There is no interpretation more important or more correct than

>>9417374
But if the text doesn't tally with the author's stated intentions, what then?

>>9417374
How do you know what the author intended?

>>9417378

The words are the tally marks. And if you THINK they are saying something else that they do not use specific literary devices to convey, then you're a fraud like the United States education system, and millennial's and their made up problems.

>>9417394

Because I read the book and actually paid attention instead of projecting my own bias on it and complaining about it for fifteen fucking minutes in lecture.

Any conjecture passed the actual words on the page is false, and deserves to be crushed out of society along with the people who are conjecturing.

Books should have a separate section where the author explains their intention in writing it. This would be especially useful for poetry.

>>9417395
More that they are bad writers for failing to get their point across

ITT: Brainlets

>>9417397
>Because I read the book
You realise you're actually saying that the meaning resides in the text and not in the author's intentions, right? You're contradicting yourself.

>>9417398
That worked well for Eliot's notes to The Waste Land. So well that Eliot regretted the colossal clusterfuck he caused by including them.

>>9417402

Their not failing to get their point across. They wrote precisely as they intended. It's the readers fault for not picking up on it.

Wimp wormp wimp wormp blagga blagga blim blam.

Give me the correct, authorial interpretation of this sentence right now or you're a bad reader.

>>9417407
>You realise you're actually saying that the meaning resides in the text and not in the author's intentions, right? You're contradicting yourself.


Wrong, retard.

The authors intentions ARE the text. For fucks sake, are you this stupid? If so, do you have to try or is it a natural gift?

>>9417428
The author is expressing his sorrow and disappointment at this thread. Quite poignant, really.

>>9417429
What if he made a typo?

>Bien connaître l’amour il faut sortir de soi ("to know love it is necessary to get out of oneself")
>Bien connaître l’amour il faut sortir de soir ("to know love it is necessary to go out in the evening")

>>9417429
Loving your circular logic. I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you're actually arguing in favor of literary critique all along.

>>9417435
Close, but I was actually complaining about how my black neighbors kept me up all night with their screaming.

File: 1470000002622.jpg (64KB, 650x611px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 650x611px

>>9417374
If originalism were widely accepted then thousands of useless professors would lose their jobs.

>>9417374
I would hate to be in a literature course with you. I'm willing to bet your real course hates you too.

If you wanted to, you could have gone and read some Barthes and tried to understand the value of the ideas you're moaning about. Instead you're here, insipidly throwing your cerebral faeces against the wall like the stupid fucking pseud you are.

Are you honestly so thick you can't think of even one reason why looking beyond authorial intent would be a good thing? Not one? Either you're an brain-dead hack who has no idea how to think critically about concepts, or you're the intellectual companion of an inanimate object.

You're a fucking pseud, off yourself.

>>9417461

The only psued's are those who think they can grab random ideas out of the air and attribute them to an author, you fucking hack.

>>9417438
I'll circle around you and punch you in the fucking face from 360 degress, rank cunt. I"m obviously not in favor of literary THEOLOGY aka make up bullshit just cuz.

>>9417428

Obviously the conjugation of a made up language of two different words.

Probably from some reddit tier YA or SCI-FI.

>>9417374
This is true, though the greatest art is made with the least intentions and with the greatest clarity.

>>9417428
Something is being eaten

>>9417678
What if the author isn't trying to SAY anything, but rather give a clear eyed view of a human experience? What if he presents more questions than answers?
Like
>>9417686

>>9417397
>Any conjecture passed the actual words
>passed
Illiterate, go home

>>9417374
t. undergrad who's never read any literary theory

>>9417461
>If you wanted to, you could have gone and read some Barthes and tried to understand the value of the ideas you're moaning about.
This.

>>9417678
>The only psued's are those who think they can grab random ideas out of the air and attribute them to an author, you fucking hack.
Nobody is "attributing them to the author". You are using the "author's intent" as a way to control and delimit acceptable readings of a text. Just stop.

>>9417397
You're exaggerating a bit. If what you say seems to you as true, it would be of everyone's best interest to simply separate interpretive lit from direct lit.

