[ 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: 15 KB, 200x336, lolita.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025569 No.4025569 [Reply] [Original]

Be real, /lit/. How many of you actually read and write and how many of you are just stuck-up critics who wish they did?
A while ago there was a popular thread here about sex in literature. One person quoted the following passage from Lolita:

"She trembled and twitched as I kissed the corner of her parted lips and the hot lobe of her ear. A cluster of stars palely glowed above us, between the silhouettes of long thin leaves; that vibrant sky seemed as naked as she was under her light frock. I saw her face in the sky, strangely distinct as if it emitted a faint radiance of its own. Her legs, her lovely live legs, were not too close together, and when my hand located what it sought, a dreamy and eerie expression, half pleasure, half-pain, came over those childish features. She sat a little higher than I, and whenever in her solitary ecstasy she was led to kiss me, her head would bend with a sleepy, soft, drooping movement that was almost woeful, and her bare knees caught and compressed my wrist, and slackened again and her quivering mouth, distorted by the acridity of some mysterious potion, with a sibilant intake of breath came near to my face. She would try to relieve the pain of love by first roughly rubbing her dry lips against mine; then my darling would draw away with a nervous toss of her hair, and then again come darkly near and let me feed on her open mouth, while with a generosity that was ready to offer her everything, my heart, my throat, my entrails, I gave her to hold in her awkward fist the scepter of my passion."

Maybe five different people immediately started rambling and arguing and jerking off about how important this scene is because it shows how Humbert associates Dolores/Lolita with heaven and quintessence.
Anyone who has actually read the book would know this is right in the beginning and Humbert is banging Annabel, not Lolita. Nobody called them out.
I have come to the conclusion, based on my observations, that the vast majority of /lit/ doesn't actually read the books discussed, but blindly believes what they think their opinion on it is; nor do they write, but ruthlessly attack anyone brave enough to post an excerpt of their work because they wish they were a good writer.
Am I wrong? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to prove it.

>> No.4025572

Yep, you got me. I never learned to read.

>> No.4025576

>>4025569
Interesting OP, I'd like to agree with you but I'm afraid I wasn't around the thread you described.
People always pretend to know more than they do on every board, whether for the sake of trolling, following board related hive mind, or over appreciating their own opinions

>> No.4025581

>>4025569
/lit/ is not a very good place for people interested in literature

>> No.4025584

>>4025569
Some people on /lit/ like to parrot popular opinion all while telling themselves that they'll get around to reading the book in time.
Reading the "essentials" takes time, and newcomers want in on the action at time.

>> No.4025600

>>4025584
the funny part is that nobody actually reads the essentials.
look at books that are almost universally acclaimed on /lit/, like Infinite Jest and Ulysses and such. their threads really don't blow up as much as George Orwell threads do or even fantasy threads.

>> No.4025602

This place has people who think fan fiction is actual literature, for what it's worth.

Because Doom Repercussion of Evil is such a well-thought masterpiece.

>> No.4025614

>>4025602
you're stupid

>> No.4025616

I just come on /lit/ to criticize others in order to make myself feel better and others feel worse

>> No.4025650

>>4025616
pretty much this

>> No.4025655

>>4025614

>you don't think my 50-page Sonic fanfic where I ignore canon and have Eggman marry Shadow is great? Wah!

>> No.4025687

>>4025600
I read Infinite Jest hoping to discuss it on /lit/ and then I realised no one else has ever read it.

>Jest'd

>> No.4025690

>>4025600
Also it's pretty much impossible to discuss the essential books when most newbies on /lit/ have little understanding of writing style and reference.

Ulysses isn't even that fucking hard or difficult, just learn what stream of consciousness is and apply it to the reading. Maybe then people won't throw it away after the first 4 chapters and pretend to have read and grasped the book.

>> No.4025713

>>4025600
Fantasy threads blow up because they are, more often than not, bait, and /lit/ just loves to shit all over fantasy.

>> No.4026244

>>4025713
there is a good portion of /lit/ that enjoys fantasy. Tolkien is a pretty acclaimed author.
I'm not saying its bad, but usually the people shitting on fantasy don't read the so-called real literature.

