Things plebs say:

>I read for the plot

>>9804541
how about this: the author's intent is unknowable and the text is the text (and the text is all that really matters)

>>9804550
That's some Russian Formalism shit that you need to stay away from, anon.

>>9804550
name 1 example of this

>>9804541
Did you say religion?

>>9804555
Holy bible

>>9804559
damn...

>>9804541
belief in authorial intent is a good way to spot people who never made it past high school and mostly read genre fiction

Intent is interesting to know but once a work of art is out there it has to speak for itself.

>>9804550
>>9804564
>this

>>9804541
Obvious Pleb

>>9804564
This might be the dumbest thing I've read on this board

>>9804555
name one example of provably known authorial intent. where's your mind-reading device and does it work on dead people?

>>9804572
then you're a newfag and need to go away

>>9804572
high schooler detected

>>9804574
the koran

>>9804572
so not only do you believe in authorial intent, you are also bewildered that educated people don't? it's like you never even MET anyone who went to college

>>9804581
actually allah is shown to regularly deceive people in the quran (like when he fakes the crucifixion of christ) so even if the quran is revealed wisdom from allah it could still be trickery. intent uncertain.

>>9804541
>Things plebs say:

not even authors can know their intent as a singularity

>>9804564
>>9804571
>>9804574
>>9804575
>>9804576
>>9804583
So what the author says about their work is less important than what some rando says about it?

It's like if we were having a conversation, what I meant is more important than what you thought i meant. You would say "well I interpreted what you said as meaning this."
Books without intent are just Dada, high-school-tier pseud-bait, and people who think that what they take away from a book is more important than what the author intended are probably pseuds themselves

>>9804541
the reader's interpretation is even more worthless than authorial intent. literally neither matter. and before you whine that authorial intent matters, tell me why you read kafka despite his wishes otherwise? why read incomplete works? the art itself as an objective edifice is the thing in itself. it needs no interpretation or intent to exist.

>>9804609
you're being silly. what you say about a work can still be judged by how closely it fits the textual evidence. things like interviews with the author can also be treated as evidence, but of a secondary importance to the text itself. if you want to talk about critical theory you need to invest at least a bit of effort into learning what it entails because you're complaining about this imaginary internet myth in which death of the author means i can say the illiad is about pink elephants and you can't prove me wrong. that's not how it works.

>>9804654
I can see that, and I'm not saying that all interpretation is wrong, I only mean that authorial intent should be the first and final verdict on the meaning of a work

File: angry chandler.gif (594KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 420x315px

>If you don't like Marx, it means you don't understand him

>>9804670
>authorial intent should be the first and final verdict on the meaning of a work

wrong, the text is the final verdict

>>9804590
One of allah's 99 names he gave for himself was "Allah the Best Deceiver".

>>9804678
But the text wouldn't exist without the author, and every good author writes with purpose

>>9804541
>I dont care about the plot

>>9804559
Thats an antology you dipshit

>>9804684
neither of those things changes the text, outside of changes in language, the only thing that realy, truly tells you want the text is, is the text. If the author fails in his aim, the text can still provide a purpose.

>>9804564
>genre fiction
>any authorial intent
AI is getting dumber every day.

>>9804676
I like important philosophers I disagree with. You probably misunderstand his importance in philosophy.

>>9804541
You faggots, what you have to consider is not what the author tried to say nor what is "intrinsic within the text" but the context when the book was written.

>>9804670
that would be very nice if it wasn't for the fact that this authorial intent is not available to you in any way. shit a writer says in an interview is not revealed truth from a deity.

you need to understand that the importance of intent wasn't discarded out of some academic perversity, it faded away because investigating intent is a doomed pursuit. what is the intent of homer when we don't even know whether there was a homer? what's the intent of a writer that gives different answers in every interview? do you have perfectly coherent explanations for everything you did today? last month? ten years ago? how is an author supposed to know what he "truly meant" decades in the past? it's not just that he forgot, he never really knew even as he was writing. the mysteries of the egyptians were mysteries to the egyptians themselves.

it's like with history where you used to have this naive desire to just know "what really happened". we will NEVER know what really happened. the past is gone. all that's left is evidence and interpretation of evidence. same with literature, intent is simply not available so all you have left to talk about is the text itself.

>authorial intent
>importance of historical context

what a fucking shitshow. i'm taking my talents to reddit, this is unbearable

>>9804548
why the fuck you read book?
because of the author?

>>9804698
oh my god.

If the author says 2+2 = 5 that doesn't make that correct

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

t, too, went to university :D

>>9804737
maybe it's correct for him.
why you care

>>9804550
In fact even our own intent is unknowable to us and we can only make a guess about it trough reasoning.

>>9804564
You are mistaking "intent" for "what the authors thinks he was trying to say".

File: o'brien.jpg (33KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 720x405px

>>9804737
>Anon...

>>9804698
>the context when the book was written.

history is also just an interpretation of fragmentary evidence so all you're doing is pushing the problem further away. the song of roland was written by a dude at a certain time, we will get it once we understand the time in which the dude wrote. what's the context? this historical chronicle will give us the context, but wait that's another book written by a dude in a time. how do we understand the chronicle? well let's look at the song of roland...

to get out of this loop you will simply have to commit to a reading of the text at some point. there's nothing to fall back on. it's scary because freedom is scary.

>>9804550
Walter Benn Michaels has made an entire career out of defending authorial intent.

>>9804541

I don't know if it's more important, but it's at least as valuable as an author's intent, not that their intent is something you can usually know, and even if it was it probably still doesn't matter that much.

>>9804681
"Schemer" would be a more accurate translation than "deceiver"

>>9804719
I just left /b/ yet this thread has been the most repulsive thing I've seen all day

>>9804737
That's why you care about aesthetics.

>>9804733
wasps?

Is there anything wrong with my approach?

>read about the historical and cultural context in which the text was written
>read the text
>think independently about it
>look for the author's insights about the text
>using my first frame of reference (my initial intuitions) I reframe the text using the extra-literary informations given by the author, while trying to heuristically derive from both said informations and the original texts the nature of the idea and the logic of the work itself
>get to a new picture of the text, which is still as deep as the original one: although I might have long commentaries of the author about his own work, this will just mean that understanding his vision is just a new starting point, from which one can analyze independently the work of art with more awareness and foresight

>eventually read secondary literature
>compare my own conclusion with the ones of the scholars I'm reading

Is this fine? It looks pretty bullet proof to me.

