/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2861241]

>You can’t learn to write in college. It’s a very bad place for writers because the teachers always think they know more than you do—and they don’t. They have prejudices. They may like Henry James, but what if you don’t want to write like Henry James? They may like John Irving, for instance, who’s the bore of all time. A lot of the people whose work they’ve taught in the schools for the last thirty years, I can’t understand why people read them and why they are taught. The library, on the other hand, has no biases. The information is all there for you to interpret. You don’t have someone telling you what to think. You discover it for yourself.
Ray Bradbury

The rest here:
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6012/the-art-of-fiction-no-203-ray-bradbury

[Anonymous No.2861246]

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.”

― Frank Zappa

[Anonymous No.2861250]

>They may like good writers, but what if you don't want to write like good writers?

[Anonymous No.2861252]

>>2861250
>MUH CANON

[Anonymous No.2861253]

>>2861250
0/10

[Anonymous No.2861264]

>>2861250
--- The point
.
--- The clouds
.
--- An airplane
.
.
--- Roof of a house
.
.
.
.
.
--- Basement
.
--- Someone else's head
--- Someone else's dick
--- Your head

[Anonymous No.2861270]

>>2861252
>>2861253
>You can’t learn to be a doctor in medical school. It’s a very bad place for doctors because the teachers always think they know more than you do—and they don’t. They have prejudices. They may like specific types of surgeries and procedures, but what if you don’t want to perform those surgeries and procedures? They may like neurosurgery, for instance, which the bore of all time. A lot of the people whose work they’ve taught in the schools for the last thirty years, I can’t understand why people read them and why they are taught. The library, on the other hand, has no biases. The information is all there for you to interpret. You don’t have someone telling you what to think. You discover it for yourself.

Oh I forgot, experts only exist in medical schools and science degrees. Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous No.2861273]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhMSZB9CRs

[Anonymous No.2861274]

>>2861246
>valuing the opinion of frank fucking zappa

stay retarded, pleb

[Anonymous No.2861275]

>>2861270

arts | sciences

learn the difference, maybe save your life

[Anonymous No.2861276]

>>2861270
As soon as you introduce subjectivity it all falls apart, stop constructing false parallels. Also, literature and literary theory can be learned autodidactically, more so than any other subject. It's suited to it.

[Anonymous No.2861278]

Harold Bloom doesn't know more than a high schooler whose favourite book is Twilight. He just has "prejudices".

[Anonymous No.2861281]

>>2861278

high schoolers these days must know a lot, then

[Anonymous No.2861283]

>>2861250
>Good is an objective thing and there is only one style of writing in existence
Good interview. Noteworthy passage;

>INTERVIEWER

Do you write outlines?

>BRADBURY

No, never. You can’t do that. It’s just like you can’t plot tomorrow or next year or ten years from now. When you plot books you take all the energy and vitality out. There’s no blood. You have to live it from day to day and let your characters do things.

>>2861278
>>2861270
Stop being a teenage twat who wants to feel better about deciding to go into a Creative Writing MFA. For any given sentence there are a dozen styles to apply to it and change it completely. A human body is a human body and requires specific things. It's horrifically stupid to compare the two and you fuckers know that already. Stop shitposting.

[Anonymous No.2861285]

bradbury has no choice but to defend not going to college, because his parents were too poor to send him there.

he's not self-educated by choice. his arguments have no value.

[Anonymous No.2861290]

>>2861276
>As soon as you introduce subjectivity it all falls apart
How so? and what do you mean by subjectivity? Scientific claims are relative, like aesthetic claims.

>literature and literary theory can be learned autodidactically, more so than any other subject. It's suited to it.
>literature and literary theory can be learned autodidactically.
What makes you think that? The only reliable way, as far as the state is concerned, that someone can demonstrate that they have learned literature and literary theory is through a degree in literature, which is no different to how you are recognised to have learnt a scientific subject.

[Anonymous No.2861295]

>>2861290
>But it doesn't matter how good the painting is if a painter doesn't have a degree!
>His abstract art means nothing unless he can prove to the state that he understands art theory and thus can bullshit about his dot!