>> No.4027580

>>4026244
No fantasy is just pretty fucking bad.

>> No.4027582
File: 109 KB, 406x364, 1376014536806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4027582

>> No.4027584

>>4025569
I read it. The part where HH pretended to sleep and Lolita was sobbing in the night really made me felt uneasy.

>> No.4027615

>>4025713
>/lit/ just loves to shit all over fantasy.

Even if there was a small pile of shit somewhere, others would add to it thinking it's the communal latrines.

>> No.4027640

/lit/ is a lot like /mu/. nobody on /mu/ actually plays, writes or produces any music yet they all have an opinion on it, which is all fine and dandy if it were actually your opinion instead of something you read online. it seems like they derive their opinion by cutting and slicing other people's opinions into their own, /lit/ goes by the same principles most of the time.

>> No.4027643

>>4025569

I write a little, but I make no claims to being a writer

I've read Lolita. I've read a lot of the essentials, but its been a fragmented approach. I did a survey style look at western philosophy, the most in depth part of which dealt with solipsism and empiricism. The rest of the non fiction I've read has been feminist and art criticism.

I've been much lazier about reading the past two years. I need to get back into it, but I think I want to do so in classroom setting again. Too much of what I've read has just filtered out of my brain for lack of discussion about it.

>> No.4027652

lurker here what is lolita about?

>> No.4027662

>>4027652

For reals? Its about a countryside pedophile trying to make it in the big city.

>> No.4027676

>>4027662
im from /v/
does he end happy for him?

>> No.4027678

>>4027676
does it*

>> No.4027679
File: 25 KB, 360x333, 6a00d8341c630a53ef00e55389afb28834-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4027679

>>4027678

Nah, one of these endings

>> No.4027687

>>4027679
hahah thank you

>> No.4027698

>>4027687

np, just doing my part to encourage truthfulness and correct knowledge

>> No.4027734

>>4025584
>some people on /lit/ like to parrot popular opinion....
every ulysses and finnegans wake and pynchon fan ever

>> No.4027742

>>4025581
Where is then
i have the problem of thinking everything in life in terms of 4chan boards

>> No.4028075

>>4027742

Your local public library of course

>> No.4028097
File: 56 KB, 767x317, best post of lit ever.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4028097

Vastly correct, OP.

I'm 31 and actually have an MA in literature (two languages), I also write, and I teach.

The mindset on /lit/ resembles far more closely schoolyard politics than it does the literature faculty of any university.

The majority of /lit/ards her are 20-something NEET and they read primarily for identity-building. So what matters to them is how "patrician" or "pleb" they are.

Just like teens with "punk rock" and "commercial" music.

It's pathetic.

The smarter the reader, the less the hate, I found. If you truly love literature, you won't hate nearly as much as the average /lit/ard.

I wrote my thesis on Herman Melville and I have no problems reading Stephen King's short stories, and I actually enjoy them.

I teach Aldous Huxley and it wouldn't come to my mind to call anyone a pleb for not having read Brave New World. Why would I? I'm not insecure; if anything, I'd love for others to read this good novel.

Pic related. Was posted in a thread where we discovered that most of /lit/ was tweens without a job or education.

>> No.4028101

>>4028097
While I broadly agree with you on many points, you're not really any better than them to take that attitude. OP is worse. You're being elitist about elitism.
This is ridiculous. I believe there are plenty of intelligent and well-read posters, but the sort of person those labels apply to are not the vocal ones complaining about everyone else.
And yes, now I've allowed myself to be dragged into the same hypocrisy.

>> No.4028110

>>4028101

I disagree with your metasophistry. Here's why:

The elitism we descry is a phony one. The one I assume when I criticise them is a legitimate "elitism", if you want. I'm not being a douche about it, I merely recognise that not everyone is equal in terms of education, experience, etc.

Personally, just because I have an MA and read thousands of books doesn't mean I'll shit on your for liking books I don't like (which is what the phony elite does).

So if I am being elitist, OK, but it has more legitimacy than the tweeners who are here to feel better about themselves.

