/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.756719]

your face when you realize that ad hominem is a perfectly acceptable form of literary criticism.

[Anonymous No.756732]

>>756716

"w" + "l" - "l" + "w" + "n" - "n" + "w" + "y" - "y" + "." + "k" - "k" + "a" + "r" - "r" + "n" + "u" - "u" + "o" + "c" - "c" + "n" + "n" - "n" + "t" + "v" - "v" + "a" + "j" - "j" + "l" + "o" - "o" + "k" + "e" - "e" + "." + "o" - "o" + "s" + "b" - "b" + "e" + "j" - "j"

[Anonymous No.756733]

Vlad the Impaler FUCK YEAH

[Anonymous No.756737]

>>756718

"w" + "z" - "z" + "w" + "i" - "i" + "w" + "g" - "g" + "." + "g" - "g" + "a" + "l" - "l" + "n" + "z" - "z" + "o" + "y" - "y" + "n" + "o" - "o" + "t" + "o" - "o" + "a" + "l" - "l" + "l" + "i" - "i" + "k" + "q" - "q" + "." + "j" - "j" + "s" + "k" - "k" + "e" + "e" - "e"

[Anonymous No.756742]

no it isn't

[Anonymous No.756748]

>>756716

"w" + "q" - "q" + "w" + "u" - "u" + "w" + "d" - "d" + "." + "d" - "d" + "a" + "o" - "o" + "n" + "u" - "u" + "o" + "p" - "p" + "n" + "e" - "e" + "t" + "k" - "k" + "a" + "s" - "s" + "l" + "n" - "n" + "k" + "n" - "n" + "." + "l" - "l" + "s" + "g" - "g" + "e" + "j" - "j"

[Anonymous No.756763]

>>756742
it absolutely is, because if it is not, then why do authors take credit for what they have written?

[Anonymous No.756779]

[Anonymous No.756800]

>>756715

"w" + "m" - "m" + "w" + "x" - "x" + "w" + "l" - "l" + "." + "l" - "l" + "a" + "r" - "r" + "n" + "f" - "f" + "o" + "z" - "z" + "n" + "l" - "l" + "t" + "h" - "h" + "a" + "j" - "j" + "l" + "r" - "r" + "k" + "n" - "n" + "." + "s" - "s" + "s" + "r" - "r" + "e" + "c" - "c"

[Anonymous No.756803]

>>756763

The fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.756806]

>>756763

If it weren't for my horse, I would've have spent that year in college.

[Anonymous No.756826]

>>756763
lol wut
If someone told me that Ulysses was a bad book for the sole reason that James Joyce was a drunk coprophiliac asshole, I'd think they were an idiot.

[Anonymous No.756836]

>>756716

"w" + "q" - "q" + "w" + "h" - "h" + "w" + "i" - "i" + "." + "q" - "q" + "a" + "c" - "c" + "n" + "k" - "k" + "o" + "a" - "a" + "n" + "r" - "r" + "t" + "q" - "q" + "a" + "n" - "n" + "l" + "o" - "o" + "k" + "m" - "m" + "." + "u" - "u" + "s" + "o" - "o" + "e" + "y" - "y"

[Anonymous No.756844]

>>756806
Wow I remember 2002 again. Watching his stand-up on acid forever etched that phrase into my brain.

[Anonymous No.756847]

>>756803
>>756779
>>756826
Lrn2literary theory, dicks. It isn't about good or bad (not like a review) it is about applying all knowledge available to determine the significance of a work of literature. You can criticize the author of the work, and incorporate,say, stephanie meyer's religious affiliation into a dissection of Twilight (for instance). To say that the author and the work are not related is idiocy.

[Anonymous No.756860]

>>756847
If you can find a correlation between the work and the author, then it's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking ONLY the author and completely ignoring the work.

[Anonymous No.756867]

>>756860
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise
Actually name-calling etc is not ad-hominem, what i'm talking about is ad-hominem

[Anonymous No.756887]

ITT: OP doesn't know what ad hominem is

[Anonymous No.756928]

>>756887
ITT op tries to clear up misconceptions about ad hominem. Seriously, /lit/ uses the term ad hominem incorrectly, and by their own mislead definition, use it as ad hominem. it's a clusterfuck of idiocy.

[Anonymous No.756936]

>>756887
>>756928

Fucking faggots.

PROTIP: This isn't ad hominem, you cock gobblers. You just really are faggots.

[Anonymous No.756946]

>>756936
Homophobia much, bro? What did you see your dad's dick when he was taking a leak one day?

