[ 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: 200 KB, 554x430, hobbit-map-lonely-mountain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3984935 No.3984935 [Reply] [Original]

Someone, anyone ACTUALLY LEGITIMATELY, IN DETAIL, explain to me why fantasy cannot be "literature." The word means things made of written letters. I understand that there is a connotation there regarding art, but regardless, that is what the word means. Who can argue that the works of Tolkein are not art? And aren't several of Shakespeare's works fantasy as well? A Midsummer Night's Dream perhaps?

I'm just befuddled.

>> No.3984950

>>3984935
because some jerk long ago made up some arbitrary rule about what literary art was and people stuck to it. Although sadly enough said rule has its good to it. The rule helps keep books like 50 Shades of Grey from being considered as works of art

>> No.3984952

if modern writers of fantasy do not copy the interesting ideas Tolkien had and make their own unique contributions in theme and setting then I would consider it literature... Part of the problem is that fantasy is now branded for some reason, as that generic medieval, type of story that is a copy of Tolkien. I think the genre can be so much more

>> No.3984954

>>3984935
Fantasy is /lit/

>> No.3984955

I would like to add Sci-fi to the original question, mostly because I've seen alot of people downtalk sci-fi as well...

>> No.3984958

>>3984952
I would state that there are several stories that can attest to this not being the case. The Varayan Memoirs are a good example, and Xanth.

>> No.3984974

It's literally insane for people to care whether or not something they like is considered "art" or "literature". If you get something from a novel that you didn't have prior to reading it --and you enjoy it-- then it must have some meaning to you. Everything about this argument of "is this art or is it not art" is so fucking arbitrary.

>> No.3984985

OP you must understand that people create a definition of "fantasy" and "sci-fi" in their heads that leaves no room for "literature". Of course, these people probably enjoy some fantasy (Murakami, Nabokov, Gogol, Marquez, Kafka, Borges...) and sci-fi (Pynchon, PKD, Vonnegut, Borges, Lovecraft...) but they do not associate them with these traditions.

I'd also argue with Lethem (who claims that Sci-Fi "is not a genre, there is no genre there") in regards to fantasy.

Bolano said that all fiction is fantastical. I agree.

>> No.3984986

>>3984958
Im the guy you replied to, I agree... there are some works that are very similar to Tolkien and great. I would consider those "literature", whatever that actually is

>> No.3985003

>>3984985
Isn't the definition of the fantasy genre in essence "a story that takes place in a world that could not under our current understanding of physics exist?" There are many stories that are fantastical sure, but are also capable in their own right of taking place. Most fantasy is marked by a world in which "magic" has replaced "technology" and biologically in-viable creatures have replaced existing ones.

>> No.3985137

>>3984935
Tolkien is art, any other fantasy is not. thats the general rule and with good reason because any other fantasy is a cheap rip off of Tolkiens mythology

>> No.3985149

>>3984935
Please leave us alone and go back to >>>/tv/

>> No.3985170

Fantasy can be Literature, don't let the e/Lit/ists tell you differently

>> No.3985195

>>3984935
There is a difference between art and kitsch.
The work of art is that which it aims at an aesthetic dimension (dealing with beauty).
Kitsch is any product which has another objective.

Most fantasy are written to sale and to entertain, thus are not art, but they are kitsch.

Then there is good art and bad art. Tolkien is bad art.

>> No.3985202

>>3985170
Yeah it can. But besides Poul Anderson's broken sword I still have to find a fantasy book that goes beyond mediocre.

>> No.3985637

>>3985137
>Tolkien's "original" mythology
>cheap rip-off of the Edda

Fixed that for you.

>> No.3985646

"Let's say fankly, for starters, that 'Art' truly doesn't exist as such. There are only artists.[...] It's a fact that nowadays, this notion of Art with a capital A has become a sort of idol, on top of being a scarecrow. You can dismiss an artist by telling him that while his work is not too bad in its genre, it is not 'Art'. And you can fool a decent man admiring a painting by telling him that what he likes in the work isn't 'Art' itself, but something else."

>> No.3985712

>>3985195

Kitsch is, by definition, mass-produced art. It's a word that's used almost exclusively to defame what others consider to be art, chiefly used by elitists who believe art is only what other elitists call it.

>> No.3985717

>>3984935
Fantasy can be literature but you have to call it "Magic Realism" to be taken seriously.

>> No.3985745

>>3985717
Yeah, or surrealism. The reason for that is most "fantasy" takes place in the exact same type of world. Why call it fantasy if you're just going to do another Tolkien re-hash (but you added guns!). Yeah, I'm aware there's better fantasy, but so much of it is derivative.

>> No.3985756

>>3985637
>cheap rip-off of the Edda
>cheap rip-off
No. It takes a lot of balls and talent to infect a pagan mythology with Christian ideals without explicitly mentioning God, Jesus or Christian symbolism anywhere, and have the militant secular-humanist-neopagan crowd lap it up and ask for more.

>> No.3985759

>>3984935
>Someone, anyone ACTUALLY LEGITIMATELY, IN DETAIL, explain to me why fantasy cannot be "literature." The word means things made of written letters. I understand that there is a connotation there regarding art, but regardless, that is what the word means. Who can argue that the works of Tolkein are not art? And aren't several of Shakespeare's works fantasy as well? A Midsummer Night's Dream perhaps?
I've always considered fantasy the epitome of literature.

>> No.3985764

>>3985745
>The reason for that is most "fantasy" takes place in the exact same type of world.
It doesn't. Even shitty fantasy has unique 'worlds'.

>Why call it fantasy if you're just going to do another Tolkien re-hash (but you added guns!).
Unfortunately, fantasy very-very-very rarely does Tolkien rehashes. (Frankly, the genre would be much better if they did Tolkien rehashes.)

Most fantasy is novelizations of RPG campaign settings. (In case of crap like 'Malazan' -- literally.)

_This_ is why fantasy sucks: because it is based on an RPG gaming tradition instead of a literary one.

Tolkien has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that some early RPG settings stole a few bits here and there from Tolkien.

>> No.3985776

>>3984935
Tolkien is a good reading experience. But the world is hardly up to snuff if you scrutinize it. Humans may be suspectible to diseases and are short-lived. But the advantage humans have is the breeding rate. So why all these huge areas that are plain empty? If Rohan expanded northwest, it could've quadrupled it's size without bumping into any other country. But the rohanites or anyone else never did. So are humans not only breeding faster but is also more impatient than elves and dwarves or not?

Compare with Westeros and Essos. You probably could carve out an country for yourself beyond the wall with relatively little effort. And then there's the Grassy Sea that only takes some eviction of dothrakis and The Red Waste that actually has abandoned cities in it. Otherwise it's plain and open warfare if you want to create a country of your own. The voids has simply been filled.

>>3982912

>> No.3985870

>>3984985
I feel it's the same reason Dr. Seuss's works aren't considered comics.