>>9417374
Aaaaah can you just go away. You're an idiot and your opinion is an idiot

>>9417374
Give up lit for the medium far superior, aka music

>>9417374
AUTHORS DONT STATE THEIR INTENTIONS
THE AUTHOR OF GILGAMESH NEVER STATED HIS INTENTIONS
THEREFORE ANY INTERPRETATION OF GILGAMESH MUST BE DERIVED FROM TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION
THE AUTHOR AS A PERSON IS A TANGENTIAL ELEMENT TO THE TEXT ITSELF
ANY CLAIM MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT
HOW IS THIS NEW TO YOU?

>>9417374
I usually indentify a theme or a certain dimension and it's attributes from a text, and then view it with irony, flip the precieved meaning and then arrange it arbitrarily. I believe this to be as accurate as any other system of critique, and it sure does entertain me.

>>9417746
Sometimes authors do state their intentions

>>9417374

So you're looking for some form of literary materialism where only rational interpretation subsists to focus on pure meaning. That would work in scientific approaches, but emotion also plays part in esthetic and art. The writer carries meaning but doesn't inherently give meaning because that's on the readers end.

>>9417374

superior gradfag here

ultimately i think most of the fault lies in the instructional/educational structure of how a textual engagement takes place in a modern classroom in comparison to one fifty years ago. in a classical old-timey college the only lesson by way of lecture to be learned stayed closer to authorial intent i.e. what ever social commentary or passive aggressive opinion the author is trying to get off their chest and this was considered gospel. a more modern classroom moves away from that classical approach and is considered more elitist so now the fad is to try and take a piece of literature and cubby hole it into the present by way of allowing students to manipulate it and in a lot of ways pervert it to fit their shallow pleeb point of view. im sure in another fifty years the style will swing back but until then shut the fuck up and deal with it like everyone else.

>>9417374
>There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions.
I see your course hasn't covered Modernism yet. Or maybe you just weren't paying attention.

Literature can (and should) be a true art form, like music or painting, with which the observer interacts and draws their own conclusions.

Add Ulysses to your reading list and STFU. You're a student, not a teacher.

>>9417374
Your gross inability to spell ITT somehow makes me doubt you're a writer, or read much at all.

>>9417398
>Books should have a separate section where the author explains their intention in writing it. This would be especially useful for poetry.
Then why even write the book when you can convey what you want to say in a small text alongside?

>>9417461
>Either you're an brain-dead hack who has no idea how to think critically about concepts, or you're the intellectual companion of an inanimate object.
kek

>>9417407
>>9419493
>falling for it this hard

>>9417461

As if you could even get into Uni you incest fuck.

>>9417746
The intentions are the words in the story, dumb fuck.

>>9419538
You know how tricky that is then? There can be a fuckton of different interpretations, all based on and consistent with one text. Kafka's The Trial can be interpreted as a story about isolation and misunderstanding or a totalitarian regime or an expression of Kafka's problems with the authority or even a Christian parable. What was Kafka's intention? Considering his dislike of explaining his own writing, he'd probably be okay with all of them.
You might be pissed at the people who truly just project their own ideas onto a work and I agree that that is a bad habit, but the whole picture is more complicated, even if you just analyze the text you can come to different conclusions and interpretations.

>>9419619

IT'S NOT TRICKY AT ALL

THEY PUBLISH THE FUCKING SHIT

IT'S RIGHT GODDAMN THERE AS YOU READ.

>>9419626
So you're saying that when Kafka describes a man who turned into a bug that is literally everything? The man just turned into a bug? There's no meaning or message whatsoever behind the words "he found himself turned into a bug"?

>>9419626
THAT'S WHY NOBODY IN ACADEMIA IS EVER JUST MAKING THINGS UP
EVERY CLAIM MUST HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT TO BACK IT UP
SUSSING OUT THE AUTHOR'S "INTENTIONS" IS BESIDE THE POINT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS THERE IN THE TEXT

>>9417449
I don't get the point of this. Why would the author need to color-code his story to tell you what's going on? Shouldn't it suffice to show you that the character is depressed through his actions/dialogue?

>>9419751
the example in the pic is stupid and reductive, but using imagery to evoke moods and ideas is a basic literary device that you can find examples of in 3000 year old chinese poetry. It has existed for as long as literature has existed. The people that complain about this are the people who read absolutely no literature.

>>9419626
This makes no sense. It seems as if you're saying there's one objective meaning to every text since the author's intention is behind every word and only you can decipher this intention and no one else's interpretation is valid.

We're all confused. We're all half-chuckling and half-pitying you, anon. I've called over my entire family and several of my friends to read your posts and they're all shaking their heads in similar confusion and puzzlement.

