[ 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: 83 KB, 640x480, 0012-rei076.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4459790 No.4459790[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is a good book made better by possessing philosophical themes, social commentary, or acting as an allegory for some part of human nature?

>> No.4459794

A book is made better if you're a different person after reading it.

>> No.4459808

But every book has those things.

In creating a recount of how things interacted (what narrative is) you are inheritly saying something about the things that interacted. So you're saying something about people by writing about people. How interesting/unique/insightful/intentional what you're saying is varies, but it's always there.

>> No.4459816

>>4459790
this is a 18+ board

>> No.4459823

It depends on your audience.

>> No.4459854

>>4459794

But is that really on the book, or the reader? If someone who'd already gotten where the book was going to take them, they can't exactly fault the book for not changing them.
And even when the reader does change, it's likely less the work itself and more the circumstances they were in upon reading it.

>> No.4459862

>>4459794
>mein kampf

>> No.4460079

>>4459808
There's a scale, but Fucking with the Fuckosaurs and Nausea are at such distance from one another on it, so that saying they're categorically different approximates the reality.

>> No.4460179

>>4459790
in the eyes of the plebe who's always looking for a message or anything to take home because they can't appreciate the beauty of the writing itself

>> No.4460184

>>4459854
>he's actually trying to judge the books objectively
you're the kekkest kek

>> No.4461792
File: 2.90 MB, 800x450, 1386648794289.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4461792

>>4459790
A good book is more likely to be accepted by academics if it contains something grand like philosophy that they can all sound smart speaking about.

Perhaps because this is the norm, classics which don't seem to offer any deep insight are often criticized by saying "Was that all it was? It's fine but it's nothing profound. I don't see what the fuss is." or words to that effect.

You might say that there's good reason behind thinking a book is better if there's some serious thought behind it. It takes skill from an author to embed this in the narrative smoothly, it offers more value from repeated readings, it excites the analytical part of the mind, it may change your perspective in ways another story might not.

Then again, what good or better depends on you. If the way the philosophy is blended into a work takes you out of the story, it may not be to your taste. Possibly you don't get what the author is going after, and it just confuses you rather than intrigues. It could be you feel the characters acting as an allegory diminishes the importance of the characters as humans. Another negative would be simply that the authors attempts at philosophy are childish, or it disagrees strongly with the readers own views.

So adding depth to your book makes it better for some people, and less so for others. Instead of better, I think adding depth makes a book more likely to be taken seriously. At least it avoids the "but it doesn't mean anything!" or "pleb-shit" attacks.

>> No.4461811

Das parfum ;humain stuff:
1987 :society stuff:
The wave :nazi stuff:

>> No.4461815

what about all of them ?

>> No.4461828
File: 1.13 MB, 1280x853, le ebin cheabsbeggar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4461828

Is a good cheeseburger made better by possessing ketchup, mustard, or hot sauce

>> No.4461838

>>4461828
Ketchup.

Seriously, who would put mustard on a burger?

>> No.4461844

>>4461838
i think that's the point
not everyone likes everything
i like mustard

but i don't care about any of the stuff op mentioned. prose masterrace patrician here

>> No.4461850

>not everyone likes everything
i have my cheesburgers with ketchup and english mustard, which also functions as hot sauce

so you're wrong there mate

>> No.4461852

>>4461850
you're not everyone retard

>> No.4461875

>>4461828

Oh glorious cheeseburger, we bow to thee. The secret of the universe are between those buns...

>> No.4461893

just deflating your pluralistic nonsense with the harsh reality that not all of us are aesthetically and culinarily handicapped individuals

>> No.4461895

>>4461893
>damage control

>> No.4461898

>>4461893
lel

>> No.4461917

>>4459790
Philosophical themes, social commentary, etc. shouldn't be added to a book as something external to the characters. If they take part in the book, it should be because it's something the characters really care about.

That being said, the characters have to be realistic and not just cardboard cutouts with commentary. It's a fine line, but well integrated ideas can make a book more meaningful (not necessarily better written).

>> No.4461946
File: 245 KB, 900x582, 1385595771566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4461946

>>4461828
If there is no relation between depth and quality, why does it seem to be that so many great books have depth to them?

Is this because of the biases of the group who decide what is excellent, or do you think that classic books just as often have depth as they are shallow.

>> No.4461972

>>4461946
you can give depth to any book ever no matter if the author intended any

>> No.4462049

>>4461946
Probably there is an indirect relation between depth and quality, but the conception of depth here has more in common with textual complexity than perceived ideological or thematic depth. The more textually complex a text is, the more (as a general rule and not an absolute) it furnishes interpretation or resists standardisation.

>> No.4462128

>>4461972
Some texts will allow more convincing complex interpretations than others.

Interpreting "The man sat down, heavily." as a tale about gender struggle will be more difficult than doing so for Pride and Prejudice.

>> No.4462134

>>4462049
Why do you think the link between depth and quality is not in terms of ideological depth but textual depth, what distinguishes the two?