What does it mean when the only viable constructive criticism

>>7623870
Here's some constructive criticism: your post is too confusing to draw meaning from. Please rephrase it in a way which makes some sense

>>7623870
>im so well read and know so many obscure and hipster authors, look at how patrician i am

fuck off faggot

>>7623870
Put down the bong and give an example

>>7623883
That doesn't answer my question.

>>7623885
I can not, because it doesn't actually apply to /lit/. I've never read a novel that was this close to flawless.

>>7623879
Thank you. Let's take a completely random novel and pretend it's void of literary flaws: Huck Finn. If someone write's a criticism of Huck Finn and only criticizes his interpretation of the message itself, what exactly does that mean for the novel itself?

>I'm telling him the fish stinks!
>No! Let's ask him to be more careful the next time he buys fish.
Both of these are negative criticism, the second is just wording it politely.
>I'm telling him his prose stinks!
>No! Let's ask him to be more careful the next time he writes prose.
Constructive criticism would be explaining why the fish stinks and what to do in order to avoid buying stinky fish.

>>7623893
All anyone has access to is their subjective slice of reality.

In that sense, the book in itself doesn't matter, what matters is how the book relates to people.

If a man criticizes a book, naturally he is criticizing his understanding of the book. This is inescapable, and yet irrelevant to the judgement of quality.
Different people may have different understandings of the same texts, but similar people will tend to have similar interpretations.

People do not judge books in themselves, that doesn't even make sense. They judge the impression books leave on their soul.

To say such and such book is good or bad is merely shorthand

>>7623893
>I've never read a novel that was this close to flawless

>>playing pretend for some reason
for what purpose?

>>7623998
Because this is the only board that actually has a deep passion for their artistic medium outside of /ic/ and if I were to get serious replies I'd need to talk about literature and not any other medium, because I'd be made fun of by a spectrum of people. If it was a film, there'd be 20% shitposters. If it was vidya or music, it'd be 80% shitposters. etc etc.

Aesthetic judgement is a reflexive judgement, that means it's based on the unique relation of the critic to the object. People just often forget that a critique operates in the like/don't like dichtonomy, not good/bad. The discussion that surrounds an aesthetic object does not produce apodictic facts, it just offers a new perspective on the work, reshapes and alters it's status; said status never stops changing (ie a van gogh painting is not the same object as it was 300 years ago due to the historical context, viewing habits ect)

You will have to come to terms that there is no
definitive understanding of anything, accept the uncertainty and the anxiety will go away eventually

suggested reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment
The Philosophy of Motion Pictures by Noël Carroll

>>7623870
You've basically answered your own question. It means the novel has no flaws.

What are you looking for, here?