[ 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: 276 KB, 600x848, tumblr_m5e9ixPUM61rw4zmeo2_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555342 No.3555342 [Reply] [Original]

Why are Lacan, Zizek, Freud, and other literary critics so important to read?

They just seem pretentious to me. And I despise the fact that their writing is so purposefully impenetrable.

Do I just not get it?

inb4 "yes."

>> No.3555348

>>3555342
>impenetrable
It's your fault that you didn't even try.

>> No.3555358

>>3555348
I am trying, actually. That doesn't mean I can't see the problem -- and worth -- in trying to decipher a text purposefully meant be confusing and vague at times.

>> No.3555359

>Zizek

>> No.3555365

>>3555342
>freud
>hard to read
are you even trying

>> No.3555366

>>3555359
You know who I'm talking about. Don't be obtuse.

>> No.3555368

>Why are Lacan, Zizek, Freud, and other literary critics so important to read?

THEY ARE NOT.

>> No.3555374

>>3555365
Freud was easier -- obviously -- but still a bit of struggle. (This is coming from someone who has never previously read any literary theory until Freud.)

>> No.3555381

>>3555368
Why not?

The way I've heard (and read), their ideas on the nature of reality/everything are vastly important to understanding the world.

(Which I don't agree with, but hey. Trying to approach it with an open mind)

>> No.3555394

>>3555374
You're not forced to read any literary critics, but their insights are sometimes useful and can provide you with refreshing ideas. They are esoteric because most of them are simply interpreting the literal fiction according to their own system of thought, trying to fit the piece of work into their own theories. That being said, it's still good fun.

>> No.3555401

>>3555381
No one is important to read, just read whatever the fuck you want. Hell you can decide to go to a market and read the bills people left over if it makes you happy.

>> No.3555402

The only thing of value there is Freud. Lacan might be interesting but not necessary or important at all, and well, there is nothing else to say.

>> No.3555404

>>3555394
I'm enjoying it (sort of) but it's work trying to...I guess interpret what they're saying in plain English?

I'm used to reading genre-fiction, or text books. I took this Lit. Theory course because I thought it would help (like my peers and professors said) me to understand other types of fiction/the world/etc/etc/ better.

>> No.3555410

>>3555402
Why is Freud the most important, and no one else?

>> No.3555414

>>3555358
Freud and Zizek are extremely accessible. Never read Lacan, couldn't say whether his stuff is.

>> No.3555424

>>3555410
He isn't, anon is just being arbitrary. If anything Freud is the least valuable, unless you want a firm understanding of psychoanalysis and history of psychology.

>> No.3555427

>>3555414
I've just started Zizek. (Pardon for spelling it like that.) He's interesting; I feel like I'm going to like his when I read more of him. Right now it's all Intro.

>> No.3555432

>>3555427
I wish he wasn't such a cunt.

>> No.3555433
File: 2.01 MB, 1600x867, jerry_lundegaard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555433

>>3555374
>Freud
>literary theory

mfw

>> No.3555435

>They just seem pretentious to me
You don't understand what pretentious means. If Freud had never published anything and simply gone to cocktail parties telling everyone he had a grand theory, but he never formulated it, fleshed it out with personal experience and evidence-based analysis, or took any trouble to introduce it as a critical methodology, and he never published anything because he never wrote much, then it would be fair to call him pretentious.
Freud was ambitious. I understand it's now more difficult for discuss him because you have to actually think about him and think about yourself, but you can begin to do so, instead of lazily dismissing something with a lazy choice of words.

>> No.3555436

>>3555342
>Lacan, Freud
>literary critics

And Zizek may occasionally discuss literary works but it's not his main focus.

If you want to understand Freud and Lacan you should read them on their own grounds, as psychoanalysts.

>> No.3555438

>>3555432
How is he a cunt?

>>3555433
I know he's more of a psychoanalyst. We're reading him as a contributor to...I guess the reaction of Lit. Theory, and not just for his contributions to the fields he was most famous for.

>> No.3555444

>>3555414
Lacan is extremely f-ing hard. Knowledge of Freud and Saussure helpful, as well as guidance by Zizek.

>> No.3555445
File: 178 KB, 521x1291, zizek IN DISGUISE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555445

>>3555432
>Zizzy a cunt

say what

>> No.3555440

>>3555404
That's probably the issue. Most genre-fictions are more concerned with spreading an idea than working on the style of the text. the words, as in a textbook, are only here to communicate information.
literature critics, because they spent their time reading shitload of prose, tend to have their own style of writing even though it's to convey a theory, some have a flamboyant style, some would be ironic, etc. same thing happens with law professors, they tend to have their own voice even though the subject doesn't necessitate one.
That being said, it's not always superfluous. Try to see the literary critic text as another book on its own, read it as you would read another piece of fiction -which it really is.

>> No.3555448
File: 9 KB, 202x250, sadbeckett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555448

>>3555433
>thinks freud is unrelated to literature

>> No.3555453

>>3555435
I meant pretentious in the way that he constantly seems (in what I've read) to reference himself as being the be-all, end-all support he needs to "prove" or "strengthen" the points he's trying to make.

I'm not saying he's not worth reading -- he is, I've found. -- but it's been a struggle to work through the language he uses to convey his points.

