>this fucking video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2do ZROwdte4

File: Selection_011.png (27KB, 115x165px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 115x165px

>sincerity
What a load of cucky bullshit

he is right desu

I saw that on reddit too. dum plebs

I kind of liked the video, but I only made it halfway through, the rest of it seemed to be about NBC shows.

>>8595361
Kill yourself

Nice video, too bad I'm too cynical to feel or care :|

>The Office
>Only showing American version
>Jon Stewart's successors understand "sincerity behind irony"
Into the garbage it goes.

Wallace didn't die for this.

I don't know anything about DFW, but I thought it was a pretty good video. Maybe I just dislike postmodernism

>>8595552
This. Also, how are those shows he discusses at the end less cynical than early Simpson's?

>>8595321
Quality video; though I definitely don't agree that post-Jon Stewart "political commentary" isn't taking a turn for the ironic.

>>8595321
Is Philosophical Investigation postmodern philosophy?
I don't think so.

>>8595321

>sincerity means optimism and kindness

What if I sincerely think that life- and the human creature that has evolved to navigate it- is fundamentally cruel?

>>8595321
I loved it. I don't fully agree with his examples, and the explanations of modernity, postmodernity and sincerity are superficial.
Still, it's gold for youtube standards.

“Gender” refers to the social roles that are believed to belong to
men and women within a particular social grouping; for example,
“men as breadwinners” or “women as child caregivers.” Gender roles
are created by a society and are learned from one generation to the
next as part of a society’s culture. Because it is a socially learned
perception (for instance, learned in the family or in school), anything
associated with gender can be changed or reversed to achieve
equality and equity for both men and women. In other words, we
can change the gender roles of “women as child caregivers” to
“women as breadwinners” and “men as breadwinners” to “men as
child caregivers".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSlfQ49Bq1s

>>8595360
>>8595402
>>8595542
>>8595796
>>8596608
>>8596720
hello good sirs! thanks for the gold!

>>8595361
>>8596756
I don't understand what this video has to do with Reddit

>>8595321
I agree with the premise, but jesus christ, community is a terrible example.

>>8596787
optimism and positivity is generally considered more leddit-related, cynicism and negative outlook is generally considered 4chan-related.

This post I'm making, which is just an explanation without sarcasm or an attack, is more suited for reddit, while anything with anykind of bite wouldn't be found there.

>>8595321
He goes more into detail in his essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction"

Pretty gud actually

>>8595321

I don't disagree with this desu

>>8596863
This is why people tend to shitpost. They have some knowledge of a specific subject that is being discussed, but in the end the idea that nothing else matrass overcomes their pathetic attempt to bring meaning to the world.

>>8595321
so is that what infinite jest is about? an attempt to lampoon post-modernism for the dreck that it is? or was he really just a shitty writer? gaddis seemed pretty damn sincere and lampoons the proto stagest of soulless intellectual peacocking, so wallace may have been outstripped in his idea before translating the sentiment through some shitty book that doesn't even manage to do, and instead becomes a symbol of what it's attempting to lampoon. i mean i agree with the guy, but shit, do a better job of ridding the workd of pynchonians, don't just appeal to them and reinforce their need for absolute dogshit emptiness that they can smack their lips to satisfied that they're on the interior of the jape.

man, that really fell apart, damn mobile phone, even the grammar is utter shit. you guys get what i mean though.

>>8596715
I'm not cruel. I l-like you, anon.

File: 1463793806792.png (257KB, 415x476px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 415x476px

>>8595321
>Sincerity

>>8595321
>criticises postmodernism
>writes postmodern novel

>>8597098
the video misinterprates the context of that quote to an insane degree.

Nevertheless I agree with the video more than with bandanaman

>>8595321
Great video, outlined a lot of what I've been thinking about the last few years. I used to be a misanthropic cynic but over the last few years have become the opposite. Now I'm afraid I'm just suggestible and was brainwashed by mushy television (having watched and loved a number of the mentioned shows, especially Louie and Rick and Morty).

File: hmmm.png (358KB, 445x477px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 445x477px

>with the deconstruction of everything you leave nothing positive
As if we need something positive.

>>8595321
While certainly isn't the most academic video on Postmodernism and Irony, its a decent cultural analysis. Most of the people on /lit/ have fallen for the reddit meme and think it's automatically retarded pseud content because it's popular on reddit.

I thought it was going to be this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqmIAbHXr0Y

>>8597103
But was Wallace thinking? That he would destroy postmodernism from inside? The novel plays typical postmodern games: big volume, a lot of erudite/polymath references that just continue the thought, rather than bring any difference or meaning, messed up chronology and a lot of narrators and heroes.
Why isn't it secondary to Joyce? Though we don't refer to works of his life as postmodern, he didn't do it much different. He has much better style, charisma, humour. He make ridiculous references like the one of some kind of obscure Irish folk song, for the sake of it, just to fuck with the reader, just because it is trendy. Ignore the references and schemes, says Nabokov, just enjoy the fine style, champions game of Joyce.
And what does Wallace have? A thesaurus, a bunch of things he thought he understand (basic calculus, pharmacology, he gives the formula of every drug mentioned in the book and tries to say something about its properties), while Joyce mocks his own ignorance in some areas (though Jim was much more erudite and had a much better education), like in the later chapters, where Bloom starts to think through some physical equations.
Wallace tries to be something he actually isn't, thus being actually insincere (you may know about his controversial behaviour if you read Wikipedia).
Themes Wallace touches are extremely anglo-focused and only appeal to contemporary people, he doesn't touch any sort of "eternal" problem.
I am actually trying to be extremely sincere with my may-be-shallow-understanding of literature so I honestly want to know what is the point? I'm 400 pages in.

>>8595321
>>8595321
UPVOTED!!!!

>>8597226
Joyce was a god though, Wallace not so much.

>>8597202
why does megan boyle make me so sad

>>8597258
That's exactly my point, Wallace isn't some sort of genius, quite the opposite, he is the spoilage in production of American liberal arts education. The guy with actually narrow experience, which he is trying to compensate with touching more and more subjects.

>>8597264
Because you could have a friend similar to her

>>8596863
Honestly I think all that irony is much more characteristic of Reddit than 4chan.

>>8597337
of course it is!

>>8597337
What did he mean by this?

>>8597337
holy... I want more!

Irony dates back to the Greece. In addendum, too little irony can cause anemia.

>>8597264

I'm starting to realize that I'm writing a character that is almost exactly like her. I need to know more about her.

I can't make it through her vlogs. They're like boiling hot water poured into my ears through a funnel.

I agree with the general idea, but Postmodernism wasn't ONLY cynical and ironic. Its more like poor examples of postmodernism only relied on cynicism, but there always have been more constructive and nuanced postmodern works. They're suggesting irony with sincerity didn't come about until the Office in 2006 and that's just a laughably ill-informed opinion.

>>8597264
because she's sadgurl