>> No.3985890
File: 22 KB, 469x345, IS THAT A WAND IN YOUR POCKET.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3985890

>>3984935
There's no such thing as can or cannot be, really. Many a great work from times gone by could arguably be classified as 'fantasy' in one light or another.

It's just that the vast, vast majority of post-Tolkien 'fantasy' works, particularly the more popular ones, are little more than derivative, formulaic tripe; full of sound and fury, offering naught but pretense, ostentation and escapism, so the genre is burdened, as a result, by a frankly well-deserved stigma.

>> No.3985891

>>3985776

Orcs, goblins, wargs, giants. These all prey on humans.

>> No.3985895

>>3985756
>autism = balls
if litrary merit were to be measured, it would not be in "balls".

>> No.3985899

>>3984974
this

>> No.3985901

>>3985003
the metamorphosis?

If we go by that definition, it makes no real difference to war and peace, ones possible and ones seems to not be, why would something being not possible make it not literature.

>> No.3985904

>>3985890
>It's just that the vast, vast majority of post-Tolkien 'fantasy' works, particularly the more popular ones, are little more than derivative, formulaic tripe; full of sound and fury, offering naught but pretense, ostentation and escapism, so the genre is burdened, as a result, by a frankly well-deserved stigma.
It's not well-deserved stigma when the non-pretentious, derivative, etc works are tarred with the same brush.
Other than that yeah I agree.

On reflection, the non-thatstuff works aren't quite so much seen as "fantasy" these days, they get called cross genre or horror or science fiction simply because they're not obviously derivative. Fantasy is redefining itself as variations on a Tolkeinesque theme and nothing else.

>> No.3985907

>>3985901
are you implying the metamorphosis is possible in our world of physics? or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say

>> No.3985909

>>3985891
Fair enough. But if it's real humans we're talking about, the beings you mentioned would only be a temporary setback. Because if it's something humans are really good at, it's killing things.

The indians wiped out the megafauna of the americas, for instance.

>> No.3985910

>>3985202

>What is malazan book of the fallen

Besides, there's sci-fi out there which to me is unquestionably literature - Dune and the Hyperiod Cantos for starters. And if sci-fi can be literature, why can't fantasy?

The problem isn't so much that fantasy can't be literature, its that fantasy is still at an incredibly juvenile stage compared to other genres. See the popularity of Game of Thrones - its currently in its edgy teenage years.

In 20 years time, I'm sure some of the better fantasy produced today (Tigana, Malazan, Black Company) will be recognised as literature.

>> No.3985939

>>3985910
ASOFAI being juvenile? Really? Consider Stieg Larssons Millenium-trilogy. It has got a lot of attention from Old Media. Now, does it feature something similar to Stannis being a fanatical convert and Salladhor Saan explaining to Davos what Azor Ahai and The Lightbringer really is about? No, it's all soicalism and and sexual liberation.

>> No.3985950

>>3985939
Are you implying the Millennium trilogy isn't juvenile shit?

>> No.3986066

>>3985950
It is juvenile, but it has been better treated by the parnasse.

>> No.3986092

>>3985909
The chief threats to humans in that world are intelligent, humanoid creatures, not simple animals.

>> No.3986106

>>3985712
Nothing of the sorts. You are influenced too much by the postmodern populist criticism of the term.

For example ikea in its showroom sometimes has fake paintings that has order just to be the decor to the product it's selling. That's not art. No one, except the aforementioned postmodernists, believes that's art. In fact after the season they are going to throw them away.


When my mother decorated her living room with a miniature tour eiffel she didn't believe it was art. That was kitsch.

But besides that accuses of elitism can really suck my cock. Because if the alternative to elitism is populism I prefer elitism.

>> No.3986155
File: 17 KB, 195x300, fantasy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3986155

>>3984935
serious literature fantasy (pic related)

I really would like to see some of these "Tolkien Ripoff" works. I've found about ten so far, by stretching the definition and including parodies.

Anybody got a list of tolkien derived, non-RPG style books?

>> No.3986166

>>3985195
This is a decent point: one could argue that any writing for money or fame would be considered kitsch. Then Shakespeare and pretty much any professional writer is ruled out of th "art" category, but most fan fiction is ruled in. This actually makes a lot of sense, since fanfics are works of love and non professional, they would certainly qualify as true art.

>> No.3986168

>>3986092
Did you know what happened to the indians of North America. Not living in a full fledged agricultural society lowered their breeding rate. They was outbred by the europeans.

>> No.3986182

>>3986168
was they indeed? I understood that they were mostly wiped out by disease.

>> No.3986186

>>3986182
I understood that the US killed them all, even those waving around white flags and saying they surrender, because they didn't understand European values.

>> No.3986192

>>3986182
Also. But agricultural society allows division of work and so on. And if I get things straight, Rohan have all bits and pieces in place. So why not even follow the river and colonize towards the sea? Because who is going to stop them? The non-civilized super saiyan non-humans?

>> No.3986196

>>3986166
Just because something sells does not mean it's not art. If something is made just to be sold is not art. One can imagine R.L.Stine's books not to be written because there is no market, but one cannot imagine the Buddenbrooks not to be written because of market conditions.

Also yeah if fanfiction aims at the domain of aesthetics is art. Bad art, but art. Art is just a category of the object that answers about it's function. As you see it's not elitist at all.

>> No.3986263

>>3986186
Most of them were long dead well before the US was a thing. We were more about eradicating cultures than populations. More the massacre type than the genocide type. Most of the Inidans were killed by the Spanish, the French, The English and the germs. What was done after 1776 was an afterthought.

>> No.3986267

>>3986196
good point, you'd expect most true art to suck balls since it has no standards of quality beyond the questionable tastes, aesthetics and talents of the artist. Thsoe with commercial constraints would be expected to reach mediocre and high levels of quality, with very little shit or genius. a noraml distribution, where as you'd get more bimodal with true art: 99.99% pure shit, and few gems at the top of the curve.

>> No.3986274

>>3986263
>Most of the Inidans were killed by the Spanish, the French, The English and the germs. What was done after 1776 was an afterthought.
Wait, so even though the [white] people on the continent were the same [white] people in 1775 as in 1776, because they hadn't declared independence at the time it didn't count as their actions?

>> No.3986280

>>3986274
Difference between a country doing something and a bunch of individuals. Remember that a whole hell of a lot of indians were also invloved in massacring other indians too. Also, remember that "white people" in the seventeen hundreds didn't include the french, the irish, the italians, the hungarians, or a lot of other people. There were probably ten thousand white races back then, as defined by their own members. As far as what we consider "white people" now. there might not have been more than a few thousand.

>> No.3986281

>>3986196
You do mean to say that art is the only good, and kitsch is an inherently negative label, correct?

>> No.3986311

>>3986281
No there is some good kitsch and there is some bad art.

For example I have some nice postcards from some places I vacationed in. They are kitsch but nice. Certainly they are not art, they have another function.