[Anonymous No.2861296]

>>2861290
The only reliable way as far as an employer is concerned is having a degree. They don't want to have to ask their prospective employees how to do a Derridean reading of a text, they want evidence they can already. One can't bring forth that evidence if one learns autodidactically.

The definition of subjectivity I had in mind was this one:
>judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.

[Anonymous No.2861298]

>>2861283
>Good is an objective thing and there is only one style of writing in existence
I never said anything about objectivity. Good is relative and conditional. What's good to an expert in literature is not necessarily what's good to a high schooler, and vice versa.

> For any given sentence there are a dozen styles to apply to it and change it completely.
> A human body is a human body and requires specific things
Sure, and the human body of an expert in literature requires different specific things to the body of a high schooler whose favourite book is Twilight.

[Anonymous No.2861305]

>>2861295
>>But it doesn't matter how good the painting is if a painter doesn't have a degree!
What context are you using the word 'good' for here? 'good' in the sense that it has a lot of orange in it or 'good' in the sense that it's recognised by qualified experts to be among the foremost of achievement in its artform?

>>2861296
>judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.
Oh, so what you're talking about is more clearly represented by the term 'relative', which is entirely compatible and affirms what I'm saying. Unless there's a problem you see with anything?

[Anonymous No.2861309]

>>2861290
Maybe if the person wants to become a teacher, that would be relevant. Why does a writer need to demonstrate anything for the state?

>>2861298
>and the human body of an expert in literature requires different specific things...
...
...
...

[Anonymous No.2861317]

>>2861309
>Maybe if the person wants to become a teacher, that would be relevant.
Or a critic, or any number of roles concerning literature, btw

>Why does a writer need to demonstrate anything for the state?
He doesn't, although the people who evaluate his work in a critical context typically do. Relevant qualifications are often also a sign of the intelligence of the writer, for what it's worth.

[Anonymous No.2861319]

>>2861305
The latter. Are you aware of how much time Picasso, Pollock, and the vast majority of 'canonized' artists spent in universities, studying art theory?

>>2861298
>Sure, and the human body of an expert in literature requires different specific things to the body of a high schooler whose favourite book is Twilight.
You're joking, right? You're not actually implying that appreciation of a certain writing style is a bodily function?

[Anonymous No.2861321]

>>2861305
No, I mean subjective. Learn yer additional definitions. To address whether or not that definition clashes or not. Your parallel doesn't work because literature and all the topics it entails, is an opinion-heavy and opinion-reliant subject, when compared to the sciences.

[Anonymous No.2861333]

As the greatest living writer of the English language, I can affirm wholeheartedly what this fellow is saying. The universities are worth nothing today for the education of any discipline which has artistic rather than scientific merit.

One has had reason to complain about the universities for some time now: Nietzsche and Schopenhauer had between themselves not one fair comment for the academic chair. Indeed, in 18the century, Adam Smith saw fit to include a passage deriding the education of youth at state funded colleges in his Wealth of Nations. When one considers however that the universities, as an arm of the state's propaganda efforts, or as the vehicle of great private profit, cannot be used intelligently for any artistic purpose whatever, for in their whole design they object to the very existence of the true artist, who is always an individual that has little need of any 'proper education'.

[Anonymous No.2861337]

[Anonymous No.2861339]

>>2861250
>They may like good writers, but what if you don't want to write like good writers?

The important word here being "may". What if they don't like good writers? What if they teach you shitty writers? What then?

[Anonymous No.2861340]

>>2861319
>The latter.
Oh, Okay.
In any case, I never said this:
>But it doesn't matter how good the painting is if a painter doesn't have a degree!
And as far as this is concerned,
>His abstract art means nothing
means to whom?

>You're joking, right? You're not actually implying that appreciation of a certain writing style is a bodily function?
No, I'm not. Yes, I am. Good luck fully appreciating a poem about sex if you've never had any. Also, you don't seem to understand that sitting in a chair and reading for hours (which is not something that everyone can do, let alone read the right books) is a type of bodily function, so I don't see the problem.