What made you like this, anon? Who hurt you? Are you confused? Have you been drinking again? How old are you? Is it your bedtime yet? Are you allowed to be on this board? and so on.

We're all worried about you, anon. It's time to relax.

Reading a text is a personal exchange between the author a reader.

Some writers communicate more clearly to some readers.

Some readers are more impacted by some literary cues than others.

The are bad authors, and there are people who have no business pretending they can understand what they read.

>>9417426
>there is no such thing as a bad writer with good ideas
You, sir, are a fucking moron.

File: 1491097371939.jpg (136KB, 742x647px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 742x647px

>>9419955
kek

>>9417374
Personally, in my opinion, I thin you're wrong.

Anon, you are a right, and your quest is holy, but you lack the vocabulary the properly demonstrate your viewpoint. Read more, and starting with the people you hate the most.

I would heavily recommend you to read 'The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida' by Sean Burke.

>>9420061

right*

>>9419619
ok, but if Kafka say that he want to talk about her depression in this story,( for example). he is the supreme authoritative figure in the text or you still talking about the infinite perspectives?

>>9417757
t. Derrida

>>9417374
I feel you.
Deconstructionism is cancer upon a once great liberal arts education system.

>>9420370
Yes, instead of teaching people how to think creatively we should just teach them to passively accept one person's idea like a braindead retard.

>>9420381

There is more than one book.

You fucking millennial cunts and your narcissism. You honestly fucking think you have a right to say that Faulkner was wrong in what he was saying in his books.

>>9420390
Yes, I do think anyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, true. That's pretty much why I like this website.

File: IMG_0054.jpg (51KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x379px

>>9417449
This is the point. A little reading between the lines is fine, but modern college education takes 'the curtains were blue' and writes a 20 pages MOP on it, btw, no one reads MOPs, but other people planning to write thier own MOP on the subject. It's a huge fucking circle jerk. Intellectual wankfests are the worst.
>>9419477
Modern art is bad and you should feel bad.
If you have to explain the meaning behind your art piece it's bad. I think the public is finally waking up from thier brainwashing of being told what to like. The major art museum in my city, people spend hours in the europen floors and walk through the 'modern' floor in 10 mintues, and the museum has some super famous 'modern' art peaces

>>9420381
>think creatively
How does making up wrong interpretations of a book encourage creative thinking? You didn't learn anything about the Great book author , you only learned about the average teachers brain. You go to learn about great writing not the teachers writings

This is the problem

>make the theme blatant so idiots can get it
>make the theme obscure so only 1/5th of your readers get it and people need to use sparknotes to understand what the fuck you're talking about


no middle ground

File: IMG_0055.jpg (25KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 236x236px

2deep4u

File: IMG_0056.jpg (29KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x360px

>>9417428
You are a bad writer and not worth interpreting
Simple
3deep5me

>>9417374
>everyone is stupid except me

You must be 18 to post on this site.

>>9420418

>if everyone does it then it's smart

You setting a very low bar for those on the really wavy lengths of the autistic spectrum.

>>9420418
You are the one that sounds underage. Have you ever had to hear a lecture go on for 20 minutes about one page in a 100+ page book?, and you realize they just made something up, and you realize no one would ever objectively independently come to the same interpretation ever again? Not op btw

>>9420406
It's not about the teachers interpretation, it's about YOUR interpretation.

>>9420428
I don't follow. What about that?

>>9420431
But can't your interpretation be incorrect?

>>9420428
For pointing out OP's infantile rant? Your interpretation is brilliant, m8.

File: IMG_0057.gif (20KB, 589x205px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 589x205px

>>9420431

File: IMG_0058.jpg (130KB, 590x377px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 590x377px

>everyone itt thread disagreeing with op gets btfo with a comic strip

>>9420440
Yes, of course. Then comes the discussion. Otherwise what we actually do here on this site? (apart from shitpost, of course). One interpretation is pretty fucking boring if you ask me.

>>9420448
But there's only one *correct* interpretation?

File: IMG_0060.gif (121KB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 2000x2500px

I really want to turn in a easy about dick and Jane and gender

>>9420451
There are zero correct interpretations.

>>9420459
Then why can I understand what you just wrote?

>>9420461
You can create your closest approximation based on the evidence you have, but it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not you are correct.

File: IMG_0037.gif (2MB, 500x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x800px

>>9420461
I love you.
That fag got blow the fuck out hard

>>9420447
Not really, that kid is a douchebag.