>> No.3986329

>>3986311
That's a strange way to use the term. You decried the "postmodern", populist definition of kitsch, but your definition, which is neutral, contradicts the modernist, "elitist" definition, which is decidedly negative.
Kitsch is commonly accepted as anything in the realm of art (i.e. literature, film, painting) that is not avant-garde. Thus Renaissance paintings are kitsch, despite being created with aesthetic ideals.

It's cool though. You have a unique take on it.

>> No.3986347

>>3986329
What I don't like about the postmodernist perspective is how they try to blend the line, saying there is no difference.

I also believe these terms can't be really be applied to pre-modern times, in the same way you cannot apply the distinction between science and pseudo-science to ancient physics.

I do agree with a lot of what modernists say about art when it comes to definition of the aesthetic domain. Though I think that their mistake was to claim that aesthetic concerns must be pre-eminent for everyone (otherwise enjoy your fascism). Again it's the same mistake that some make when they say "is it science? No? Then it's an utter lie!" And they forget that knowledge comes in different forms and that there is a difference, for example, between episteme (science) and phronesis (wisdom). Rejecting an obsession with one does not mean that they are the same thing, nor that one cannot have a preference for one and the other.

Pls do not over-extend the comparison between science and art that I do here. It's just a comparison to explain some concepts the two fields don't match.

>> No.3986365

>>3986347
What value does kitsch have?

>> No.3986374
File: 13 KB, 200x307, Little_Big_novel_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3986374

Does anybody here know of some books like "little, big" by John Crowley. I loved the shit out of that and haven't really found anything like it since.

>> No.3986376

>>3986365
It's extremely useful in tracking changes in cultural values. The appeal of kitsch is a lot more indicative of what the actual people of a society are interested in and the iconography they respond to. Look at Winslow Homer, Norman Rockwell, N.C. Wyeth etc., for how art and kitsch can overlap. Those religious pictures you see at every auction, the guardian angel with the kid on the bridge, "Blue Boy and Pinkie" sort of say not just what people want to have themselves, what they appreciate, but also how they like to present themselves. The Image macros on facebook are an example of the modern equivalent.

>> No.3986378

>>3986376
It's still shit.

>> No.3986379

>>3986374
Peace by Gene Wolfe. Also Castleview and Free Live Free

>> No.3986380

>>3986365
Makes your home pretty. Entertains you. Can make time on a flight pass faster. Can be masturbation material.

>> No.3986382

>>3986376
Very good post.

>> No.3986383

>>3986376
How can the two overlap? Kitsch and Art are antagonistic towards each other.

>> No.3986387

>>3986378
A lot of it didn't start that way though. Remember that the kitschiest thing around is the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. You see it everywhere. Or look at Rodin's Thinker. Art certainly, but as kitschy as a pink flamingo.

>> No.3986388

>>3986379
Thanks, I'll be sure to check these out.

>> No.3986398
File: 55 KB, 886x604, 52143213541321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3986398

>>3984935
What i found on this guy's >>3985776 thread.

Seems to sum it up nicely although crude and self opinionated but it answers your question

>> No.3986416

>>3986398
>Baking Sage Bread with a pic
>my opinions > yours
>Likes Abercrombie
>disses IJ

>>>/asp/ie

>> No.3986432

>>3986383
Kitsch tends to start as art, then undergo a memetic mutation to become something else. The Mona Lisa, The Iwo Jima Phot, The Eiffel Tower and The Statue of Liberty. They're cultural icons, and therefore embody kitsch, though they are undoubtedly works of art by the aesthetic standards of the times. Elvis on velvet is a bit less arty, but no less iconic, and itwas INTENDED as art, though not very good art by external standards maybe.

>> No.3986481

>>3986398
holy shit, that's all a joke right?

>> No.3986491

>>3984935
Fantasy can be literature, it just often isn't. Another way to put it, when fantasy becomes lit, it is no longer fantasy because real lit transcends genres. Just my thought.

>> No.3986576

>>3986398
>little kids can understand and fully grasp LOTR
....>lel
You are joking right?
/lit/ is really going to the dogs, wish BrownBear was back to lead us to proper knowledge.

>> No.3986635

Fantasy is literature. Tolkien is just as canon as Sir Thomas Mallory. Whoever told you otherwise was talking out of their ass.

>> No.3986657

>>3984985

>mfw my english professor said sci-fi was stories about blowing up planets and getting into battles with aliens, and never had deeper themes
>she cites Starship Troopers as an example
>ask her if shes read it
>no, shes only seen the movie
>ask her why she's making us read Never Let Me Go, a piece of Sci-fi
>n-n-n-no anon, this is SPECULATIVE FICTION, basically we take technology that could happen and write about how it might change the way the world works
>drop the class, get my money back and use my vagina to make the dean waive my english requirement

Yeah I'm a whore, but listening to women talk about Science fiction is actually painful.

>> No.3986755

>>3986657
>use my vagina to make the dean waive my english requirement
If you are so casual with your vagina.....
How about taking a guys virginity?
Won't that be nice? You can brag about how many guys cherry you popped.

>> No.3986766

>>3986755

I have slept with three virgins in my life and the sex has always been embarrassing, disappointing and weird. Usually immediately after they finish crying after prematuring all over my leg, they then turn into raging morons and go on about "OH YAH MAN I TOTALLY FUKKED THAT SLUT BRO BRO BRO" These dudes were all "shy" dudes and gamers and people I thought wouldn't be retarded about getting to stick their dick into a warm wet hole.

If you want a less graphic analogy, most people don't like fucking virgins because its like trying to teach your mom how to use the computer. They have no idea what they're doing, the result is always disappointing, you get mad, they call you an idiot(slut).

>> No.3986771

>>3986766

Oh, and some of the men I know feel the same about female virgins. A girl who is rife with sexuality on the dance floor turns into a flat board and lies there, her face a pained expression, giving no real indication that she's enjoyng or not. Afterwards she expects you to marry her.

>> No.3986772

>>3986755
and that is why you don't have a girlfriend.

>> No.3986774

>>3986771
>>3986766

But in essence, I do feel the need to apologize for revealing my gender thusly, it's only got a point in regards to my story, and I know its a faux pas to reveal anything about who you are on 4chan.

>> No.3986779

>>3986774
I'm a frothing misogynist and even I didn't take offense.

>> No.3986792

>>3986779

Ha, I doubt you hate all women, but you should understand that most people don't have open minds/can adjust to change, and most women are more or less raised to be mentally handicapped. I certainly was, sexuality discouraged, scholarly pursuits rewarded but with the understanding that it was all a waste of time before the Marriage, and so on. Maybe you'll find someone like me, very few women I meet can see what this society does to them and move past it, most just choose to get angry at it and fight it. There's so much more you can do with your life if you move past it....

>> No.3986800

>>3986792
quick question: when you buy wall art, do you often take a long time before you hang it?

>> No.3986803

>>3984935

Same reason a lot of people dismiss 'metal' as not being 'real' music despite being just as technically brilliant as anything else out there or even surpassing at times.

