/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18392189]

Is literary criticism functionally applicable to ancient texts?

[Anonymous No.18392276]

>>18392189
What do you mean by "literary criticism"? Do you mean criticizing the text, pointing out its flaws and strengths? Then of course. Or do you mean using critical theory to critique the text? Then yes, probably doable, though if I was a classicist scholar I wouldn't use Marxist or Feminist methodologies to criticize it; it feels too shoehorned. But if you're able to make a rigorous, sound, connection, then go for it. But the chances are slim that you'd find yourself in such a position, because the discourse surrounding ancient texts is much different than the type of discourse surrounding, say, Modernist texts, where using methods from critical theory are more pertinent.

[Anonymous No.18392287]

>>18392189
Applicable? If you're not an idiot.
Worth it? No.

[Anonymous No.18392290]

>>18392276
Nah, critical theory is never pertinent and always shoehorned.

[Anonymous No.18392324]

>>18392290
I mean, yeah, it's mostly a useless intellectual exercise, but literary scholars are bored and need to justify their positions in universities somehow. So rather than doing detailed, historical analysis of these texts, they publish books on how criticize texts; this is done because they obviously are bored and need to make money and get tenure. Really, I don't blame critical theory for destroying academia--I blame academia for spawning critical theory, because of this "publish or perish" mentality that has consumed and rotted the institution. If academia in the humanities was mostly focused on getting students to understand that these works of literature are beautiful, and not about criticizing things in the first place, we'd probably never see this cancerous manifestation form to begin with.

[Anonymous No.18392330]

>>18392189
Only his

[Anonymous No.18392356]

>>18392276
I mean, should (or can) we read these texts as strictly literature, in the same way someone might closely read Keats or whoever.

[Anonymous No.18392380]

>>18392356
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this post. Is your question should we just read it to enjoy it v. read it to criticize it? Personally I'm of the opinion that we can obviously do either, but the enjoyment of the text should come first. Otherwise you get arthoes and trannies at the gates coming to politicize it; if you can see a student not getting genuine enjoyment out of something, and just using it for an agenda, then throw them out of the humanities departments.

[Anonymous No.18392399]

>>18392189
One who adds "functionally" to that sentence should not write.

[Anonymous No.18392404]

>>18392380
In Classics, these texts are usually studied as historical artefacts and interpreted as such. They're not often read in the same way we read Modernist literature (like you said). I'm asking if we can read these works like that, nearly entirely divorced from their historical context insofar as it's relevant to interpretations of the text.

[Anonymous No.18392421]

>>18392189
I mean Adorno and Horkheimer literally talk about the Odyssey in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Whether their analysis is accurate, interesting, useful or anything else is I suppose is up to you, but obviously literary criticism is applicable to ancient texts. They did it and I'm sure there's a lot more of it out there.

[Anonymous No.18392462]

>>18392189
thanks to pomo and deconstructionism, anything is applicable. even dipshits can say whatever they want about shit they know nothing about and its valid. thanks liberals

[Anonymous No.18392466]

>>18392404
Well I'm not a classicist so I honestly don't feel like I have right to comment, but I'd say that when it comes to the poetry and literature, you can critique away--though it's likely you won't be taken seriously by the academy of you were to do something like that.

[Anonymous No.18392490]

>>18392324
They don't do it because they're bored. They do it because marxism has always been applauded in academia, and it's how you get attention and virtue points.

[Anonymous No.18392492]

>>18392404
>I'm asking if we can read these works like that, nearly entirely divorced from their historical context insofar as it's relevant to interpretations of the text.
Sure, parts. But if you find yourself nodding in agreement with the greeks thinking about barefoot boys you might be a pedo.

[Anonymous No.18392512]

>>18392492
when will the new moralisers get around to burning the books of horace or petronius for their pedophilia

[Anonymous No.18392534]

>>18392189
I think the best way to understand Ovid is by using African American Literary theory.

[Anonymous No.18392587]

>>18392512
>oy just delete the western canon!
nobody reads the classics anyway, rabbi. all the MAP-acceptance retards in the month of June certainly don't.

while I'll admit some parts of the canon are detestable by today's standards, and indeed by Christian standards 1500 years ago, the pagans who wrote those works are just as much our intellectual ancestors as they are the stone around our neck. it's too late anyway; degeneracy of our own devising is rampant now.