>>9420451
Ask yourself why you would want that to be the case. I mean, it's like if you piss someone off you can't just tell that person their anger is not there. You'd be arguing against reality, that's insanity. Same as interpretations, ideas. You can say, "well the author didn't intend that," but unless you can offer their intention or your own, pretty boring conversation. If you can offer (what you think) was their intention, them it's still pretty interesting until you're done talking. Then you might as well say what it means to you etc.

I mean, if you're sick of people talking about what they think of the books they read at a literature class, how about you go study history or go the fuck home.

>>9420461
>>9420473
Pathetic. You're equating your own shitty 4chan sentence to a work or literature? No wonder you feel intimidated by other opinions...

File: IMG_0011.png (84KB, 586x398px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 586x398px

>>9420471
Fuck off you retarded deconstruct.
You people are like the Monty python augment skit where the other guy just game says whatever the other person says. You can do that with /anything/. It's a complete demorailism strategy and is complete cancer to building useful thoughts.
God dam I hate deconstructists so much.

>>9420486
>You can do that with /anything/
Yes. Recognizing this makes every idea more useful, not less.

>>9420486
>can't handle uncertainty
Just go back to the bible and take it all literally, redneck

File: IMG_0061.png (536KB, 600x560px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 600x560px

>>9420485
>No wonder you feel intimidated by other opinions...
Literally the 2deep4you aurgument

>>9420151
There are still other legitimate perspectives, in my opinion.

File: IMG_0062.jpg (335KB, 615x461px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 615x461px

>>9420491
Just because you Gamesay something doesn't make it useful, making everything mean less is a cancer upon this world.
>>9420494
Strawman, go back to logic 101
You are 100 years too early to win an aurgument with me

File: 1486186700990.jpg (64KB, 532x559px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 532x559px

>>9420494
Why the defensive hostility?

>>9420496
See? A nice, valid interpretation. Not what I had intended, though.

>>9420479
>that kid
>not knowing Calving and Hobbes
I honestly pity you

>>9417461
rekt

>>9420514
Way to ignore the main points of the post. Basically
>look, didn't say the name! *runs*

>>9419493

>A E S T H E T I C S

>>9420501
Not knowing nor being able to reach the objective truth makes everything mean more, as any idea might be closer to the truth than your own. When there is objective truth, everything means less, as any idea will either be correct or incorrect.

File: IMG_0063.jpg (72KB, 480x373px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 480x373px

>Deconstruction doesn't actually mean "demolition;" instead it means "breaking down"
>or analyzing something (especially the words in a work of fiction or nonfiction)
> to discover its true significance, which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended.
>which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended.
>never what the author intended
Deconstruction is intellectual cancer. Deal with it. op is right, the author's intentions is the only thing that matters.

>>9420531
That's what they want, a mummy and daddy to say flat out right or wrong. Anything else is scawy.

>>9417374

You should recommend everyone read "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doran(1972 revised).

File: IMG_0064.jpg (93KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 750x563px

>>9420531
No it doesn't, it makes everything meaningless, because you can counter ANY idea with 'but what if...."
>>9420537
Strawman. The author intentions matter

>>9420534
>omiting the "supposedly almost" which changes the meaning of the sentence so that it fits your ideology

You are intellectual cancer.

>>9420544
See? Black and white thinking. No one ever said author intentions don't matter at all.

Read >>9420479 with an open mind.

>>9420534
What you think your post means:
>Deconstruction is pseud nonsense because the author's intentions must take precedence over other considerations.

What your post actually means (deconstructed):
>I am a white cismale unaware of my oppressive conceptual of the world which privileges cisnormativity over other ways of being and meaning.

>>9420555
>*conception

>>9420555
Who gives a shit, though? The beauty of the your approach is someone else can DISAGREE. See?

File: IMG_0065.jpg (355KB, 1446x1080px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1446x1080px

>>9420555
I can't tell if your trips are being scartisic or if you are that unselfaware

>>9417374
OP is wrong, in part b/c the books that make it into literature courses only do so because of the public's interest and support. Obvi authors get shit wrong all the time, they are human.

Maybe people can just not like things you like an like things you don't

>>9420544
>but what if...
And you must consider the 'what if' because it might have a kernel that leads you closer to the truth. Even if it doesn't, it is still useful, as understanding what is false gives you a clearer vision of what is true. How does that not make every idea more valuable?

