How is Billy Budd gay? Is having friends gay? I think people

>Billy Budd
>Not a fanook
maddon'

Melville was a coco shunter so all his work is homoerotic. The whole sperm bit in Moby Dick springs to mind.

>>8590422
the sopranos is such a /lit/ show

>In Search of Lost Time
>The Stranger
>Nietzsche, Freude, Kierkegaard
>Billy Budd
>Robert Frost
>The Art of War
>Machiavelli
> Madame Bovary

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/93950.Books_appearing_in_The_Sopranos

Was Melville really a fag or is that sjw disinfo?

>>8590422
billy budd aka "bb" aka "beelzebub" is not my sailor. gays belong to satan and so does that deviant aspie. Praise John "Jesus Christ" Claggart

>>8590422

>It's a Anthony Jr becomes an edgy nihilist after reading The Stranger episode

>>8590474
>wow such art very reference

I hate when shows do this namedrop bullshit to enhance their artistic credibility. Shows like Lost namedropped philosophers in the most pathetic way possible, and The Wire was embarrassing when it tried with The Great Gatsby. The only show that didn't seem like a total faggot when it tried this was Mad Men, because it never made these direct contextual allusions and treated the works used in the show as cultural and temporal touchstones more than anything else

>>8590475
He wasn't, but it doesn't really matter does it? His works had homosexual subtexts because it was something he was interested in, over-prevalence of forced masculinity to repress possible homosexual urges. Keep in mind he wrote during the Second great awakening, in which protestantism got pretty fucking crazy and puritanical, so it was definitely artistically relevant at the time

>>8590559
the sopranos doesn't just namedrop the book its extremely relevant to what the characters are going through

>>8590602
It's forced, done to fool you into thinking the show is better than it is. Same thing with religion (how many shows love churches and prominent crosses to lend their drama some gravitas).

>>8590602
in the shallowest way possible.

>Carmella feels constricted by her culturally determined gender role so english teacher man recommends her Madam Bovary
>AJ is a little apathetic shit so he talks about Nietzsche (Nitch)
>Carmella gets up in arms about Billy Budd because she is conservative and unhappy at the prospect that life could be different than how it is myopically defined in their little italian-american culture sphere

Why could they not accomplish this vis-a-vis their own writing on the show, what is the point of the literary references? Literally just a smoke and mirrors cheap stunt to align itself more with the pantheon of the western canon

Premium-cable shows love making allusions to the Bible and great literature; it's a cheap way to lend the show some fake seriousness (see: AMC, HBO, House of Cards, etc.).

I think the perfect HBO-show moment would be a black prisoner reclining in his cot reading Dostoevsky's "House of the Dead."

File: 1475535854680.jpg (123KB, 492x475px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 492x475px

>>8590639

>that fucking sllloooowwww pan out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46W2nenbRTo

>>8590634
>why are these characters acting like people!

>>8590654
not sure what you're getting at here, but that shot was actually extremely well-done. Good juxtaposition of the innocence of a story like goodnight moon, read in every middle-class household to children, with the ominous innocence-destroying inner city, dark and terrifying

>>8590662
?

I'm saying that the writing in the show was great so they could have gotten them to 'act like people' on merit of the quality of writing alone. Forcing literary totems into the show felt awkward and unnecessary

Every single episode of Gilmore Girls had a shot of Rory reading a classic, and it's still less obnoxious than these HBO/AMC shows. The reason is that it never pretended to be serious; it was a light comedy. It never spawned articles like "Is TV the New Literature?" that pondered whether The Wire was the new Bleak House.

>>8590634
While I agree with this I think the "lit" references are there to show exactly how shallow the people reading it were, they have no importance in their lives and act as scapegoats for bigger problems.

>>8590676
How do you feel about the Sonic The Hedgehog franchise?

>>8590676
It's precious.

