/lit/ - Literature

>>2685703

with the same logic, if i am going down a road that dead-ends, i ought to still go just in order to "perservere."

for those of us that have actual goals to explore, ideas to satisfy, or things to change, then this is not a logic worth investigating.

unless you can somehow argue on its behalf--e.g. dropping shitty literature before the end--then you too just sound like a total tool.

>>2685671

that's not admirable, or cool, or even that quirky-type of OCD that i know YOU think paints something interesting about yourself, but in fact just sounds stupid as hell.

the only time your policy would make sense would be if you had an eye for picking out good pieces of literature before you begin. which you clearly haven't been.

>>2685644

that's not admirable, or cool, or even that quirky-type of OCD that i know YOU think paints something interesting about themselves.

the only time your policy would make sense would be if you had an eye for picking out good pieces of literature before you begin. which you clearly haven't been.

>>2685187

radcliffe is actually pretty slow and boring IMO. i'm not even an austen fan, but if you want a more mature, interesting and ironic look at that genre, then i think something like northanger abbey might be the way to go. or , if you want gothic stuff, isak dinesen's 7 gothic tales, poe, etc.

i dunno i just thought Udolpho was ultimately a waste.

>>2685443

man 1: "i've never read a good ending"
man 2: (provides list of good endings)
man 3: calls man 2 "affected, cryptic, mysterious." says man 2 is unclear. clearly does not know what affected, cryptic or mysterious means.

for instance, according to merriam-webster, and barring its religious connotation, the two uses of the word "mysterious" either convey a positive relation "not understood" or "beyond understanding" (which is not to necessarily imply a fault on the cause, but rather an error in its reception), or "a profound, inexplicable or secretive quality or character." i suppose i should say "thanks for compliment" despite your clear attempt to fling an insult, so i'll combine them: thanks for being the world's #1 retard. that clear enough for you?

mfw man 3 is an idiot by sheer structural obviousness.

>>2684762

and it wasn't implicit that these were general endings that i enjoyed?

holy fuck the stupidity of people these days is absolutely awe-inspiring. it's like making the shittiest, OBVIOUSLY pointless criticisms--"oh you just posted lines lol lol lol" somehow helps your position.

you should die too

the "wrongness" is only wrong if you have an ideal for yourself beyond immediate satisfaction.

if, however, you have no said ideal, then there really isn't any problem at all.

really this is more a question of an individual will rather than a categorical difference.

>>2684365

>I didn't like the ending which made me wonder if I like any book's ending. Couldn't think of any.

go die.

"Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free; this is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory."

"We have lingered in the chambers of the sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown, till human voices wake us, and we drown."

"For never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo."

"I lingered round them, under that benign sky; watched the moths fluttering among the heath, and hare-bells; listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass; and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

"...it was if the shame of it must outlive him."

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

"We're free and clear. We're free. We're free...We're free..."

"...It's not that way, it's over here!"

"Oedipa settled back, to await the crying of lot 49."

"It was done; it was finished. Yes, she thought, laying down her brush in extreme fatigue, I have had my vision."

"Well, well, let's get on with it..."

"...I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate."

"'Yes,' I said. 'Isn't pretty to think so?'"

"The broken flower drooped over Ben's fist and his eyes were empty and blue and serene again as cornice and facade flowed smoothly once more from left to right, post and tree, window and doorway and signboard each in its ordered place."

"..you must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on."

"Virtue will take up arms against fury, and make the battle short, because the ancient valor in Italian hearts is not yet dead." (from Petrarch)

"Therefore I will be quiet, comforted I am dust."

"His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

"The oldest hath borne most: we that are young/Shall never see so much, nor live so long."

"The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky--seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness."

"'Well? Shall we go?' 'Yes, let's go.' They do not move."

"For there she was."

"A lonely man folds his hands and says, 'May God have mercy on your poor soul, my friend, my fatherland."

"The waves broke on the shore."

"...and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

i actually liked these.

first thing is first: if you cannot take a little crap from the insecure trainrecks on lit, then you lack the courage necessary to ever write anything worth reading.

post more. they are thought-provoking in the same way wittgenstein or pessoa is.

>>2684489
this kind-of argument is pointless, and betrays your own lack of philosophical understanding.

if its a perspective they lack, then simply rehearsing "you don't get the perspective" manages only to solidify the initial division.

either read more philosophy and learn to argue more persuasively, or--better still--really learn to pick your battles and reserve your courage for more lasting problems.

