[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
/lit/ Moderation
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /qa/ - Question & Answer

Thread replies: 115
Thread images: 12
File: Books.jpg (262 KB, 1200x799) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Books.jpg
262 KB, 1200x799
I would like to request stronger moderation(or some moderation period) on /lit/.

I know moot didn't want to do it years ago because our board was slow as molasses, threads used to last for weeks, well, things have changed.

I don't know if it is "reddit" as everyone is saying, but there are a lot of "shitposters", /pol/posting, trump-posting, off-topic threads about music, television and desktop threads. These are people who post the most inane things(sometimes 3 paragraphs long), then place a sentence at the bottom naming some book(I guess that makes it relevant). Case in point >>>/lit/7575524

When you report these threads, you sometimes get mod intervention, but mostly they just let it hit bump limited then axe it from the archive. I don't see what Trump and China World War has to do with /lit/. There is also a lot of people using it as a blog, and posting links to blogs.

All the relevant threads are being kicked off the catalog.

My question is, if we can't get a mod for ourselves, can we at least get mods from other boards who "check in" more often?

Please help.
>>
>>409518
I second this. Memes, off topic shitepost threads and all of this shite needs to be taken care of.
>>
It is a pile of shit lately.
>>
File: image.gif (53 KB, 828x472) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.gif
53 KB, 828x472
If you're wishing to banish "/pol/posting or trump-posting" from your precious board, you need to fuck off. It is anti-/lit/ to not read or want anything to do with ideas that aren't apart of your ideology.
>>
>>409518
Agreed. Chalk up another board falling into ruin
>>
>>409745
Not OP and I don't want ideological books banned but shitepost and off topic stuff has appeared. There was a fucking David Bowie thread and it was basically "Can authors compete?" was used to make it /lit/.
>>
>>409518

seconded. I would personally love it if we had any actual janitors or mods on our board. Right now anything goes.
>>
>>409518
Other threads that need to go are those pretentious threads.
>>
>>409518
>wanting moderation beyond the bare necessities
>not reddit
Pick one and only one, cuck.
>>
Thank you, OP.
>>
File: 235346235.png (925 KB, 866x1300) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
235346235.png
925 KB, 866x1300
I agree really strongly, /lit/ needs some aggressive intervention at this point. [spoiler] I could do it for free. [/spoiler]
>>
You cugs deserve it for disagreeing with me and my friends
>>
>>409518
I'm starting to think it isn't as bad as it has been, all considered, but it still needs stronger moderation - because all the shitty pseudointellectual humanities threads are still there, it's just that they're diluted in more shitposting than usual.
>>
>>409745
>It is anti-/lit/ to not read
heh
>>
>>409518
As someone from a board with suspect moderation lately, I hope you get the help you need.

God speed /lit/bro
>>
For example
>>
>>409518
Can we also get rid of "Who is the X of literature?" They're not exactly new but they're more frequent now. And >>409821 too. The pleb/patrician line is blurry in some places, and these threads refuse to acknowledge that, leading to endless replies that waste /lit/'s time and allow an increase in really inappropriate discussion. Yes, I mean the John Green threads. There was one the other day that said Looking for Alaska and The Fault in Our Stars were actually good.
>>
/signed
>>
You absolute cuck
>the board should be exactly what *i* want it to be because I hate fun
>>
>>410169
That's exactly the type of post that requires moderation, or at least, that appears too often lately and signifies the degeneration of a board; a person unaware of what the actualy valuable literature is, accusing others of being pretentious and denying their help in getting enlightened by doing so.
>>
>>410169
>I should be allowed to break rules because it's fun
>the board should be exactly what *i* want it to be because I like fun
>>
didn't see this thread crop up when there were endless Marx threads being made
>>
>>409973
Suspect moderation? Please, go on.

>>409518
We need a writing board for the blogging, share your poems/excerpts/short stories, and crit threads to get cozy in.

End then yeah harsher moderation on wholly off-topic threads
>>
>>409518
Agreed. There's a lot of nonsense threads and posts lately. The worst ones are the obvious flamewar threads. It's not fun or enjoyable to post on /lit/ when you have people posting obvious garbage and it doesn't get removed. I don't mind people having different opinions, or ideologies or whatnot. I encourage that. But there's so many obvious trash threads that need to be removed. Pic related.
>>
>>410201
Are you fucking kidding me? You really want to try to politicize board moderation and shitposting?