I'm here to discuss literature and discover new others, not pat myself on the back for having read Wallace/Pynchon/Joyce.

It's not elitism I'm against, it's this phony elite of tweens and other morons who use literature the way jocks use the gym. (No offense to /fit/ people.)

>> No.4028114

>>4028110

Are these the kinds of comments you write on student's essays?

>> No.4028119

>>4028114

No.

Is avoiding the subject your typical way of arguing?

>> No.4028126

>>4028101
>>4028114

Different people, I'm not arguing with anyone Headmaster

>> No.4028132

>>4028126

I was talking to you and you alone. There's no "different people", I didn't assume you had spoken before.

You're still dodging any argument. If you disagree with something I've said, feel free to elaborate.

If all you wanted was to dodge the point and go ad hominem without much wit, you illustrate the exact problem I was talking about. Thanks for the support.

>> No.4028141

>>4028132

I assumed you had conflated two posts since you insisted I was trying to argue with you. I was not and am not.

>> No.4028150

>>4028132

If you want a point of view though I agree its terrible to shit on others for not adhering to one's own literati standards. educate where you can and move on where you cannot.

>> No.4028151

>>4028141

So you're just taking a swift shit on people and move on?

>> No.4028159

>>4028151

Yes, because while I essentially agree with what you're saying the I find your delivery irritating and condescending.

>> No.4028161

>>4028110

That wasn't strictly sophistry, and it's irrelevant whether or not your elitism is legitimate or not when you're doing nothing to contribute usefully to the board in the manner you claim to want to engage with it. Instead of playing elitism one-upmanship, go discuss literature in another thread instead of adding to the problem.

>>4028132

He can hardly be said to be dodging the subject if he'd joined the conversation to ask about a tangential matter. Don't be such a prick.

>> No.4028165

>>4028161

Completely off the mark. On both counts.

>> No.4028172

>>4028165

Then it's just your word against mine, Anonymous Poster.

>> No.4028179

>>4028172

Hey now, anon's got a masters in this business.

>> No.4028182

>>4028179

Or so he claims. I, on the other hand have three.

>> No.4028185

>>4028172
>>4028179

This is how this board is more retarded than most others.

If you have a degree in physics on /sci/, people will give you credit for it, but have an MA in literature on /lit/ and nobody thinks it's worth anything.

If a degree isn't legit, then why should you have any legitimacy either? Your shit doesn't make sense.

This guy's degrees prove he knows something about literature and you may learn things from him. But God forbid you come here to learn anything! You're just here to shit on people and feel superior.

You're fucking pathetic.

>> No.4028188

>>4028097

>The majority of /lit/ards her are 20-something NEET and they read primarily for identity-building. So what matters to them is how "patrician" or "pleb" they are.

Do you think that's because people inhabit other boards before they come to /lit/ and naturally many other popular boards lead with a false idea of elitism? Personally, I do.

Many boards are overly concerned with pursuing the correct image as built by popular appeal of that board. I've had to stop going to certain boards because I don't care about doing that. Triumphing a difference in opinion is usually, if not always, met with coldness by the indoctrinated beasts.

>> No.4028189

>>4028185

I have a doctorate in /mlp/ sciences. I look forward to learning from one another.

>> No.4028194

>>4028179
Mais of couse, monsieur. Apres mon temps en le lycee des beaux-art, moi-meme aussi entertained le notion d'un career en le monde de travail.

Mais, monsieur, my soul she flew too free; the joyeux arms of Marie and her sweet, mais aussi feral, younger sister Lucille, le decadent et sweet poesies of Baudelaire, et, les fleurs de la jolie vie, these all called a moi. It was simply trop a resister, mon cher monsieur.

De ce fait, monsieur, je n'ai pas de masters in this business. Mais I do find cette capcha tres drole:
>alespect complaints

>> No.4028196

>>4028188

4chan is the place where I've seen the most sheep. Peer-pressure is unheard of in its intensity, and the kicker is that most anons don't realise this.

This is the reason why memes kick off here, and that's good, but the eery popularity of Wallace and Pynchon on this board, as opposed to any university, especially non-American ones, is ludicrous.