>> No.3986821

>>3986792
You're right, I don't hate all women. I like the (prettier) Nora Barnacles of the world. You seem an alright sort, and I am sure you'll make some bespectacled, pondused guy real happy some day. Best of luck with your status as a mythical beast.

>> No.3986822

>>3986792
When i premature all over your leg or inside you we would both know that we would try again later... if not i can just feast upon your mound... Girls never pass up oral right?

>> No.3986827

>>3986766
why would you even choose to have sex with someone knowing they're a virgin gamer

>> No.3986828

>>3986800

Well, if by art you mean "terrible art from special editions of DnD books" and "maps from WRPGS from the 90's" then yes.

>> No.3986831

I've always found literature to contain works of high merit (whatever high merit constitutes, almost all works exclusively written in 20th centurary and prior to that). Also, to give an opinion to the assumption you are making. I believe people in the academia generally stay away fantasy because, well, it's generally off-putting in the study of literature, whereas other themes are more appraised.

>> No.3986840

Fantasy is clearly literature, in the way that we use literature to mean written fiction and poetry. But it's not 'literary fiction'.

It gets complicated because people use literature both to mean the written medium, and also to mean "higher, more respected" literature than genre fiction

>> No.3986844

>>3986821

I still can be quite an awful person at times, and I have been unreasonable. The point is to try and be as self-aware as possible.

>>3986822
Those three men were all so embarassed they never texted me again. I was willing to go again, but you know.

>>3986827
There was a time, back in the great mists of time(2009) where I believed that vaginas were magical, because of the trend of people that were successful non-virgins. I've also always wanted to date a dork like 21 from The Venture Bros. I'm really into hairy bear men. I don't...I don't know why.

>> No.3986856

>>3986844
I know what to do, i just don't know how to do it to the best of my ability.
The sensitivity would knock me out the first couple times but after i while i would be able to hold my feels and last longer. Again if that don't work chop suey for dinner.

I mean if lesbians can work with just feasting on each other i don't see why i can't feast on you until i get the knack of lasting longer.

>> No.3986866

>>3986856
I'm not female, but having sex with an incompetent gets a bit stale after a while.

>> No.3986868

>>3986856

Lesbians use ungodly amounts of toys, at least the ones I know.

And well, if you're really good at eating pussy, then I wouldn't have a problem.

You'd have to be really good.

Also stop referring to vaginas as food, it's fucking weird.

>> No.3986872

>>3986866
Is love all about sex?
If she really loved me(not the girl i was replying to) won't she want to give it a try?
A lot of girls stay in sexless marriages.... why wouldn't she stay with me when i am trying my best to please her?

>> No.3986875

>>3986868
is good orator the preference? provided we employ an orator/strokemaster dichotomy. I am gathering data for my doctoral thesis.

>> No.3986876

>>3986868
>Also stop referring to vaginas as food, it's fucking weird.
It is funny though?
tell me you didn't have a chuckle at my metaphors.

>> No.3986887

>>3986872

Sort of.

>>3986875

Nope.

>>3986876

Stop. It's really strange. I hate to be that girl, but I picture you as a fedora wearer when you call vaginas "chop suey"

>> No.3986896

>>3986828
hmm. and do you wear little makeup and have mostly functional shoes, mostly darker colors and a few with thick soles? And how do you feel about zombies?

>> No.3986923

>>3984935
>Wah waaah, why aren't these people validating my interests

Are all fantasy nerds such buttflustered manchildren?

>> No.3986927

>>3986168
>Did you know what happened to the indians of North America. Not living in a full fledged agricultural society lowered their breeding rate.
What? The fuck are you on about??!

Do you fucking realize that 90% of what we eat today is stuff that was genetically engineered by those Indians which supposedly didn't have a 'full-fledged agricultural society'?

If it wasn't for the Indians, we'd be eating turnips and dying from scurvy.

>> No.3986934

>>3986896

I alternate between wearing some makeup, and not at all.

I only really wear makeup if I have to do something that draws a lot of attention to me, and people are just, unfortunately, generally nicer to a woman wearing makeup. Doctors take you more seriously etc. Usually I don't.

I wear functional shoes, I guess? I only have three pairs. They're prescription shoes because my feet are all kinds of fucked up.

And, with zombies, I feel like they need to go away for 20 years and then come back when someone can do something fresh with them. I haven't played a zombie game that interested me since Dead Rising, and I don't really enjoy any films/books/shows about them. I did see world war z, but I wasn't pleased with it.

>> No.3986938

>>3986887
>but I picture you as a fedora wearer
Never owned a fedora.
Its just the type of guy i am. I'm like the Imp in GoT, say something and i usually find a witty remark or twist the words around to make a joke of it.

If you knew me in person you would probably be laughing because i say these sort of things all the time.

>> No.3986942

>>3986927
>Ever heard of european history?

>> No.3986950

>>3986934
Would you take a bf who rubbed your feet while you watched movies together?

>> No.3986954

>>3986938

Probably.

Of course there is something a little narcissistic in comparing yourself to the fan favorite.

>> No.3986965

>>3986950

I think most people would. My feet just suck in general, if that makes any sense? I mean, I used to be fat, around 200 pounds which on my frame wasn't good, and everyone told me the aching feet thing would go away if I lost some pounds. So I sweated off the weight until I was 140, the healthy goal my doctor prescribed.

I still can't stand for more than a few hours before my feet start hurting, like sharp stabbing pains, so we went to a few doctors who were like, "OH MY GOD WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR FEEEET?" and now I have to wear specially molded inserts in specially molded shoes.

>> No.3986970

>>3986950
>bf who rubbed your feet while you watched movies together?
that seems too subservient to be truly attractive, but then again I am male

>> No.3986978

unrelated: /lit/ seems like the only board where both women and men post, but you literally can't tell the difference between them. cool

>> No.3986981

>>3986954
>there is something a little narcissistic in comparing yourself to the fan favorite
The closest and easiest thing to hand to make you understand what i was saying.
I was like this since primary school and i didn't read GoT till my 20's.

>> No.3986992

>>3986965
So you can't wear high heels?

>> No.3987005

>>3986970

No, it'd be more like, uh.

I suppose if it was an everyday thing, but if you're both relaxing after a day of work, your partner's feet are sore, you give them a rub.

I dunno, I was kind of a housewife girlfriend for the last year, my BF was the KM of a restaurant, and he made enough money for the both of us, and was really insistent I didn't work. It was pretty sweet, deal wise for awhile, I could focus on my writing, keep the place clean and whenever he got home I'd quickly jump into some lingerie. I think seeing something sexy when you get home tired makes your brain happy.


>>3986992
Nope!

But thats okay, because wearing high heels is a bad idea.

>>3986978
A lot of the women on /v/ for example are really angry. They realized that they were raised wrong by society and it was shitty(good) and now they must be angry(bad).