Go outside and get some fresh air.
>>
>>409745
What you're not considering is that there's a stark difference between "/pol/posting or trump-posting" and discussion of right wing literature and (even though this arguably fits better on /his/ or /pol/) philosophy.One can create productive discussion, but the other is just shitposting. Trumpfags and /pol/fags are no better than Zizekfags, Stirnerfags or Christposterrs. I don't say that because I hate leftists or reactionaries or Christians but because I hate shitposting.
>>
>>410218
I'm saying that OP is attempting to politicize it lad
>>
>>410201
This, and the obvious /r9k/ posts as well.
>>
What a bunch of newfag bollocks OP. You've obviously not been through many meme-attacks OP. I've seen Rand, I've seen Computers, I've seen so many DFWs I could hang myself with a belt. But the memes keep shit fresh, keep us on our toes.

You can't handle the memes OP, maybe Reddit is more your speed.

Maybe you should read some Homer or Junger.

Maybe you should be less of a pleb.
>>
>>410201
That's because Marx is one of the most influential authors in history. This is an irrefutable, uncontestable fact.

You rarely see people from /pol/ posting serious conservative literature. They'll just hijack a thread that's about something completely unrelated and start a political debate with the intellectual rigor of a second grade spelling bee.

You have an entire board where you can shitpost to your heart's content. You can cry about the Jews, express your "honest skepticism" towards the Holocaust, and pedal your own revisionist history without any interference from mods.

/lit/ is (or used to be) the only board where people had the willingness and capacity to have an honest, mature, adult conversation about literature.
>>
>>410468
>call OP a newfag
>unironically say "you can't handle the memes"

God fuck off.
>>
>>410474
Shite lad there's barely a Marx nor a proper old /pol/ post (Ay, there's the odd shitpost, but it's probably by me). And /lit/ has always been shittily good, it's been on the same mean quality as it always has.

>>410477
You're a sad faggot ain't ya? You're not honestly getting wound up are ya?
>>
>>409518
Agreed. That having been said, if your complaint about "Trump posting" is reffering to the crippled america thread, that is in fact literature and allowed. Just as left wing literature like Marx is.

Other than that, spot on assessment. The GoT threads are really becoming obnoxious too.We should merge the current stickies into one and add an addendum explaining what literature actually is, so plebs don't think it just means "anything written on paper".
>>
>>410474
This. People are more than welcome to discuss Burke or Hitler's work on /lit/ as they want to. /pol/ doesn't actually discuss literature on /lit/ though, they'll just make a thread putting down communism without referencing any relevant texts.
>>
it's been pretty /r9k/ lately as well with a lot of >tfw no literary gf threads
>>
>>409745
>apart of your ideology
>apart
>ideology
I sincerely hope you never post on /lit/
>>
>>410696
/lit/ has always been /r9k/.
>>
File: 1451633025682.png (127 KB, 425x1275) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451633025682.png
127 KB, 425x1275
Literally all you need to do to fix /lit/ is allow manga discussions on it. All the reddit normalfags get triggered by anything tangentially related to anime and avoid boards related to it.
Notice how anime boards are always less 'shitposty' than others.
>>
>>409518
We told you about /pol/ culture and how cancerous it is. But free speech of a single group is more important than the site being usable for people.
>>
Take a deep breath and relax before replying. It's too easy to assume shitposing/flamebait/insanity where there is none.

My suggestion ... delete the board.

Maybe what 4chan needs is some consolidation and retrenchment around some core values. Each board is an experiment, but there comes a point where we should look at what is working, what is popular, and what are the creeping undead horrors of chan history.

Return /b/ as the birth ground of off the wall interest groups that might deserve a board. Watch things bubble up from there.

Related to the idea of a return, witness the flood of pining for the nostalgic, the "old" 4chan of yore.

We need to bury that. We need not a mod. We need a reaper.

