[ 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: 60 KB, 700x636, Author.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2743776 No.2743776 [Reply] [Original]

So english teacher discussing Byron comes up again with that stuff: "Manfred's love is a forbidden one cause the girl was his sister"
They see the same thing for "House of Usher", same thing for Hawthorne... Dude, what's the problem with incest and nineteenth century critics?

>> No.2743789

sexual segregation of society the most female exposure people got would be from their sisters or their mothers leading to a naturally occurring attraction which is forbidden by the society that caused it.

>> No.2743791

Psychoanalysis was pretty big wasn't it, near the end at least.

>> No.2743792

OP, your picture is the epitome of anti-intellectualism.

>> No.2743801

>>2743792
Not OP, but please explain.
I thought the OP's picture represented inaccurate over interpretation. Surely any idea of 'intellectualism' would be to try and get the most accurate (sterile) meaning, rather than one rife with assumptions and interpretation?

>> No.2743809

A good writer wouldn't put in a piece of detail like that unless it meant something. Generally in school you read texts with some certain level of standing.

If you look at a writers history and go through interviews with them you know that they didn't just mean "the curtain were blue" or whatever. Most teachers don't give a shit though, they just need to collect the pay check which involves talking to the kids.

>> No.2743814

>>2743801
It is anti-intellectual, because the teacher in this picture is actually trying to relate to the text and interpret its mood. Saying "The curtains were blue" does relate a certain moods to a vast majority of audience members; whether it relates a mood to you or not is your own deal.

The attitude that "it means the curtains were fucking blue" is deeply immature, but it's also very irresponsible. It's a case of the "unreliable reader" who doesn't want to think too hard about any of the material (s)he reads. "Nah, brah, the curtains were fucking blue. Let's move on."

It reminds me of people who read a book once then decide they're experts on it.

>> No.2743816

>>2743801
>attempting to find accurate meaning
>attempting to find what the author really meant

Intentional fallacies, intentional fallacies errywhere

>> No.2743822

It's like some of you have never heard of New Criticism or Reader-response theory.

>> No.2743832

I remember reading about something like, it doesn't matter what the poet meant, it's only important what effect it has on the reader.

>> No.2743835

>>2743822

No, they just hate them. /lit/ despises any attempts to actually think about literature. To them it's all postmodern cultural marxist racemixing nonsense.

>> No.2743840

>>2743835
So what?

I don't care about interpreting and understanding the texts I read. I just want my number to grow on goodreads.com.

>> No.2743841

>>2743835
>treating a collective as a single entity
good job

>> No.2743845
File: 21 KB, 460x276, thankyoubasedwalrus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2743845

>>2743835

>dfw you're all up for post-modern cultural marxist racemixing nonsense but you're not educated enough to discuss it at length

>> No.2743860

It's funny how so many people think faggotry is a-ok now, yet incest is wrong?

Nothing but cultural marxist blather

>>2743814
anti-intellectual is a good thing. Because your "intellectualism" is literally talking out your ass and spouting lies.

>> No.2743866

>>2743776

I hate this picture. Any good formalist (and formalism is the most useful school of criticism) knows that the intentionalist fallacy easily answers this argument.

For you postmodernists or those that didn't pay attention in Critical Theory: what the author meant doesn't matter. What matters is the text itself.

>> No.2743870

>>2743866

>(and formalism is the most useful school of criticism)

That's a good joke. Formalism is probably the biggest failure in the history of theory.

>> No.2743882

>>2743866
>implying post modernists even care about the text
>implying they don't deliberately misread shit to invent nonsensical meanings

>> No.2743886
File: 42 KB, 380x380, 1339039230545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2743886

>>2743866
>formalism

>> No.2743889

>>2743882

Who are you quoting?

>> No.2743891

>>2743870

Which is why it's still the dominant approach in most institutions that are actually interested in showing students how to understand a text instead of play with it until it has no meaning? Let's see how useful anything post-formalism is in training the mind to think clearly and glean meaning.

>> No.2743895

>>2743891
Which is why literature/english will remain an utter joke and a mockery.

>> No.2743900

>>2743891

>Which is why it's still the dominant approach in most institutions that are actually interested in showing students how to understand a text instead of play with it until it has no meaning?

Oh, I see. You don't actually know what you're talking about at all. Are you some angry Freshman dropout or something? Read a bit too much Bloom, maybe?