>>2861321
>No, I mean subjective
If that's the case then you're simply mistaken. What you're talking about at no point implies the notion of the subject and is entirely within the conceptual bounds of relativism.

>all the topics it entails, is an opinion-heavy and opinion-reliant subject, when compared to the sciences
All our fundamental laws of physics were derived from the very reliable and expertly-informed opinions of physicists, which were in turn based on arbitrary axioms of which one can be of any opinion to accept or reject at one's leisure. How is this any different, except in degree and coherence, in the case of literature?

[Anonymous No.2861342]

>>2861319

And Dali, who was superior to them all, was thrown out of his university for contempt of his educators.

[Anonymous No.2861344]

>>2861339
>What if they teach you shitty writers?
Shitty writers according to who?

[Anonymous No.2861345]

>>2861340
>All our fundamental laws of physics were derived from the very reliable and expertly-informed opinions of physicists, which were in turn based on arbitrary axioms of which one can be of any opinion to accept or reject at one's leisure. How is this any different, except in degree and coherence, in the case of literature?

One is provable, the other is not.

[Anonymous No.2861348]

>>2861342
>dali

babbys first painter crush

[Anonymous No.2861351]

>>2861340
>sitting in a chair and reading for hours is a type of bodily function
Good job, you've crossed the fucking retarded threshhold. Sitting in a chair and reading is not a function that takes place in the body. It is not biological. It is incredible how stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.2861349]

>>2861345
>One is provable, the other is not.
Firstly, what do you mean by "provable" here?

Secondly, I don't see how not. There is nothing that isn't empirical about literary studies.

[Anonymous No.2861356]

>>2861351
You're misunderstanding the sense in which I'm using the term 'bodily function', and now you're going to insult me (over your own misunderstanding) because what I am saying is obvious to everyone else, and you have no response to that.

[Anonymous No.2861361]

>>2861356
A bodily function is a bodily function. There is no subjectivity there. Does it take place in your body? Yes? It is one. No? It isn't. There is no middle ground, and that is the point of literature and science being incomparable. You can be a faggot and say that critical theory is a science, but it's really not, hence all the different schools of Marxist, Feminist, Freudian and whatever other theories being applied to any given work and coming up with different conclusions. Doesn't matter if a surgeon is a Marxist or a Jungian, he's going to remove your gallbladder the same way.

Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.2861363]

Ray Bradbury is an educated, intelligent, and talented twat. He comes from a time in which a college degree was only achieved or pursued by those with the proper status and wealth. No one could achieve what he has the same way again. The system is different. If you want to be a NYT Bestselling author you need to go to an established school and MFA at least perhaps even go ahead and get your doctorate in creative writing.

Also, universities aren't the same as they were 50 some odd years ago. There's a lot less of the elitist posturing and enforcement of particular styles Though writers who do come from specific programs do tend to lightly mimic their professors sometimes. What's the difference between learning to write from a living writer and learning to write from a book by that person? Not everyone is Ray Bradbury who claims he can remember every single event of his life from childhood on and who has stories swirling around in his head first thing in the morning. I value his opinion, I really do, but it's nothing to live or die by. Some people need outlines. Some don't. So what? Can you really tell the difference once the story is over?

[Anonymous No.2861364]

>>2861264
>distance between roof of a house and basement is 5x greater than that of the airplane to the roof

you're a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.2861368]

>>2861349
>inb4 scientific theories can't be proved

I mean it in the lay sense of the word. "Hey, guys, there's this thing called gravity! Here's how it works! Does my theory hold up? Yes? Great, I've proved gravity exists!"

There is no such thing with literature. One can't say, "Hey guys, this sentence is perfect, here's why!" without having pretty much everyone that isn't the originator disagree with the argument, whether on the semantics, the reasoning, the conclusion, or what-have-you.

Also

>if you're an atheist, you're not allowed to argue for the value of literary gatekeepers and sages

[Anonymous No.2861373]

>>2861361
>A bodily function is a bodily function.
I'm aware of the other senses in which the term is used yes, but that particular one wasn't one right then, it's okay though because everyone knows what I mean. So... there is no point for you to keep talking about it, unless you don't know what I mean.