Other websites, not chans, have taken the ball from 4chan and run with it, making a better place for some boards. It's a waste of time to compete with them, freely burning bandwidth as a playground for endless bottom feeding shitposters. Why go begging for an idealized ubermod to somehow fix it all, once and for all? Why such an insistence that a spook of the imagination must be our answer?

No, I'm not happy about bringing things to an end. All things have a life cycle though, and chans are no exception. Let us extend the life of the greater whole with a limited extinction.

Deleting a board is a popular shitposting tier of response to just about any board issue, once again a meme of times past. We are seeing a new day with new ways for imageboard culture.

It's time to think these things over.
>>
>>411330
The shite posters are anime lovers and post it.
>>
>>409962
I agree with what you're saying it being the same board but with more Shintoists, but in my opinion that is the exact problem with other boards that have turned to shit over the years.

People just get sick of filtering through the shit and then leave. Before you know it, you're left with with only the shitposting.
>>
>>411419
>Shintoists
heh
>>
Fix /lit/ by making /sff/ for discussion of genre fiction.
>>
I have been coming to /lit/ for years and I don't know if I really agree with your analysis. Some moderation is definetly needed though, I remember the "Is ham the most literary food?" thread being up for 10 hours or more.
>>
>>410227
It's rather strikingly similar to the tendency of some to immediately abhor the notion of political discussions centered around something not inherently political but suspiciously only once their personal brand is either facing direct challenges or no longer in vogue.
>>
>>410201
It doesnt pop up when conservative or monarchist authors are discussed either. What ist he problem is /pol/ posting, people saying it isnt /lit/ and then someone throwing in some spengler to cover their butts.
>>
File: SIDF.png (19 KB, 861x780) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SIDF.png
19 KB, 861x780
Be now aware the Shinto Internet Defense Force has placed this thread under watch.

We will tolerate your sick atheistic western aspersions no longer.
>>
>>411365
Then you need to convince Hiro about that
>>
>>410201
this thread needs deleting just as much it even as a news article in it >>>/lit/7581674
>>
>>411582
Save the threads. Save anything that is shitposting up a board and show them to Hiro
>>
>>409840
This, fuck off OP.
>>
The internet is filled with places you can have heavily moderated discussions, dunno why you feel the need to force that on the only place that, by design, hasn't.

Also, the best way to build a better community is to contribute with better content, instead of crying for mods, imo.
>>
>>412527
The shit that they want to "discuss "(shitposting) has boards exactly for that.

The reason we want more moderation, is because of all the off topic threads.

We have fit, v, tv and pol threads posted in /lit/. They aren't even lit related.
>>
>>409518
Congratulations you have reddit
>>
>>412527
>>412745
Jesus christ, not every board is some random playground for you guys to shitpost stupid fucking crap. Not every board has the same fucking topic of 'annoy each other as hard and fast as you can,' with SFW and NSFW randomly strewn about, willy nilly, just for kicks. Get a goddamn hold of yourselves, mates, christ.
>>
I have been posting on /lit/ for years and it's fine. Fuck off and stop whining.

It's always the Reddit retards too.
>/pol/ is invading!!!! I saw one troll thread per week this month!!!

/lit/ is funnier than it was during the heyday of oppressive moderation, it has the exact same culture it always had, and the quality is the same as it has always been. Terrible.
>>
>>412855
>Mates, mates, I'm just like you!

>>>/reddit/
>>
>>412527
Yeah well maybe when we get mods who will do their jobs we can be happy again instead of being forced to fight back against shitposting by ourselves
>>
>>413471
fuck you
>>
>>412745
>>412527
>heavily moderated discussions
I like how muh freedumb jerks assume that any moderation instantly means "reddit upvote hugbox", rather than, you know, actual moderation to sort of clean up some of the shitposts. Nobody's asking for heavy moderation, chump, they're asking for literally the basic necessities; ie, janitors doing their fucking jobs and marking off-topic or shitpost filled threads for deletion.

It would really be nice if "funposters" trying to spice up the board with retarded bullshit that is devoid of content could fuck back off to /b/, /tv/ or /s4s/ where they belong.

I think it is exaggerated how bad the board has gotten, but I have noticed a lot more stupid meme threads that apparently fill the void of Stirnerposting left by its exile to /his/ (which I'm fine with); mainly the "who is the x of literature" threads, "nonsensical quote followed by what did he mean by this" threads, or general baiting about race/sex and literature. Every so often we also get crossboard shit from /sci/ debating the point of the humanities which frankly should be exiled to /his/, but at the moment the frequency of these threads is manageable.

