Literature should be experienced firstmost, understanding is

Because you say so.

>>9185100
Because I know so child.

Nice false dichotomy. Understanding is a part of the experience.

>>9185221
you are trapped

I agree, Art is an expression of the Unknown and therefore understanding it on an analytic level is 1. impossible and 2. unimportant

>>9185096
What is secondary then?

>>9185260
it's understood on a numinous level

You cannot experience a book you do not understand.

Swimming in water does not quench thirst.

>>9185377
>You cannot experience a book you do not understand.

Demonstrably false.

>>9185386
Please demonstrate.

>>9185392
you can do it yourself the next time you read something

File: 1484265278033.jpg (31KB, 454x324px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 454x324px

>>9185399

>>9185411
you could always leave this place

>>9185377
*hits you with book on quantum thermodynamics

File: Theyll_Have_Your_Name_In_Hate_by_sstolo.jpg (101KB, 900x800px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 900x800px

>>9185096
>I can't write a cohesive narrative
Okay.

>>9185260
Speaking as an artist, I must correct you here. It is neither "impossible" nor "unimportant"
By calling a piece understandable you wish to degrade it, but I don't care. And if you prefer a piece to mean or even illicit absolutely nothing in the observer, you simply have poor taste.

Pomo af thread

>>9185428
>understandable

One is going to square things up, regardful and regardless, by developing what may in fact be good arguments to back up certain assumptions. As an artist, I would imagine what others say of this or that work is of interest, even if light years away from 'intentionality' --if both parties in such an exchange recognized this process as arbitrary, the work in question would not degrade, but be central to the growth of knowledge. This never happens, of course, or rarely. It would be wisdom.