Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 4073. page

>>7845674
>not that I need the explanations

You probably do if you're the sort of intellect that finds this funny

>>7845674
He has reddit-tier taste.

>>7845674
the premise of HAHA BLACK GUY TALK FUNNY ABOUT BOOKS is incredibly racist/tasteless to be quiet honest familia

>>7845668
If you're so concerned about how the format of the style of your prose may be judged by others, writing is not for you.

>>7845668
No writing style is ever dead if you do it well.

File: 1451537160893.png (609KB, 805x741px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 805x741px

>>7845670
hehehehehe le master troll!! XD

test

File: will.i.am fauxner.jpg (14KB, 215x234px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 215x234px

It's been a while since I've read it, but AILD really put me on Faulkner in general. Love how they had to drag their dead, smelly mom through a river. Also, the stream-of-consciousness narrative really creates a narrative that fleshes out how shitty each character is in their own personal way

I'm about to start The Sound and the Fury in my class and im pretty excited

>>7845648

H A C K
A
C
K

Ha, just kidding.

>>7845625
bump

i do

:'(

>90% of this board is Newfags that don't remember the penis was.

None, because I am not a nigger.

ij

File: image.jpg (39KB, 640x302px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x302px

Lost Boys by Orson Scott Card
>>7845613
Way to get the joke, Einstein.

i liked it well enough and enjoy studying Western conceptions of wilderness, so it's worthwhile as part of that world.

it does get boring though, she rehashes that chemicals can spread from one medium to another in every chapter.
>if they get in the soil they can get in the water and into animals! if they get into the sky they get into clouds and get into rain and into animals! if they get into this body of water they can get into that body of water!

it's tiresome

I remember finding a website with a death counter numbering how many people across the world have died as an indirect result of Rachel Carson's book. I can't remember where I saw it but it made me laugh due to the irony of the whole thing.

>>7845628
more would have died if it weren't for the book due to ecological collapse

>>7845574
It's "you'd better read it before your 16th birthday"-tier.

Take half an hour and read it.

>>7845574
Worst fucking thing I've read in a while.

He was high.

but still, i wanna know the meaning

>>7845470
Then open a dictionary and start looking up words you illiterate pleb

The use that most people are making of this kind of thing, especially Marxist and post-Marx-y types (including post-structuralists like Foucault etc.), is not that art CAN be turned to political ends, but that life is inherently immersed in or composed of ideological content, and so art is necessarily ideological as well.

Some lines of thought, like the communist, are more explicit about promoting "revolutionary art" or "proletarian art," often through the state, like socialist realism for the USSR and the ideas of Lenin that Mao is mentioning there, which are also cited explicitly by Gramsci as the major inspirations for his own formulation of culture (prominently including art) as an ideological/political battleground that needs to be won by the proletariat.

Some are more vaguely activist but still activist, like Foucault and a lot of other post-structuralists, and a lot of the Frankfurt School. They focus more on critique and their critiques can be extremely subtle or extremely wide-ranging, basically encompassing entire anthropological theories of Western subjectivity. Most of these guys are informed by the linguistic and discursive strains of 20th century thought, which are pretty much dominant.

What you really want to read of Nietzsche is probably his genealogy of morals obviously, but also On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Nietzsche is a cornerstone of these later views because he reduced truth to held belief (the "lies"), and the mediation of truth to power relationships. His other aesthetics stuff is less influential on these kinds of views (though in general, you shouldn't try to read Nietzsche as a single philosophical system). Look into what Ricoeur called the "school of suspicion" and the general character of 20th century melancholic self-doubt, rather than trying to find the origins of this shit in Nietzsche's aesthetics.

You will also want to know about deconstruction, via Derrida and Paul de Man. Again part of the linguistic, discursive, and general suspicion-of-truth strains. Go into it like it's a cult rather than a coherent philosophical position and you'll understand it a lot better - remember, whatever you think of Derrida or his political mission (whatever it was), the party line of deconstruction was mainly towed by billions of pissant graduate theses and self-fellating lit professors establishing it as orthodoxy, not any actual political action.

If you want to go against this kind of thing, go find pre-deconstruction lit crit.

>I'm more interested in aesthetics and stimulation.

Try reading some Denham on Frye, or on Frye's use of Longinus' ekstasis.

>>7845440
I know it might sound memey and it's music not literature, but Zach Hill in my opinion goes against the whole 'Ideology rules art' concept, and gives a good example of other people you might see that live for art and not some agenda. (I of course am aware of these artist and myself articulating under certain spooks, but think there is a distinct difference between spooks and ideology.)

>>7845440
I think the essay Against Interpretation might strike a chord with you, however, it lacked definition for my tastes. Sontag generally expresses a distaste in something very similar to what you're describing, namely, the literary theories that have become so popular as skeleton keys to interpret any and all texts, lenses to see the world through. Examples of these are Freudian psychoanalysis, reader response, cultural Marxism. She defined her conceived problem well enough. Her solution to her conceived problem perhaps evaded me. At the very least, all of my most prominent theories on what she meant could be controverted.

Sontag is a brilliant woman but she is not an organized thinker. I'm guessing she wrote compulsively. I would set aside two or three hours to read it over, maybe twice, and mull over it.

Trumps book because it was written by an Alpha

>>7845377
edicion toda culera.

Signed edition of My Twisted World

>>7845374
is this literature?

>>7845441
Of course it is.

File: SeptemContraPhoebas.jpg (1MB, 1681x2410px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1681x2410px

Yes. It's pretty funny how many people on here missed the subtle-as-a-brick-to-the-head implication

I don't fully understand the question

I just tell cool stories for cool people.

*puts on sunglasses*

8)

>>7845313
Evolutionary biology and Nietzsche are pretty big influences on what I am writing right. Maybe also the anxiety of influence.

You make it sound like the choice is to integrate the stuff into your work because you have some axe to grind or you just write because the story because it seems fun. I write about these things because they are fun and interesting to me and are "cool".

>>7845254
reddit general?

>>7845269
You're not helping, /pol/

>>7845269
ARE

>>7845221
I do but I get a pen and check them off

>>7845221
Probably 30% of the satisfaction I get from reading is the subsequent mental masturbation of listing the books or authors I have experience with.

>>7845196
>to there

also /lit/ - literature

>>7845196
>what is grammar
>what is a basic understanding of logic
>what is an on topic post
>what is making any sense at all

No

The judge will realize that a hyperbolic hypothetical situation is a last ditch attempt to prove the validity of a point.

The opposition should be able to simply point out that the imagined situation is unlikely to ever occur, and therefore any conclusions drawn from it are unsupported.

E.g. The debate is that donuts are better than crackers
>Well, donuts are better than crackers because they are round, so if you made a giant donut you could race nascars around it, and then use it to solve the world's hunger crisis after the race is over.

obviously ridiculous, amirite? the claim that donuts are better than crackers because they are round remains unsupported because the scenario used to prove the claim was totally out to lunch.

as a sidenote, hypothetical situations are pretty low on the scale of strength of argument. source = collegiate debate team