I think probably one of the larger problems that is growing are blog threads. I'm not talking about "share your English major horror stories lads", I'm talking more about uninvited sob story posts about being a NEET with no gf and then "what books should I read" tacked on at the end to make it vaguely on topic. These posters can fuck off to /adv/ or something.

I wonder if something can also be done about recommendation threads. I mean, we have a fucking sticky for Christ's sake. I'm not saying we should go full retard like /a/ and reply "boku no pico" to every question on the board, but recommendation threads tend to be very short, very frequent, and devoid of discussion beyond 3-15 posts listing some books, OP saying thanks, and someone replying "my diary desu".
>>
>>413514
Another big issue, which is demonstrated in this very thread, is the reddit boogieman, which has been stymieing discussion for several months now (particularly in political threads), to the point where any attempts to discuss political philosophy, postmodernism, economic theory (Rand, Marx, Smith, consumerism; doesn't really matter which position) devolves into people redirection people to Reddit, either because they're too liberal and remind users of /srs/ users and r/books' overpopulation by idiotic college students, or they're too conservative and remind users of edgelords that frequent r/atheism, the red pill and other subreddits that capitulate to fedora-tipping ideologues. This also affects religion threads to a lesser extent, though thankfully Christposting and reLIEgionfags have apparently vanished since the creation of /his/.

Either way, the reddit boogieman is not a form of discussion and has completely ground discussion of philosophy and social sciences to a fucking halt. This was a problem on other boards where they constantly redirected other users to /v/ or /b/ (/a/, /jp/ and /vg/ come to mind specifically), before mods took notice and began deleting those posts.

Seriously, cut this shit out. It is probably the most poisonous bullshit that infects the community.

And so my point doesn't go unbeaten any further:
>>413471
>>413470
>>412745
>>410468
>>409840

Jesus Christ fuck off.
>>
File: image.jpg (905 KB, 1936x1936) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
905 KB, 1936x1936
>>
File: 1452757997290.jpg (144 KB, 960x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452757997290.jpg
144 KB, 960x960
>>409518
Yeah, we need more IJ, ulysses and GR threads.

fuck off faggot, if it triggers you is not our problem.
>>
>>409743
>>409518
/lit/erally the cancer the is killing 4chan right here
>>
>>413834
>4chan is about memes! Epic fucking memes dude!
>discussion? ahahaha fuck off reddit cuck DavidFosterWallace.jpeg
>get spooked ahahahaha get it? Us /lit/izens amirite?

You're the cancer killing 4chan. The fucking post GG bile who thinks freedom of speech is being able to drag down blue boards with all your awful off topic posting. Why even have blue boards if you just want to post shitty /b/ memes in them? Serious question, tell me, why should they even exist if you want zero moderation and rampant shitposting on them?
>>
>>413514
This. A lot of threads aren't even /lit/ and have a passing mention to literature.
>>
>>413820
>rule breaking threads are ok because I said so
>I say what we discuss on /lit/
>fuck off OP
>>
>>413891
Be honest, do you actually report them? I've heard that the more users report a post, the quicker it will be deleted. I've given up on the mods ever actually being transparent so I just make a habit of combing through /lit/ and reporting every shit thread whenever I hop on. I usually report as much as one dozen threads in a day, they don't always get taken down though.
>>
File: image.jpg (2 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
2 MB, 3264x2448
bomemetic
>>
>>413952
I personally make around four or five a day, mainly on blog threads (eg, "I feel like I'm unable to write anything worthwhile and I'm in my mid twenties, maybe I'll kill myself" threads), which are cropping up alarmingly often. While /lit/ seems to have a depressing overlap with /r9k/, it is not the place to spread your misery. There are places for that, and /lit/ is not one of them. I appreciate the fact that /lit/ is filled with the disaffected (and mostly millennial), but seriously, suck it up, or at the very least, keep it to yourself.
>>
>>414033
I'd rather more people make OPs that can't be answered in one word.
>>
Literally any moderation is just going to end in questionable decisions. The board is slow as hell and has no real problem being weighed down by garbage. Use the catalog and report the shitposts (which does work).

