeable. Let them figure it out for themselves. The passion for learning is not something that you can impress upon a man through rhetoric.

The first step is being skeptical (i.e. not believing all of the information that you are exposed to). The second step is to develop this general skepticism into a critical philosophy. This critical philosophy will allow you to go beyond what would result from step one---which is alienation and disengagement---into a historical understanding of one's place and time (i.e. one becomes self-conscious).

The third step is to participate creatively. Creativity entails the momentary relaxation of the critical, and it is necessary to go beyond the present impasse.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701317]

bump
>>1701230
I'll have to keep an eye on you you're not as halfwitted as you've portrayed yourself

[Anonymous No.1701326]

i dislike literary analysis because i am bad at it. at least in the method that is taught to me by professors. i enjoy reading, i enjoy learning and i enjoy thinking. but i just can't seem to analyze literature effectively enough.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ!!MIZaZ3gTWFo No.1701498]

bumping

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ!!MIZaZ3gTWFo No.1701520]

bump

[Deep&Edgy !!bRCFOFhcjX9 No.1701522]

This thread is not what I intended it to be. I feel like such a failure.

[Rangaha !KJKZ7n2h3I No.1701523]

>didn't read thread
I suppose it's because of the old idea that with knowledge comes suffering.

[Deep&Edgy !2IgPyl8LyY!!uCz9dSIWp5Q No.1701530]

>>1701520
Why are you bumping the thread?

It was discussed, Conclusion: People who think that critical analysis takes the pleasure out of reading don't understand what crit analysis is and are wrong.

/thread.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701557]

bump

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1701718]

>>techniques are simply more rules
no.
techniques are organism level coordinated acts, much unconscious stuff goes into it and it is not identical with rules. rules are downstream.

of course, you may create a set of techniques from rules, but the first discovery is the technique not the rules.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1701725]

>>1701718
I guess that's more or less along the lines of what I was thinking later. I assume that rules would evolve from ways of living.

[Anonymous No.1701726]

Way to argue without a point. D&E, I like your style.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ!!MIZaZ3gTWFo No.1701738]

>>1701726
way to post without a point

[Anonymous No.1701740]

I think one of the main reasons people do not like critical analysis is that it takes mysticism out of the process. If you learn enough about critical analysis, it becomes much harder to be surprised, because you already know the common tropes/directions of the writing. Critical analysis changes how you receive pleasure from reading as well. Without it, it is much easier to fall into the vast world created by the writer. With it, you can see and appreciate the way the world is constructed.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1701759]

>>1701718
>first discovery
ACK, change that to that which is

[Deep&Edgy !Nx3z838iOo No.1701770]

>>1701726
I eat balls.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ!!MIZaZ3gTWFo No.1701800]

bump

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1702965]

i think i can bump this again

[Anonymous No.1702986]

there's a biological and chemical difference once you learn the rules to something. for instance, you can enjoy music as a casual listener, but once you learn music theory and understand counterpoint and shit, a different part of your brain lights up. It's not the artsy, pleasure-sensing portion, but the mathematical portion. shrug.