>>8590692
I don't know, to me it felt like yes, the literary references revealed the vacuous, feral nature of the lives of people in the jersey mob, but they also were like a shitty wink to the audience, like 'hey, these guys don't understand this stuff because their lives are all violent and socially conservative. Not like US, right? Us middle class smartypantses, we get art' Which is pandering at best

>>8590695
>"I am so le smart because I understood what a shot was trying to convey in The Wire"


Congratulations you complete fucking faggot. It's about appreciating the shot, not being proud of yourself for 'getting' what it means an subsequently feeling like you cracked some sort of smartguy puzzle

>>8590699
yes, and that is precisely why it is effective

>>8590722
the shot is mawkish garbage, I don't think you're very smart.

>>8590739
I think you're a very pretentious person who is impressed with himself for seeing what a shot is trying to convey, something that anyone with a brain can do. As a result, you're actually an idiot because you don't understand how visual semiotics work. Stick to literature chief, I don't think eclecticism is for you

>>8590739
lol I bet you're the type of pleb who shits on Caravaggio because you understand why he gives all his painted figures feminine features

every character is gay now according to "intellectuals"

>>8590782
unironically a good post

>>8590634
Way to miss the point with AJ and Neitzsche you fucking retard

>>8590474
Wow works out to about one book per year. Very /lit/ indeed fellow /lit/izen!

>>8590639
Modernist novels loves making allusions to the Bible and great literature; it's a cheap way to lend the novel some fake seriousness (see: Ulysses, The Sound and the Fury, The Waste Land, etc.).

>>8591030
Yeah, The Sopranos, Ulysses, haha, what's the difference, right?

>>8590827
oh, do tell. I bet you'll say something like how AJ is born at the socio-cultural crossroads of the death of the italian heritage of italian americans, and was raised in a family where the parents clung to empty ideals of homeland without any real notion of why, the result being a kid forced into a sort of nihilistic apathy for culture and belonging.

Bull fucking shit.

He was just a whiny cunt because his father was never around and concealed his lifestyle from his family. Le edgy Neechee and Camus existentialism has nothing to do with it

>>8590422
He isn't...the story collapses under that interpretation into incoherence

>>8591366
AJ going through his Camus phase is /lit/

>>8590474
>Heloise and Abelard
>Death In Benice
>The Second Coming
>Sartre
>Memoirs of a Geisha
>Edgar Allen Poe paper
>Wordsworth lecture
>>Howard Zinns History
>Lord of the Flies report

It was pretty lit. That's not mentioning all the shit Carmella was seen reading in bed.

>>8590475
He was a sailor.
Most sailors are fags.

>>8590623
>>8590634
stick to breaking bad and game of thrones honestly. the sopranos and mad men are the pinnacle of television

>>8591489
I like how you think there's a huge difference between the bad shows you mention first and the bad shows you mention last.

>>8591493
you have a pea brain

>>8591489
Sopranos, Mad Men, Deadwood, Twin Peaks

>>8591493
kek you have zero credibility to anyone who's seen them. stop trying.

>>8591493
I don't think Mad Men or Sopranos reaches a level that a good book or film does but they certainly stand apart from shit like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, which for their life depend on nothing but what-happens-next propulsion on a scene by scene episode by episode almost second by second basis.

>>8591509
Yep, my pea brain just can't grasp premium cable.

>>8591522
oh i see. you're one of those pretentious cunts that dismiss all of television and feel superior because you only read. you can fuck right off

>>8591489
nothing personnel, kid, but The Sopranos and Mad Men are my two favorite shows and even I don't consider them to have a shred of real artistic credibility

>>8591551
>The Sopranos and Mad Men are my two favorite shows and even I don't consider them to have a shred of real artistic credibility
you are a sad person. grow up

>>8591532
No, I watch plenty of TV, mainly sitcom reruns. What I don't watch is pretentious dramas written by failed Great American Novelists who toss in allusions to books they were assigned in college so they can feel like they're involved with something high-brow like they always imagined. Either watch TV for the yuks or read great books. I don't have time for the pseudoserious middle-ground.