I mean, I don't even get mad about any of that girl gamer/feminist shit. I can't. I've had dudes tell me I shouldn't be playing DnD because I'm "a girl. girls dont play DnD usually" and I just ignore them, file them into a category of my brain that I'll never give much thought to, and then move on with my life. Why not?

>> No.3987013

>>3986934
You fit the pattern for a mid twenties bisexual woman very closely so far. You need to have a constructive creative hobby that you don't practice much, very few female friends, and have quit using at least one addictive substance. Then you're right on profile.

>> No.3987026

>>3987013

Yes, and?

Oh, and I have quite a few female friends, haven't really had to quit anything, I don't have an addictive personality, and I don't find my same sex attractive.

>> No.3987058

I had an idea for a story about a young man from a foreign land who is a beggar and otherwise homeless thief. The land has a very strict caste system in place and is ruled over by the various heads of the merchant guilds/trade caravans because no one knows how they obtain the rare delicacies of the oases.

The young man is chased from the city after attempting to steal from a pricey stall and comes across one of the guild leaders as he performs a ritual to unveil the mysterious oasis. After sneaking around the marvel, the boy is discovered and is forced to wander the desert far from even the remotest safety.

On his last legs, he collapses. Luckily, he's discovered by a scout for a rebel faction that opposes and wants to replace the guilds with their own brand of rule. Our hero reluctantly joins after learning that they are only rebels because they know the truth, unsure of himself and his role in this.

How does it sound for the base of a fantasy tale?

>> No.3987065

>>3987026
Are you one of the pretentious e/lit/ist who believe we(people) should only read works from pre 19th Century?
What are your views on Infinite Jest?
Would you pester your bf to read a book he has no interest in reading?
Would you scorn your bf for reading fantasy?
Would you submit your soul and anus to lord Cthulhu?

>> No.3987078

>>3987026
the same sex attractive thing isn't important oddly enough. The large number of female friends doesnt fit the pattern though. The non-addictive personality does, to a T. The number of female friends is very odd though. Would you mind categorizing them? Specifically are they very similar to you? in terms of dress and lifestyle? do you find them over-emotional and that they tend to react strongly to things you don't? and would you say they tend to bond more quickly, more strongly and to resent their exes more than you do?

>> No.3987103

>>3987058
Too Arabian Nights for me and the word Hero gets thrown around too much.

>rebel faction
This is also overused.

And this
>On his last legs, he collapses. Luckily, he's discovered by a scout
Overused finding help at the last minute is so fucking cliche.

The guild thing is also used in many fantasy Tropes but you can stick with it, replace the rebel faction with something else and that last leg cliche with something else.

Edit, repost, ask.

I read nothing but fantasy so i can give you a fair opinion.
What most fantasy readers want is something new, if not new something old used in a totally new way as to be considered new.

Stumbling into something you were not meant to see and being rescued by people who want to use what you saw to further their war/influence/resistance/etc is milked so bad that dust comes out of the udder.

When i read the description and it has shit like that i pass it over.

>> No.3987118

>>3987103
A fair opinion and I appreciate it

>> No.3987227

>>3987065

1. No, I just finished reading Hamilton's Night's Dawn books.
2. I have not read it, but I plan to, eventually.
3. No, I am single and most dudes I date(nerds) don't read many books, mostly just games/anime/comics
4. Why the fuck would I do that? People can do whatever the fuck they want.
5. Depends. Is Cthulu a hairy bear of a man?

>>3987078
Why are you asking me for all these personal details?

>> No.3987277

>>3984985
Is it weird that even though I concede that Vonnegut certainly uses sci-fi imagery to tell a story, I don't consider him a sci-fi writer?

>> No.3987389

>>3985909
>The indians wiped out the megafauna of the americas, for instance.
God, that's depressing.

>> No.3987398

>>3987389
Actually it was a comet. Over Lake Michigan. The Indians just cleaned up the remains.

>> No.3987410

>>3987227
>Why are you asking me for all these personal details?

I'm cyberstalking you!!!!

Well, actually I'm testing a theory me and my colleague Dr. Bob have about secondary behaviors defining social acceptance and roles of different sexualities. We find that there are a lot of "gay" men who aren't particularly attracted to men, etc. Sort of a confirmation experiment.

If you feel like being cyberstalked however, I am a large muscular hairy man with a STEM degree.

>> No.3987465

>>3987398
Source on that, please?

>> No.3987469
File: 28 KB, 229x320, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3987469

>thread descends into fawning over femanon

>> No.3987482

>>3987465
http://www.livescience.com/7283-catastrophic-comet-chilled-killed-ice-age-beasts.html

>> No.3987487

>>3987469

sorry

but i havent posted any pics, just answered questiosn

>> No.3987490

>>3987410
>ITT: flirting

Why don't you two hook up on skype and the rest of us ungendered lonely fags go back to the actual point of the thread?

Now, as I was saying: Thinking LotR to be the one and only "good and worthy" fantasy story seems a lot like bible-thumping to me...

>> No.3987496

I'm going to write a book about some modernist who lives in a fantasy setting and he hates it because he considers it low culture

>> No.3987543

If you write a good, original book that people enjoy, it's just as literature as anything else. Haters gonna hate.

>> No.3987555

>>3987410
>I am a large muscular hairy man
pics

i'm a boy btw ; )

>> No.3987688

>>3987490
see
>>3986398

>> No.3987701

>>3987469
But the vagina is good
what are you gay?
we don't interact with females irl this is the closest we can get to them without them rebuffing us for our looks/clothing choices

>> No.3987711

>>3986927
Yeah, this is wrong. Algonquins knew enough about agriculture to fertilize their crops with fish remains to bolster their iodine content.

>> No.3987716

The Odyssey is considered one of the finest works of literature.
>It's fantasy
>>YOUR POST IS INVALID

>> No.3987719

>>3987410

Why can't a big muscle fat hairy guy come on to me in real life? Fuck this cyberstalking shit.

>> No.3988442

>>3987716
Most of what OP was asking about there was dealing with why all of the e/lit/ists on here make fun of anyone who mentions fantasy, I think.

>> No.3990548

>>3987716
Yes, I agree, but my post isn't stating that it can't be, it's more of "why do people act as though it isn't".

>> No.3990575

>>3986981
You're also a gay nigger faggot

>> No.3990674

>>3990575
*sigh* idiots

>> No.3991323

>>3990575
I am black... and after being on 4chan for 6+ years starting in /b/ i've grown a taste for traps... not the dick but some of them look like real females... and if i was horny enough i might mount one from behind while fondling he/r implants... then feel bad afterwards and an hero...

Is it gay to like females?
Also
>gay
>faggot
>means the same shit
Can you into repetition?

>> No.3991381

>>3991323
Constant reminder that /lit/ is still 4chan, if the pretentious dickholding side.

>> No.3991416

>>3991381
Yes but the waifus, traps, easy baited trolls, /pol/ and rate my penis hasn't infested this board like it did the others.
Although the trolls, /mu/ and /pol/ try their best everyday or every other day to get a foothold in between the door and the jam.