File: derrida.jpg (19KB, 550x391px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 550x391px

>>9804541
>>9804541
>>9804553
>>9804572
>>9804609
>>9804670
>>intent of author is most important!
>teleports behind you
hheh.... nothing personnel, kid

>>9804815
your first step is infinitely recursive. the algorithm will never finish.

>>9804825
The first step refers to secondary literature, which I read (usually, depending on who is the author) casually.

>>9804863
then you are in effect reading secondary literature on the text before reading the text. any book on the historical context of homer is going to be a book on homer.

>>9804541
>>9804550
>>9804564
Ohhhh buddies.... sorry to hear you're having trouble with this. It's a nuanced mix of both dependent on both the text and the author. Yikes

>>9804555
Shakespeare.

>>9804541
guys don't both matter?

>if you're writing genre fiction, don't even bother

>>9804874
No. Everything must be black or white. You just refuse to see the OBJECTIVE TRUTH because you are stupid. REEE

File: c.png (228KB, 394x370px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 394x370px

>>9804553
>implying Russian Formalism is bad

Away with you, post-structuralist cuck.

as an anon on /mu/ said:
>there is no patrician taste, only patrician listeners

If the author's intent matters so much, why don't they write down exactly what their intent was and publish that together with the actual story? Practically no author ever did that.

I'm reminded of an anecdote
>dumb art teacher in grammar school
>starts sperging about authorial intention
>says that "we shouldn't make up our interpretations of Shakespeare's intent, we should instead actually read what he wrote himself about his works"
>I point out that Shakespeare never wrote about his works
>she completely ignores me and keeps talking
Fuck, I'm still mad

File: 1500239076643.jpg (9KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 229x220px

>>9804541
>art is subjective

>>9805561
This thread has made me lose all hope for /lit/. Literature is art and like other art, the work captures a spirit and an essence otherwise left unnoticed. Fucking Picasso didn't write essays on how to look at Guernica nor did Rembrandt talk about how to look at his art. However, they made the art, crafted it, and formed it purposefully. We don't need to have auxillary works to dig up intent but we know it's there. Keeping with the art metaphor, Da Vinci made the Last Supper and he chose what to include in the work and what not to include in the work which shapes our opinions of it. If Mary fucking Magdalene was in the painting we'd be having an entirely different conversation about the painting. Authors write with purpose and what they include or don't include affects us the reader more than our opinions will ever affect the way others view the art.

>>9804609
Imagine having a conversation with someone who could not communicate their ideas well at all, kept using words inappropriately, and then got mad when you misunderstood them because "no, what I REALLY meant was THIS." You would say, "then you should have fucking SAID that."

Forget author intent vs reader interpretation. It's author ABILITY vs reader interpretation. (Incidentally, people on here often ask what makes writing postmodern, and I think it is writing that plays with this relationship, and I fucking love it.)

>>9805603
I mostly agree with you. Did you post this to attack my position or...?

>>9805580
All aesthetic value is subjective and there is not a single convincing argument to the contrary

>>9804541
Oh look it's another thread about author intent vs the inherent value of the work

>>9805622

try reading literally anything on the matter then

>>9805619
I'm saying authorial intent is there and we as readers should be receptive to it.

>>9804610
this

>>9805626
>Oh look it's another thread about author intent vs the inherent value of the work

The same could be said of ALL religious experience, anon.

>I unironically read Faulkner

>>9804819
>Reading Derrida.
>Ever.

It's like you enjoy being retarded.

>>9805630
I'm pretty sure that we essentially agree. Of course, the author did intend something and he tried to express that through his text. Authorial intent that I don't care about is the external one. We shouldn't have to read the author's interviews or explanations to interpret the text, we should only consider the text itself and our interpretation should follow logically from it. You can't read Crime and Punishment and say that the book attacks religion and praises atheism. (Though of course some books will have multiple possible and logical interpretations, such as Kafka's.)

>>9805666
>We shouldn't have to read the author's interviews or explanations to interpret the text

Ray Bradbury would be upset with you.

>>9804574
Grendel. Literally constructed around the Campbellian monomyth, with cyclical structure that contains direct allusion to both several philosophical schools as well as western pop-psy horoscopes. The novel serves as a demonstration of the psychological and philosophical development of the individual, and revels in its use of the greatest Western historical "Other" to do so.

But please, tell me how your faggy po-mo feelings totally override that carefully mixed melange of sources, inspirations and ideas. You fucking hack.

>>9805627
Not that anon but could you please point me towards the best argument for objectivity aesthetics?

>>9804541
As if the author didn't intend to have the reader interpret his work in a variety of ways...If not, what kind of 1 dimensional nonsense are you reading, anon? Steven King?

>>9805675
So this!

>>9805675
All of those readings would fall within the Authorial Intent camp, you mongoloid. Nobody implied that author's can't have deliberately open-to-interpretation works.
Its when faggots pull shit completely unsupported by the author like "THE BLUE CURTAINS ARE SYMBOLICAL FOR THE OPPRESSION OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!" and then end up reading the exact same preconceived theme into every work without argument that it becomes a problem.

>>9805669
Then I hope his collected interviews are bundled together with his books, or I'm gonna be upsetting him real hard.

>>9805673
Not that anon. Just saying - Grendel is a postmodern book.

>>9804550
>authors write to express some kind of idea/emotion to an audience
>hurr the author's intent doesn't matter
It's almost like the postmodernists are trying to destroy art or something

>>9805616
>lambasts authors not being able to express things clearly
>praises postmodernism
You are an idiot.

>>9805693
Explain to me why the authors intent is more relevant than the readers interpretation?

And even if the author did not "intend" to write in double meanings, how can we be so sure that their subconscious isn't influencing their writings?

Another point is this, haven't you wrote something (assuming you write) that seems to be divinely inspired, where it seems to magically appear on the paper? I have, and I know many other writers who have experienced this same thing. Plato even discusses it. How does your claim react with this phenomena?

>>9804564
Genre fiction readers don't care about authorial intent. Actually, naive readers of all kinds don't comprehend authorial intent. A pleb reads books in order to identify with the characters. What postmodernists do is not so far off from that.

Most times authors intents are known though, we usually know their economic, social, political, and religious background before we even open a book. Just look at any 19th century French author, they really weren't being all that vague about their likes Or dislikes of the bourgeois or peasants etc, unless we're talking some poetry.