[Anonymous No.18392598]

>>18392587
>they are the stone around our neck
The fuck are you talking about? You can only derive benefits and be enriched by reading the ancients.

[Anonymous No.18392668]

>>18392598
>You can only derive benefits and be enriched by reading the ancients.
spoken like a real retard. they aren't God.

they originated our system of government, our morals, our way of thinking about the world, and no these are not always good things. but like it or not we are stuck with them.

[Anonymous No.18392778]

>>18392668
What are you talking about? What's wrong with their teachings?

[Anonymous No.18392811]

>>18392778
read them and you'll be able to answer that for yourself.

[Anonymous No.18392824]

>>18392811
I already did. Why do you evade the question so much? Why even make a statement that you won't defend?

[Anonymous No.18392867]

>>18392824
>I already did.

>he read the classics
>all of them
>he says "only good" can come from reading them
>he thinks democracy is good
>he thinks pedophilia is good
>he thinks glorifying war (sacrificing the young to the state) is good

[Anonymous No.18392874]

>>18392867
Why are you sperging out with green text? Can you not talk like a normal human? But anyway, apparently your issues is that democracy is bad, so I can only assume you got filtered by the ancients (who by the way were largely anti democracy)

[Anonymous No.18392885]

>>18392874
>I accuse him of thinking pedophilia is good
>he doesn't disagree
moooooooooooooooooooooooooodssssss

[Anonymous No.18392906]

>>18392885
The ancients never advocated for pedophilia, you're just illiterate and wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.18392911]

>>18392867
>>I already did.
>>he read the classics
>>all of them
>>he says "only good" can come from reading them
>>he thinks democracy is good
>>he thinks pedophilia is good
>>he thinks glorifying war (sacrificing the young to the state) is good
virgin incel retard seether
get off this board

[Anonymous No.18392976]

>>18392906
imagine being caught this badly. you've never read the classics, for sure.

>he never read Catullus
>he never read Petronius
>he never read Plato
>he never read Philostratus' "To a Boy," and "To a Barefoot Boy"

have you read ANYTHING?

[Anonymous No.18393015]

>>18392976
None of them advocated for pedophilia. They always did vaguely sexual stuff especially when drunk at symposiums, but that's got nothing to do with pedophilia. Most of them were married men with families.

>Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

[Anonymous No.18393026]

>>18393015
>"achktually it's ephebophilia"
lol whatever you have to tell yourself

[Anonymous No.18393036]

>>18392490
Marxism has largely been abandoned in academia in favor of critical theories and postmodernism

[Anonymous No.18393038]

>>18393026
>Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
They never advocated or condoned a primary sexual interest in boys. It was just something they were doing when drunk, and it wasn't about actually having sex with them. And it was pretty frowned upon anyway.

[Anonymous No.18393041]

>>18392189

[Anonymous No.18393049]

>>18393036
Critical theory is a marxist philosophy

[Anonymous No.18393070]

>>18393041
Based Krishna

[Anonymous No.18393082]

>>18392276
This,depends on the literary theory. Some supplant others

[Anonymous No.18393209]

>>18392189
They are usually studied under textual criticism which is more concerned with historical context, relation to other texts and the likely intended meaning by the author(s).

[Anonymous No.18393825]

>>18393038
>They never advocated or condoned a primary sexual interest in boys.
I just listed you authors who did. Not my fault you're retard-stubborn and also don't read.

[Anonymous No.18393832]

>>18393825
Post the quotes where they advocated it

[Anonymous No.18393837]

>>18393832
This is /lit/. YOU'RE the one who should be reading if you don't know. And I gave you the title names for Philostratus you could very easily find those online.

[Anonymous No.18393848]

seriously just fucking read a book what the fuck is wrong with you pretending to be an intellectual online talking about criticism when you can't be bothered to read a few passages that you are ACTIVELY arguing about

read stupid

[Anonymous No.18393859]

>>18393837
Ok, so you never read them so that's why you don't know they never actually advocated for pedophilia. You're also low IQ btw.

[Anonymous No.18393875]

>>18393859
nah i have them here on a shelf and have read them just can't be bothered to do your argument for you AND mine