[ 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

File: 71 KB, 443x469, left-brain-right-brain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 19 09:14:38 2012 No.2649709 [Reply] [Original]

Why do we have structuralism, feminism, Marxism, postmodernism et cetera as literary theories when you can just analyse literature by using psychology?

Literature is, indisputably about the human condition, after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:25:38 2012 No.2649724 Literary Darwinism, motherfucker.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:29:37 2012 No.2649728 >>2649724 What the fuck is that?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:29:37 2012 No.2649730 >>2649728 Google it, brah.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:31:38 2012 No.2649734 Except evolution is bullshit.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Sat May 19 09:35:37 2012 No.2649738 File: 57 KB, 500x429, Greatest Show on Earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2649734 Nonsense.

>>	-Corax !p216/4Zwxo Sat May 19 09:43:05 2012 No.2649750 leftist professors need to make stuff up in order to have something to do with their time + receive research grants to spend on weed

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:43:05 2012 No.2649751 >>2649734 >>>/sci/ Some people will actually agree with you here.

Anonymous Sat May 19 10:05:06 2012 No.2649772

Because psychology can only tell us certain things. And people do employ it in analysis sometimes.

You have to remember that the whole body of literary criticism is just an effort to say interesting things about literature. Psychology can do that, but so can other theories.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:09:04 2012 No.2649781 >Literary Darwinists use concepts from evolutionary biology and the evolutionary human sciences to formulate principles of literary theory and interpret literary texts. This is fucking laughable.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:11:04 2012 No.2649783 >>2649781 So basically informed scientific reasoning rather than word games?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:11:04 2012 No.2649786 >>2649781 Eh, it seems as valid as any other theory. I don't really understand how it would work, though. Like, do they look at character behavior and argue that it's biologically determined or something?

Anonymous Sat May 19 10:18:04 2012 No.2649792

>>2649786
From the wikipedia article, looks like they don't bother with literary criticism at all. Thank God, they sound liek sane people.

Looks like they come from trying to explain what art is good for, what with it being so universal.

Again, from the Wikipedia article, the theories include:
- art is a brain-improving, mental training game;
- art is human-bonding game;
- art is sexual display ("like a peacock's tail")

In fact, literary darwinists sound saner than everyone else. Should probably look more into the works.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:22:05 2012 No.2649795 >>2649792 The first theory sounds the most sound. Isn't creativity directly proportional to reacting to life challenges? I.e. living in an environment that demands creative thinking makes you creative.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:22:05 2012 No.2649796 >>2649792 Why do we need to investigate these things? Sounds pretty obvious, and rather boring.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:25:04 2012 No.2649799 >>2649796 Knowing "why" is instrumental in finding out "how exactly".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:26:04 2012 No.2649800 >>2649799 How exactly what? How the work was produced? Why do I care about that?

Anonymous Sat May 19 10:29:05 2012 No.2649803

>>2649800
That you personally are not interested doesn't mean it's useless.

How the work is produced is something every artist knows. Why is that so is the question. That's how science works. You answer the quesitons you have first, and see if you can apply any of the answers afterwards.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:37:04 2012 No.2649808 >>2649803 Okay, let me rephrase the question: Why should ANYONE care how a work comes about? Why is that a worthwhile question to be asking and investigating?

Anonymous Sat May 19 10:40:04 2012 No.2649812

>>2649808
In order to make a better work, or be more efficient in making it, but that's not the point.

The question is, why does art exist? It is universal, so it must serve a purpose. What is the purpose?

If this is established, it may prove useful. How exactly useful will perhaps be apparent when the question is answered.

Anonymous Sat May 19 10:46:04 2012 No.2649814

>>2649812

>In order to make a better work, or be more efficient in making it, but that's not the point.

Oh okay, because that sounds like science fiction, honestly. I'm glad it's not the point.

>The question is, why does art exist? It is universal, so it must serve a purpose. What is the purpose?

But you still haven't been able to answer why this is a worthwhile question.

You say it will be useful. Useful for what, exactly?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:48:05 2012 No.2649816 >>2649814 Have you stopped reading the post before it ended for some reason? >If this is established, it may prove useful. How exactly useful will perhaps be apparent when the question is answered.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:50:04 2012 No.2649819 >>2649816 Useful for what? How can you say it will be useful without knowing what it will be useful for?

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:00:05 2012 No.2649827

>>2649819
I can not. It may prove useless, but that is unlikely, especially with something as universal as art.

I hope you aren't kidding and I'm not wasting my time talking to you. Here's an example.