File: Prophetic.png (293KB, 1096x357px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1096x357px

>>9420555
>oppressive conceptual of the world which privileges cisnormativity over other ways of being and meaning.

>>9417374
Also this is funny because if you brought this theory to any lit professor they would probably laugh at u and tell you to chill, things don't have to be black and white

>>9420574
(((lit professors)))

File: IMG_0002.jpg (201KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x768px

my dad would do this stuff, it's complete thought cancer.
>did you know in 1856 the Russians did X because Y
>him: hurrdurr, what if the Russians did X. because of C
>The city should replace the water pipes because people are getting sick
>him: hurrdurr but what if c
It's a complete abuse of the socratic method that drains ALL meaning and value from the world and is a thin veil of Nilisism, if every idea is equally valid, every idea is equally meaningless. This shit is EXZACTLY why people don't take academia seriously, which really hurts everyone.

File: images (47).jpg (19KB, 387x380px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 387x380px

>>9420578

>>9420581
>>>/9gag/

>>9420586
No, I think that's the place you go to write shitty greentext stories about your daddy issues.

so you're saying that all text is to be taken literally as if it were non-fiction and that's just the way it is and it's nothing more than that?

are you on the right board? maybe try /f/

File: 1381103700388.png (373KB, 974x1000px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 974x1000px

the actual correct /lit/ approach

File: IMG_0003.jpg (182KB, 720x768px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 720x768px

>>9420567
Hey, someone else posting Calvin and hobbies! Have a (you)

File: frog girl.jpg (81KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x500px

>>9420589
im a different anon

File: images (12).jpg (42KB, 413x356px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 413x356px

>>9420595
Who cares?

File: 1484265068306.png (794KB, 763x757px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 763x757px

>>9420597
ur mum

>>9417374
You are smarter than everyone in your literature courses.

Happy?

>>9420578
Every idea has the potential to be true =/= every idea is equally valid

It sounds like you don't like defending your position and just want everyone to take your word for it. Maybe you should become an English teacher.

File: IMG_0067.jpg (18KB, 516x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 516x260px

>>9420593
See
>>9420447
Sorry, but art isn't a private language for sofistices to congratulate themselves on their own superiority

File: IMG_0043.jpg (155KB, 1698x871px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1698x871px

>>9420606
>don't like defending your position
When the aurgument is just gamesaying "no it isn't' it's retarded.

File: IMG_0044.jpg (48KB, 640x446px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x446px

>>9420593
>impenetrable depth of meaning
>only experts can...
Intellectual wank fest. Kill yourself. You are a cancer on the enlightenment. No one cares about your commentary on the commentary that only other lit proseffers smelling thier own farts will ever read.

itt op and friends argue for enormous limits on lit bc they are afraid that maybe canonical writers aren't perfect

>>9420617
So we agree asserting there is a single correct interpretation is counterproductive?

>>9420627
>canonical writers aren't perfect
What does that even mean?

>>9420635
just make up whatever meaning you like

>>9420603
No she doesn't, anon. No she doesn't.

>>9417397
>Any conjecture passed the actual words on the page is false

This includes the intention of the author. The words on the page are just that. There is no way to reach the intention of the author through the words because the only way that intention can be verified is using the only evidence available -- the text itself.

You also assume that the author is in complete control of his intentions which is another false attitude. He is not in control of himself, his intentions, the language he uses, the context in which he writes, the audience.

Yes there is a problem with people assuming their interpretation is more important than the author's, which is a misunderstanding, ironically, of postmodern criticism. The solution is not to do a 180 and assume the author's intention is the greatest interpretation of a work.

Nice picture.

>>9417374
>There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions.
True, depending on what you mean. For example, when it comes to anything influential, the most historically important interpretations are often not correct. But if you mean important to the work itself, obviously the author's interpretation is what matters most.

>If you did not understand what they were saying, the fault is on the public, not the author.
It's both. People are responsible for their own bad readings, but it is also the author's responsibility to make himself understood. If you don't make your work completely idiot proof, you have to accept that it will be misunderstood.

File: IMG_0039.jpg (55KB, 600x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x720px

>>9420628
If you have to explain a work beyond historical context that contemporary readers would have known, the work is shit and 2deep4u bullshit.
The only interpertion that matters is the experience between the reader and author, if you have to explain that, it's another circle jerk. The very act of writing a interpretation for others to read is fartsmelling cancer. Nobody wants to read your interpretation, they want to read the work, and if the work is shit without your interpretation, it's shit.