>>9805701
>hurr as long as the artist can explain their poorly constructed work, were don't need them to refine it into a successful communication.

>>9805719
The post I replied to said that authorial intent is unknowable.

>>9805732
it is unknowable, all intent is unknowable

>>9804541

the theory of intent is literal animism lol

>>9804697
So you like Evola and Hitler, right? Kys commie

>>9804609

No, it's not like we're "having a conversation" because a conversation typically does not happen between 1 person's writing and millions of readers 100s of years later.

>>9805701
>authors write to express some kind of idea/emotion to an audience

who told you this? where did you get this idea from? answer sincerely

>>9805741
evola and hitler are not important philosophers

>>9805693

you obviously have never read criticism lol

>>9805756
Writing is a purely intellectual expression. It goes without saying that thought and intent are inherent to the medium.

Using words is the expression of one's intent. You go.

>>9805660
As long as you know what you're getting yourself in for and can bracket off your readings of Derrida, reading him can be a rewarding and useful mental exercise.

>>9805707
You didn't understand my post, and you seem to be one of those people who strawmans postmodern writing as incomprehensible or incoherent randomness rather than a play on the relationship between intent and interpretation. Obviously, people can be skilled or unskilled at doing this, so I really don't think you understood my post.

>>9805796

ok, so you're saying that when I use language, someone of myself is transfered into those words that allows you to understand me.

ok, fine, but what if i don't have control over the connotations, grammars, and general semantic drift in which those words are caught up the moment they leave my pen? and what if, moreover, the thought i am trying to express does not have words, ie, is purely affective, and so putting it in words does a certain violence to it such that it cannot be positively represented but only traced out in the negative? but what if by tarrying with the negative in this way you, my interpreter, effectively abolish any right to talk about what "I" "meant" because those positive markers of identity themselves have first to be negated to speak of anything not immediately present in the text? is it at all possible, in other words, that things communicated in language exceed the empirical semantic content of the message as its writer intended, and further, that this "excess," which I am calling the "negative" content of the message, is in fact constitutive of the "default" structures of communication?

>>9805709
>how can we be so sure that their subconscious isn't influencing their writings?
Burden of proof to support an interpretation of a work falls on the one making the outstanding claim. If someone can provide valid arguments supporting a specific interpretation of a work, I'll accept it as valid even though I disagree with it. I'm not going to shadowbox with nebulous whataboutisms and arguments pulled from the aether or the ass of incompetents

>>9805660
>>9805818

I like posts like these because they allow me to see exactly who hasn't read Derrida

File: gross.jpg (5KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x251px

>>9805831
>ok, so you're saying that when I use language, someone of myself is transfere

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you intend for a meaning to be received by a listener. Your knowledge of the myriad social and syntactical options available to you through language affects how you express an idea or feeling. Your intent is embedded in the words you use and how you use them.

>so putting it in words does a certain violence to it
Good fucking lord, kid.

>>9805851
I like posts like these because they reaffirm my commitment to never read Derrida.

>>9805761
>Hitler
>literally the most influential fascist in history, killed millions, started a war
>Evola
>laid the foundation for 20th century fascist thought, especially in Italy
>not important
But you are right. All fascists put together have not killed nearly as many people as Marx and the communists have. Therefore, Marx is more important.

>>9805853

how else would you have liked me to say it? all it means is that, for instance, the concept of a dog doesn't bark, the concept of pain doesn't hurt.

but wait a second. if that's what i meant... and it wasn't communicated... it's almost as though my intention to mean that isn't communicated in language? almost as though what matters more in your act of (non-)reading my post is what you interpret it to (mean and not) mean, not what i intend it to mean when i communicate with you

>>9804555
The Birds, The Frogs, & The Mosquitoes

>>9805660
>>9805856
>not reading one of the most influential literary theorists since Saussure
Wew laddie

>>9805866
that was a very childish post

>>9805908
>how else would you have liked me to say it?
Your intention is not a part of yourself.

>and it wasn't communicated
You clearly communicated it. Here, for your benefit.

>ok, so you're saying that when I use language, someone of myself is transfered

Now unless you're going to argue that the words you just used are of your own invention, I'd suggest you brush up on your language skills, which are clearly lacking.

>>9805918
What, substantively, has Derrida an Co. added to the world of literature?

>>9805933
>Your intention is not a part of yourself.

but then how is an author able to regulate it in regard to his own text? are you suggesting that the connection between property ("my" intention) and owner (this intention "is mine") is arbitrary? but the relationship between your interpretation and my text is equally arbitrary. so on what ground can you argue that we should take intention into greater account?

>babbys never had a literary theory lesson in their life

spoilers: it's all interpretation. authorial 'intent' is just added context like learning any historical fact about an author. everything is context, and there is no outside context.

>>9805933
>what is deconstructionism
Wow had to look hard for that

>>9805939
>but then how is an author able to regulate it
Through their understanding of the language they are using to communicate. This is not hard stuff, famalam.

Have you ever taken a literature course of any kind? A lot of the coursework involves studying the time period an author lived in and dissecting their word choices to better understand their intent.

You seem a bit distracted with this property nonsense. What are you getting at? I can't just guess at your intention, after all.

>>9805954
>Deconstructionism
By definition, that doesn't add to anything. Good try though.

>>9805964
>deconstructionism, by definition, doesn't add to anything
10/10 i mad
>what has Derrida and Co added to world of literature
>a new mindset and method of literary theory is not something added to the world of literature because of the name
I could have said post-structuralism, too

>>9805959
>being trapped by metanarratives

i laugh at the person trying to assume an intellectual position while also gloating that they'll never actually read the author that they presume to critique. this is the future of /lit/, right here in this post. pseuds created by the likes of jordan peterson who do not care to comprehend actual ideas but exist only for the sake of defending their own ideology that gives them a sense of structured meaning. deconstruction is in a sense a means of privileging your own phenomenological experience, your own being. but these people aren't interested in thinking, they want to be told what to think.

enjoy your ideology!

>>9805979
>because of the name
No, not because of the name. To deconstruct is to destroy. Post-structuralism firebombs meaning, art, substance, you name it. It requires a constant diet of paradigms to munch up and spit out. It destroys, it doesn't create. There is no post-modern vision of the future because there's nothing you can build with a post-structuralist system.

>>9805984
Will do. You never answered my question, though. I'll just chalk it up to your ideology.