WAIT WTF I JUST LOOKED AT THIS THREAD

you do fucking realize these are all my house, right?

you fucking faggot stop posting MY COLLECTION

>>2682042

why did you save a picture of my hallway?

i've always seen this more of a meditation on transformation (obviously). But what's implicated in this is the structure of identity: can we really say that gregor samsa is the same "thing" at the end of the book that he was at the beginning?

in other words: at what point can we say--THIS is no longer gregor samsa? and, in saying so, what has happened to gregor samsa, and what has taken his place?

marxist perspective is ok, though i think the more fundamental premises of identity transformation and self-continuity over time stands as the works greatest philosophical import.

>>2664218

holy fuck why do these threads keep getting made?

and do you really think that you are that attractive to effectively respond to someone's ideal of a hot person?

the arrogance is ticklish

>>2664083

even if we agree with D&E and say "yes, every statement only acquires its "thick description" in a context; taking it out of one is an impossible hermeneutical fallacy." great; all is well and true. and yet, the "is-ing" of both the context and the communication that is still made possible is what the linguistic camp still cannot fully answer--though they certainly move the conversation to some very interesting and novel areas of thought.

my problem with D&E, as with all the postmodernists (both analytic and continental), is that he has very much found his bible: he strikes me as a man a great faith, though he would no doubt profess agnosticism or atheism or whatever vogue title defines the point-counter-point. it is, ultimately, a kind of nihilism: "it's all about language, man." well great--i guess we can all just stop right here and revel in absolute truth.

D&E: does the implicit constative validity of your method--e.g. it works, it is sound--function outside a context, or is semantics ridden to a specific contextual boundary? already we fall back into ontological notions of truth, validity, and being--let alone more modern notions of authority, use, and power.

>>2663981

that's what i wanted. obviously, there are an infinite sequence of methods (let alone answers), some tried and some still untried, that one can bring to the object. I think it's very easy to fall into D&E's problem, which is merely to apply context-analysis or semantic argument to everything. this is nifty and crafty at best, a series of parlor tricks in the right hands--i'm sure he's read his searle, wittgenstein, austin, goffman, etc etc--that amount to little more than "well you're not SAYING what you think you're saying." yes, language is both the vehicle and hindrance of our communication; yes, semantic webs are an interesting aspect to the use and misuse of our language. and yet, beyond this, there are elements of thought that do in fact remain perennial: even after the so-called linguistic shift, either through wittgenstein/russell in analytic or heidegger/gadamer in continental, i do not find that these questions or methods occlude, despite their claims, problems of ontology, truth, etc.

>>2663801

i'm going to address you once and once only, because i don't think you have a solid grasp of semantics, etc.

what i am asking in making this thread: is the constative statement "philosophy and poetics are distinct" a truthful one? i asked people to explore the topic; clearly i do not expect an answer to such a perennial question, and i can't imagine that you actually expect that i expected to find one. just given a certain expectation of common knowledge, you know just as well as i do how forced that particular critique is--as though asking ANY of the questions on this forum ever amount to a stop-all universe-busting answer. please--you may decline the invitation to explore, but so much the lesser for you and better for those who might be interested in it.

as far as your "contextless" is concerned, i'm not really sure why the context is unclear. aren't we on /lit? is the context any more apparent, or appropriate to ask what the difference between lit and phil is? of course, no question is posed in a vacuum: so enter kant's critique of judgement, foucault, bourdieu, etc. well, thanks for bringing that into play for us to further our discussion.

i am asking to abstractly analyze a constative statement within a shared framework of general experience: e.g. not only in every bookstore ever, but pervasive throughout the academy and acamdemic discourse writ large. what, in the context of a general public experience, do these terms do for us, what do they imply, and how do they operate?

at that semantic level, i could simply ask: what's the context for your critique of my initial statement? it's turtles all the way down, kiddo. i was just asking to stop at one particular level, get out, and explore a little bit--but no, as per usual, /lit fucking sucks.

this is why i never post. i'll see you all in 4 months or so.

>>2663717

can't a treatise be a work of entertainment? i'm thinking here mainly along the lines of Brecht, though you can obviously populate a whole list of examples.

>>2663716

>mfw when you are both arguing in the house that rapture built.

either stick to the convo or gtfo.

>>2663613

can wordgames be art? think joyce, perec--or any member of OuLiPo for that matter.

and, at a more basic level, if all experience is knowable through the medium of language, then is the apprehension/interpretation/appreciation for art merely a matter of systematized, synthesized or otherwise mobilized language-games?

>>2663554

hmm this is really interesting. do you know the classical division between deliberation and demonstration? or, to modernize the question, between illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts?

i'm thinking now that there is something about this showing vs telling, doing vs causing that underlies your thesis (which i find attractive--specious, perhaps, but definitely worth pursuing...)