>>9420635
canonical means, "(of an artist or work) belonging to the literary or artistic canon."

Suggesting that an author is wrong about their own text is to allow for a life of the text outside the author, which is where crazy shit can happen. That transcendence of the author requires experimentation, inevitable mistakes and self-misinterpretations.

>>9420522
I didn't care for the rest of the post, I was simply reacting to someone, apparently, not knowing Calvin. There was nothing else being represented in my post.

faggot

>>9420649
So what are you doing on lit? Just seriously go read a book.

>>9420649
I like reading interpretations, so I guess you're totally wrong. Sometimes disagreeing with someone is the best way to learn, that's a great reason to read interpretations.

>>9420652
Go suck Calvin's microdick you fuckturd.

>>9420653
Crictism had the place of suggesting good books to read. Crisitsm in the form of deconstruction is cancer

>>9420649
Writing at all is 2deep4u bullshit. Any sort of abstraction derived from reality is circle jerk bullshit.

>>9420660
>Crisitsm in the form of deconstruction is cancer

If your work can be invalidated by deconstruction it was shit to begin with. What does not kill you makes you stronger.

>>9420660
You obviously just don't read criticism outside your local failing papers book review section.

>>9420660
So I'll assume you've never participated in any thread except to make or receive direct book recommendations? Because otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite shitbag just pissing in the wind to kill the time in your meaningless life.

File: IMG_0070.gif (120KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x346px

>>9420657
>implying you didn't shick to Calvin

>>9420657
^_^

it's Monday and I have stuff to do. you can keep on having fun on the internet without me

>>9420662
What are you doing here?
I fucking hate nihilisist

What if we don't know the author's intention? Are we supposed to just ignore those works? I don't want to abandon Shakespeare.

>>9420674
Nihilism is consciously subsuming reality into abstractions and assigning value based on what else has been subsumed, then trying to make other people think the same way as you. I am not a nihilist.

File: IMG_0024.jpg (47KB, 749x512px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 749x512px

>>9420678
protip: Shakespeare was enjoyable to plebs without extra contextual interpretations, the only reason it is "hard" today is because the language has changed so much, not because it was 2deep4u

>>9420679

I don't see any point in trying to convince people that existence is meaningless.

>>9420496
>>9417374
Note that Evangelion is particular example of why belief that author is always smarter than you is false.

Hideaki Ano confirmed numerous times that there is no deeper meaning behind all the symbolism and NGE was styled as it was because he thought it would be cool to throw in christian symbolics into a plot pot, since for him it was just the same kind of mythology as Greek/Roman mythology is for europeans.

>>9420626
t. upset brainlet

>>9417395
You're complaining about nothing, this is already the standard in academia. What do you think, that people just make shit up on essays and those essay just get published? You have to justify every single one of your statement through both literary source (from the original source) and, if possible, biographical and historical ones.

This is literally the standard' and it has been for thousands of years: this is how detatched you are from any sort of literary discourse. Let me guess, you hate neo-marxist postmodernists who think that there is no real truth?

>>9417437
This is ungrammatical.

File: 1492857297669.png (1MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1080px

>>9417374
Welcome to academia, where every single piece of work, regardless of its era, intent, context, or content, can be obfuscated into a piece on feminism, racial inequity, and whatever other abortive tripe your esteemed peers have been taught to regurgitate.

>>9421330
Another clueless NEET who wasn't smart enough to get into academia takes poor shots at it from an anonymous Taiwanese imageboard.

>>9421335
I understand your post relies on its ad hominem to discredit my own in place of an argument, but I am afraid you're factually inaccurate. I am a full time student currently, I know of what I speak.

File: i_kekd_3.jpg (100KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x427px

>>9420400
>mfw I never actually mentioned modern art, just Modernism and art.

Cool story, bro.

>>9417374
asfasehkjhk euhuhk slsllslsl 3iuiui mark Finns bluemming

Why are people itt adamantly arguing for such a limited scope of art and literature as authorial intent.

>>9421342
Fucking undergrads

>>9417374
>There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions.
True, unless the author is a hack and a popular interpretation is actually better than the original intention.

>If you did not understand what they were saying, the fault is on the public, not the author.
Being unable to convey a message properly is very much the fault of the author. If the entire literary public can't understand him then the author is a hack.

