That's a really insightful point that you've communicated well. I had no idea people thought of things like that and I now feel much more informed on the topic.
Or, no, wait, you're missing the point that all art is shit. Nothing has changed since Artaud said "all writing is garbage. People who come out of nowhere to try to put into words any part of what goes in in their minds are pigs. The whole literary scene is a pigpen, especially today."
Literary history isn't just people writing great work but people telling other people that...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
If you're just in it for the plot and storytelling, why do you care what other criteria might go into picking books? If you had a room full of all of the best books in history and knew both that they were all literary the best books ever written and that you could only read a finite number of them, what would be the argument against reading only the ones that had blue covers? Or only the ones that are in the Realist mode? Or only books that are shorter than 300 pages? Or only the ones by women? Or only the ones by men? Why is one of these options okay but the rest are utterly unacceptable for a reading list?
Most people read based on aesthetics. And yet somehow we've ended up with a literary history and canon that predominantly celebrates white males. Maybe, somehow, that's not a coincidence? For example, maybe white males aren't the only ones to create texts of aesthetic worth but are mostly the only ones? Sounds reasonable.
After all, we're only reading books of aesthetic worth and it's mostly white men, and any argument that we should we read more women or brown people is met with the outrage and shouting about only reading books based on aesthetic worth. Or is that too much inductive logic?
Even if you walked into a library without having ever seen a book or read a word or heard someone talk about western literature in your entire life, pulled a random book off the shelf, and said "hey, have you guys heard about this Shakespeare guy? He seems pretty cool," you would still be within the context of a library which has limited funds to acquire books and thus will naturally acquire books that someone at some point decided were of value to others. If you're in a bookstore, someone thought it would sell or otherwise had the money to make sure it's printed.
You are not absent from the literary tradition that said, first, that women were not intelligent enough to write, and, later, that, okay, maybe they can write (even though they should not have been educated enough to put together that many words and sentences), but it's just not aesthetically pleasing and that has nothing to do with their genitalia. Or, else you say that the genre that is predominantly female is of little literary value despite being culturally dangerous. You don't need to pick one, you can pick a few because it's a grab-bag.
Jane Eyre actually gets a shout-out on the cover of Joanna Russ' How to Suppress Women's Writing. Here's a gem from Wikipedia regarding the androgynous penname Jane Eyre was originally published under:
Speculation about the identity and gender of the mysterious Currer Bell heightened with the publication of Wuthering Heights by Ellis Bell (Emily) and Agnes Grey by Acton Bell (Anne). Accompanying the speculation was a change in the critical reaction to Charlotte's work, as accusations were made that the writing was "coarse", a judgement more readily made once it was suspected that Currer Bell was a woman.
Do you know what happens when a Victorian publisher thinks your writing is too coarse and/or unlikely to get carried by Mudie's? You don't get published, even if you wrote what would be acknowledge as the best novel in English history. Or maybe you publish under a name like George Eliot so that people won't be looking to define your work based on your genitals.
>writing a essay
>subject is perfectly adressed for undergrad level
>still 7 pages shorter than required
What do I do now? I'm just using redundant theory now that makes the text feels fat of references. What this minimum page requirement is supposed to accomplish? Is this a warning sign of shitty teacher?
Your problem is that you did not outline your paper. Here's my method:
>The required number of pages is your basic template
>Make a list of subtopics related to the main subject of discussion
>Allocate an equal amount of space for each subtopic within those pages
This is not a hard rule. Obviously, you will have more to say on some points but breaking up the space makes the whole process easier.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
what arguments against the oxford comma exist
/lit/ is nothing but a bunch shitposting and people procrastinating. Barely see any serious discussion on this forum. Only solution is for /lit/ to become one big book circle reading the whole western canon. what is this forum for if not for encouraging reading and enabling serious literary discussions?
And why does this inot already exist?
>Some may seize on it as a masterpiece, but it is a bloated monster of a book. (...) The bloat is a consequence of sheer adipose verbosity and an unremitting condition of moral and intellectual flatulence.
nobody that matters said this about IJ
STOP TRYING TO RUIN DFW'S NAME
Is this is the only book you care about? Have you read a single book in your life or you just shitpost? Why every tenth post here have to be about IJ, where most of the people haven't even read it. No one claims it to be a masterpiece of literature. Yes, it's a good book. Please, get your shit together.
I want to unironically live with no regrets. How can I attain complete satisfaction and be happy with my decisions on my death bed? Does everyone regret something?
How do I improve my writing, /lit/?
What's the Fullmetal Alchemist of Literature?
What's the best book with the most unintentionally bad writing or unintelligent writer? Fiction or non fiction
what are /lit/'s thoughts on alt lit?
is the Constance Garnett translation of Brothers Karamazov good?
am i a plebeian?
i googled it just now after being the book at a used book shop and the New Yorker seems to have their head up their ass.
i know that /lit/ generally hits it on the spot regarding >translations, just wanted to make sure
Who's the greatest writer of all time?
what does /lit/ think of these?
Worse than Twilight. Not even joking. To be fair the kid was only like 16 but still.
My dad loves them though. Whenever he talks about what a great writer Paolini is I get pissed off. We went to see one of those Hobbit movies and he said without a hint of irony that they were good but that they copied a lot from Eragon.
never read any bolano. seems like most people on here like 2666 more - any reason to not start with that? is savage detectives more accessible/anyone like that one more?
I read Savage Detectives. I started 2666 twice but never made it past the first 150 pages. I'll go back and take it down one day.
Savage Detectives strikes me as more accessible. It is also pretty awesome.
Savage Detectives is still a pretty beastly novel. 600+ pages, constantly shifting narrators, non-linear, etc.
His shorter works are good, and more "traditional", therefore easier to get into.