>You can be a faggot and say that critical theory is a science
Something doesn't have to be a science to have a recognised hierarchy of proficiencies and experts.

>hence all the different schools of Marxist, Feminist, Freudian and whatever other theories being applied to any given work and coming up with different conclusions
Disagreement in critical practice among experts doesn't equate to there being no experts in that practice.

[Anonymous No.2861371]

>>2861348

Dali was the last great painter. Keep dealing with it.

[Anonymous No.2861375]

>>2861361
>There is no subjectivity there
yes there is. you're really fucking dumb. dogmatic scientism faggot

[Anonymous No.2861381]

>>2861368
>I mean it in the lay sense of the word.
What is the "lay sense" of the term proof here. I need you to be specific so that you don't turn in ten minutes and change your mind about some aspect of the term and put us right back to the start of the argument.

>. One can't say, "Hey guys, this sentence is perfect, here's why!" without having pretty much everyone that isn't the originator disagree with the argument, whether on the semantics, the reasoning, the conclusion, or what-have-you.
Of course not, because that sentence is totally vague. Perfect in what sense? According to what criteria? The same thing would happen if I said of some proof that it was perfect in the context of sentential logic.

[Anonymous No.2861380]

>>2861344
>Shitty writers according to who? [sic]

Exactly.

[Anonymous No.2861383]

>>2861381
No, I will not engage with you while you assume I am a dishonest participant.

[Anonymous No.2861384]

>>2861380
What's your point? College professors typically don't lecture about shitty writers. It would be antithetical to the discipline.
Maybe that's why Bradbury is so cross, lol.

[Anonymous No.2861387]

>>2861371
what's ur favorite dali painting?

[Anonymous No.2861391]

>>2861383
I didn't say I assumed that anywhere. You might sincerely be operating under a certain sense of the term, realise that you were mistaken over something concerning it and want to rectify that mistake, which is perfectly reasonable but a waste of time nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.2861394]

>>2861391
> a waste of time nonetheless
*a waste of my time nonetheless

it might be a hugely edifying experience for you, but that's none of my concern

[Anonymous No.2861395]

>>2861375
>dogmatic
>HURR DIGESTION ISN'T A BODILY FUNCTION BECAUSE I DISAGREE

>>2861373
I don't know what you mean. I can think of no usage of the term 'bodily function' that does not apply to a bodily function.

I never said there are no experts, where are you getting this opinion? You don't need a degree in creative writing in order to write novels. You need a medical degree to be a doctor. That's the point. Why are you changing arguments suddenly?

[Anonymous No.2861400]

actually my writing teacher tried to have us consider the direction of the work we were trying to critique and help it along that route and avoid our own prejudiced whenever possible. writing courses just try to make you a better reader or editor and turn you can better your own writing. it's about learning the rules so you know how to break them WELL.

ray bradbury was shit anyway. what does he know about writing?

[Anonymous No.2861403]

>>2861395
>I don't know what you mean.
Okay, I simply meant to refer in this case to a couple of activities that the body does, such as reading and so on. It should be pretty obvious what I mean from there on.

>I never said there are no experts, where are you getting this opinion? You don't need a degree in creative writing in order to write novels. You need a medical degree to be a doctor. That's the point. Why are you changing arguments suddenly?
I've only concerned myself with people debating over there being experts in literature in this thread. I've never said you need a degree to be a writer. You seem to have mistakenly inferred that, based on these two greentexts:
>But it doesn't matter how good the painting is if a painter doesn't have a degree!
>His abstract art means nothing unless he can prove to the state that he understands art theory and thus can bullshit about his dot!
But none of that is particularly relevant to my remarks in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2861404]

>>2861387

Tuna fishing. Eat a dick

[Anonymous No.2861406]

>>2861400
please forgive my bad grammar. english is only my 7th language.

[Anonymous No.2861409]

College was a waste of my time. I graduated with great grades, but I want the last three years of my life back. I taught myself everything. Fucking scam.