>Let's see how useful anything post-formalism is in training the mind to think clearly and glean meaning.

Uh, I'm not sure how you even demonstrate those things one way or another.

>> No.2743902

>>2743895

Post-formalist schools are the exact reason why English studies are a mockery.

>> No.2743911

English studies aren't a mockery. You're falling for a vocal, trolling minority opinion. Most people don't even know what English studies entail.

>> No.2743931

>>2743911
vocal majority*

>> No.2743941

>>2743791
No psychoanalysis becomes famous in the xx century

>> No.2743958

>go on a literature board
>state that all literature is nonsense

This is the best use you could find for your time?

>> No.2743965

>>2743958
fantasy and sci-fi is ok.

>> No.2743971

Anyone with a brain understands that description of the setting is used to create a mood for the reader. Yeah, so English teachers go too far in trying to shove messages/symbolism down your throats, but you're retarded if you think that the curtains were described as blue for no god damned reason.

>> No.2743974
File: 21 KB, 225x259, 54h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2743974

>>2743965

>> No.2743999

>>2743965

>fantasy and sci-fi
>literature

>> No.2744015

>>2743860
>is literally talking out your ass
>It's funny how so many people think faggotry is a-ok now, yet incest is wrong?

Oh my god he's defending incest and ruining English. Point and Laugh. Point. And. Laugh.

>> No.2744016

My English tutor only bitches about people misusing semicolons. 'Do you really know how to use them, anon?'

I actually do motherfucker. Come at me again with that Korean, Asian-supremacy face again.

>> No.2744017

>>2743801
Generally, an author worth studying in English lit will never describe a room for the sake of describing it. The curtains have to relate to the plot, characters, or etc.

Thinking that the curtains are blue because 'they're fucking blue' leads to shit like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, where, instead of applying themes and symbols and characterization to make a deep rewarding novel, the author just slaps some 'creative' idiosyncrasies over bad prose and horrible ideas to simulate something interesting.

>> No.2744025

>>2744015
Nothing wrong with incest, and I'm pointing out your rampant hypocrisy.

>> No.2744034

>>2744025
I don't think a incest or homosex is wrong. As long as there's no pregnancy after the 2nd generation of incest-progeny, everything is ok.

>> No.2744047

>>2744025
It is when after several generations when it starts to produce troglodyte people.

>> No.2744056

Wait til you have to analyse a picture of a man sitting under a tree. The slight upward turn of a hat brim never meant so much.

I calm myself down by reminding myself "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

>> No.2744061

>>2744047
[citation needed]

by your logic no animal could ever exist on an island

Or that life itself on earth would eventually die out because too much "inbreeding" because we aren't mixing with aliens or something

>> No.2744065

>>2744061
He's just ignorantly blathering about the misconception that inbreeding creates flipper babies.

The truth is that inbreeding simply allows for more recessive traits to become dominant. Because a lot of recessive traits are not desirable, we have this current misunderstanding that having sex with your sister will produce an Eraserhead child.

Please, /lit/, try to educate yourselves.

>> No.2744075

>>2744065
>>2744061
>Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#cite_ref-WolfDurham2005_21-0

>> No.2744093

>>2744065
Not as dangerous with your sister but high risk if it is with your mother.

>> No.2744111

>>2744075
>literally thinks 1/5+ children of brother/sister couplings will have a major disability or die

And you don't find this number a little strange?

>> No.2744122

>>2744111
Not bad survival-odds, though. Why are you trying to justify producing an offspring that has a larger chance of being defect?

>> No.2744126

Do we oppose the union of people who carry genetic diseases that they risk passing down to their children? Not really. We allow them to decide whether or not they want to have children for themselves because we accept that they are adults making their own decisions. The same thing applies with incest: the reason it has such stigma is not that it might have an increased risk of producing genetically-diseased children but because it is weird. The truth is that there is just an irrational taboo around incest.

>> No.2744128

>>2744111
I don't. It's against nature, not in a bible-thumping way, but it's just generally not supposed to happen. It's bad for the species. Damn. These things are hard to explain without sounding weird.

>> No.2744131

>>2744111
No? There's a reason we've generally moved on from incest. And if you think there's a problem with the study, you are more than welcome to criticize the procedure used to get the results.

>> No.2744134

>>2744128
They happen, and they're meant to happen, we're all about seventh-cousins of each other, but, at this point for the human race, they're not meant to happen anymore.

