It's certainly true that people look for irony and satire where it doesn't exist when they read late 18th century novels.
>There's no way a man so intelligent and well-respected could have been so sentimental, right? I mean, this is laughable—wait, maybe that's the point! Maybe it's a SATIRE on sentiment! Yes, his use of irony is masterful!
as snobs, most of the time we read vouched-for, 'great' works -- but what if you're reading something newer, without a bunch of past criticism to rely upon, and the author is ineffectively telling a story? why would you trust their 'intent' (which is basically our optimistic, self-assuring judgment of what we expect from the author) instead of just reading what is written and analyzing that?
intent has precious little to do with works of literature, and more to do with the authors themselves
>>7650147 I love your simple yet straight and efficient way of thinking there. Also, how it derails the tread even more than the post you are commenting on. >>7650155 underrated answer. Yet, you simply can't hide the fact of the question posed to you.
>>7650272 > the meaning of words is dependent on the actual words, and not the "intent" the person who wrote those words had in their head at the precise moment they wrote them. > b-b-b-but that's relativism!!! the west is failing because no one believes language has the magical ability to transfer psychological states between two minds!!!
you might as well argue the west is failing because no one believes anymore the sun revolves around the earth.
here's what scares me: the great texts like moby dick always have a billion interpretations, rarely do people read the book the same way
so then? is literature just a rorschach test? and how do you separate more conservative readings of symbols from reaching ones that either seek to fit some "gender theory" or just make no sense like "moby dick is an alien and ishmael is dead the whole time"
the other thing that scares me ... I had a short story published in university. I meant one thing by it. two people who read it said they liked it, and each had a completely different understanding from both me and eachother.
Some readings are misreadings. Some are bad misreadings. A competent but difficult author could tell you when you are misreading a plot or symbolic element, but not if character x is a poor representation or if the values of the author are imperialist or whatever. Intent matters for plot and theme. Hamlet's father is a ghost, not an alien, but now I could rewrite that play almost word for word and he could be an alien. Intent of the author matters
>>7650402 >>7650443 every choice, by definition here a choice of words, indicates a mental process. A process aiming to communicate meaning; a transfer in other words. Describing the world is an empty gesture, if not thought exactly as an information transfer. Since it is a transfer, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, the information transferred is dispersed (and by no means dead, at most maybe dormant). I communicate A and it ends up being -A, +A, Z, whatever. But I do want to communicate A nonetheless, even if when I'm not completely aware of it. And this is so, because this is how I was brought up through my experiences and all sensory input in my days. Otherwise it is simply juggling words around.
>>7650518 Being reflexive and all, what I just did (and I'm doing again) was a series of word choices that I thought could best describe the meaning I had/have in my head. But that description is a deeply flawed one, because it is a transfer of information. All descriptions are flawed because they are lossy forms of information transfers. So, saying "I'm writing to describe stuff" is only the tip of the iceberg.
>>7650402 >>7650443 Also, >Realism of presentation >because makes the sentence more readable and the prose better sounding
What's this? wtf do these sentences mean if not a reference to certain memed 'rules' about taste and aesthetics? "Realism of presentation" according to whose standards and ''more readable" and "better sounding" according to whose standards? Yours? Surely not only yours, because there would be no communication then. So, you are referring to a system of thought etc. By doing just that, you are actually creating a metaphor. Thus, you mean something more than what you are actually saying/writing.
Well I entirely agree but some books of criticism are interesting for getting to hear how ab author thought about their medium. E.g. Studies in Classic American Lit by Lawrence or On The Limits of Poetry by Allan Tate. Two books I love. I don't read any criticism beyond that sort.
>>7650131 >>7650109 >>7650157 "To seek [fame] is even a solemn duty for men endowed with more than ordinary powers of mind. First, as multiplying the ways and chances by which a useful work comes into the hands of such as are prepared to avail themselves of it; secondly, as securing for such a work that submissiveness of heart, that docility, without which nothing really good can be really acquired; and, lastly, because the individuality of the author, with all the associations connected with his name and history, adds greatly to the effect of a work." - STC
>>7650166 >a form of art that literally took elements from the original If women are art, they are remixes or collages. If you started with the greeks you would know that men have the ideal aesthetic form. noice doobs tho
>>7650079 People who take this picture seriously have never read anything above Harry Potter/Girl With the Dragon Tattoo level prose and might also just be buttmad that they did poorly in an English course at some point in their life. That or they're retarded "lmao STEM fields are only ones that matter bro also they pay better so I'm smarter than you for studying them xD" faggots
It is logically possible for a person to randomly smash the keys on his keyboard in such a way that what is produced is later regarded by many as being among the greatest works of literature.
Now, considering this theoretical, accidental masterpiece. Is the story/message/whatever in any way diminished because it was created accidentally? Is there anything that is missing from the work? No, it contains all the needed letters, words, sentences, paragraphs and chapters. The needed components do not need to come from intent, even though intent usually accompanies them.
I see most talk and analysis on author intent as no better than petty gossip. Who the fuck cares what these people thought, what these people did everyday, what these people liked, etc. And the projections that follow from this is worse, it's just faggots LARPing as psychologists.