[Anonymous No.2861412]

>>2861409
what did u study

[Anonymous No.2861415]

>>2861381
>What is the "lay sense" of the term proof here.
I already explained above. What isn't clear?

>Perfect in what sense? According to what criteria?
Exactly. The criteria are made up. Sure, for poems you can say, Oh look at how well the poet has stuck to iambic pentameter! or something, but that doesn't really mean anything. You can, Oh look at all those metaphors and allusions! but again, that doesn't mean anything. A work is only as important as what people take away from it, and forcing the opinions of elitists onto everyone else is pointless, because not everyone is them, nor can one expect them to be, nor should they be.

[Anonymous No.2861420]

>You can’t learn to write in /lit/. It’s a very bad place for writers because the users always think they know more than you do—and they don’t. They have prejudices. They may like DFW, but what if you don’t want to write like DFW? They may like Stephen King, for instance, who’s the bore of all time. A lot of the people whose work they’ve taught in threads for the last 5 years, I can’t understand why people read them and why they are talked about. Google, on the other hand, has no biases. The information is all there for you to interpret. You don’t have someone telling you what to think. You discover it for yourself.
Me

[Anonymous No.2861426]

>>2861412
theoretical astro physics

[Anonymous No.2861434]

>>2861274
>brilliant musician
>worked his band like a true maestro
>critical, intelligent
>creative, unusual
>no drug use
>had humor
>open minded, experimental, ecletic

>not valuing his opinion because he has long hair and talks about sex

[Anonymous No.2861431]

>>2861406
Well English is my 17th but you don't see me making any excuses

[Anonymous No.2861436]

>>2861409
University isn't for learning anymore, it's for making friends, networking, having fun, and a little piece of paper at the end to make you feel good about yourself.

[Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2861440]

>>2861415
>I already explained above. What isn't clear?
The sense in which you are using the term 'proof'. Now, if you could provide a clear and unambiguous statement explaining what that is, that would be great. I don't care if you have to get it from wikipedia or whatever.

>The criteria are made up
No, that's completely incorrect. And I can tell from your infamiliarity with Iambic Pentameter that you neither appreciate literature nor are qualified with its history. A meter like Iambic Pentameter has a history which in its turn is derived from cultural practices which in their turn are derived from values. If you want to compare and contrast those values you move outside the scope of literary theory into more philosophical discourse like value theory and ethics.

> forcing the opinions of elitists onto everyone else is pointless
This has nothing to do with forcing on anyone opinions, it is about acknowledging the relative superiority of some over others, relative to a specific aim. And even then, there is nothing forcing you to acknowledge that either. It doesn't disacknowledge it for anyone else though (i.e. people who want to read good books and avoid bad books).

[Anonymous No.2861443]

>>2861436
If I wanted a piece of paper that makes me feel good about myself, I'd get a tab of LSD.

[Anonymous No.2861452]

>>2861434
>was headhunted for position of cultural attaché to the Czech Republic
>excellent debater

[Anonymous No.2861494]

Bradbury was a tinfoil Luddite who couldn't afford to go to university, why would I care for his opinion?

[Anonymous No.2861546]

>>2861494
You know, Luddites are very badly maligned and misrepresented.

[Anonymous No.2861548]

>thought I was reading a thread about Ray Bradbury and the role of the modern MFA program
>read a thread trying to literally compare medicine and writing
>????????
>PROFIT
>shygddt
>2012
>rate my dick /lit/
>Why the fuck not?

[Anonymous No.2861552]

>>2861275
Teachers of science and math and all the non-art disciplines don't have prejudices? Haven't had smarter pupils who've shown them up?

One can learn any subject by reading. Literally any. Abraham Lincoln taught himself. Albert Einstein taught himself. Ramanujan taught himself. Mies van der Rohe taught himself. Da Vinci taught himself. And there are lots of backyard tinkerers and physicists out there...

It's just never a great idea because (a) it's slower than having a good teacher who can feed information as needed, and (b) doing it all your own means the whole program is tailor-made to your own learning method, so you just reinforce your own cognitive idiosyncrasies.