>> No.2744140

>>2744134
Well, to be honest, nothing is 'meant to happen'. Just, with the odds, it's dangerous to have an incest kid. Because, as a group of people, we're all already fairly incestuously related.

>> No.2744147

>>2744140
>it's dangerous to have an incest kid

In your incorrect opinion.

>> No.2744157

>>2744147
Did you not see the study posted a few posts above, or are you going to ignore it because 'lol cultural marxists faglords dont want me to fuck my cousin'?

>> No.2744159

>>2744147
>clear evidence that incest is dangerous
>"like, that's just your opinion man"

>> No.2744164

>>2744157
correlation is not causation.

>> No.2744174

>>2744134
"meant to happen" I don't really believe that. There are plenty of fail-safes in place to prevent it from happening. It does happen, yes, and it's not always some weird circumstances that cause it, but mostly, it shouldn't. Our inherent desire to produce healthy offspring conflicts with incest.

>> No.2744181

>>2744164
That's actually a good point. Most of the people having incest babies are probably drinking while the baby's in the womb and doing other dangerous, dumb shit. And since cousin-cousin is seen as 'ok' in society, it's no wonder that respectable, intelligent people have children with less negative effects.

Of course, this is assuming the study wasn't controlled for these factors.

>> No.2744383

>>2744181
It's more like, cousin/cousin or even sibling relationships only really occur in the middle east/pakistan, and so this is where their studies take place.

So naturally fucking tribal societies with existing genetic problems are going to have serious problems.

>> No.2744841

>>2743835
Does anyone actually think postmodernism is leftist?

>> No.2744860

>>2743814
>>2743801
>>2743792

OPs picture is bullshit. Serious writers literally don't write any superfluous details. If the curtains are blue there's a reason that they're blue.

>> No.2744867

>>2744860
Yes but jumping to an didactic impressionist interpretation is equally stupid.

>> No.2744899

>>2743776
My english professor came up with a pretty cool reading of the house of Usher. The house was the mind and the protagonist was the ego and the other two people were the id and super ego. He said Poe was writing about his own internal struggles between wanting to be a responsible person and his primal desires do be reckless and go on another drinking binge and he personified these struggles with the characters. Of course, when one of the people (I can't remember too much about the story to be honest) killed the other, it caused the house to split in two, thus a division in the mind and a broken house/insanity resulted.

Anyways, I didn't read the thread I just enjoy interpretations of short stories.

>> No.2744921

>>2744899
Ever heard the slavery interpretation? I don't buy it but it's pretty neat

>> No.2744934

The point isn't that the author put the interpretation in the text, it's what the reading takes from it. Come on guys.

>> No.2744999

>tfw /lit/ is full of brainwashed college students who let marxists tell them how to read books

>> No.2745003

>>2744899
...so basic Plato tripartite soul shit?

>> No.2745079
File: 18 KB, 400x293, 1329845809713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745079

Honestly speaking, when did things start to go this way in the history of literary criticism, when did people lose all respect for the authors and started using texts as vessels to market their own agenda?
Where did it start? Post-col., Derrida? Or does it run deeper?

>> No.2745101

>>2745079
Probably when in the XVth century when we had to read Plato IN A LANGUAGE NO ONE SPOKE ANYMORE. And so we realized that no one will ever know what plato meant to say. And then we realized that the Bible is no different and so are the books written by dead authors. And that the only way to know what a person meant to say is to ask him directly.

>> No.2745106

>>2745101
>And that the only way to know what a person meant to say is to ask him directly.
The point is that if you ask someone directly, you just have some other text or verbage to interpret and in fact get no further in understanding the original text.

>> No.2745107
File: 39 KB, 275x449, 1333920239404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745107

>>2745101
Yeah, there's that intent problem, but my question was about the attitude. When did it become hip to disregard what other people meant?

>> No.2745115

Death of the goddamn author.

Authorial intent is meaningless.

>> No.2745118
File: 11 KB, 176x168, 1335643132089.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745118

>>2745115
Fuck you man, I wish I could punch you.

>> No.2745119

>>2745115
it's not meaningless. it's always accounted for in wider discussions on a text. it's just not the final word. the reality of the situation is the author god is dead, the author human is still very much a alive.

>> No.2745149

Why are the curtains blue? Why are they not red? Or black? Why does he write about curtains anyway and not leave them out completely.