>Personal interpretation is just that, personal, and is meant to stay personal. You do not get to define what a book says past the words on the pages.
True. Personal opinions are overrated in literary courses, probably because a lot of the people in that field are relativists.

>>9417374
While specified intention within a work is the primary importance, and should take precedence, the validity of the symbols that are referenced should not be thrown out. If I were to write a book based on my life experiences, and someone else took away from it that "if it ain't white, it ain't right", their claim, so long as supported with evidence within the book, isn't necessarily a false theme, it is just an unintended one.

History is filled with mistakes by people, mistakes in plans, in wars, unintended gestures that lead to outcomes, that within context, lead to lessons and wisdom. For example, Napoleonic Wars when Napoleon was invading Russia, the Russian armies retreated not because they intended to win the war of temperature, but because they were scared to fight the french army. Now, the lesson learned, though not intentional, was that the scorched earth policy of denying engagement for the sake of attrition resulted in a win for the russians. Was it "intended" at the outset?

No, but it did lead to a lesson that proved to be true.

This is not endorsing that all unintended lessons are to be referenced as true, but it shouldn't be ruled out that they might hold some merit, albeit unintentionally. At the end of the day, if the theme/lesson holds wisdom, then it is useful, which should be the purpose of literature, to show and explain lessons and wisdom.

p.s. fuck post-modernism and post-post-modernism, long live whatever the fuck I said.

I don't get why people are so antagonistic against the post-modern reading of text.

Is it the relativity that people don't like about it or what?

Even if your literature professor defines a text in a specific way, you could just remind him that the interpretations are infinite and watch his head explode.

>>9417374
>correct

File: 1449863849063.jpg (69KB, 764x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 764x720px

Can't you idiots look at this like you look at science? We assume there is some logical reality and make predictions which we then test. The testing part is harder in literature, I get it, but the principle remains the same. You can never know if you found the ultimate truth but you are always making more and more accurate predictions.
Now what is the ultimate truth? What the author intended might be valid but something else might be more useful to you. So it all depends on what your goal is.

>>9422805
You can't prove that there is an objective reality outside of your subjective perceptions. Therefore everything is subjective.

>>9422840
Really? Prove to me that everything is subjective then.

>>9422841
Objective reality is the claim which can't be proven. Subjectivity is just the only remaining option.

>>9422851
If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that you disproven it. Your logic is faulty. But you don't believe in logic, do you? After all everything is subjective.

>>9422863
You don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove the easter bunny doesn't exist.

>>9421330
Greentext some exemplary lectures pls.

>>9422877
Ever heard of the Gödel's incompleteness theorem? If you have a set of axioms, there are statements that are true but unprovable using that set of axioms. We're talking about the natural numbers here of course.
And then you reference the Easter bunny right after saying that you can't prove that an objective reality exists. What are you on, man?

>>9422907
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. The claim is that there is an objective reality. Or do you believe any claim that you can't disprove? I am your dead grandma's ghost by the way.

>>9417374
>There is no interpretation more important or more correct than the author's intentions.
What if they were wrong, and it shows a flaw in their way of thinking that somebody cracks open?

>>9422937
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. The claim is that there is only a subjective reality. Or do you believe any claim that you can't disprove?

Two can play this game. Doesn't get anywhere. The thing is your astonishing post-modern philosophy is as unprovable as the Bible. 2nd one brings best results (for example the Western World).
But you know this, you referenced the Easter bunny. You said the sentence that I repeated. Your "subjective reality" claim is just a theory, deal with it.

>>9422970
I am not claiming there is only a subjective reality. A 'subjective reality' isn't even a thing. I am just rejecting your claim that there is an objective reality and subjectivity is the only thing I can go with from there.

I know I exist, cogito ergo sum. I don't know anything else for sure, prove to me there is an objective reality. Prove to me the universe still exists if nobody is observing it. You are coming from a position that already accepted a proposition. I on the other hand am not buying it.

>>9423042
You do know everything you and I posted is still there, right? You can't just lie to me and assume I won't notice.

>We assume there is some logical reality [keyword: assume]
>everything is subjective.
>Really? Prove to me that everything is subjective then.
>I am not claiming there is only a subjective reality.

For fucks sake dude.

>>9423068
>We assume there is some logical reality
>An assumption

So it is just an opinion?