>>8591563
the fact that you're comparing the two mediums is fucking laughable. do you also dismiss shakespeare's plays as "pretentious drama"

>>8591563
>No, I watch plenty of TV, mainly sitcom reruns

yikes

judging by your posts ITT you missed the point of the "great books" you've supposedly read, just like you missed the point of the sopranos

you should read more, and read for understanding

>>8591562
>b-b-but they make me feel like I'm smart for watching them because I'm not a Game of Thrones normie

I don't think it's me who's the sad person here

>>8591574
>muh Shakespeare
there should be some kind of Godwin's Law equivalent for this idiocy

>there are people who unironically believe boobtube programming is edifying

swine.

>>8591582
you're dismissing an entire artistic medium. if you're going to say screenwriting and by proxy television dramas have no artistic merit then you have to dismiss classical plays as well. which i don't think you're willing to do

>>8591588
do you have an argument against what i said or no

>>8591580
desu the dude just seems like he's being honest, not posturing and putting on airs for an anonymous message board in order to convince himself that he's an intellectual. I also watch a lot of reruns of Seinfeld and It's always sunny because I'm not so insecure that I can't admit to watching some comfy shit every now and then

>>8591598
I wasn't the original guy you were replying to, I just hate it when people do that Shakespeare namedrop when having a discussion about art, it's a braindead kneejerk that needs to stop. Carry on with your faggy conversation with that other guy, I don't care about it

>>8591574
You're seriously comparing William Shakespeare with Brian K. Reitman, flannel-shirt-wearer who went to Princeton and wanted to be a novelist but couldn't hack it and so turned to "serious" TV?

>>8591610
im using shakespeare as an example for the medium. insert any classical drama writer if you want. the fact remains that its illogical to cherry pick certain elements of a medium while dismissing the rest

>>8591598
television is an advertising platform not an artistic medium you rube

>>8591598
>if you're going to say screenwriting and by proxy television dramas have no artistic merit then you have to dismiss classical plays as well. which i don't think you're willing to do

No I don't. Television is run by a few major networks that decide what gets put on the air based on how many people they believe will watch it, it is sheer capitalist populism that doesn't care whatsoever about quality. A play however needs a much smaller audience to be successful and is written by one person with artistic vision and without studio interference. They are entirely different

>>8591621
i watched entire television series without watching 1 ad. you're doing something wrong

>>8591610
The mad men and sopranos dudes are both older career tv writers not whatever you're talking about

>>8591625
a script is written. actors act out said script.

literally the same you fucking cunt

>>8591627
>what is product placement

you are like a little baby

>>8591601
enjoying seinfeld and always sunny is categorically different from shitting on the sopranos for being literary while signaling that you only watch sitcom reruns and only read great books. that is posturing par excellence

if he just simply didn't like the sopranos that's perfectly fine, but it seems like there's something else going on here

I've noticed that there is a resentment among consumers of lower-order television, for example breaking bad or game of thrones, who have a personal vendetta against things like the sopranos because it's above their level of appreciation. imagine if someone complained about the decalogue or berlin alexanderplatz being "too literary" while at the same time bragging about reading "great books" but consuming only sitcom reruns. asinine.

>>8591580
Yeah, you know, I never realized it, but you're right, the point all great writers have been driving at all these centuries is that premium cable is fucking epic!

>>8591637
what would you rather have literally every single item on a set be some generic nameless brand? if you're worried about being influenced by a fucking orange juice brand you're a very weak minded individual

>>8591627
you don't get it. The content on television is secondary to the revenue generated by the Nielsen ratings and ad placement. There's a reason webseries' aren't nearly as prevalentor as well-funded as network shows

>>8591648
You're the worst in an awful thread. Please stop

>>8591634
Um, no. A script is written. executives come in. Shit on script, force rewrites, insert content. Impose time constraints. Make investors happy. Material is bastardized. That is television you naive fuckin fool

>>8591625
and literature as a medium started out being sneered at by the intelligentsia because in its formative period it was pulp trash. if you had your way there would have never been a goethe or a shakespeare

>>8591640
you're an idiot, leave /lit/ and the board will be better for it

>>8591639
Hey, I'm not pooping on The Sopranos for "being literary." It's not literary. It wants to be taken seriously, but doesn't deserve to be. That's the definition of "pretentious." The sitcoms I watch are funny and unpretentious. They're a pleasure to watch. The Sopranos, grating. Hope this clears things up.