Putting the curtains in there and giving them whatever colour is a conscious effort of the author. always keep that in mind.

>> No.2745161

>>2745115

What that, you an idiot who shouldn't be acknowledged?

>> No.2745190
File: 70 KB, 480x511, box of cocks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745190

>>2745149
The author might have put blue curtains in the book because the story called for a house with blue fucking curtains. Look at Edith Wharton wasn't a fucking impressionist. Maybe they dyed with indigo and hanging in a working-class home. Maybe they were the posh new fashion in 1890. What the author is setting up may rely on color but if it follows from the fact that the curtains are blue then it follows from the fact that *the curtains were fucking blue*.

>> No.2745199

>>2745161
It's a reference to Barthes which is the correct answer to
>>2745107

Fucking summer. This board makes me feel like an illiterate hick most of the year but when summer comes I'm a genius polymath raised by the best tutors money can buy.

>> No.2745201

>>2745190
the curtains are just an analogy for themes in literary criticism. we're not actually discussing a passage here, mate. calm down.

>> No.2745208

>>2745149
this, it's the difference between film and literature, every single thing in a book with specifically chosen by the writer.
As a result, I have no problems with teachers over-analysing or anything, I just hate the writers who do pretentious shit like that, if the blue curtains are supposed to evoke a certain atmosphere in the room it's okay, but the curtains representing the character intense depression and lack of will to carry on, it annoys me, because there are much more interesting ways to imply this that stupid shit like curtains.

>> No.2745214

>>2745208
Just because he chose something doesn't mean he was trying to invent a fucking narrative or set mood or other stupid shit like that.

>> No.2745225

>>2745199

No, you're still illiterate. Authorial intent is not meaningless, it simply doesn't account for all valid modalities given that one engages with the text and not the mind of the author. There is an interpretation which is factically correct.

>> No.2745233

>>2745225
>Authorial intent is not meaningless, it simply doesn't account for all valid modalities given that one engages with the text and not the mind of the author.
It doesn't account for any "valid modalities", unless you happen to think asking the author for more shit to interpret is a "valid modality".

>> No.2745234

Well, Byron was banging his sister, so maybe they have a point.

>> No.2745238

>>2745214
Pretty much the point of my post, did you even read it the whole way through?
By mood I simply mean setting a scene, for example a man sitting in a dimly lit room with blue curtains and a glass of whiskey on the glass would set the scene and the mood, which I would be happy about, however trying to say that the blue curtains represent his wives inability to create life, would be stupid, imo.

>> No.2745249

>>2745233

The factically correct interpretation is a valid modality, fucker. That's not up for debate.

>> No.2745250

>>2745238
>a man sitting in a dimly lit room with blue curtains and a glass of whiskey on the glass
Cliché and not deep enough, are you 12?
C
>the blue curtains represent his wives inability to create life
A+

>> No.2745251

>>2745238
Or you know, he could be just describing the room as conceived in his mind.

>> No.2745258

>>2745201
They aren't an analogy, they are a specific kind of sloppy criticism that's fucking obnoxious.

>> No.2745263

>>2745250
fuckin feminists

>> No.2745265

>>2745263
cultural marxists*

>> No.2745267

>>2745263
Wait, just realised it says wives. 10/10, would read.

>> No.2745272

>>2745249
>The factically correct interpretation is a valid modality, fucker.
But the author doesn't have on if they're dead...

>> No.2745275

>>2745251
This. So this.

Unless you're writing for soap operas you don't need the fucking setting to foreshadow all the action and set the mood. Bad things happen in nice places.

>> No.2745274

We need ridiculously "against the grain" theories to justify our continued existence.

>> No.2745276
File: 291 KB, 503x493, autism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745276

>>2745272

>> No.2745277

>>2745251
but there is a limit to what is necessary and what isn't not every object need it's own back-story, but it all has to be relevant, it's the same with any field of art, you only include what is necessary or it is just confusing, someone on /tv/ posted an interesting quote yesterday, I'm paraphrasing 'Don't put a loaded piston on the set is no one intends to fire it' it is just misleading information that could just confuse people.

> a man sitting in a dimly lit room with blue curtains and a glass of whiskey on the table, there was also a frisge in teh corner and a mobile phone on charge on the table
is it really worth including the extra information?

>> No.2745279

>>2745277
When a sci-fi author describes the mechanism of this futuristic device, is he trying to set the mood, or is he DESCRIBING HOW IT FUCKING WORKS?