>>9805985
sure but it is a new outlook, you asked what new thing derrida brought
an idea, an outlook, is something new
you cant say that it is nothing because of what it does
if it does something, it must be something

>>9805990
Destroying paradigms isn't a new thing, though.

>>9805959

that wasn't me

you're saying that my intention isn't part of me, but that it is somehow the most important part of your reading of "my" text.

all i'm asking you to defend is the causal link between me, my intention, my text, and your reading. you seem to suggest that there isn't one when you say "my intention is not a part of me." but my "understanding of the language" is? at level are my thoughts communicated to your reading?

>>9805985
Why do you value your reading of deconstruction more than Derrida's?

>>9805985
>To deconstruct is to destroy.

Wrong! Do we destroy a car engine when we take it apart to see how it works? So long as we can put it together again (Derrida does not use scissors to read) then the answer is no.

>>9805985
>misunderstanding deconstructionism
what else is new

>>9805985
what the fuck are you even muttering, you moron? why don't you even bother looking up at least the historical etymological usage of 'deconstruct' before you base your thoughts off an entirely wrong definition.

>>9805701
New Criticism isn't postmodern you fucking newfag

>>9806008
>that wasn't me
Sure it wasn't.

>you're saying that my intention isn't part of me, but that it is somehow the most important part of your reading of "my" text.
The meaning of the text and the words used to express that meaning are the most important elements of text, yes. I have no honest idea why this concept escapes you.

We don't read to trade property, or whatever autism it is you're spouting. If I'm reading your text I'm trying to decode the complex interplay of your words. I can't help but to create meaning from what you provide me. If you do it well enough, the meaning I decode will be very close to the meaning you intended to create.

>>9806014
>Do we destroy a car engine when we take it apart to see how it works?

Yes. What are you even talking about? It's no longer an engine when it is in a million pieces on your garage floor.
>>9806018
I'm just asking for someone to show me some "post-structuralist" literature. Derrida and Co. were great an destroying, not so much at inventing.

>>9806013
Gasp! What's this? A post-structuralist valuing authorial intent?

The text is intent in itself.

>>9806035
'and Co.'? They weren't related. Barthes' deconstruction is different to Derrida's, in fact Derrida is not fond of Barthes' deconstruction because he doesn't agree with the idea of throwing the text into chaos. Derrida isn't even representative of postmodern literary thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Quel

>>9806029
>The meaning of the text and the words used to express that meaning are the most important elements of text, yes.

nobody denies this. but how does my intention play into those meanings at all? do you think i intend that the word blue means a color on the spectrum between green and violet? no, it simply means it. my intention does not enter into it. nor do i intend that these sentences mean what they mean to you, or anyone else: in reading, meaning happens on your end, not mine.

>>9806035
>>Do we destroy a car engine when we take it apart to see how it works?
>Yes. What are you even talking about? It's no longer an engine when it is in a million pieces on your garage floor.

Yes, and for that reason exactly my following sentence qualified the analogy. You should learn to read to the end of a text before you try to criticize it—it might help you avoid future blunders regarding deconstruction.

>>9806036
Is that your excuse for making shit up about postmodern thought and then claiming it's all stupid based on your own fabrications? Educate yourself nigger

>>9806054
>but how does my intention play into those meanings at all?
By your understanding of the words you are using to express your intention and thoughts.

Unless you're an idiot, which, by your previous posts, you very likely are, you aren't writing a story or expressing a nuanced thought by using a single word. You rely on a complex interplay of meaning created by the diction you know and understand. Meaning happens on both ends of the communication spectrum - we do not express nothing only to have it be "created" in the mind of our listener or reader.

>>9806061
>Is using the entire philosophical basis for a so-called "discipline" your argument?
Kek.

>Yes, and for that reason exactly my following sentence qualified the analogy.
Your intent to rebuild the engine isn't the engine, fuckwit.

>>9804697
Wow, so you like Karl Marx despite disagreeing with him. You're like, above everyone else. You're above communists, and you're above capitalists. *mind blown*

UPVOTEEE


2INTELECTUAL4U

>>9806054
Not him, but you craft the scenes you want with specific wording. You can choose to say the sky is blue or you can omit it and focus on the green grass. Authors are the only ones in charge of writing the words out and no amount of interpretation can change blue sky to green grass. The author puts the words, images, and descriptions they feel are important to the story and omit the ones that aren't.

>>9806068
>you aren't writing a story or expressing a nuanced thought by using a single word

no, im not, which is why the rest of the post addressed sentences, in an extrapolation which could also apply to paragraphs, pages, chapters, books, and corpuses of whole authors.

but anyway:


>By your understanding of the words you are using to express your intention and thoughts.

so, i understand these words, and what they mean. and i intend to mean something. and somehow, i am able to put together the words i understand such that they mean the thing that i intend. so in that case, the meaning of the structures i put together semantically, and the meaning i intended to communicate to you, are identical. have i got this all straight so far?

>>9806071
>>Is using the entire philosophical basis for a so-called "discipline" your argument?

No, you're using your poor interpretation of it and qualifying that by saying 'well they all think intent literally doesn't matter'. If you'd like, since you're so well informed, you can post literally any quote that supports your argument from Derrida and/or his 'Co.' Or maybe you could learn what Derrida means by 'doubling the commentary' before you say postmodernists reject the authorial intent. Just so you know, denying intent is something that comes from New Criticism, a kind of modernist formalism.

And if you want I can find you many quotes on how Derrida opposes 'destruction'.

>>9806068
what is with the black and white with you, fuckwit. the value in this line of thinking isn't in the idea that we never spend the time to wonder authorial intent, it's just that the author isn't the hierarchical 'owner' of the interpretation. it's the realization that there is meaning in the text that we cannot correlate to anything having to do with intent. derrida famously said "there is no outside-text", which he later specified as "there is nothing outside of context", meaning the text is a living force that is always CREATED in the act of interpretation. your understanding of what the author's intent is IS YOUR INTERPRETATION, no matter how many institutions (academia you provide) give it weight.

>>9806071
just stop fucking posting you absolute shithead

>>9806079
>no, im not, which is why the rest of the post addressed sentences

You compared a single word to an entire sentence. That's not "explaining" anything, it's demonstrating you have very little understanding of what you're talking about.

You can't extrapolate a single word by itself into a sentence comprised of dozens of words, each affecting the ones next to it.

