What's/lit/'s view on literary theory? I never see

Shh.. (Though your question has been answered already, I will confess a kind of veneration for Paul de Man's Blindness and Insight. But tell no one!) ...

Death of the author is retarded. You can come to your own conclusions on a text, but to utterly disregard the author's own commentary is just stupid

Barthes on photography is apt, I even think it contributes to why some are able to bury their noses in books and rarely take them out; that, and a curiosity for what remains of what's vanished. There's more, of course, but that would take us off topic. If you want clear Introductions to Deconstruction, semiotics, structuralism usw. in American English google Jonathan Culler and pick your books. They're reasonably short, and exceptionally helpful for the beginner.

>>9154804
it's fun

Stupid shit.

>>9157337
>edit- the central idea of B's book, i.e.

>>9154804
historicism or bust

>>9157342
And often downright funny-- I laughed all the way through Riffaterre's Semiotics and Poetry, for instance, and yet came away with the feeling that I had somehow managed to extract a useful something. And Baudrillard!

>>9154804

>mental gymastics are fun
>REEE eurocentrism
>cultural marxism is surely a good idea
>dig up and spit on every dead white man

there you go that's about all i got out of my shitty semester in a theory class

i should have stayed in STEM