>> No.2745284

>>2745276
>There is no objective idea of a text ever
>No! Facticity! Authorial intent is valid! You have autism!
Summer.

>> No.2745286

>>2745277
>but there is a limit to what is necessary and what isn't not every object need it's own back-story,
that's confusing there should be a comma between isn't and not.

>> No.2745295

>>2745279
describing the mechanisms of a machine is completely fucking different, of course it's necessary then, the writer isn't describing the mechanisms, because they're there, they're describing them because it is of the readers interest to know that information.

my point was that a writer should only include what is necessary but not to use objects to represent abstract ideas or foreshadowing and stupid shit.

>> No.2745300

>>2745279
http://www.amazon.com/The-Seven-Beauties-Science-Fiction/dp/0819568899

>> No.2745301

>>2745279
>Margaret Atwood

>> No.2745303

>>2745301
yep. esp. Oryx and Crake, which my wife just finished.

>> No.2745317

>>2745284

I write this sentence expecting it to be read in the way I intend it to be read. If you read it that way, you have interpreted it correctly and we have communicated without flaw. If you read it differently then you have failed to understand me. This is a fact. That it cannot be known exactly what I meant by my sentence does not make what is the case not the case.

>> No.2745323
File: 89 KB, 334x393, 1340301933146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745323

>>2745317

>> No.2745329
File: 37 KB, 331x283, 1297539456592.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745329

>>2745323

>> No.2745332

>>2745317
You are not only unaware of how you want it to be read, you are unable to be aware of how you want it to be read. Further, how you want it to be read is academic, you can never know if I have interpreted it "correctly" or whatever or whether I won't find some kind of "truth" through a different interpretation.

>> No.2745334

>>2745317
>you have interpreted it correctly and we have communicated without flaw.
the writer here is clearly using hyperbole as a sophisticated form of sarcasm and is really arguing the opposite of what you might imagine upon reading for the first time, which is in fact, the ethics of abortion, see :'flaw in communication'.clearly a metaphor for societies failure to come to a clear conclusion as to whether abortions is right or wrong.

>> No.2745336
File: 16 KB, 200x291, 1340357870010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745336

>>2745329

>> No.2745343
File: 78 KB, 467x519, h5yh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745343

>>2745336
>>2745323

Non-/sp/artan here, who is this guy? Is he a sports commentator?

>> No.2745345

>>2745343
Why?

>> No.2745349

>>2745343
Tony Kornheiser. He's a sportswriter.

>> No.2745350

>>2745345

Curiosity.

>>2745349

Thanks.

>> No.2745357
File: 2 KB, 124x126, 1328982492715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745357

>>2745332

I guess "It is snowing in Antarctica." is not true if it is in fact snowing in Antarctica but I don't have any way of confirming it.

>> No.2745367

>>2745357
If you're into snow in antartica, maybe you can give me some advice on removing stains from mountaintops?

>> No.2745379
File: 24 KB, 250x223, 34%20-%20Anne_Frank[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745379

>>2745367

>> No.2745386

>>2745357
p. sure that Antarctica is pretty much a desert when it comes to precipitation

>> No.2745390
File: 23 KB, 340x321, WHATILEARNEDINBOATINGSCHOOLIS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745390

AHAHAHA I JUST CAME INTO THE THREAD WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FOOLS DOING

>> No.2745392

>>2745386

I don't care.

>> No.2745396

>>2745392
Luckily your intent is meaningless.

>> No.2745411

All modalities are valid, but some are less convincing, rigorous, agreeable, &c. I am among the folks who would consider the potential roles/meanings of the blue curtain regardless of authorial intent. Esp. in a lit. course.

>> No.2745408
File: 49 KB, 259x236, 1328676436471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745408

>>2745396

>> No.2745414

>>2745411
>All modalities are valid

No. Only the good ones are valid.

>> No.2745418
File: 48 KB, 499x479, 1325051010363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2745418

>>2745414
1/10
>pic related

>> No.2745420

>>2745414
lololololololol

>> No.2745430

>>2745418
>>2745420
>10/10 great post!

Thanks guys. I really appreciate your praise.

>> No.2745434

>>2745430
>I'm acting like a retard! Lol, jk, I was only pretending!

>> No.2745436

>>2745430
>>2745430
ur wlecoem

>> No.2745447

>>2745434
>>2745436

Authorial intent doesn't matter!