Smoking. Without finding out how exactly it works and why so many people smoke, you can't tell if the knowledge itself will prove useful. Maybe smoking is good, maybe not, people cough after they smoke and addiction is obvious, so, by your logic, why the fuck study it at all, right?
But understanding smoking helped
- prove addiction and negative health effects;
- see that positive health effects are outranked;
- see what elements exactly are addictive.
This, in turn, led to
- increasing awareness;
- recognize health risks involved and improve screening, thus saving lives;
- decrease effects of smoking on non-smokers (after finding out that it doesn't jsut smell bad - it fucking kills you);
- helping produce measures to alleviate and cure addiction.

Therefore, finding out how smoking works and why people smoke tobacco was incredibly beneficial.

See? That's how studies work. You accumulate knowledge first, and see if it's any good later. You can fantasize about possible uses beforehand, but only fantasize.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:02:04 2012 No.2649829 because OP: THE TEXT

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:04:04 2012 No.2649832

>>2649827

Okay.

Now explain why this should replace literary theory. Because at this point it doesn't even seem like the two are even remotely related or trying to do similar things. Yet you seemed awful arrogant in proclaiming that literary theorists are insane while these guys are paragons of sanity.

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:12:04 2012 No.2649838

>>2649832
>Now explain why this should replace literary theory.
Oooooooooh so that's what was going on. To me, looks like you were trying to make me claim something rhetorical or unrealistic so you could use that as an excuse to disregard literary darwinism.

Oh, I'll oblige.

The two are not related, just like astronomy is not related to astrology. Two entirely different things.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:15:05 2012 No.2649842 >>2649838 Well no. I'm going to disregard literary darwinism because it's not actually "literary" and really has nothing to do with me.

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:16:05 2012 No.2649843
File: 728 KB, 705x761, F.Nietzche.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

hmm, this literary Darwinism reminds me of Nietzsche's "Homer's Contest" where he talks about how ancient Greek literature was related to the Greeks' environment and social/political circumstances.
Excerpt:
"But what do we behold when, no longer led and protected by Homer, we stride back into the pre-Homeric world? Only night and terror and an imagination accustomed to the horrible. What kind of earthly existence do these revolting, terrible theogonic myths reflect? A life ruled only by the children of Night: strife, lust, deceit, old age, and death."

He explains in that essay how Greek literature was related to the Greeks' innate aggression and desire for triumph.
"Why must the Greek sculptor give form again and again to war and combat in innumerable repetitions: distended human bodies, their sinews tense with hatred or with the arrogance of triumph; writhing bodies, wounded; dying bodies, expiring? Why did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes of the Iliad? I fear that we do not understand these in a sufficiently "Greek" manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them "in Greek".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:16:05 2012 No.2649844 >>2649842 Yes, you better get back to consuming word games before they get cold.

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:18:04 2012 No.2649845

>>2649844

I don't know why you have to be so arrogant and insulting. You said yourself that your darwinist stuff has nothing to do with theory, so why insult it as if theory threatens it?

I'm trying to say interesting things about literature. Why does that make you angry and want to insult me?

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:21:05 2012 No.2649847

>>2649843

Harold Bloom is also rather well known for talking about the agonistic characteristics of the western literary tradition.

He's been criticized for having something of a one sided view, though. Particularly by feminists who view his position as one that's rather male-centric and refuses to look at any way the tradition could be viewed as a cooperative process. But yeah.

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:23:04 2012 No.2649851

>>2649845
I'm not being insulting. Arrogant, yes, but insulting?

What I thought initially was that "literary darwinism" was just another, yes, literary theory. Turns out it isn't, i.e., it is probably something saner than I initially thought.

Obviously, I consider literary theory an example of scholasticism. This is unrelated to literary darwinism.

Anonymous Sat May 19 11:24:04 2012 No.2649852

>>2649709
Erm, I think all those things are based on psychology. Freud's work describing unconscious impulses and people acting out dominant/submissive roles. The rest of their intellectual background comes from Marx and the oppressor/oppressed relationship ideas as driving a history and being apparent in all aspects of society.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:26:04 2012 No.2649854 >>2649851 Calling me insane is not insulting?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:37:05 2012 No.2649863 >>2649854 I wasn't talking to or about you when I used the word.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:49:04 2012 No.2649879 >>2649863 I study literary theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 11:58:05 2012 No.2649887 >>2649734 I lol'd.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:00:04 2012 No.2649889 >>2649808 To gain insight, you thick-skulled twat.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:03:05 2012 No.2649894 >>2649879 Thank you for telling me that. You discipline is shit. And I'm not being insulting, I'm being helpful. Quit while you can. It's a dead end, both economically and scientifically. Ha ha! Fucking twit. FUCK YOU.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:04:05 2012 No.2649896 >>2649889 Why would we want insight into... what, again? If you say the mind of the artist I'm just going to laugh.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:07:04 2012 No.2649906 >>2649896 Into mechanisms of perceiving and creating art.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]