>>9423091
It's a statement of how science operates. I made the claim that it's useful to look the same way at literature critique, then you started going on about your own world views.

>>9423102
Why are you evading the question?

Is the basis of science, the claim that there is an objective reality, just an opinion? Something people choose to accept?

>>9423108
idk, read Popper
and probably yes

>>9417394

the AUTHOR, when you get down to it, probably doesn't even know what they intended half the fucking time.

A lot of what goes on in writing, or even life itself, is unconscious and done by reflex and feel rather than thinking out every single goddamn step of everything.

File: image.jpg (78KB, 659x525px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 659x525px

>>9417374
You're forgetting the fact that a ideal statement of the author's intention would still be something that would have to be interpreted, just like you had to interprete the original text.
Eventually you'll get new interpretations on the nuance lf the statements made by the author. At that point he could respond with a new statement and the same thing would happen again and again.

Bradbury telling uni students that Fahrenheit 451 was not about censorship (one of the most common examples in these discussion) does not mean that the ones who will follow that interpretation will end up experiencing the book exactly how Bradbury concieved it, instead they will just deviate from his idea another time, while using the frame suggested by Huxley.

>>9417374
reader response is the ultimate truth to literary interpretation

how can you know an author's true intentions in writing a piece for certain

plus, if a piece is never read it may as well not exist at all, reading, makes the writing, and the writing guides the reading

>>9423112
>probably yes
Which means the belief in an objective reality is just another subjective opinion. Therefore subjectivism. Or something like that.

I think that is the logic behind it at least, I was just playing devil's advocate for fun. Anti-positivism / Subjectivism is a one way ticket into intellectual self-destruction. I prefer a pragmatist approach to reality like you do.

>>9423226
No, it's not subjectivism. What you were arguing for is subjectivism, or post-modern relativism, it assumes a priori that you can't prove anything therefore objective reality doesn't exist and so on.
Assumption that subjective reality exists is as far away from subjectivism as you can get.

>>9423362
>Assumption that subjective reality exists

Assumption that objective reality exists

>>9423362
>No, it's not subjectivism. What you were arguing for is subjectivism
???

>it assumes a priori that you can't prove anything therefore objective reality doesn't exist and so on.
That's what I argued for as devil's advocate

>Assumption that subjective reality exists
I didn't argue for this, that was your strawman

>>9423409
Ugh...science dumb dumb

>>9420641
rekt, granted, but you should channel your intelligence into practical things, away from this board.

The author intention's can be precisely to have more than one reading to what he did/wrote.

Plato didn't kicked the poets from the Republic for nothing.

While the authorial intent of a work is usually the most valuable possible interpretation, room should be made to allow for accurately reasoned and well-evidenced secondary interpretations, especially in the case of works of which the context has been lost, or in cases where individual subjective experience is an intention of the work itself.

>>9424961
The Republic is a metaphor for how one ought to conduct their own being, not a social or political commentary work. As is stated explicitly in the text itself.

>>9423142
>reader response is the ultimate truth to literary interpretation
Only insofar as that interpretation is supported by evidence from the text itself and relevant context, and backed by sound logical reasoning with regards to the structure of the work. An interpretation is not valuable inherently.
>how can you know an author's true intentions in writing a piece for certain
Contemporary statements by the author or those deeply familiar with the work's formation, or careful understanding of relevant contextual information if the former does not exist. Obviously we can't get a perfect understanding 100% of the time, but we can make practical assertions to give one interpretation more credence than the alternatives.

>>9421224
postmodern literature is good, philosophy is garbage

File: utena33.jpg (67KB, 655x437px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 655x437px

>>9420834
>Hideaki Ano confirmed numerous times that there is no deeper meaning behind all the symbolism

He didn't. He states that he choose the name for no other reason than because it sounded cool. He did not remark on the other forms of symbolism he used. I say this as someone who hates Eva.

>tfw you read by feeling and dont care for the interpretation meme
>tfw you can tell what most stories are about by simply looking at the thing within its own context, but obviously whether the author intended this consciously or not is left to question

>>9423142
Agreed. Reading is an experience afterall, so the readers response to that is where the value of the book lies

>>9425147
That value is relative to the reader though. How someone else interprets say Of Mice and Men wont mean much to me unless I'm really interested in bouncing ideas of them

but at the same time, a book is only as good as you know how to read it.

How many times has history shat itself due to poor interpretation of religious texts?

>>9417461
lawl