[Anonymous No.756951]

>>756946
Nice try at ad hominem, bro, but his point still stands.
They are faggots.

[Anonymous No.756954]

>>756946
Now that's some ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.756960]

>>756779
That's not what an ad hominem argument is

[Anonymous No.756967]

I understand what he means, sort of. If writer's just wrote art for art's sake and let it float out into the market anonymously, then it would be graded entirely on its own merit.

But since they attach themselves to their art, the writer is just as much at fault as the words he wrote - or rather, he's fair game if someone wants to play that way.

[Anonymous No.756975]

"This book is bad because writer is a bad person." - ad hominem argument
"Writer is a bad person." *says nothing about book* - not ad hominem

[Anonymous No.756983]

>>756718

"w" + "u" - "u" + "w" + "y" - "y" + "w" + "t" - "t" + "." + "g" - "g" + "a" + "x" - "x" + "n" + "u" - "u" + "o" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "h" - "h" + "t" + "r" - "r" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "l" + "a" - "a" + "k" + "c" - "c" + "." + "y" - "y" + "s" + "r" - "r" + "e" + "e" - "e"

[Anonymous No.756992]

>>756718

"w" + "m" - "m" + "w" + "m" - "m" + "w" + "h" - "h" + "." + "o" - "o" + "a" + "m" - "m" + "n" + "r" - "r" + "o" + "f" - "f" + "n" + "f" - "f" + "t" + "l" - "l" + "a" + "i" - "i" + "l" + "t" - "t" + "k" + "u" - "u" + "." + "h" - "h" + "s" + "i" - "i" + "e" + "n" - "n"

[Anonymous No.756999]

>>756975
>"This book is bad because writer is a bad person."
So, how is that acceptable criticism that I should take seriously?

[Anonymous No.757005]

>>756999

It's not. The OP just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.757009]

The perfect literary critique needn't mention the background of the author. One could, for example, present a vivid and comprehensive analysis of Ulysses without knowing any more about Joyce than his name. Ad Hominem in a debate is deplorable, ad hominem in a literary critique is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.757052]

>>756867

Way to copy verbatim from Wikipedia. Here's a better explanation of Ad Hominem:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Or here:

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Protip: Ad Hominem is never acceptable. That's why it's called a "fallacy."

[Anonymous No.757068]

>>756716

"w" + "d" - "d" + "w" + "q" - "q" + "w" + "g" - "g" + "." + "j" - "j" + "a" + "e" - "e" + "n" + "z" - "z" + "o" + "s" - "s" + "n" + "z" - "z" + "t" + "z" - "z" + "a" + "h" - "h" + "l" + "j" - "j" + "k" + "q" - "q" + "." + "i" - "i" + "s" + "k" - "k" + "e" + "s" - "s"

[Anonymous No.757070]

>>757009
There is no such thing as a "perfect literary critique". What an absurd idea

[Anonymous No.757076]

>>756716

"w" + "h" - "h" + "w" + "o" - "o" + "w" + "h" - "h" + "." + "i" - "i" + "a" + "j" - "j" + "n" + "z" - "z" + "o" + "l" - "l" + "n" + "o" - "o" + "t" + "s" - "s" + "a" + "f" - "f" + "l" + "v" - "v" + "k" + "n" - "n" + "." + "d" - "d" + "s" + "x" - "x" + "e" + "e" - "e"

[Anonymous No.757671]

>>756715

"w" + "l" - "l" + "w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "y" - "y" + "." + "j" - "j" + "a" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "u" - "u" + "o" + "c" - "c" + "n" + "h" - "h" + "t" + "j" - "j" + "a" + "k" - "k" + "l" + "a" - "a" + "k" + "m" - "m" + "." + "y" - "y" + "s" + "j" - "j" + "e" + "y" - "y"

[Anonymous No.757669]

Interesting thread here, if misled and misleading. An argument ad hominem is a fallacy because its criticism of the argument of somone is based on an irrelevant characteristic of that someone. "I deny that Columbus discovered the New World because, sir, you are a potato!"

However, an argument quasi ad hominem is utile, when the source of the argument is unreliable. Suppose Goebbels says peanut butter is anticarcinogenic. We do not conduct tests; we immediately dismiss the claim because we know its author is a flake. Our argument is not deductive but inductive: a source wrong so many times before is probably wrong now.

We use the argument ad hominem because we hope the audience will confuse it with the argument quasi ad hominem.

I have to admit I don't know what the OP meant by "ad hominem."