>so, i understand these words, and what they mean. and i intend to mean something. and somehow, i am able to put together the words i understand such that they mean the thing that i intend. so in that case, the meaning of the structures i put together semantically, and the meaning i intended to communicate to you, are identical. have i got this all straight so far?

I don't know. Your argument seems to be that you don't and that it's up to me to determine whether or not you mean to ask what you're asking.

Are you not subconsciously expressing an intense desire to eat smoked salmon? Because that's what I'm getting.

>>9806074
>no amount of interpretation can change blue sky to green grass.

but that's not an interpretation, that's a misunderstanding of words like "green," "grass," "blue," and "sky." i'm not sure what the author's intention has to do with that?

i'm also not sure how, even if we allow such instances of not understanding the meaning* of words to be called "interpretation," how such an interpretation is of the same class as one that suggests, for instance, that the blue curtains symbolically represent sadness or, to take an example from this thread, "the proletariat." it seems to me that the latter instance is an interpretation that adds something to the meaning of the words, while the other does violence to the text by ignoring the meaning of the words. but in both cases, it is not clear what the author's intention has to do with that, and that's what i want ("intend") someone to explain to me, here, in this thread

>>9806074
The author omits a lot more than he bargains for in the text which is where this application of linguistic understanding comes from in regards to reading texts

>>9806084
>You say that they say something, but anything you post proving that they mean exactly what they mean is wrong.
Ok.

>it's just that the author isn't the hierarchical 'owner' of the interpretation.
How much Cajun spice should I add to that bass recipe, anon? I'm still confused when you say that you should skin the bass first, but I'll trust my interpretation first.

>>9806073
that was a very childish post

>>9806106
So what do you think 'doubling the commentary' is?

>>9806113
Half a pinch of allspice? I don't know, that usually doesn't go with fish very well.

Golly, this "making meaning" thing is useful in the kitchen.

>>9806117
Are you done?

>>9806106
>>9806117

>being intellectually dishonest

if you want to be specific you're the fuckwit who said that literature involves 'the complex interplay of words', and this thread is not literature. this thread is not about having people obscure meaning. we're trying to communicate for the purpose of understanding, not setting up a fictional world where there is ambiguity in some sentence such as "rain of bullets."

but please, continue to misunderstand what we mean when we continue to bring up 'the text'.

>>9806124
Still have 30 minutes in the oven, anon. I'll share, I promise.

Wait, did you intend for me to understand a different meaning to your words?

>"it was so raw and beautiful"
it's typically only women that say this

>>9806126
>and this thread is not literature
Who are you to determine what literature is and is not?

Last I checked we were discussing communication and intent, not literature.

>>9806090
>You compared a single word to an entire sentence. That's not "explaining" anything, it's demonstrating you have very little understanding of what you're talking about.

I never claimed to ""explain"" anything, only to address a larger case. but i can "explain" it if you like: as you say, a "sentence comprised of dozens of words" largely has its meaning determined by how "each" word "[affects] the ones next to it." you stated all of this, so we can agree on it, maybe, as a theory of how meaning happens in a sentence. unless you persist in being obtuse on this matter.

now that we have such a theory (remarkable similar to the structuralist one, but whatever) let's take a look at an example:

"The sky was blue that day."

this sentence, ripped from its context, means, presumably, that on the day referred to previous, the vault of the sky had a blue coloration. Perhaps the author intended you to have that impression reading it. but that (entirely hypothetical) statement faces two problems, one beyond and one within the structure of the sentence:

Beyond: Quotation marks, whether "I" or anyone else want them to, "mean" that this sentence was taken from somewhere else. We can therefore suppose that this sentence did not originally appear here. We may be deceived on this point, however: it may be a fabrication of the author of this post. We may suppose it came from a diary entry, a private diary meant to be consigned to the flames but published surreptitiously after the passing of the author. In that case, the author did not "intend" for this sentence to mean anything to anyone, perhaps not even to himself. He "intended" it to be obliterated, and yet here it is, for us to read: in that case his "intention" disappeared long before we made it to this text.

But let's suppose instead that this sentence came from a sci-fi story. In this story, the sky is usually red on the alien planet: but a blue sky means a rare storm is coming. Thus, whereas we usually associate a blue sky with normalcy, here it means something abnormal. But all of that intention disappeared from the sentence, and you have no way of recovering it. That's just a single example. Infinite others are possible: maybe in the context it was taken from, blue skies became metaphorically associated with some other feeling or sensation; but that intention is gone.

The last two examples are fantasies, but they are in fact illustrative of the default communicative act. All written communication supposes the extermination of its original context, and hence the loss of intention. What I "wanted to say" has nothing to do with what the text does in fact say. One of Derrida's own examples is a shopping list: I would not have written it if my intention to buy eggs would not vanish by the time I got to the grocery store! What use for a shopping list if I still want to buy milk by the time I read it?

>form is irrelevant
>plot is irrelevant
>"i read for the prose"

best of all:
>"science is correct and/or valid because it is good enough/useful/obvious/etc."

>>9806130
if you ever had an interest in literary theory, you'd probably have a working definition of literature. get to studying, champ.

>>9806132

Within: But you've already agreed that sentences mean things because in them, words occur in a certain order. Let's take an example:

"Bryce loves Casie."

Subject-verb-object. A typical English sentence. Tell me, what part of my intending caused this order to have that meaning for you? None. All I intended to communicate to you is a state of affairs; none of my intention enters into that communication. Perhaps I intended to emphasize the fact it is Bryce, after all, and not Alex, who loves Casie; in which case the fact that the subject of a verb precedes is advantageous to this rhetorical intention. But perhaps I wanted to communicate that it is the "love," as opposed to the hate, between Bryce and Casie that matters—in that case, having the verb smushed between two nouns doesn't help my intention at all. I could write "Love Bryce Casie," but then I'm not writing English, and we can't communicate any longer. I didn't "intend" to have to grapple with any of these restrictions language imposes on my intention, and yet here they are, impacting my ability to get through to you.

>>9806127
You're not actually proving anything about postmodernism by claiming to misunderstand my words. The two are unrelated. If you have interpreted "discern the author's intention" as "the author's intention doesn't matter" and justified that interpretation on that failed interpretation then that's on you, but it doesn't represent postmodern thought at all and you're wasting your time if you think otherwise. Again, if you want to talk about 'Derrida & Co.' at least post some evidence like I have, e.g. 'doubling the commentary' which means determining the intention.

