[ 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: 4 KB, 300x225, chair.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885123 No.1885123 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /lit/,

There is so much potential here to uphold standards in literature. Instead, it is wasted on discussions about hacks like Ayn Rand and David Foster Wallace. You're on your way to becoming as terrible as a university English department.

That is all,
OP

>> No.1885128

EVEN THOUGH I DON'T READ RAND OR WALLACE, I DON'T EVEN STUDY LITERATURE AT UNIVERSITY, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER FOR ME.

>> No.1885129

People who love memes + books = book memes.

Sorry you're so dissapointed OP but, really, what did you expect? You mention any name here and you'll either get chewed out by a pot smokin' 16 year old or some uptight Classicist.

>> No.1885137
File: 30 KB, 160x160, 160x160..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885137

>potential

>> No.1885140

>>1885129

OP here.

I disagree. I've seen some very good discussions about writers who matter. They usually fall apart, but that's just expected of 4chan.

>> No.1885141

>>1885140
SO WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING IF IT'S EXPECTED?

>> No.1885142

>>1885141
because you write in all caps, fag

>> No.1885145

But have we? Really? Who matters? Who is "good" and who should be universally considered a great author?

Not to be diluting your arguement in the relativist nightmare that has become my life but you're acting on an errand in futility. I don't give a shit about Ayn Rand, I don't give a shit about Dickens or Shakespeare either. Stop trying to get to the nueral core of literary appreciation because there isn't any. Appreciate what you enjoy, ask others to share in their enjoyment. Endure the pictures of old men's cocks. Live wrong and prosper!

>> No.1885157
File: 787 KB, 480x360, 1278770747757.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885157

>>1885145

Pic related, except for the old men's cocks part. I can do without that.

>> No.1885160
File: 53 KB, 700x453, troll on me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885160

>David Foster Wallace
>hack

>> No.1885169

>op is mad he or she doesn't have shit on any uni english dept. in country

>> No.1885179

>>1885140

>Authors that matter
>2011

Hahaha, no. Authors are no longer culturally relevant anymore. Unless you want us to talk about J.K. Rowling all day.

>> No.1885185 [DELETED] 

>>1885145
I like this post.

>> No.1885188

>>1885123
>There is so much potential here to uphold standards in literature. Instead, it is wasted on discussions about hacks like Ayn Rand and David Foster Wallace.

Yup. Welcome to /lit/, enjoy the House of Leaves threads.

>> No.1885191

>>1885188

What? Are you new or something? We almost never have House of Leaves threads.

>> No.1885194

>>1885191
>What? Are you new or something?

Been here since the creation. I remember when we would have 2-3 HoL thread on the front page at once.

>> No.1885200

>>1885194

I'm pretty sure you're delusional. I don't ever remember House of Leaves being very popular. I just remember shitloads of Salinger.

>> No.1885209

>>1885194
>There was this one time I made 3 HoL threads, but nobody noticed
ftfy

>> No.1885219

>>1885194

>I remember when we would have 2-3 HoL thread on the front page at once.

That must've been, what, early April, 2010?

Yeah, them House of Leaves threads are sure getting to be a problem, all right.

>> No.1885237

There's something special, something important, in the nature of that chair. I can't quite place it . . . I don't understand . . . but my instincts tell me . . . maybe it's the positioning of it . . . who puts a chair in the corner of a room?

What if I turned the chair around?

Noone sits on a wooden chair staring into the elbow of a wall . . . plaid . . . that's a large cushion . . . simple, straight back, simple wood stain, carvings . . . rural . . . maybe too simplistic . . .

Oh dear God the floor makes NO SENSE!

Maybe the shadows . . . in order? . . . the floor the ceiling the room the kitchen . . . and back to the plaid . . . hard to see the legs there . . . and all in all it's just a picture, a photograph of a chair in the crook of a room . . . something about lives in the smallest . . . picture and a wall and a chair . . . is anyone holding the camera now? . . . the room is the expanse . . . what day is this chair? . . . sitting in the corner on a wooden chair with cheap plaid cushions . . .