Seriously, any moderation quickly becomes overbearing. On any board. Every single janitor turns it into their gay little fief within a week or tries to sanitize it like a subreddit. Fine if you think that's necessary in some cases, but on a board where threads survive for weeks and flagrant OT posts are already deleted, it's not.
>>
/lit/ is whiny as fuck. It's already one of, if not the highest board on the site. Make a 'quality' thread if you're so pissed about 1mph '"shitposters"'.
>>
>>415186
>>415069
There is faster janitor intervention on reported threads now, which is all we wanted.

You were probably shitposting with the others when we had 12+ off topic threads, and the on topic threads were being pushed off the catalog.
>>
Mods, continue to leave us alone. Most of these people are content demanders not content creators and they are the cancer killing canon based discussion. They want someone to cliff notes everything to them and people to stop liking what they don't like. Any amount of shit posting on /lit/ should make a good c/lit/ go read their more interesting book instead (aka lurking moar) or type out a thesis on a literary work or movement.

These people want /lit/ to be fast and constant well informed posts, but to never write an essay and samefag its opposition for the sake of OC. Fuck them, they deserve the crap they spend their time complaining about. They're probably the same people who want to bowdlerize canon because Nabokov wrote Lolita but have no idea how dirty Shakespeare was.
>>
>>415201
You.... what the fuck did I just read.

Also I'm a genrefag and I approved of this thread.

If you guys want to talk about how hilter did nothing wrong, and Trumps current polls fuck off to his and pol.
>>
>>415213
You clearly do not understand what lurking is. You're going to have to come back with the unmistakeable prose of one who has read all of ED and even contributed for me not to think you're retarded by /b/ standards. Read moar, and come back to this in a few years.
>>
>>415219
Why is it, that you, one who utters words like water flowing over a ridge of rock in the middle of a stream, slowly wearing away the surface of one who was once strong and proud, think that the babble your water makes is intelligible?

Dam yourself until your water roars with patience and experience.
>>
>>415226
>Dam yourself until your water roars with patience and experience.
My point exactly, but this is too purple for my syntax to impose on you and I presume the rest is lies.
>>
>>415226
utterly disgusting prose
>>
>>409518
Yeah it's gotten ridiculous. It's really easy to be like 'if you want quality don't go on 4chan huehuehue' but I don't want to enable shitty people. The shitposting's through the roof and there's borderline zero good content.
>>
>>415829
If you want quality, you're gonna need to post it. This isn't some ordering service where your shit post gets an incisive review of Jacobean era publishing practices and playhouse censorship in return.
>>
>>415200
Yep, don't know if it's a coincidence but I have been noticing faster response times. Thanks lads
>>
>>415883

Except that the shitposts appear faster than quality content (mainly because they often follow a pattern ie "[Random nonsense because we just get half of a sentence -and that's just be giving them the benefit of my doubt-]" >what did he mean by this"
>>
Why do people keep blogposting and refuse to use Google search?
>>
>>413554
I disagree with you to an extent on the need for more moderation but I do agree with you on the reddit redirection memes getting stale as fuck

I honestly reckon "reddit" should be word-filtered site wide
>>
>>409745

We don't need to know every time that idiot farts. The amount of threads on this site about Trump are ridiculous. You do realise that he is a failure of a business man that was handed quite a lot of money and went bankrupt five times, no? His act is horseshit and only proves that the average American is a complete fool. For God's sake his "make America great again" (an insult to the country and her citizens) are made in Mexico.

