/lit/ BTFO

>reduction is precisely what a work of art opposes
Any theory has to be shorter than the raw data, otherwise it is useless. So without reduction there can't be understanding. If your art opposes understanding, then it's just obscurantist.

>>9822164
what a nigger

>>9822164
Why does a theory "have to be" shorter than the raw data?

>>9822099
What exactly does he mean by "explain"? The themes, broader narrative, authorial intent (whether fallacious or not), historical etc. are a very real part of any piece of literature, if not only for said lit's effect on the broader canon. It's funny, because this posted excerpt is meaningless without the proper context and so refutes the OP's argument. OP BTFO

>>9822255
Obviously because without context "Raw Data" is meaningless. E.g. you can measure the speed of a bicycle at multiple instances but only through formulating a theory from the measurements or drawing a connection with others do you achieve something valuable (quantitive vs. qualitative research). How could you not know this?

>>9822099

>he doesn't understand that criticism is also an art form

utterly plebian

>>9822099
>approaching understanding is the same thing as understanding itself
Easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read, there, now no-one else has to.

>>9822164
have fun arguing with William Gass
>>9822278
it's from the intro to the recognitions and gass is pointing out that reducing the book to some paragraph would be to miss the point. I think he says to treat the book, as with other great books, as a friend which you come to learn about throughout time.

>>9822291
how is the theory shorter than a the raw data of the bicycle speed

>>9822099
>stop thinking

>>9822099

>no parasitic discourse allowed!!!

>>9823492
Let me put it this way, as an example. Say I wanted to figure out what material was best suited for a children's bicycle frame. So, I first starting collating all the average incomes of all the families of the demographics I want to sell to. Then I create a list of different materials, their characteristics, manufacturing, shipping costs and viability in the bike-frame market. At this point I have a whole tonne of raw data. There may be fifteen different materials I could use, but I have to choose one. This is already pretty complicated. Now imagine instead of just the data on demographics I have all the data of every person on the planet. Just all of it. It's not as if by having all that information a solution just 'appears', you need to organize it, define boundaries and make a realistic decision. This is the theory of bike frame material applicability in the manufacturing process.

Physics example: There are things in the universe, like black holes, which we cannot actually accurately measure qualitatively. Instead we can only formulate a theory based on the information we have hitherto acquired. Theories are a way to accurately judge and simplify the world, so we don't have to spend all day measuring things which we can just theorize, drastically reducing the time it takes to make an accurate assessment of a given situation.

>>9822099

Well I agree, but it also does a good job segregating, in my opinion, between "great books" and books. For example, a great book being Anna Karenin, which, while can be summed into a summary, and contested for its plot turns, and character psychologies, and societal conversation -- each metaphor in the book is grand in scope, intimately detailing even the easiest human interactions to gloss over in unforgettable universal detail. When Levin blushes, we feel a human soul blushing in embarassment, not a symbolic ape drawing blood to his cheeks to fit the occasion.

Perhaps the worst book I've read in the last year has been Death in Venice. That is a novella that can summarized as a philosophical treatise. That's hardly literature.

You should pursue interpretation, and at the same time understand that you won't be able to grasp an artists full message.

>>9822164
>Any theory has to be shorter than the raw data, otherwise it is useless
Both analysis and systematicity has to be, in a way, 'longer' or 'more dense' than the "raw data".
Only synthesis "has to be shorter" as you said.

>>9822164
Because art is an exact science based on mathematics