Has there been an eloquent defense of elitism? Not just in literature but in general. How do you justify the idea that quality exists outside of personal opinion and that it is important. Or books generally literally justifying elites and their dominion over the lower classes. Just general authors who deal with the concept of eliteness in a positive light.
I've read Evola, watched Barton Fink, and I know of Bloom. They dealt with these topics but I'm interested in others.
>>7735668
sorry for rewording the question 5 times. I am a pleby pleb born and raised btw.
Lord Julia Ebola of Sachsen Munchausen
Quality doesn't exist outside of personal opinion, it's just that some opinions are more authoritative than others. Fuck fags who try to hide behind their canonical taste that they can't even defend. A true patrician enjoys whatever he likes and can justify his stance when challenged.
>>7735717
How on earth would you justify it if it's simply based on personal opinion? There must be something higher than simple personal opinion if you're trying to justify it.
>>7735722
Pretty easily. Have you ever read a review before? Critics justify their personal opinions of a work based on their interpretation of its themes, characterization, prose, etc. If two critics disagree one isn't right or wrong, they simply have differing perspectives. However some perspectives are more informed than others. There is no objective criterion for quality literature, but that doesn't mean we can't speak intelligently and eloquently on novels, whether we're praising or denigrating them. We should move away the idea that some works are just magically good, and instead encourage an elitism of eloquence and intelligence, in which only thoughtful opinions (whether we agree or disagree) are valued.
>>7735773
>an elitism of eloquence and intelligence, in which only thoughtful opinions (whether we agree or disagree) are valued.
good intentions senpai and i agree, but popular sentiment conflates your brand of elitism with the brand of elitism you're attacking
in addtion, popular opinion would attack your brand of elitism as well cause "all opinions are thoughtful" meme
>>7735782
Fortunately for us, popular sentiment tends to consist of worthless opinions : -)
Idk senpai, but an informed opinion is infinitely more valuable than an uninformed opinion. To use a/lit/ related example, the average reddit scrub won't read anything but Harry potter and hitchhikers guide, so why would you discuss books on reddit when you could discuss them here with people who know what they're discussing? I'm sure there are intelligent people on reddit and I know for a fact that there are actual retards on 4Chan, but because of our elitism the quality of discussion is far higher than reddit, in general.
>>7735668
I think the next necessary step in world peace is world domination. Think about a state that devotes itself entirely to the welfare of its citizens. It's gonna go bankrupt to other states.
But if there's only one, global state...
>>7735773
What a fucking pleb. Works have an inherent value to them. You can't be eloquent when talking about garbage without resorting to 1984 level of doublethink. Bloom spits on you.
Get out of /lit/ you disgusting philistine.
>>7735823
so i guess op's question can be reframed as a defense of elitism as you defined it
>>7736665
>You can't be eloquent when talking about garbage
yes you very well can. why not?
>>7735773
Serious candidate for worst post I've ever read on /lit/. If you're an extreme subjectivist to the tune of "quality doesn't exist outside of personal opinion" and "there is no objective criterion for quality literature", you are automatically precluded from all forms of elitism.
The sentence
>critics justify their personal opinions of a work based on their interpretation of its themes, characterization, prose, etc.
proves the enormity of your ignorance. Try going to any half way decent university, even as an undergraduate, and talk about "themes" and "characterisation" and see how far that gets you. This is the dumbest post I've ever read.
>>7736724
>If you're an extreme subjectivist to the tune of "quality doesn't exist outside of personal opinion" and "there is no objective criterion for quality literature", you are automatically precluded from all forms of elitism.
so someone like nietzsche isn't really an elitist?
>>7735717
Well that's easy. Sentimentality.
How do you challenge subjectivity and expect to do anything but stroke your own ego?
>>7736724
>>7736724
>If you're an extreme subjectivist to the tune of "quality doesn't exist outside of personal opinion" and "there is no objective criterion for quality literature", you are automatically precluded from all forms of elitism.
what? that's retarded. did you even finish reading that post? it quite clearly outlines a form of elitism within that same subjectivist framework.
>The sentence...proves the enormity of your ignorance
fucking how? that is literally what a critical assessment is; themes, characterization, prose, and whatnot are the constituent parts of literature that necessarily must be interpreted and analyzed to form an opinion.
>>7735782
But tell me, why should good men be bothered by the opinion of the many?
>>7735668
Nietzsche. Don't let the Jews or the French pinko theorists tell you otherwise.