All realism of presentation pertains to is the author creating a sense of realness through the presentation of certain material details. As you said the author is actively choosing what to reveal to the reader, which in turn indicates a certain mental process, but what realism of presentation means is that this thought process is simply wanting to give the novel a kind of anchor to the real world.
Not every single piece of a text has a kind of intentional deeper meaning.
nobody who's taken a college english class (besides 101-102) could still possibly believe that "anything goes", still nothing makes me happier then seeing an underclassman freeze up when a professor asks them how the language supports their ridiculous readings.
>>7651800 Well, I never mentioned anything about intentional or deeper meaning. You missed the point. Read again. Also, the "anchor point" metaphor that you use to describe something, e.g. a relationship with the real perhaps, is just a metaphor always for something else. It just so happens that metaphor, a greek word, means transfer. And there's a reason for that. Now, don't mix this up as if I'm referring to something intentional or deep. That's besides the point.
>>7651800 >>7652817 Also, a novel is axiomatically always grounded in the real world. It is always written by a human living in the real (his version of the real) world. In that sense, all gradients of realism are inherently subjective. Subjective in this context meaning there is a choice involved. Consciously or not. And choice is inescapably informed by experience and environment (social factors).
I understand what you were trying to say perfectly. Rather, what I meant by deeper meaning was simply any thought process other than the author's wanting to present reality. I think you've missed the point of what realism of presentation means. It is intended to facilitate the reader's ability to understand what is happening and why something is happening, etc.
This is explicitly about presentation, or the way in which an author presents reality. Realism of presentation simply addresses the fact that an author will sometimes choose to present a detail simply to depict what is happening, where it is happening, why it is happening, etc.
Though I agree that literature of all varieties will have a textual subconscious, it is not what you were addressing initially. You're shifting the goalposts a little here, since your initial reply only considered refuting the central notion of realism of presentation, which is a pointless exercise, since it is inevitably true. And whilst you can read into the textual subconscious all you want, just remember that you can never truly understood the ways in which the subconscious of the writer has affected the work.
>>7652993 The phrase "realism of presentation" is redundant. There is no measure for realism because it would presuppose that someone has reached or seen what absolute realism in art and/or expression is. The "in art and/or expression" bit is important, otherwise we might as well be talking about nature. For some people this is debatable, for others it is unthinkable. I'm of the point of view that sees the term realism in art as that somewhat comfy boundary beyond which the reader will or may go on suspension of disbelief mode. But this boundary, and much further beyond it, is all there is. You can never have The Real in text, simply, perhaps, because the text constitutes its own real (real=/=Real). In other words, reaching the suspension of disbelief boundary as either a writer or reader, does not equal The Real. It is a functional illusion of it; meaning, it can sustain itself for a while if you don't poke around too much.
In short, no, there were no goalposts shifting and your answer does not address the issue of choice on behalf of the author. And the center of all of the above is the issue of choices.
different people=different choices=different systems of thought=different approaches to "realism"
This is why I said you did not understood it the way I wanted (from my side of the argument, you couldn't ever understand it the exact way I wanted it to be understood, and vise versa on your side for me).
Yet again, I never said anything about understanding the subconscious of the writer. I talked about dispersal of information during transfer (see metaphor), which makes for infinite readings of the same text. It's like a puzzle you are committing yourself in completing, even though you know you don't have access to all the pieces and therefore you also know you will be extrapolating a lot. Maybe this is part of the enjoyment of reading; the peculiar process of extrapolation.
My dumb gay little pet theory (for which there's probably a proper word already but I've not come across it yet) is that we can resolve all these problem's of authorial intent in criticism if we re-frame our criticism with reference to effect, rather than individual intent or the sociological processes in its production. To use the curtain example, instead of asking why the curtain's are blue, we should instead ask what difference it makes to our reading that the curtain's are blue. Maybe, regardless of whether the author meant it to, the curtain's do make the scene a little more melancholy, which might make us feel more deeply that the character is immensely depressed and lacks the will to carry on. Or maybe there isn't much other evidence for this, so maybe the curtain's being blue just causes us to imagine a room with blue curtain's, having simply the effect of making the world seem more real and making us visualise it a bit more.
I think chasing either strict symbolic meaning or authorial intent is a bit of a red herring that doesn't help us understand the book much better than just reading it and thinking about what we take away from it and why.
>>7650079 You're missing the point. This picture is literally babby-tier. They're talking about secondary school level English, not anything more complicated. A lot of the stuff your secondary school teacher says *does* fall under this kind of thing. >>7651404 >implying democracy contradicts The Prince
I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. Realism of presentation applies to things like OP's picture, in which some curtains are depicted as blue. All realism of presentation applies to here is that they are blue to emphasise their appearance of realness, even if this is fiction.
I completely agree with you that reading things into a text is probably the most enjoying part about reading, but what I'm saying is that certain descriptive features are nothing more than the author grounding what is happening in a kind of reality.
>THE AUTHOR IS DEAD !!!!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE MEANT !!!!!!
whether the metatext intersects with the author's intentions or not is irrelevant. There are tens of thousands of pages of commentary on Proust. Most of them are critics going "huh I've felt that too on that particular occasion blah blah blah" and it's alright. Interpretation is opinion.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.