I agree we need more cleaning up on /lit/. Maybe a janitor?
>>
>>418148
Trump's networth has actually gained and only took a significant hit during the economic meltdown of 08. Failures for startups isn't the same as complete personal bankruptcy. But I agree, /lit/ is not the place for /pol/. People are excited and tensions are high for the election so no doubt it may get worse until then.
>>
>>418132
It used to be a bannable offense to say.... have no notion why moot changed his mind..
>>
>>416629
You have never samefagged your OC. /lit/ is a slow board, you can force it without having a pre written text. You're a leech. You're one of the superfluous ones Nietzsche talks about in The New Idol. End yourself; nobody owes you shit.
>>
>>413514
>>413554
What's funny is that funposting used to actually be a non-threat to /lit/. Brownbear or D&E or somebody would make a thread about throwing up uncontrollably because of a girl's taste in literature, and it would quickly become a serious, pragmatic discussion of the author(s) in question. The /lit/ of that time didn't *need* moderation because the posters actually wanted to discuss literature, there was an extremely slow posting rate, and any excuse to legitimately discuss a writer/writer's work would be taken up immediately. The only posts that would get deleted would be blatantly off-topic shit like pornography or self-promotion threads.

Now, with all these newer retards who don't understand what "literature" means all flocking there and replying to each other's shitposts on the board, it can no longer exist without real moderation. The "meta" attitude of trolling has become such that all you have to do is use the word "reddit" or some similar buzzwords, and you'll get a dozen responses in sixty seconds - most of which are telling each other to go back there.
>>
>>419720
The mods luckily seem to be sick of the Reddit spam on here as well.
>>
>>419720
There's more threads tangentially related to literature than actual literature discussion threads. We had a decent OP by some tripfag about notes from underground the other day, but it seems to be 99%
>what does /lit/ think of *not literature book*
>bookshelf thread?
>what I read, what I expected, what I got
>how do I get into X?

It's awful.
>>
>>419998
m8, i'm not sure what you expect of a literature forum but three of these are literature fora standards. what did you actually expect?
>>
>>420065
>what did you actually expect?
Discussion of literature.
>>
>>420120
>Discussion of literature.
that happens too. I surmise you're trying to articulate the need for a more structured, academic, close reading approach to literary discussion, but most people find Marxist crit to be boring and i think there's the risk that material analyses of history would get rather more in the way of literature related discussion if we did adopt that approach, and that we run the risk of an eternal reducio ad Grecii if we adopted a structuralist approach compared to the postmodern one we currently have. or are you suggesting a different method of discussing literature? rote learning of the headmaster's opinion, perhaps?
>>
>>420172
You're being disingenuous. My issue is not with the manner in which literature is discussed, but the frequency. Just basic dissection of themes, prose, plot and characters with or without the ideological lens of your choice would be enough for me.
>>
>>420197
Isn't that structuralism? Like I said, that poses its own problems. Your issue obviously is with the way in which its being discussed because you either think the current way it is being discussed is not good or not existent, and that a structuralist approach is the only valid method that would appease you. that is asking for either every thread being a "greeks did it" thread, or hoping for the headmaster to release the rote essay. discussions of these things take place alongside other methods of discussion currently; your complaint seems to be that your ideological lens has not been adopted more commonly.
>>
>>420200
>>419720
Here. Shut up. There's a sticky for a reason.

Bookshelf threads have nothing to do with /lit/, that's /soc/. All anyone does in those threads are talk about their personal lives, and not literature. Even if there is some literary discussion, it comes secondary to the interpersonal dialogues.

"What I read, what I expected" threads were a little more acceptable when the board was new and there was much more to share. Now you have dozens of idiots shitposting about the same few books and/or trying to troll people. I've seen like 50 different versions for Infinite Jest alone; those threads are just an excuse to make largely useless funny memes and *not discuss literature*.

"How do I get into ____" threads are, again, why there is a sticky. They are recommendation threads. Guess what the sticky says (as you surely haven't read it)?
>Recommended Reading
>RECOMMENDED READING
>read as: What you should read before reading something else

and you posted
>we run the risk of an eternal reducio ad Grecii if we adopted a structuralist approach compared to the postmodern one we currently have
Might you be Sunhawk or someone similar? Nobody else is this retarded.
>>
>>409518
>stronger /lit/ moderation
Get your fucking brain checked, the moderation is way too harsh there. It's unbearable.
>>410219
>>418148
Pseudo-intellectuals. Both of you. Get off my fucking /lit/.
You both sound like you could have been characters from Farenheit 451 with the, "burn books we don't like XXXDDD" dialogue.
>>
>>421748
>hi, let me pretend that structuralism hasn't been blown out

There's several books in the sticky you should read before you should post shit which claims literary crit since the 1950s hasn't happened. We're not all going to become Jungians in search of the Ur-myth, not least because even Derrida can make that seem stupid when Derrida generally sounds like rambling.

