/lit/ BTFO

[Anonymous No.7341830]

[Anonymous No.7341835]

except no one here analyzes shit that way

[Anonymous No.7341836]

Look, ma, I did it again! I shitposted on 4chan!

[Anonymous No.7341837]

>>7341830
>/lit/ BTFO
?
Everybody here agrees with this, what are you on about.

[Anonymous No.7341842]

>>7341830

In high school I remember students complaining about this shit to the teacher when she was explaining the symbolism in The Great Gatsby, one of the most obviously symbol laden books ever.

[Anonymous No.7341844]

>I was in a college level English course and we were discussing poetry and learning to analyse the meaning of poetry. Someone brought up author's intent and its usefulness in analysing meaning, and the professor replied "The author's intent has no effect on the validity of any meaning to be found in a poem" or something to that effect. When pressed he clarified that as long as you can make a sound argument for the meaning based on what is written your reading is valid. We then asked, well what if the majority of literary scholars come to a conclusion about a poem or work of prose and then the author finally comes out and says "no, you have it all wrong, I meant the poem to mean this instead" would the literary world's consensus outweigh the meaning that the author actually meant? The professor said that the literary consensus if it made sense could still remain the consensus and would overrule the meaning of the author.
It was at that point I realized that most if not all literary scholars, and most likely scholars of film or music or art were totally 100 percent full of shit.

[Anonymous No.7341845]

>>7341830
What your teacher thinks the author meant: "The curtains represent depression."
What you think the author meant: "The curtains were just blue."

[Anonymous No.7341847]

>>7341830
Seriously, my main man. Fucking dumbass teachers trying to tell me Moby Dick is more than just a fucking whale. Fuck that shit, bruh.