[ 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: 177 KB, 900x920, joyce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398167 No.4398167 [Reply] [Original]

what's a good place to start with literary maximalism? Joyce being a given, who else should I check out?

>> No.4398171

Pynchon

>> No.4398174

>literary maximalism

Made up. Disregard.

>> No.4398179

>>4398174
Just like all genres and styles, right?

>> No.4398185

>>4398179
All words are arbitrary. That's a moot point.

Literary maximalism is not a term recognized by any body of readers or critics. Hence, meaningless.

>> No.4398189

>>4398185
It is recognised by me. Checkmate.

>> No.4398195

>>4398189
He said body. You don't count because you don't exist.

>> No.4398198

>>4398195
I am a body. I have a body. I am surrounded by bodies etc. I am overruling what he said.
>you don't exist
everything exists

>> No.4398199

>>4398189
This
>>4398195
and you being the sole knower of a word doesn't make it meaningful. Derrida actually tackles this argument expressly - because language consists of a system of signs which are defined through difference, a sign can only be meaningful when it exists in a system of signs, and that's impossible if the sign is exclusive to one or even two people.

ha ha

>> No.4398212

>>4398174
All terms are coined somewhere. We understand what is meant by the term, therefore it has meaning. Just because you have the chance to be a pretentious asshole, doesn't mean you should be.

To OP: Faulkner is an obvious answer here. And I second Pynchon. I'll be lurking for interest, because I can't for the life of me think of any other definite answers.

>> No.4398214

Is Joyce's poetry any good?

>> No.4398219

>>4398214

For a prissy little faggot boy

>> No.4398221

>>4398214
>any good

it is perfection

not intellectual deep stuff, but fucking quality

>> No.4398222

>>4398174
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximalism#Literature

>> No.4398348

>>4398212
But we clearly don't understand what is meant.

If we are to assume that literary maximalism entails works which are massive, Faulkner would not qualify as none of his works exceed five hundred pages.

And even if you disagree that maximalism entails massive page length the fact that a disagreement exists proves that word has no agreed upon meaning and is therefore useless.

ha ha ha

>> No.4398355

http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/EncyclopedicNarrative.pdf

>> No.4398504

>>4398348
Literary maximalism: the opposite of literary minimalism. Let me revise my previous statement--Anyone with half a fucking brain knew what OP meant.

>> No.4398515

>>4398504
Proust, then.

>> No.4398522

melville
nabokov
sterne
pretty much any post-modernist really

>> No.4398528
File: 432 KB, 731x428, 1367870767742.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4398528

>> No.4398665

Georges Perec's Life A User's Manual
Gertrude Stein's poetry
William Gaddis
Marcel Proust
Joseph McElroy

>> No.4398666

>>4398348
niqqa.....
u can GOOGLE de fvcking word and itll xplaine errything to ye
u just uninformed n shit n tryn 2 look cul on the internet like a frst year wittgenstein basic bitch

>> No.4398679

>>4398528
I'm going to go ahead and add this one to the wiki.

>> No.4398683

>>4398679
yeah bro do it its gonna be epic

>> No.4398686

>>4398679

What's the point? It's basically your standard intro to pomo chart.

>> No.4398692

>>4398686
porno?

>> No.4398696

>>4398686
We have a pomo chart as well, which has most of them on it. We also have a doorstoppers chart, which also has most of them.

But people make these threads anyway. Maybe more charts will help stave off these people who are incapable of helping themselves.

>> No.4398699

>>4398692
keming is important.