>>9804737
Yes it does. Logic is irrelevant.

>>9806132
>unless you persist in being obtuse on this matter.
Just following your words to their logical conclusion. Why are examples highlighting your own idiocy "obtuse?"

>The sky was blue that day.
A benign declarative. Your points become more simplistic from here on. You clearly state that the sentence is removed from context, leaving only the text.

Your subsequent examples add context to the sentence, which, in this case, is facilitated by the addition of more words. I can tell the difference between a diary and a sci-fi novel if I can read a bit more around the sentence.

Your point seems to be that because that sentence can have multiple meanings depending on the context surrounding it, it has no inherent meaning. The inherent meaning is the sum total of the author's intent, which you hilariously use as your only example in both the hypotheticals you posit.

>masculinity and honour inherently have merit

>>9806145
>misunderstand
It's impossible to misunderstand anything. All things are socially determined. All meaning is socially prescribed. There are no absolutes, and there are no objective meanings. My understanding is just as relevant as your own.

This is the world Derrida and Co. created.

>>9806155
yes. there is only context. there is no inherent meaning. you should probably learn a second language, anon. it helps you to realize this.

>>9806170
>there is only context. there is no inherent meaning
The examples you used specifically cited author-created context, such as a science-fiction novel or a diary.

Which means that authorial intent determines the meaning of the phrase "The sky was blue" in your two examples.

Which means you're an idiot who's been arguing a point, poorly, for nearly an hour and a half only to shoot your own thesis in its foot.

>>9806168
>It's impossible to misunderstand anything. All things are socially determined. All meaning is socially prescribed. There are no absolutes, and there are no objective meanings. My understanding is just as relevant as your own.

Doubling the commentary means reproducing the meaning in its context i.e. where the author chooses to engage with the history of language and ideas. An understanding that doubles the commentary is more well-founded and legitimate than one that isn't, even if you think (by not doubling the commentary) that it isn't. You're trying to justify by your poor misunderstanding that poor misunderstandings are allowed and pointing to the theoretical justification given by a group of people who didn't give that justification. There is no foundation to your ideas, and this is your own creation, not anyone else's.

If you actually want to have an honest discussion let me know, otherwise I will determine by your next response whether you are just going to be a shit instead.

>>9804871
Not really. You can just read historical sources that don't have any intent of tracing the context of specifiic works of literature, but that nevertheless do when read side by side with said literary texts. Just because I read a book on Early Victorianism doesn't mean I'm now reading Dickens jadedly, it's not like I read a biography or some shit like that.

>>9806155
>Your point seems to be that because that sentence can have multiple meanings depending on the context surrounding it, it has no inherent meaning. The inherent meaning is the sum total of the author's intent, which you hilariously use as your only example in both the hypotheticals you posit.

Another wonderful example of intention failing to be communicated. If that is the point you have been reading here, then my intention clearly has very little to do with what my discourse means to you.

Why would I argue that sentences have no inherent meaning? As long as I accede to communicate in language, I agree to that—verbs "inherently" imply some action applied to their objects, subjects "inherently" imply the performance of their verbs, etc etc. These structures are "inherent" in the language of these sentences. This is not at issue.

What is at issue is whether whatever I intended those structures to mean can ever become accessible to you in such a way as for you to call that knowledge. My thought experiment with context was to demonstrate that that is never the case.

I can give you one more:

A Jew and a Slav are riding together on a train car. The Jew starts saying, "Oy am I thirsty!" The Slav gets increasingly annoyed. "Oy am I thirsty! Oy am I thirsty!" The Slav finally leaves the compartment, goes to the dining car, fetches a bottle of water and gives it to the Jew, who drinks it up quickly. Silence. Then, the Jew starts in again: "Oy, was I thirsty! Oy, was I thirsty!"

Clearly, the Jew had intended to communicate that he was thirsty, and the Slav took this intention to heart. But the later declaration, repeated ad nauseum, shows that the "real" intention was simply to complain, to be annoying, to vocalize. How could the Slav, or you, have gathered that from the original enunciation? Indeed, since the Jew drank the water so quickly, it's possible even he didn't know what he "truly" intended. Or perhaps intention is bunk from the get-go, and we never communicate what we intend, as this argument between us has made abundantly clear.

>>9806184
Do you smell the fish in the oven anon? The allspice did the trick.

I would also ask you to stop oppressing me. I don't need your approval to have an opinion, and I don't need your "commentary" to validate the meaning I create in my own mind. There is no meaning outside of what I determine to be true.

>>9806168
actually derrida was fascinated with the complexity of things, which is not reduced down into "all things are socially determined"

deconstruction is the fundamental realization that there is no safe space for unchanging meaning. we can not read the old great greek epic poems in a historical context similar to the one they were crafted in. most of the people in the world do not even know the language. however, it's not as if postmodernists are these groups of people seeking to destroy your meaning, my friend. all human beings fundamentally depend on meaning. i mean, that's the existentialist conclusion. dostoyevsky viewed the human subject without meaning and tried to show us that religion was the way out of a meaningless existence. but the small minded focus here is on the idea that there are continuities that are true, like somehow classical greek statues are more 'important' or 'greater' than say, a pollock painting, which is nothing more than a preference. you wish to glorify the author by stating that his intent is supremely felt throughout his work, but language is fundamentally ambiguous. we do not all react in the same way to the same construction of words/sentences/chapters/etc.
>>9806177
i'm actually a different anon who has been posting. i didn't read the lengthy post that was posted to you, but if his conclusion was that there isn't "inherent" meaning, then the conclusion is correct. i refer to this notion in larger terms than simple definition of words, of course. we all know what "i love you" means but there are an infinite amount of contexts capable of relating to the usage of that phrase.

>>9806189
>Another wonderful example of intention failing to be communicated.
Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean intention doesn't exist.

>>9806177

but anon, those examples are imaginary: they arent real. and their co-existence as possibilities imputes contradictory meanings into that sentence. i cant intend it to mean two opposing things at once, can I? or a panoply of opposing things? and your objection cant be salvaged by saying that openness-to-interpretation is intended here, because it implies that i could realistically intend each of the infinity of meanings context could conceivably attach to my sentence, which seems to imply a lot about intention considering how little has been demonstrated for it thus far.

>>9806205
You cannot apply logic (which is a phallocentric oppressive tool, mind you) to the meaning I invent in my own mind.