Dealing with arrogant e/lit/ist is nothing, you can just ignore them.

>> No.3991426

>>3991416
/pol/ has done pretty well with their bait threads here. People don't know how to hide and report it seems, they feel the need to go into the threads and scream "GB2/pol/ REDNECK!!". And with reactions like that of course they're gonna keep coming back.

>> No.3991964
File: 115 KB, 500x333, 5669477983_801bb04586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991964

>>3984935
I consider fantasy a part of literature.
However I do have sometimes have issues with it at times. They are when magic follows no rules. Now I do appreciate the rare instances when the rules are not explicitly explained or when they feed off things like emotion, chaos and taint so the rules are very complex. But those are rare and very hard to do right. (see pic) Then there is that generic medieval elements that few can seem to depart from, it starts to get confusing after a while when different books run together do to such strong similarities. "Are dragons evil in this book? Or just hungry animal that breath fire?"

>> No.3991974

>>3991416
I find /pol/ does well here. Certainly better than on /mu/, and maybe better than on /tg/.

>> No.3992612

laughed so hard

10/10 would read

>> No.3992679

>>3984935
>explain to me why fantasy cannot be "literature."

because then it would be boring and wouldn't sell.

>> No.3993112

>>3991964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AsoeTnQ1Do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-bPN4O22I

>> No.3993114

>>3992612
would read what?

>> No.3993299

>>3984950
>The rule helps keep books like 50 Shades of Grey from being considered as works of art
Because art is objective.

>> No.3993329

>>3984950
People spit on canvas and have it sell for millions.
People have 6 year olds ghost painting and sell for millions and shown in galleries.

This world really needs to burn.

>> No.3993332

>>3984935
>explain to me why fantasy cannot be "literature."
Yes it can.

It's rarely ever is, because it's rooten in pulp, i.e. bad literature. But it can. It just takes a real author and not some glorified fanfic authors like Martin or Jordan.

>> No.3993334

>>3984950
50 Shades of Grey is a work of art by definition, child. Being bad doesn't prevent something from being art.

>> No.3993353

>>3993332
I like how you decided that you say what bad and good literature is.

>> No.3993358

>>3993334
Is more a cultural expression than a work of art.

>> No.3993363

>>3993112
>fedora
Which one of you too an creative fantasy writing class from here?

>> No.3993378

>>3993353
there are a few strata of criteria, see: literary criticism

>> No.3993444

No, they can't, because it is bullshit. Those that make that argument are just searching for a way to elevate themselves above others. These are the same sort of person that that take any excuse to argue about atheism or fundamentalism. Which is to say that they are trolls.

Don't feed the trolls, OP.

>> No.3993715

>>3985890
>derivative, formulaic tripe
Ok, let's declare a jihad on that.

What whill fall and what will not?

>> No.3993852
File: 53 KB, 378x226, Sci-Fi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3993852

I'll just leave this here...

>> No.3993911

>>3993852
I like how the image is ambiguous about which position is right.

>> No.3993946

>>3993911

I like that too. It doesn't scream "ALL SCI-FI (AND FANTASY) SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RESPECT AS 'PROPER LITERATURE.'" It just sorta says "Hey guys, maybe you're not giving this stuff that chance it deserves."

>> No.3994038

>>3984974
>Everything about this argument of "is this art or is it not art" is so fucking arbitrary.

I agree, but I can also see how it's frustrating when people look down on a whole genre because it's been stereotyped.

>> No.3994051

>>3985759

If anything it is the epitome of creativity in literature. It takes a lot of work to create an entire world.

>> No.3994091

>>3986168
>They was outbred by the europeans.

Only because they faced an apocalyptic pandemic that wiped most of them out. Without the diseases they accidentally (for the most part) spread, the Europeans wouldn't have ever gained a lasting permanent influence or settlement in North America.

>> No.3994095

>>3993946

try to remember that Gravity's Rainbow is science fiction. and Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. There's a ven diagram where "good literature" overlaps "science fiction and fantasy". how big a cut it takes is the only relevant question.

>> No.3994107

>>3994095
>how big a cut it takes is the only relevant question
Most books are crap. So there should be giant black shit spots on both circles.

That said, sci-fi/fantasy is entertaining. Some have deeper meaning. Most don't. Who cares? I certainly don't.

>> No.3994124

>>3984955
I think sci-fi novels can be considered literature like the "Dune" series, "Brave New World", and several novels and short stories by Ray Bradburry.

>> No.3994137

>>3986657
Starship Trooper has some pretty deep themes regarding humanity and the relationship of war politics and society.

>> No.3994148

>>3994137

Even if she was only talking about the movie, she was obviously an idiot who didn't get it was a parody.

>> No.3994192

>>3994148
Ya i actually really enjoyed the novel and it almost made me want to join the military and become a true patriot..

>> No.3994209
File: 172 KB, 1200x929, Abraxsis-Chimera 0225_Donato_Giancola__Cartographer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3994209

Here's a summary:

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

Personally I think there is no reason to follow these arbitrary terms.
However seperating "art" and "product" does make some sense and often this is what people actually think when they hear "genre" and "literature".

Books like A Game of Thrones or Harry Potter are more or less carefully crafted stories that mainly aim for appeal.
They're products and when art is created with that goal in mind it ceases to be art.

>> No.3994221
File: 100 KB, 960x640, 111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3994221

>>3984935

In my view, literary types consider today's fantasy genre to be cheap thrills. Books like Game of Thrones, Ender's Game, and Harry Potter are given short shrift because they entertain non-literary types. They become good books in common parlance. Literary types resent this because they know that a good book does so much more than to entertain. It's the Horatian notion that good literature should entertain AND teach. A good book in itself contains entertainment and wisdom. A good book in its reception influences cultural conversation. These poetical, philosophical, and critical modes are probably what a literary type would point to in a good book.

But no literary type could possibly make the claim that "fantasy isn't literature". Like you so shrewdly pointed out, OP- so much of our culture's best literature is fantasy in the sense of quest and wonderment. Texts like Homer's Odyssey, Virgil's Aeneid, Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare's Tempest- they are all fantasy! Battling cyclopses, fending off harpies, traveling through hell, meeting the devil in disguise, casting spells- this is the stuff of fantasy!

So what's the difference between Virgil's Aeneid and Harry Potter? Both entertain. One teaches. I have the gall to claim that Virgil wrote with more wisdom than Rowling. One author is a technical master, one author confuses ancestors and descendants. That's why I tell folks who love fantasy to try out some fantastic classics. If you love the Game of Thrones or Elder Scrolls, you will love Middle English classics. There's more wisdom in 'em.

You might even think about all fiction as fantasy. Then you might ask, how could we glean any wisdom from something we know to be false? Is there a different kind of truth and falsity with fiction? How could you learn anything unless you are already familiar with the concepts? Does it matter if literature teaches us anything? Is literature trivial with regards to knowledge? That's philosophy of literature stuff. Look it up, it's interesting to think about.