There's something special about that chair . . .

>> No.1885262

>>1885140

There are all of 10 people who frequent this board (and I'm being generous). I'm sure if we had just as many people as /b/ or even /v/ for that matter, this board would have more fruitful discussions (or chaotic ones).

>> No.1885266
File: 259 KB, 920x600, 04-117160972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885266

>>1885145
Posts like this have been annoying me lately. To assume literature has no other value than enjoyment is blatantly wrong.

To give a specific argument I'll just tell you why it works for me. I study postcolonial and diaspora literature to analyse how people deal with displacement. I went to uni for this and I now get paid to do it. It's basic psychoanalysis but applicable to politics and international relations as well as clarifying an historical narrative. Not everything I read is enjoyable but I learn from all of it. Reading only for enjoyment is great but you miss out on so much experience and understanding.

I guess what I'd like to accomplish with this post to to differentiate between reading for pleasure and reading for academic scholarship. Not to say they can't blend a bit, but dismissing the study of literature is immature and irresponsible.

tl;dr Read what you like, awesome. Just don't get butthurt when others want to read what is difficult.

>> No.1885284

>>1885266

I like this.

Just a side-opinion, I've always hated the word "difficult" when describing novels. "Difficult" drives people away, and doesn't necessarily clue people into the fact that "difficulty" often means "provocative" or "rewarding".

I'd much prefer the word "challenging" when describing a provocative piece of literature.

>> No.1885296

>>1885266
I see what you are saying, but there is an attitude on /lit/ and in literature in general, that is like, 'I read something that I DIDN'T enjoy! +10 literature points to me! Enjoy your enjoyable books, plebs!' which just misses the point entirely. If you read a book and all you could take away from it is that it was a chore to read, perhaps you should have put the book down 500 pages ago.

I personally have no qualms with tossing aside a book if it doesn't interest me. Dickens, for example. Cannot do it. I don't think entertainment value is paramount to a good book, but it does have to grab my attention, and there is an attitude amongst literary types that says I am a casual, not even worth looking down upon. It sucks.

Also, there is no /book/, so of course /lit/ is going to get lumped with anything reading-related.

>> No.1885309

>>1885296

you're probably a lazy reader.

>> No.1885320
File: 218 KB, 520x708, raybadvice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1885320

>>1885296
Yeah, unfortunately elitism is just a problem with the internet (and life) in general. I guess if you realise that, my other post just sounds like me whining for recognition. In light of that, just read what you want. I guess I just wanted to get the other shit off my chest.

pic related(ish)

>> No.1885330

>>1885296

>>>/book/

>> No.1885353

>>1885266

>I study postcolonial and diaspora literature to analyse how people deal with displacement.

>It's basic psychoanalysis but applicable to politics and international relations as well as clarifying an historical narrative.

You get all that out of studying made up stuff about fictional people?

Gee, you must really be smater than us plebs.

>> No.1885621

what do you think, internet?
bump

>> No.1887400

>>1885266

You're implying I don't like difficult books, which is an unfair assumption. I'm familiar with ideas of post-colonialism. I'm an Irishfag, I couldn't live in a more post-colonial society if I tried.

So what we have to look at is what makes one enjoy a book. I enjoy books that are any of the following:

Well written, stylisticly
Innovative
Have good plots
Have good characters
Have good ideas - what you've mentioned

An example of where I draw the line of worthwhile books:
Raol Vaneigem's The Revolution Of Everyday Life, despite having good ideas, presents them too poorly and with such a lack of clarity that it fails itself. It's not a source of information as the author has actually managed to usurp them with lingual ambiguity, preachyness and a bizarre anti-boergois sentiment written in the most over intellectual English possible. One of 2 books I've ever shelved before finishing to spite the author.

However Freud's Interpretation Of Dreams was a good book because despite being not very well written he's coherent and has alot more physical content within the book. His language is clear and he expresses himself with relative clarity. It's not entertaining for the mostpart but it's informative enough to be worthwhile.