The reason some people are deluded into thinking a university degree is necessary for learning "sciency" subjects is because the PROFESSIONAL trade groups behind those fields have made it illegal to call yourself something and do the things they're professionally interested in without first attaining their accreditation, either directly or indirectly.

As of yet one does not need to be an accredited writer to receive writing commissions for money, and write professionally published novels, but that day may be coming. It's certainly worked out lucratively in other fields.

[Anonymous No.2861574]

>>2861552
>As of yet one does not need to be an accredited writer to receive writing commissions for money, and write professionally published novels, but that day may be coming.
Yeah, sure.

>>2861548
>rate my dick /lit/
>Why the fuck not?
You've gotta post it first.

[Anonymous No.2861583]

>>2861552
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

[Anonymous No.2861600]

>>2861364

>Distance between airplane and roof: 2
>Distance between roof and basement: 5

l2math

[Anonymous No.2861620]

>>2861552
I completely agree with this post.

I would just like to add that I think formal education is a tool and that it should be seen as a tool rather than a requisite for doing or knowing something.

When we get to medicine, science and law schools, we are talking about things that need some rigor, that of which being "wrong" have consequences and so we, by convention, determined by the law that we will only trust those that followed that requisite of college. That is, we agreed that we would only go to the doctors with a diploma and that others should not be trusted. It's a sensible thing to do, but it's important to be aware of this process to see beyond and continue to understand that formal education is a tool.

Also, there is the other extremes, those who hate formal education for no reason and cite names of those who didn't have any. My criticism towards that is that many of those people couldn't afford going to college, didn't have the means to do it and maybe if they had the chance, they would go. What I'm saying this: there is no reason to throw the chance of going to college away if you have that.

It's just a matter of being aware that you are not buying a diploma, or that being a good professional or a good thinker is beyond societies conventions. Not to ever look down on others.

On a side note, I think people should listen to laymen more, listen to those who are completely outside their field. They can teach you a lot.

[Anonymous No.2861637]

The library education idea can be appealing, but it's unrealistic, and I think its proponents know that.

Not only would it probably be hard to design a balanced curriculum for yourself, you miss out on student/teacher interaction (and, contrary to Bradbury's outdated beliefs, many professors these days aren't dogmatic). Plus, are you disciplined enough to write at length about the stuff you read?

And of course, there is practical value in a college degree, as well as networking opportunities (particularly if you go to a smaller college with smaller classes).

Of course, no one is saying you can't learn a lot on your own. I know personally that self-directed learning can often be superior.

[Anonymous No.2861711]

This thread is excellent. Ideas exchanged and hardcore arguing. I know the different "teams" out there feel like they're wasting your time but you are not. Spectator here and my brain is racing.

Math major.
I just realized 90% of what I learn/ed was self taught. I just go to college for the paper.
Intellectually speaking, college crushes my soul, no one cares about my out of syllabus questions, the only kind of dialogue about math I have w/ my friends is about what will the exam look like. The teachers are cool, good but boring.

I've been considering learning chess seriously for two years now. This thread is my 'declic'.
If I don't pursue other intellectual areas more seriously outside school I might end up boring middle aged man who asks himself what the fuck happened to the young promising man he once was.

Fuck this shit, I'll begin drawing too. I also always wanted to learn to write with my left hand.
I'll do this shit. Fuck the opinions of others, after all I learn english by myself and now all my friends are jealous of my level (frenchfag here).

This thread helped me to realize that shit.

Even though Bradbury was broke as fuck and his opinion is biased, that doesn't prove he is wrong, it's irelevant.

[Anonymous No.2861742]

Career advice by Alan Watts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY50vvMjX_o

[Anonymous No.2861743]

>>2861711
>Math major.
>I just realized 90% of what I learn/ed was self taught.
Shaum's Guides?

[Anonymous No.2861746]

>>2861711
>This thread is my 'declic'.

What is a "declic"?

[Anonymous No.2861794]

>>2861746
http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/d%C3%A9clic

poster said he was a frenchfag

[Anonymous No.2861949]

>>2861794
That makes sense.