Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Let's get this out in the open 2016-08-04 17:32:27 Post No. 8360224
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Let's get this out in the open 2016-08-04 17:32:27 Post No. 8360224
[Report] Image search: [Google]
There is no way to force others to agree with your definition of literary quality. Most people have an artistic quality definition of "Whatever gives me joy" and their definition of joy is their own and may vary from time to time.
What the academia-media-publishing industrial complex and its pseudo intellectual hangers on (i.e., /lit/) seeks to do is band together to form a large group with a common definition of literary quality, a definition which may not be honestly believed by individual members of the group. This gives them many advantages, one of which is relevant to /lit/: the ability to claim to have a superior intellect or literary knowledge based on their literary preferences.
This same pattern repeats itself among many groups.
>>
File: 1466619231697.png (502KB, 410x2048px) Image search:
[Google]
502KB, 410x2048px
>>8360224
newfags, this is pasta.
don't eat the pasta.
>>
>>8360224
>literary criticism and review is impossible
Laffin
>>
>>8360224
>academia-media-publishing industrial complex
my favorite meme desu senpai
>>
>>8360224
As with all fine culture, plebs immediately try to kill it:
"Hurr durr we duped a wine taster, therefore honing your palette to pick up subtler tastes is bullshit"
"Hurr durr Metallica is so much more brutal than Beethoven; Metallica had a number one album!"
Proper literature requires a finer palette to appreciate fully; simply reading for "joy" deprives you of additional layers of "joy" you wouldn't get to unless you dealt with the challenging aspects first.
>>
>>8360224
Dumb frogposter
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2