I too have obtained an MA in English literature, and I have to say Pynchon and Wallace never popped up, not once. Joyce did, but those Americans were never on any list of classic books to read for any class or general survey.

>> No.4028195

>>4025569
OP, as someone who is currently reading Lolita (about 250 pages into it, started last week, I know I'm going slowly), I at first thought that passage was about Dolores. There are a great number of passages just like that interspersed throughout the book about Dolores, and only in the very beginning is Annabel the "love interest." What I mean to say is,
>Anyone who has actually read the book would know this is right in the beginning and Humbert is banging Annabel, not Lolita. Nobody called them out.
may be false. Not everyone has a perfect memory, and for a book which is primarily filled with one man's obsession with a little girl, it may be unclear that the obsessive writing is, in fact, about a different, earlier little girl.

But hey, I may just be actually retarded and forgetful.

>> No.4028199

>>4028194

This is terrible French.

>> No.4028201

>>4028185

Anyone can claim to have an MA, and you're not teaching anyone anything right now. All you're doing is trying to shit on other people, because god forbid, this board's culture doesn't meet your prior expectations
>If a degree isn't legit, then why should you have any legitimacy either? Your shit doesn't make sense.
Because I'm stating my opinion (that he is a prick), and he's trying to use an appeal to his own spurious authority to say my opinion is wrong. That's fallacious and ridiculous for more than one reason.

>huurrrr I have an MA, come worship me, peons!
Suck my cock.

>> No.4028205

>>4028201

I'm not shitting on anyone. Strawman.

My only expectation was to be able to discuss literature without egos in the way, this being an anonymous board.

You're insecure because knowing that someone has a degree in something you use to feel superior while you don't have a degree in that very thing makes you feel bad.

Grow up.

>> No.4028211

>>4028205

You're shitting on people who use this board for something other than your specific brand of pretension. If you want to discuss literature without egos getting in the way, why would you pretend to have an MA? That's just blatant epeen stroking of the worst kind. You're being openly self-contradictory now.

>> No.4028218

>>4028211

Are you seriously this retarded? If we were discussing cars, would you seriously accuse me of being a pretentious bastard because I claim to be a mechanic?

No, you wouldn't.

Enjoy your psychotic ways. It doesn't matter that you know I got an MA because we're both anonymous, don't you get that?

Having an MA doesn't matter, it merely proves I have a certain knowledge and abilities, and these are what matters. But you don't give a fuck about these, proving that you're a hypocrite.

I don't pretend to have an MA, I actually have one and worked many years for it.

I thought this would be the board where my training would be meaningful. I just forgot that there's a reason why some people can't step into a university.

Stay pleb. (Playing your game now, you asked for it, pleb.)

>patrician as fuck

>> No.4028229

>>4028199
ouais, l'anglais est encore pire. voila la farce du culture; moi-meme, ici au /lit/, avec mes chers messieurs. un peu plus de vin?

>> No.4028237

I've a B.A. (First Class) and an M.A. (Distinction) in literature, both from Oxford. I work as an 'enrichment' tutor for sixth-formers from rich families, teaching them beyond the A-Level or High School syllabus so that they might gain a competitive edge in Oxbridge and Ivy League applications. Currently undertaking a course of preliminary research into faith and the postmodern novel and drafting a PHD proposal for (hopeful) entrance into the program at Yale next year.

All I do on here is call Tao Lin autistic.

>> No.4028241

>>4028218

Your failure to understand the most basic precepts is astounding. This isn't a hardcore, academic literary analysis forum. Treating it as though it is or should be, is both pretentious and utterly moronic. Boasting about an imaginary MA is ridiculous. What, do you really think it would make you the highest achiever on the board right now? It just makes you the most boastful, of what would be a remarkably mediocre achievement.

>> No.4028263

>>4028229
Je suis français et je ne comprends pas un traître mot de ce que tu racontes.