>>8591656
if you don't think that shit happens for plays you're fucking deluded kid

>>8591667
what "great books" that you've read deserve to be taken seriously, and why do you take them seriously?

>>8591644
my time is too valuable to be trifled away staring at the idiot box in the first place.

but do go on defending your precious boobtube i'm quite certain i'm not the only person on this board who finds your prattling amusing

>>8591639
lol man oh man could you be more pretentious. The Sopranos is not high art, it is barely more than entertainment. It's also my favorite thing that's ever come on tv, but I don't feel the need to place it into an upper eschelon and manufacture a separation from 'lower' tv like Game of Thrones or whatever the fuck. It's a better show, of course, but you seem to have a certain opinion of yourself as a consumer for watching one network show over another, which is *precisely* how that show has been marketed, to sucker fools like you into thinking they're smarter than everyone else for watching it.

I've got news for ya dude. My shitty cousin loves Sopranos and he's one of those wannabe gangster faggots who loves scarface and DMX

>>8590749
Why are you so upset? It was a cliched idea that made for an obvious and lazy scene that failed to say anything insightful, evocative, or original. Juxtaposing middle class cultural touchstones with low black culture has been played the fuck out for several decades now. It's about time to think of something creative. Mining for progressive pity points can only prop up mediocrity for so long.
>that incredibly awkward insertion of the phrase "visual semiotics"
Oh, you're a posturing pseud. No wonder you're so easily impressed

File: 180px-Dane2.jpg (8KB, 180x171px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 180x171px

>>8591681
>idiot box

I'm saying The Sopranos is as literary as Final Fantasy 7. No, that's not bait. I don't play bloated pretentious video games that waste your time with hour-long self-serious cutscenes, and I don't watch bloated self-serious cable shows about the mob that insult my intelligence by begging me to take it seriously. When I want art, I go to real art, and when I want trash, I go to good trash.

>>8591652
>can't refute argument, must insult. There, now I feel better

>>8591689
>>>/r/tvshows

>>8591610
Leave the flannel-shirts out of this

File: 1405907309918.jpg (217KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x800px

>>8591690
>real art

Take this reaction image, you deserve it.

File: ken and pete 2.png (1MB, 1203x705px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1203x705px

>>8591690
>When I want art, I go to real art, and when I want trash, I go to good trash.


i bet you aren't even 1 standard deviation above the average IQ. stop talking

>>8591684
This is factual

HBO is sellin' something and it ain't soap y'all

>>8591648
>Nielsen ratings are relevant to a show's quality

stop posting

>>8591668
Are you trying to tell me there is an invisible theater illuminati that forced Stephen Sondheim and Henrik Ibsen to rewrite their plays to satisfy some non-existent play-investors? Are you seriously saying this? Are you actually this *fucking* moronic?

God damnit, I wish there was a better screening process to stop chromosome-deficient people from trickling in here from /mu/ and /v/

>>8591684
>>8591680

>>8591698
Enjoy your watercooler discussions.

>>8591717
enjoy your bookclubs lmfao!

>>8591366
Huh. Maybe you did get it after all. You didn't like that? He was a stupid whiny cunt who misunderstood these people who are dangerous when misunderstood.

>>8591723
#plebnproud

>>8591686
visual semiotics was literally the most concise way of saying 'the imagism expressed via shot composition in a visual medium,' the fact that you think it is awkward or pretentious is only revealing that you aren't exposed to many words more than 3 syllables throughout your day. Even more telling is the fact that you feel that every single piece of art needs to express something entirely new and mutually exclusive to every work of art that preceded it. That is simply a moronic and historically naive way of thinking. Every post you write makes me care less about what you're saying, because it's obvious that you have the insight of a middle-schooler. Your little 4chan buzzwords don't do much to help your case either

>>8591723
I'm not for book clubs, but I don't see anything wrong with them. Please go back to your containment board.