>>9806204

Did I say it doesn't exist? All I've said is that it in no way enters into interpretation, or even reading: it is barred from the hermeneutic circle. You can go on "intending" to put down deconstruction all you like, but that intention is not being communicated very well.

>>9804541
why the fuck does it matter what "the author intended to say" when at the end of the day the only thing you will walk away from a book with is your own interpretation. What you get out of something is more important than what the author intended for you to get.

>>9806204
how is it that at this point you do not understand that we not saying intention doesn't exist, but that it may not be discernible due to the fact that the text itself exists only in your interpretation.

>>9806210

neither can you: but then we'd be forced to admit that we cant communicate in language, which seems to be a very real possibility judging by this thread

>>9806213
Are you saying that communication matters?

But, anon, if communication matters, then surely the intended message matters, else there could be no productive communication.

>>9806201
Sure and this is the world you created rather than the postmodernists. Or I could interpret the Bible as beginning this idea of nothing meaning anything. Or maybe it was the washing instructions on my t-shirt. I've interpreted 'do not tumbler dry' as meaning 'authorial intention doesn't matter' and nothing can tell me otherwise.

Anyway have fun with your bankrupt reasoning. I don't eat fish by the way.

>>9806219
>Are you saying that communication matters?

I don't know—probably not, though.

>>9806220
Ah! A fellow postmodernist. Sorry to hear you don't eat fish. Good luck with your ruined T-shirts, I've heard those red bridge transducer melon ferrofluid. Myopic alternator? Xylophone queen hatchback.

>>9806222
Then stop talking.

>>9805933
>Derrida's contributions, etc

First of all deconstruction changed the game in literary studies. You'd know that if you went to college.

Secondly Derrida's scholarship on Heidegger is beyond excellent. Even starting with the 65-66 lectures, Derrida singlehandedly turned the focus on Heidegger studies to the metaphysics of presence, which he pursued throughout his career. Every Derrida work on Heidegger is absolute class, Aporias undoubtedly being the best albeit shortest out of all of them.

Derrida's work on contemporary ethics is likewise of critical importance. I'm referring to The Animal That Therefore I Am as well as the death penalty lectures, both of which are of necessary readings to both of their respective topics.

Derrida didn't write many political texts but Rogues presents a sort of metaphysics of politics, which I think is highly underrated and would fall on many sympathetic ears if it were more widely read. It presents a case both for democracy's strength as well as for the fragility at the center. This is also the theme in which readers will find Derrida's writing on "the Undeniable," which, if any of his fans even fucking paid attention for one second, categorically destroys whatever moronic point Jordan Peterson wants to make about post-modernism.

Lastly, Derrida is first and foremost a critical thinker and it is quite clear by his engagements with Nancy, Saussure, and Foucault that even ignoring his own contributions he remains one of the most profound critics of the 20th Century.

In short, if you don't read Derrida you're a fucking mega pleb and should definitely kill yourself. And not only for uncritically peddling Jordan Peterson as gospel because you can't find a better explanation for trump. Fuck you.

>>9806218
Good, then it's settled. Communication doesn't actually exist, and, more, is a tool of the patriarchy. Glad we got that settled out.

>>9806226
it's amazing to see someone create such a huge flamboyant strawman that utterly reveals how inept they are at even being remotely self-aware.

go ahead, continue. make yourself out to be a huge crybaby retard.

>>9806230
>And not only for uncritically peddling Jordan Peterson
Where was this guy even brought up in the thread?

>>9806239
t. Kermit

>>9806239
for people who actually understand postmodernism, peterson dicksuckers are easily revealed whenever people actually use the term "postmodernists"

>>9806226
>>9806231

nobody made a single claim that remotely resembles this ridiculous strawman. you're simply childish and ignorant, and, to match your baseless speculations, probably from a flyover state

I mean, at the very least, doesn't it bother you that you cant really defend what you believe except by appeal to absurdity? doesn't that suggest to you at all that maybe you believe in an absurdity passing itself off to you as common sense?

>>9806235
I'm just reveling in the freedom of postmodernism, anon. I'm not tied down to oppressive thoughtforms. My words have no inherent meaning, and therefore have no inherent intent, and therefore affect no one. I exist within my own solipsistic realm of pure joy and happiness, blanketed with a language of my own design and meaning, safe from the predations of such specters as "meaning" and "interpretation."

>>9806245
Why would it bother me? I determine MY interpretation of the words used by others. There is no inherent meaning, and so there is nothing I really need to defend. I determine MY world, MY interpretation, and MY reality. Who the fuck are you to challenge any of it?

>>9806246
>My words have no inherent meaning, and therefore have no inherent intent, and therefore affect no one.

No, you've got it precisely backwards: your words affect everyone who reads them, because intent is not communicated through them, but they nevertheless produce meaning of inherently, when read.

>>9806254
If the meaning of my words are determined by others, then they aren't MY words. MY words, the ones I use, therefore affect literally no one but myself.

My solipsism remains. Go away.

>>9806246
you're so easy to read, my friend. you come in here peddling peterson by your association of postmodernism with neo-marxists-ergo we're all 'snowflakes' seeking to destroy history, art, and everything you cherish. we're clearly sjws who wish to create our own fantastical world that exists only by deflecting the real, true world, where men are men and women are women and greek statues are the peak of aesthetic beauty.

oh, but wait. critical literary theory is about realizing that there ISN'T ANY SAFE SPACES in language or any other context for universal truth! oh, oh fuck. no safe spaces? how are you to conflate this with your own ideological stance?

>>9806253
>I determine MY world, MY interpretation, and MY reality. Who the fuck are you to challenge any of it?

you're aping a strawman but cant conceal the fact that you're getting legitimately testy and irritated, possible even sweating. i can see you there behind your keyboard, the contradictions buzzing uncomfortably between your ears: and rather than deal with them your fingers shuttle across the keyboard and cant help but slam on the shift key to squeeze the anger out

but try this: just calm down and ask yourself the same question i asked you that kicked off this whole thing: who told you that intentions can be communicated in language? where did this idea you are so blindly holding on to really come from?

>>9806260

who told you they are your words? you think you own language? my friend: language owns you. welcome to the prison-house, the analyst will see you in a moment.

>>9806263
>Capitalize literally one word.
>Oh shit! He's angry!
I'll stick around, if only to bug you.

>where did this idea you are so blindly holding on to really come from?
From the same place you're writing from.