>> No.4028261

>>4028237
I should add that what I notice passing for 'analysis' on /lit/ is precisely what I try to untrain my 'students' from doing in their essays. There's a tendency to take a chunk of text, discuss some 'big ideas' (usually dodgy metaphysics),and hum it along very grand and broadbrush paths to a conclusion that sacrifices nuance in over-confident and unthinking assertion (e.g. "This shows us that Shakespeare supports monarchy".) Very rarely is there actual engagement with the words in a passage or the foundational work of close-reading upon which real engagement with the big ideas ('heaven', quintessence', whatever) can begin.

The best criticism I've read, from 'professionals' and students, always begins with a small textual detail across the text - pockets in Ulysses, hedges in Wordsworth, dust in Dickens - and builds into its larger, 'grander' assertions. But /lit/ is too impatient for this. (And why shouldn't it be, I guess)

>> No.4028279
File: 1.44 MB, 1833x994, litsucks2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4028279

Beyond personal preference the circles threads are the current threads on /lit/ which aren't complete trash. Of course I could personally do with less Murakami, Nietzsche, Pynchon etc threads but at least they aren't shit-posts and are asking for some discussion.

This board has gotten really bad lately. I don't think it was always this way but perhaps it was.

>> No.4028306
File: 420 KB, 497x287, 1375271782168.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4028306

Some of /lit/ is similar to what you mentioned, and there are others on /lit/ who actually read and write.
It's not very nice to generalize, but it seems like a lot of people on /lit/ try to act like they are above others just because they don't read the same books as others, which is false fundamentally.
From my experience, if made a thread requesting something or asking for an opinion, only 1 in 5-6 would be serious answers as the others 5-6 believe that they are above your thread and they consider you a 'pleb'. Ignore the idiots and just look at those who are actually helpful and build their opinions from their own analysis and experience.

>> No.4028315

>>4028279
Why is an OC poetry thread, or asking how to remove highlighter from a book "complete trash"

>> No.4028326

>>4028306
>implying the people believing that they are above your thread and consider you a pleb don't build their opinions from their own analysis and experience.
One can be well-read and shitpost like a maniac.

>> No.4028328

I sincerely and honestly mean the following:

This thread is worse than all of the circle jerking, Wallace worshiping, Pynchon poking and Joyce jolly rogering threads that, hourly, flood the front page.

The ONLY way not to be dragged down into the dog pit with the rest of us pseudo intellectual roaches(of which I am an honourary member), is to ignore the pit completely, deftly brush silly arguments aside and recommending good /lit/s whilst handing out quality crits. Those are the real golden posters of /lit/, you folks are poor imitations.

>> No.4028346

I love this post.

>> No.4028361 [DELETED] 

>>4028315

Oh yeah I missed the poetry one in the top corner. That's a good thread. The highlighter one? It's not obnoxious at all but the answer was reached in two posts and it's just kind of sitting there.

Either way, I don't want to pass myself off as the grand judge here. I'm just trying to highlight (hue) that more than half of threads on /lit/ a shit as per OP's suggestion.

>> No.4028362

Do you think there's this kind of ignorance shaming on /d/?

>> No.4028365

>>4028195
This post is indicative of the problem, but not demonstrative of it. That anon felt that he had to justify his reading speed:
>about 250 pages into it, started last week, I know I'm going slowly
suggests to me that this place is not about reading for pleasure or enrichment. It is, as everyone knows, a dick measuring contest with the internet. Someone is always going to bray his miserable and insecure denunciation of everyone who hasn't read the ITAOTS of /lit/, shutting down all potential for meaningful discourse.

I asked myself this morning and put it to you: Beyond the initial excitement of having found a forum with discussion of authors and texts that you enjoy, has /lit/ ever given you anything of value. I've been around here for just over a year and I don't think it has. I come around mostly because I like to give thoughtful critique in the OC poetry threads, but I realize that this is an unhappy place with lots of insecure people. I know that the assholes may not be representative of the most of /lit/, but they're the ones that are visible here.

So long, /lit/. Fuck off.

>> No.4028375

>>4028365
Oh my god piss off already,

It's 4chan for fucks sake, you're on 4CHAN. I come here to get some book recommendations and piss people like you off.

Go find a forum to get something of 'value' out of,
Faggot.