>>8591712
I've read a great deal of books both within and outside of the western canon, but I don't feel that any of them necessarily 'deserve' to be taken seriously or even be part of a canon, at all. I read them because I enjoy reading and I get things out of them that make me feel feelings about things and such. I don't use them as badges to show everyone how intelligent I am, nor do I feel like I am experiencing comparitavely 'high art', if that is even a term with meaning. All I'm doing in this thread is calling out pretentious twats who feel they are somehow superior to others for choosing to watch The Sopranos over some shit like Game of Thrones or Lost or Daredevil or whatever show people here want to hold in low esteem

>>8591712
still waiting

>>8591489
Neither of those shows is Deadwood. Anon... Sigh.

Deadwood = most /lit/ show that lasted for multiple seasons (Dekalog is most /lit/ single season of TV)

>>8591751
so you're just an idiot who doesn't read for understanding. you don't read who you reply to and you don't proofread your own posts before hitting the post button, glad we cleared this up

>>8591753
>Anon... Sigh.

behold the teevee fan

>>8591752
>>8591751

>>8591762
To read does not require the exclusion of watching.

>>8591708
Sondheim is a very poor example. Broadway is exactly like cable TV. Ibsen not so much.

>>8591753
Milch is based. Got to write textbooks with Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brooks at Yale

>>8591751
>this entire post

Behold, the average /lit/izen. Passes his eyeballs across a page without comprehending. Rages against that which he does not understand.

>>8591765
watching television does require the exclusion of a brain

>>>/tv/75067537
>>>/tv/75067537
>>>/tv/75067537
>>>/tv/75067537

>>8591761
one day you will appreciate how little it matters to anyone in the world why you do the things you do and read the things you read, and you'll stop feeling the need to be such a paragon of intelligence and understanding. But if it reduces cognitive dissonance for you for now to consider yourself a learned guy in order to compensate for your lack of success in your social life, then by all means continue, I've stopped needing to prove myself to strangers on the internet

>implying that whenever The Sopranos namedrops a work of literature it's not making fun of the "intellectual" character that's doing the namedropping

it's painfully obvious that the show is painting these characters and bumbling clowns

>>8591776
Haha.

In order to feel things from literature, you have to comprehend them. Don't be so deliberately dense. Just because I read for personal fulfillment doesn't mean I just like to read pulp bullshit all day. It just means that I read what I want and don't try to convince anonymous strangers I'll never meet that I'm smarter than the average bear

>>8591780
you're projecting all over the thread, warn us next time before you hurt somebody

sopranos is patrish though i don't know what everyone's problem is

contrarians

>>8591781
yes, because it's quite a common mistake to assume Paulie Walnuts and AJ Soprano are intellectual characters, we need to understand this secret nugget of wisdom that the Sopranos is *wink* making fun of them. Because it's not at all obvious

>>8591795
lol i know rite omg xD

>>8591791
What does that even mean? Does it mean that you think you won some argument? Ok then.

>>8591798
aj was going through the typical teenage angst phase. reading the stranger and saying "god is dead" "its all a big nothing" is definitely laughable

>>8591798
He was replying to people in the thread that clearly didn't know...

Take a few breaths man

File: 5fnv4bl6.jpg (96KB, 572x668px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 572x668px

>>8591821

>>8591821
but it is obvious

>>8590559
I thought D'angelo's analysis of the Great Gatsby was interesting because it was nearly the same thing that happened to Stringer.

The Wire incorporated some direct lit namedrops, such as to Dickens and Kafka, but it showed homage in other ways. Some of the scenes are pretty much right out of Shakespeare, like the scene with Avon and Stringer on the balcony in season 3.

Mad Men hardly used the literary references in any way other than to help establish the time period.

>>8591656
Not if you Samuel Beckett