Should literature be comitted to political ideologies? My view:

File: photo.jpg (109KB, 516x380px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 516x380px

Bump.

>>8486441

Literature will never be apolitical. As long as there are stories about any kind of human interaction, politics will be in the picture. Trying to disassociate politics from literature is not only stupid, but also wrong. If done from the position of power, it equals censorship.

File: hairy-maclary.png (406KB, 618x627px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 618x627px

>>8486831
>Rise up brothers, the revolution is now
If all literature is political what is the politics of Hairy Maclary?

There are several kinds of literature, literature can try to aim higher than shitty social concerns like politics. An example is borges, he did make his political views clear but he always said that he wanted (and succeeded at) keeping his writings apolitical

>>8486441
Wow. That is such profound bullshit I can't even respond. Fuck politics.

>>8486831
Daily reminder that whether your on the left or on the right, this mentality is myopic and goofy.

File: zizek-cartoon.jpg (986KB, 1914x1968px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 1914x1968px

It is really unbelievable that Zizek is probably the most recognizable /lit/ meme and no one understands his analysis of ideology.

>Should literature be comitted to political ideologies?

Nigger it is literally impossible not to be committed to ideologies. "Pure" ideology is found in your spontaneous reaction to the world in those moments when you believe you are free from it and in an apolitical, asocial, or acultural situation.

If youre asking whether or not it is desirable for literature to concern itself primarily with heavy handed political allegories and symbolism at the expense of aesthetic then fuck no of course not.

>>8487592
nabokov and harold bloom would like to have a word with you

>>8487592
But Zizek is trash. He takes pretty simple ideas and jazzes them up with bombastic language. Great for your 22 year old brosocialist. Not so useful for anyone else.

>>8487607
Could you summarize where you think theyve made a good argument against this? Both are talented in their fields (Nabokov especially), but Harold Bloom's critique of the "school of resentment" could not be more obviously an ideologically (and politically) charged insistence that good literature is not political (i.e. does not contain explicit or implicit critiques of the status quo). I dont think he even suggests otherwise. Dont know what Nabokov's argument was but considering he arbitrarily dismissed half of his best contemporaries as hacks I'm skeptical of his good analytical sense.

>>8487627
Marxist-Hegelian shamanism is outside of ideology.

File: 1472870917373.png (284KB, 499x559px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 499x559px

>>8487615
>makes notoriously difficult Hegelian concepts digestible for laypeople by using pop media other intellectuals consider too lowbrow to involve themselves with
>he's obviously just a pretentious hack trying to sound smart, what do you mean, of course watching a few videos and browsing *sniff* memes was enough to understand him, it's his fault i dont read

Also you should kill yourself for unironically saying brocialist

>>8487632
Of course it isnt.

>>8487637
He's right though. There's literally nothing in Zizek that isn't in Marx and Lacan.

Basically you only have to study Hegel and a 5-minute wiki of Lacan (mostly his misogynist shit about how women don't know what makes them orgasm etc) and you've got Zizek all figured out.

Go you can go right the fuck back to Facebook, where you came from.

>>8487640
So the revolution isn't guaranteed.

>>8487592
Stick to Foucault and Deleuze & Guattari.

Zizek is only good at taking down Derrida and some redditors.

>>8487646
Of course not. Zizek does not believe so either, by the way. Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are both basically religions, the right wing is correct about that much.

>>8487642
Can you tell me what you think the essence of Hegelian thought is? Because his work has countless interpretations and one quick reading of Phenomonology is going to give you an entirely different understanding than five other people who read the same thing.

>>8487673
>Zizek does not believe so either

that's bullshit and you know it

>>8487673
You don't need to distill the essence of Hegel to know that for Zizek, Hegel is THE philosopher. He's admitted this many times. His reading of Lacan brings Lacan closer to Hegel than to Heidegger anyway.

>>8487642
>women don't know what makes them orgasm
What was his reasoning here?