This "baaaw why don't they read the sticky I haven't read" just tells me that you have no idea how to introduce someone to any of the authors listed in the sticky who haven't got a flow chart. The reason we have flow charts for some authors, schools, and eras in the sticky is because of those threads you are complaining about, which often produce those charts (or repost the many charts which are not in the sticky).

>Sunhawk
Oh so you're a longtime idiot who wants names back, not just a blow in idiot who could benefit from lurking. Might be time to kill yourself if you really have not worked out those problems with the sticky yourself by now.
>>
>>421770
didn't read lol

no, I'm calling you a fucking retard for claiming /lit/'s discourse is postmodern
>>
>>421784
it is. do you want me to explain how postmodern exegesis is concerned with the plethora of disjunctive meanings not the distinction of definitive meanings?
>>
>>421795
yes
>>
>>421899
Structural analysis aims to work out the relationship of meanings between the text and a larger body of work. (I'll use genre as an example, but it could equally be as large as Western and Eastern Canon.) In this method, it's assumed that these relationships exist independent of the reader: a sci-fi novel is a sci-fi novel, even if the reader thinks it's based on real science. The problem with this approach is that it assumes the structuralist is not reading in his own interpretation: a structuralist for instance might see the Greeks as originating sci-fi (though the Greeks would not have understood the genre as sci-fi) and therefore every author since who has never read the Greeks, but wrote something which fits the sturcturalist view of what sci-fi is, is drawing on the Greek tradition of sci-fi. How "new" a work is to a genre then becomes their prime question. This approach is why people will defend Takami's Battle Royale as better for being original, and shit on Hunger Games for not being original, and the parts where it is new compared to Takami being repetitions of other fairy tale tropes.

Post-structuralist reactions to this include several branches of postmodern crit, generally against interpretation as a whole. (I'm not explaining the Marxist developments because the required reading is daunting and I got over the character limit.) The wikipedia page on The Death of the Author will point you in the right direction. The bones of their argument against structuralists is that structuralism is just another interpretation, and refuses to believe its subject to its own tendency to reduction: it, too, can be nothing new. *cues Derrida ramble* www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgwOjjoYtco
>>
>>421748
That would mean that the "how do I live the lit life" threads are also not literature?

What about when they post trump's book pic, then start discussing the current political climate and race, and nothing of the book? Is that also not lit?

What about when philosophyfags come in and start talking about nihilism, is that lit?

What about "post art, get book recommendations " is that lit? IJ GR is recommended at least 20 times each in those threads.

Not the guy you responded to.
>>
>>421761
They are only deleting shitposting, and blatant rule breaking(noticeably quicker response after this thread was put up, thanks mods), the only reason you would complain, is that your shitposting is being deleted.

From your words you are either a pepefag posting phil shit on lit, or someone posting sentences like they were in /b/, or you are a /pol/fag who sees his off-topic threads are finally being deleted.
>>
>>422280
no, they're just deleting anything people report. it's not like the mods finally read everything in the sticky and started making a distinction between the /pol/ post that is a quote from swift and the /pol/ post that is just /pol/.
most of the anons reporting hilariously seem to be about as well read as the second category, because i've seen some shit disappear which indicated the person read the book and the reportfag got butthurt the book could say something racist/sexist/against any of their personal opinions/new, even though the reportfag clearly didn't read it. oh well, they think it's their duty to make us "smarter".
>>
>>422342
oh, and they've also started enforcing the blue board regulation to a weird extreme that women must not be shown clothed in modern photography and classical art should be done away with for being nudes. the images being deleted for being red board images are the best.
>>
>>422348
Classical art belongs in >>>/his/
>>
>>422432
as an i need a pic to make an OP pic? lol you have some weird fears for board purity
>>
>>422507
Scantily clad women belong on /hr/
>>
>>422528
>/hr/
you don't even suffer from eye strain! you are clearly the more /lit/ for you've safely avoided the perils of reading. i tip my hat
>>
>>422536
Wut
Thread replies: 115
Thread images: 12
Thread DB ID: 468025



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

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 [email protected] with the post's information.