>> No.4028381

Nabokov's prose in Lolita is nothing special, and the opening sentences are overdone.

>> No.4028380

nobody addressed OP's question. the people posting in this are worse than the threads he described.
unfortunately I can't address the question either because I think he's right.

>> No.4028412

>>4028381
I'm sure yours is much better

>> No.4028417

>>4028375
Not that guy, but
>this is a board on 4chan so I must purposefully make it shittier because that is where the entertainment on 4chan lies
is some outdated /b/ mentality that people really should learn not to bring with them when they find out that other boards exist.

>but shit posting is funny I want to troll people
Yeah, great, that is really productive.

>> No.4028430

>>4028365
I've found that /lit/ is absolute shit for anything other than recommendations. The rec threads are great and are really the reason I keep coming here. Otherwise, the discussion is dismal

>> No.4028435

>>4028417
Who said anything about having to be productive? I'm not part of your pet project.

Piss off faggot.

Ps 0/10 for responding newfriend.

>> No.4028455

>>4028417
>Everyone either wants to make the board a shining beacon of academica or they want to shitpost
Nice false dichotomy bro.

>> No.4028492

>>4028362
Perhaps not "ignorance shaming," but there's a real sense of elitism in the board's undercurrents. At least 90% of the board is nothing but futa, traps, and vanilla BDSM, and it's common to see people expressing distaste with those subjects.

>> No.4030084

Who cares about Lolita? Better yet, who cares about Nabokov? He's a shit writer, pales in comparison to giants like Joyce, Pynchon and DFW.

>> No.4030201

>>4028430
yep

>> No.4030214

>>4025569
Write, read and publish.

And yes, this board is a steaming pile of shit. 95% snobby idiots who couldn't finish a short story in less than 3 years, but happily go on about their newest "highbrow" read.

>> No.4030255

>>4030084
I agree, he's a shit author, very third rate.

>> No.4030266

>>4030255
Yummy yummy bum farts

>> No.4030421

>>4025569
It's been a while since I read "Lolita," but that passage does seem to be pretty similar to some involving Lo herself. Especially considering the vast amount of parallels between the two girls. It's an understandable mix-up, I think. It is a somewhat bad one, but it is one that anyone who hasn't read the book recently or more than once could make.

>> No.4030428

>>4026244
Tolkien is trash. The LOTR books were more about annoying fucking songs, language, food, and walking than story. Fantasy in general is trash. There is next to nothing of real quality in the genre. Science Fiction at least has something going for it. Fantasy is usually self-indulgent and generic nerd bullshit.

>> No.4030436

>>4028097
Oh wow. An MA. In literature. Impressive let's listen to this guy. >>4028110
>metasophistry
Okay, this guy is a troll.

>> No.4030441

>>4030428

>he didn't get it

he didn't get it.

>> No.4030445

>>4030436
You are exactly why this board is so shitty. Stop posting.

>> No.4030457

>>4028196
You're right about Wallace, or you would be, but there has been a lot of backlash against him recently. Thank god. I think he had some interesting ideas, but he was held back by his self-indulgence and the fact that he was a complete twat. He had potential, but he was ultimately not remarkable at all. I usually dislike Kakutani, but she summed up how I feel about him pretty well in here IJ review. Now, you're mostly wrong about Pynchon. First of all, most of the obsession here these days is a joke or is self-parodic in nature. Second of all, he is very respected within intellectual communities and generally regarded by respectable critics as one of the greatest American writers. He isn't taught much in universities, for various reasons, but that's neither here nor there.

>> No.4030463

>>4028365
I have next to no clue what you are trying to say. I get that you're mad at /lit/, but your line of logic is unclear. So how does that dude dick-measuring? And what exactly did you ever hope to gain from posting on a 4chan literature board as opposed to actually reading? That sounds like a personal problem with your own skewed expectations.

>> No.4030468

>>4030445
No, you are.

>> No.4030625

I'm only going to post one line of text because that's what everybody else does on 4chan and you can always make such astute points in one sentence.

>> No.4030629

>>4030625
I'm going to write a really informative and quality post, that will get ignored because people just reply to bait