To those who have studied or are studying literature at degree

"I like it"

File: harold-bloom_300x304.jpg (21KB, 300x304px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x304px

bardolatry

>>8951877
I see, how does that affect their treatment of texts that aren't Shakespeare's?

File: pynchon3-sized.jpg (21KB, 223x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 223x270px

>>8951635
>Criticism
Rude.

i seriously thought /lit/ would deliver on this one

anyone?

>>8952131
it's a slow board, not counting bait

>>8952145
ah well

modes of crit is really interersting to discuss

>>8951635
Who knows to be honest

I love the russian formalism, but i think the post-structuralism is inescapable.

>>8952256
I guess I'd be a hypocrit if I dont through myself into the ring.

I currently am using "practical criticism" aka "new criticism". I dont got to cambridge but I know they were one of the proponents of it. Not shure about what they use now.

I like practical crit but fear that it might not bring out the best critic in me. I don't have a lot of contextual knowledge and often find myself struggling with unseen text. Currently I'm trying to get to grips with deconstructionism and it's is such a struggle.

Any deconstructionaists here?

>>8952273
In escapable how?

Like its taken over the mode of lit theory discourse or that you hesitantly agree with it?

What do you love about russian formalism?

The thing I cant shake is that I very much agree with Derrida in that meaning is endlessly deferred, and find the activity of differance highly novel and interesting but I cannot apply it because it's hard.

>>8951635
libertarian or objectivist criticism

>>8952315
what texts have you applied either to and what did you find?

>>8952310

I feel that we, contemporary, have a 'structural' mind, as Barthes says. It's the way we think, infinitely creating and recreatings meanings. I think it's the way we overcome the Modern imaginary, the classical criticism, that puts the work and the author in a reciprocal relation (For example, the book is meant to be what the author intended).

What i love about the russian formalism is the authors. I really dig them, love the way they write and how they are accesible. Chchlovsky, specially. I also like way they see the literature as a science, avoiding unflexible conceptions (actually, they don't "call" themselves formalists, and the name isn't fair to the movement) and coming from the point that science is always in movement. I also dig their analysis and the way they look to the text, as a structure.

Sorry for any shit english :D