>> No.3555469

>>3555445

can someone explain this twitter ebooks trend to me

my understanding is that it is jumbled quotes from something, right? but why?

>> No.3555465

>>3555448
>Saying Freud is related to literature is NOT the same as calling Freud a literary theorist. Is Marx a literary theorist? No.

>> No.3555479

>>3555448

Well, his theories clearly have had critical repercussions. Ernest Jones's Freudian (Oedipal) reading of Hamlet is among the most familiar critical responses in twentieth century English literature, for example.

>> No.3555482

>>3555469
Because people noticed that tweets from a bot called horse_ebooks were often funny in a surreal way.

>> No.3555484

>>3555453
Again, this confusion over what the word pretentious means.

>to reference himself as being the be-all, end-all support he needs to "prove" or "strengthen" the points he's trying to make.
This is not pretentious. This is cocky, arrogant, self-assured, haughty, in the context of written works it could also be called... ambitious.

Pretentious would be if he were like that without ever having studied what he's talking about, and it becoming apparent, like somebody talking shit about a famous person a century after he's dead and insinuating that this person didn't know what they were talking about, when it's clear this person has read maybe some chapters and excerpts of the famous person's work.

>> No.3555485

>>3555465
Marx isn't a literary theory because marxism views society from the viewpoint of economic relations, and ultimately rejects art.
Freud is much closer to be a literary theorist because the unconscious is tied to myths and art.

your example is flawed.

>> No.3555486

>>3555448
>>3555479

Sorry, I actually meant to respond to the poster to whom you were responding, >>3555433

>> No.3555496

>>3555484
Okay, okay. I get it. (Dig and all.) Freud is arrogant and I have problems with that.

>> No.3555498

>some of the most pretentious figures in history
>important to read
>difficult to read

wut

>> No.3555516

>>3555342
>Why are Lacan, Zizek, Freud, and other literary critics so important to read?
They aren't. You realize literary criticism is so subjective that it's almost pointless right?

>> No.3555520

>>3555485
Marx influenced as much art and thought as Freud -- almost certainly more. Yes, you can say that Freud is closer to literature bc myths, etc., but another person would reason that Marx is closer because mode of production determines EVERYTHING.

But even if what you say is true (which it isn't), why is rejecting art not valid as a theory of art?

My point, however, is that NO MATTER what distance Freud or Marx stand in relation to literature, neither is properly called a literary theorist.

>> No.3555522

>>3555516
I had that idea at first, but a lot of what they're saying makes sense. It puts...I guess words to feelings I've felt for awhile now?

>> No.3555523

>>3555516
>derp my interpretation is as good as anyone else's

>> No.3555526

>>3555342
Why would anyone give 2 shits about Freud or Lacan. We've long past moved on.
>Zizek
I'm not about to read the works of an unkempt and slobbish slav.

>> No.3555532

>>3555526
Moved on to whom?

>> No.3555538

>>3555526

>unkempt, slobbish

Wow, that guy's well dressed, I bet he's a brilliant philosopher.

>> No.3555546

>>3555516
Why would subjectivity make literary criticism pointless?

>> No.3555551

>>3555520
I got your point. Marxism does argue that mode of production determines everything, but it doesn't stem from literary tradition. Freud's attempt, meanwhile, is grounded in interpretation of myths and dreams, which share their origins with art.

Plus, what I meant to say was that rather than marxism or any other rigid philosophical system that is packed with a theodicy, psychoanalysis can afford to be more fragmented, something closer to reality, in the end something of a literary approach to life. (plus, by the time freud gave his big theories, all these ideas could already be found in fictions.)

>> No.3555569

>>3555538
Being well dressed or even averagely dressed is a normal expectation. Dressing like a hobo come neckbeard doesn't inspire any confidence nor does his shitty writing.

>> No.3555594

>>3555569
How about his brilliant thinking, does that figure into your evaluation?

>> No.3555604

>>3555523
>>3555546
Prose as a mechanic can be critiqued with some semblance of objectivity. There is such a thing as objectively bad writing. Comma splices or run on sentences for example. Ultimately though, the worth of a literary work is derived solely from what it meant to you. Critics might stimulate discussion or illuminate reference, as might a friend, but whatever inspiration or knowledge that is lifted from the work remains of your own devising. So yeah, my personal interpretation of art is are valid as the interpretations of the landed elite.
>>3555522
They're usually smart and articulate people so they can communicate or clarify feelings but so are many people. Would their writings have meant anything to you if you weren't already feeling kinship with what they were saying? Are you even sure what they said was an exact encapsulation of what you were feeling? Anyone can raise and ask these questions.

>> No.3555615
File: 86 KB, 640x427, 1358782895210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555615

>>3555594
>Neckbeard slav
>thinking

>> No.3555645

>>3555615
that's racist

>> No.3555656

>>3555645
It would only be racist is slavs were people.

>> No.3555893

>>3555594
thats why gurus always wear suits?

>> No.3555915

> plus, by the time freud gave his big theories, all these ideas could already be found in fictions

What? You mean the conception of the mind as a deterministic energy processing machine was just all over the place?

>> No.3556751

>>3555342
10/10 for using impenetrable whether or not it was intentional

>> No.3556783

Importance is relative. Pretension is projected. You are pleb.

>> No.3556787

>>3555453

Oh, you mean pretentious in the way that the word doesn't mean. I see.