I answered your question because I understood it to be a question. You intended it to be a question, based on the trappings of the language you are communicating through.

We have, both of us, right now, communicated a shared meaning, one you intended to communicate and one I decoded and reciprocated.

Your intent, the one you just communicated, exists. I cannot claim that you just communicated a recipe for cooking fish. I cannot defend such an interpretation as "my own," simply because I am a recipient of words.

You are proving my point with every single word you type.

>>9806262
For the record, I've never read or listened to anything by Jordan Peterson, and know him only from memes.

>>9806246

cringe

Why do the least informed act the most assured

>>9806271
>you think you own language?
I must, if I can't control my intent.

>>9806263
>you're getting legitimately testy and irritated, possible even sweating.

lol

>>9806278
Intention matters, except Derrida's.

>>9806278
>For the record, I've never read or listened to anything by Jordan Peterson, and know him only from memes.

interestingly enough, this seems to aptly describe most peterson shitters.

>>9806284
this post right here ought to be screencapped and posted for years and years, because it's so short and precise in how it represents how little this person actually knows.

>>9806230
Derrida is a fucking faggot who overcomplicated literary criticism with abstract bullshit and geared literary studies towards irrelevant nonsense that has no place.

So you're wrong. Literature died in the 50s.

>>9806297
If meaning is determined by the listener, then the language I use is absolutely irrelevant. I can only understand and incorporate the meaning of the language I use and determine at the time I use and determine it. Whatever happens after is none of my concern, if I'm to believe that meaning is determined by the end recipient.

I could be hooping and hollering and tossing my shit like an ape and you could interpret it as a dinner invitation. It doesn't matter.

>>9806314
>New Criticism, where the author's intention doesn't matter, was the height of literary criticism

Easy to tell when someone speaks of topics they know nothing about

>>9806230
But why are those writings important? You said they are, but not the reason, except for Rogues.

>>9806330
>the height
No? I said it died there because at least the New Critics still focused on what was important, I didn't say it was the height. It wasn't because their theory was still very shallow.

The height was the Prague school.

>>9806314
go to bed chomsky, it's past your bedtime

>>9806315
>If meaning is determined by the listener, then the language I use is absolutely irrelevant.

if you wrote this in french then the language you used is absolutely relevant.

>I can only understand and incorporate the meaning of the language I use and determine at the time I use and determine it.

i mean, this isn't too hard my friend. just think about how context restricts language. how it's even divided into spoken/written. of course, most of the people here on /lit/ share a similar cultural horizon, but imagine conversing with people who exist outside of any similar context.

again, you struggle because of your inability to see that this is not a black/white situation. you're privileging a scenario that doesn't matter: in conversation we can shake the other person and try to work towards shared understanding. 'authorial intent' is an important train of thought because it's the notion that requires the author be ABSENT, we cannot know his/her view on his own construction by asking him/her directly.

you continue to act as if postmodernism is about destroying meaning but that's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

>>9806342
>Societal context doesn't matter in art.

Lol OK, like patronage?

> arguing over this
> being this boring

>>9806358
>Societal context doesn't matter in art

So you haven't read anything about russian formalism or czech structuralism, I take it

File: 7ef.jpg (29KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x600px

I author the following sentence:

>cats are gay

I actually meant it to mean

>cats aren't gay

but I made a typo.

What does the text I authored say?

File: RF02.jpg (20KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x337px

>tfw it's thanks to Derrida and deconstruction that this current SJW movement even exists in the first place

noggin joggin

I'm convinced that this entire topic is just bait for pseuds.

File: glass.jpg (29KB, 784x410px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 784x410px

"This is water."

>>9805984
You just HAD to bring Peterson into this, didn't you?

>>9806367
It says cats are gay. Thats the thing about being an author, rather than a telepathic thought broadcaster. You actually have to write it down properly.

>>9806363
>Russian formalism and Czech structuralism provide no societal context to art produced in those locations and periods

>>9806371
Why did it begin in the US then and not France?

>>9804541
nice b8

>as an intellectual

>>9804748
*upboated*

Wait there are seriously this many people on /lit/ who don't understand the Death of the Author as a concept? This board is even more infested with pseuds than I thought.

>>9806546
You don't actually have to agree with something to understand it anon

>>9806557
I said nothing about agreeing or disagreeing, I said people here lack understanding. And it's true. I thought more people than this actually went to college and read Derrida. I'm appalled.

>>9805701
>muh pomo boogeyman
sorry son, it seems you got Petersoned. start over on square one.

>>9806561
Where do you think you are, anon? I'll tell you: One click away from hundreds of gore webms, traps, what drug are you taking threads, and god knows what else. This isn't an ivy league student forum, ffs.

>>9805693
>Its when faggots pull shit completely unsupported by the author like "THE BLUE CURTAINS ARE SYMBOLICAL FOR THE OPPRESSION OF THE PROLETARIAT!!!"

you sure are mad about an imaginary thing that doesn't happen

>>9804797
The schemer is another name.
The word in arabic can't be directly translation into English, but the deceiver is the closest word to it.
"Maakir" is similar to a person who would use methods that are unprecedented to get his point across. Not abiding to any rules or boundaries, anything is within his reach without anyone realizing it's his doing. And even if they did, they'd be in awe of how smart he is. Not sure if that would fit into deceiver but like I said, it's the closest one.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah_the_Best_Deceiver

>>9804609
I find myself writing things some times, later when I re-read them I realize there's a human aspect of me that I never really paid attention to while writing, as if I wrote something, but I was influenced by an unknown force to write those words.

I think this is a big thing in the psychology world, how you would say/mean things but there's a hidden purpose that not the person themselves realize.

Just my 2 cents

>>9806623
No, but it's a literature board with people who act elitist but don't even understand basic concepts in literary criticism

>>9805853
THANK YOU

>>9806143
I cannot believe you literally literary objectified a women. You shitlord!

>>9804550

OK Scalia. Crawl back to your coffin now plz

>>9805674
Read Poetics by Aristotle, then the complete works of Shakespeare, then reread the complete works, and then critics like AC Bradley and Goddard and Bloom. There's a short article by Nabokov somewhere but I'm on mobile waiting for my girlfriend to get out of the shower so I can fuck her. so can another anon help me out.

>>9806472

>Russian formalism is an art movement

found the illiterate

>>9805674
>>9808261
>aristotle argues the objectivity of aesthetics in the poetics

LOL