Cheers

pic unrelated

>> No.3994231

>>3994221
Great post. 8/10
Would read again.

>> No.3994247

>>3994231

Thank you!

>> No.3994269

>>3994221
>Middle English classics. There's more wisdom in 'em.
Uh, what Middle English fantasy classics have wisdom?

>> No.3994276

>>3994269

To name a few, Chaucer's Knight's Tale, Langland's Piers Plowman, Pearl Poet's Patience.

>> No.3994290

>>3985202
>Poul Anderson's broken sword I still have to find a fantasy book that goes beyond mediocre.

What the fuck... You don't read fantasy, you read pulp. Dunsany, Peake, Eddison, Morris? None of those name ring a bell?

>> No.3994294

>>3994221
>British speech mannerisms

>Picture of pretty girl

I'm watching you

>> No.3994298

>>3994276
thats not very many

>>3994294
let me throw a wrench in the mix: it's jailbait

>> No.3994301

>>3986635
>Tolkien is just as canon as Sir Thomas Mallory

No.

>> No.3994302

>>3994298

That's just to name a few. Check out the genre of "quest narrative" if you like fantasy.

>>3994294

British speech mannerisms? Nigga, I've lived in the US my whole life. I'll be damned if I sound like a redcoat.

>> No.3994304

>>3994301

Have you ever even read Malory? I have, all 1500 goddamn pages. If Malory's canonical Tolkien certainly is.

>> No.3994306

>>3994302
>Check out the genre of "quest narrative" if you like fantasy.
Isn't Harry Potter a quest narrative?

>> No.3994315

>>3984935
I'd like to direct you to this quote by William Hazlitt:
"This is the test and triumph of originality, not to show us what has never been, and what we may therefore very easily never have dreamt of, but to point out to us what is before our eyes and under our feet."

That's from a longer essay about originality, genius, and imagination, but I think it survives without context. You can have the greatest, most well written work of fantasy, but at heart, it's a work of pure imagination. Anyone with imaginative power can compose a relatively compelling fantasy story. The draw and timelessness of non-fantastical works is that the authors lead us to discover new things about the extant world, not one that is fabricated for entertainment.

>> No.3994317

>>3994306

Yeah, and so is The Goonies. But classic quests are called classics because they are formative in our culture. So I encouraged checking out quest narrative classics if you like modern fantasy.

>> No.3994337

>>3994304
Only the Caxton manuscript.

There's no "if" about Mallory's canonical status. He wrote one of the defining, if not the definitive, renditions of the Arthurian mythos, and is still remembered and studied 600 years later.

Nothing Tolkien wrote is considered canonical. Nothing he wrote deserves to be considered canonical.

"The prose of Tolkien has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality."

>> No.3994376

>>3984985
>Borges
>sci-fi
>only in /lit/

>> No.3994394

>>3994337
>Nothing Tolkien wrote is considered canonical. Nothing he wrote deserves to be considered canonical.

There are a lot of literary scholars who would disagree with you.

>nb4domyresearchforme

>> No.3994396

>>3994394
>There are a lot of literary scholars who would disagree with you.

Like who?

>>nb4domyresearchforme

An opponent who refuses to cite sources is an opponent who is running scared.

>> No.3994397

>>3994337
>this idiot

>> No.3994401

>>3994396
>demands sources
>cites none of his own

>> No.3994403

>>3994397
Oh, boo hoo. Your favourite author doesn't have a place in the canon, cry more.

>> No.3994405

>>3994401
Name those "literary scholars" my friend. I am anxious to have my worldview challenged.

>> No.3994407

>>3994315
Dumb argument. Take a story. Have one thing be untrue. Have another. Have another and another. Then, you have a fantasy story. The idea that you can draw a clear line between extant and nonexistent worlds is idiotic.

Further, the idea that only works that pupport to be about objective existence are timeless is stupid. Anything from Beowulf to Guliver's travels are fantasy.

Then again, I'm more or less convinced that there are vanishingly few things that can be said about canons and canonicity are neither trivial or obviously fallacious.

>> No.3994412

>>3994407
>Anything from Beowulf to Guliver's travels are fantasy

I dare you to tell this to one of your professors. Enjoy being laughed out of their office.

>> No.3994417

>>3994405
http://wvupressonline.com/journals/tolkien_studies

Try reading this.

There is an entire field and movement of scholarship of Tolkien's works that is growing.

You can hate all you want, but Tolkien is cited as inspiration and influential by writers the world over. It's next to impossible to enter a literature course without having his name or works mentioned at least once. He has throughout the years been taken more and more seriously.

>> No.3994421

>>3994412
>no true scotsman fallacy

You're such a bonehead.

>> No.3994434

It's not that fantasy can't be serious lit. It's just that most fantasy is like 'oh man let's chuck some dragons in, and oh deus ex machina here, MORE WIZARDS'. If someone writes a serious book that makes a philosophical statement or questions morality or some shit but just happens to have magic and shit, sure if can be serious lit. So long as all the dragons and elfs aren't just in it for no reason, because that's retarded

>> No.3994454

>>3994417
Wow, a once-yearly, 9-year-old journal published by West Virginia University Press, and headed by two of the same three names that always come up when people discuss Tolkien "scholarship." You're going to have to come up with a little more than that to demonstrate an academic consensus on Tolkien's canonical status.

>It's next to impossible to enter a literature course without having his name or works mentioned at least once.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Excuse me? Are you a high-school student? Have you ever taken a "literature" course in a university? Or maybe you're a STEM student taking 101 freshman courses for your humanities requirement?

>>3994421
That's not a no true scotsman.

Also:
>argument from fallacy

lel

>> No.3994472

>>3994454
>Have you ever taken a "literature" course in a university?

Yes I have. Nobody has ever dissed Tolkien.

>>3994454
>Wow, a once-yearly, 9-year-old journal published by West Virginia University Press, and headed by two of the same three names that always come up when people discuss Tolkien "scholarship." You're going to have to come up with a little more than that to demonstrate an academic consensus on Tolkien's canonical status.
>give me sources!
>those don't count

>That's not a no true Scotsman

At this point you're essentially restating over and over that no true professors of literature would EVER stoop so low as to associate with Tolkien's works. That's exactly what it is.

>>3994454
>Also:
>>argument from fallacy

When your only argument is a fallacy then that doesn't apply.

You're only outing yourself as a troll at this point. I think we're done.

>> No.3994473

>>3994454
you're so patrician. i'm shaking in my seat right now, awed by your excellence.

>> No.3994490

>>3994472
>Yes I have. Nobody has ever dissed Tolkien.

Not the same as it being "next to impossible to enter a literature course without having his name or works mentioned at least once."

> That's exactly what it is

That was a reply to a completely different comment chain.

Also, your sources have to demonstrate that Tolkien is considered canonical by the academic community. Pointing out one niche publication that's barely above fanzine status is not sufficient.

>When your only argument is a fallacy then that doesn't apply.

See above.

>You're only outing yourself as a troll at this point. I think we're done.

Baby can't take it when his hagiographic preaching on Tolkien is confronted with reality. Waaahhh Waaahhh, baby want a sweetie?

>>3994473

Thanks.

>> No.3994497

>>3994490
>Also, your sources have to demonstrate that Tolkien is considered canonical by the academic community.

You can't even fucking read. I find this problem a lot on /lit/ people keep arguing about points that were never made.

I never said Tolkien is considered canonical. I said that he is gaining support and taken more an more seriously over time. I didn't state he has reached canonical status.

You're a moron if you continue to argue with me after I have now cleared this up.

>> No.3994504

>>3994497
>I never said Tolkien is considered canonical. I said that he is gaining support and taken more an more seriously over time. I didn't state he has reached canonical status.

>>3994394
>>Nothing Tolkien wrote is considered canonical. Nothing he wrote deserves to be considered canonical.

>There are a lot of literary scholars who would disagree with you.

So the problem is that you can't express yourself clearly. Gotcha.

>> No.3994505

>>3994490
>That was a reply to a completely different comment chain.

No. I know exactly what you're referring to. You're doing nothing but asserting that literature professors do nothing but distance themselves from fantasy and Tolkien, when in fact the opposite has been happening.

This is a fallacy. You've also done nothing but use authority without even saying why Tolkien doesn't deserve canon status.

>> No.3994509

>>3994504
>So the problem is that you can't express yourself clearly. Gotcha.

I express myself just fine. You can't read, you're an elitist, and a bonehead.

I mean, if you're truly educated you wouldn't be in here flaming and trolling.

>> No.3994517

>>3994509
Truly educated elites often partake in pleb-bashing. Think of it as a public service, little pleb.

>> No.3994524

>>3994517

Yawn. You're the most predictable troll ever. You really need to refine your technique.

>> No.3994526

>>3994221
This is the first well thought out answer I have received yet. Here are my responses to it:

I agree with you that literature should teach more than entertain, but I am also glad that you added more classics to my list there. I feel as though some modern day fantasies TRY to teach or to satirize...Islandia comes to mind...but that modern day authors are somewhat pressured by a public that does not want it and an industry that does not promote teaching in books, well, fiction at least. After the wild success of Tolkein's works I feel as though the idea of "throwaway lit" became prevalent. I can remember many amazing stories that had that feel in Analog in the 50's and 60's as well as Science Fiction and Fantasy periodical.

Anyone else have a weigh in?

>> No.3994534

Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work.

I don't understand this thread, it's like the 'are video-games art?' discussions in /v/

>> No.3994546

>>3994526

I'm pretty sure the idea that good literature must be didactic has been considered silly by some of the most recognized writers.

Shakespeare let some of the good guys die all the time just because it would be tragic even if having the bad guy punished would teach the lesson better. I also don't agree that you can't learn from books like Harry Potter or ISoIaF or LotR. There are lessons in those books as well, even if they are less overt like they were in past times.

>> No.3994550

>>3994509
Oh me, oh my, not an elitist bonehead! Excuse me while I pick up the pieces of my shattered orgeuil.

>> No.3994554

>>3994550
Man, elitist is a compliment more than anything.

>> No.3994555

>>3994534
"is X literature?" on /lit/ means "is this good enough to appease the 2deep academic crowd?

>> No.3994561

>>3994554
>elitist is a compliment

I forgot I'm on /lit/.

>> No.3994563

>>3994554
Elitist: A person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.

That's a compliment?

>> No.3994569

>>3994563
Better than Populism.

>> No.3994574

>>3994572

Dude.

>/lit/

Yeah.

>> No.3994572

>>3994569
populism: the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.

Populism founded the US....

>> No.3994582

>>3994574
I know I know. Thread derailment.

>> No.3994584

>>3994572
Populism lets the shitty plebs rule with their shit taste and shit ideas. Why should plebs have power over patricians, who know what is objectively best?
The US is a shitty country devoid of culture. That only hurts your case.

>> No.3994585

>>3994572
The "common people" are uneducated peasants who don't wash and certainly don't read.

Much better for society to be ruled by a stratum of highly educated elites free to pursue knowledge and enlightenment.

>> No.3994587

>>3984935

OP: It's a silly and arbitrary distinction that they make. Most of the people on /lit/ will just follow the 'professional' opinion without coming up with reasons of their own. Argument from authority.

This is the problem with the Humanities in general: people think that art can be summed up in objective quantitative terms, when it is impossible for this to ever be the case. They will cite 'professional' opinion as if that is solid fact, and while professionals do back up their opinion with facts that doesn't mean you have to agree with their conclusions.

Professor A: I think this is a good book because I found the writing to be very good.

Professor B: I didn't like this book because I found the plot and story to be very bland.

This is how it goes. Whether a book is 'accepted' has to do entirely with whether more 'professionals' agree with Prof A or B.

>> No.3994688

>>3994221
how does harry potter confuse ancestors and descendants?

>> No.3994797

>>3994688
Probably some stupid section somewhere in the thousands of pages where the editor fucked up and wrote the wrong one.

>> No.3995446
File: 190 KB, 768x1024, IMG_1526.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3995446

For the two arguing over Tolkien and the academy. I'll just leave this here.
(over 4000!!!)

>> No.3995452
File: 180 KB, 768x1024, IMG_1527.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3995452

In case your too lazy to go to the site and scroll here is more...and yah i know its upside, my pad is dumb

>> No.3996027
File: 356 KB, 1200x1200, jpdream.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3996027

>>3984935
Your use of the words "ACTUALLY LEGITIMATELY" and "IN DETAIL" imply to me that someone has explained to you their arguments but you just didn't agree with them.

That said, sure, fantasy can be literature.

>> No.3996051

>>3995452
>>3995446

It's pointless. He doesn't care because he'll just discount those people as "not real professors" or "not serious professors" of literature.

>> No.3996644

>>3994585
To be honest...that isn't the case with any country. Just saying.

>> No.3996675

Actually legitimately.

>> No.3999350

>>3994584
Yeah, let the degenerate inbred aristocracy rule. Tea and crumpets every day at five o'clock and anal sex in the garden shed every Thursday at two.

In our family we still talk about when Queen Victoria paid two unscheduled visits to our manor during the Year of our Lord 1887. Imagine that, a year with two occasions less for anal sex in the garden shed! Our obligations prevented us from re-scheduling the anal sex in the garden shed. And my great-great-grandfather applied to the Colonial Office to spend a year in India. He thought that he could compensate for the dry year of 1887. But to his great dismay, his applications was turned down in 1888, 1890 and 1892. He did not dare to apply for a fourth time and he fell into a mild depression. The Thursday anal sex in the garden shed was not the same again. And it was not until The Great War that the joy was rekindled. Our family took under our wings a strapping young lad from the Western Front. Double amputee, but energetic as ever.

>> No.3999533

>>3993358
What is art, if not a cultural expression?