Do you think most literature critics / theorists are bluffing? Unlike most other media / art, literature takes tons of time to consume, even when talking about a single work, much more to let it gestate, be reread etc.
Is therefore any sort of meaningful, broad, encompassing insight impossible?
And is the reason this gets swept under the rug because it would ruin academic careers if admitted?
I don't think you've read too much if at all of literary criticism.
>>8275570
Illiterate.
>>8275570
it's a genuine question
but your starting point is suspect to begin with.
what is "meaningful, broad, encompassing insight "? and what do you imagine it would look like? Since you said it's also impossible.
Anyway, to answer your question, depends on the critic I guess.
It's like that with film. Someone like Kermode as opposed to Bordwell.
What you want to look out for when reading any kind of criticism is the "how" of the critique.
>>8276524
It takes less than 2 hours on average to watch a movie
>>8276535
So?
What an odd and irrelevant comment.
>>8276544
I don't think you're capable of understanding the crux of the matter here.
>>8276560
Oh I get it. I've read the OP. I just think it's a stupid assumption to have.
>>8276565
Time is of the essence when trying to have a clearer picture of many cultural artefacts. It is pretty clear that literary theory has to involve a lot of bluffing.
>>8275570
>meaningful, broad, encompassing insight
K Stew is quite the meaningful broad
Wide angeled with her compass
Is it golden
>>8276569
and the fact that you used a phrase like "time is of the essence" as if it illustrates your point demonstrates how pseud you are.
>>8275570
>literature takes tons of time to consume
>any sort of meaningful, broad, encompassing insight is impossible
Can you elaborate on how exactly your conclusion follows from your premise. I'm sure it's very obvious to you but we aren't psychic.
>>8276515
This is true as well. Literary theory / criticism is way different than you probably think it is, often not focusing on reviewing literature en masse, but rather advancing a lens through which to view literature (or elaborating on an existing one) or providing a close reading of a single work. Neither of these are somehow false endeavours simply by virtue of the fact that literature is time consuming to read.
>>8276569
>It is pretty clear that literary theory has to involve a lot of bluffing.
Just keep saying this without providing any sort of argument. Also, what literary theory / criticism have you read? I have a feeling you're bluffing, pal.
>>8276630
>Also, what literary theory / criticism have you read?
That's the point, I've read numerous books dealing with literary critique in general, read tons of references about movements from Russian Formalism onwards, but - for example - I will never even attempt to read all the key works of, say, Formalism, or Deconstruction (God forbid) or even anything phenomenological apart from Husserl.
Do that and the time for reading actual books diminishes by at least a decade.
Kenzeburo Oe in his Paris Review interview talked about his process.
He'll just dedicate all his time for three months to an author/poet. Devour all their major works and then set upon the littler works. If he likes them he finishes them and if he doesn't he skips them.
Then when he feels he's exhausted it, he turns to literary criticism for the author/poet.
>>8277160
>He'll just dedicate all his time for three months to an author/poet.
That's pretty retarded considering you need to be in a certain mindset to enjoy a particular book, not to mention a whole opus. Then again ideogram people's opinions aren't really relevant when discussing belles lettres.
>I'rr just power throughouru >.<
fucking chinks
>>8276569
>Time is of the essence
'no'
how's high school going op? maybe try doing your homework instead of reading Wikipedia articles on Russian formalism.
Paradox? Your insight into the amount of time it takes proves the value of literary theory/criticism. There's a lot of fat to be trimmed in the academic-lit world, but this would be a poor reason to do so.
>>8278015
This guy knows what's up
>>8278050
No, it allows people to spend time understanding literature that's been created. The greater amount of time you spend with something, the greater understanding you'll have. This should be obvious.
>>8278058
>The greater amount of time you spend with something, the greater understanding you'll have.
This has been refuted in analytical philosophy. Read about Holmes vs Watson certainty issue.
>>8275570
>celebrity sluts swallowing loads on tv
who ever thought of this is a genius
>>8278066
That refutation isn't applicable to the real world, or at least not in this scenario. If you're writing an analysis of Godot, it helps to read Godot, to read the philosophers and ideas that informed it, etc. You'll understand it better than people who haven't done those things.
Is your argument that understanding literature isn't possible (in an objective sense)? If that's the case, I misunderstood. I still disagree, but we're in two different ballparks.
>>8278104
No, I think you can understand certain aspects of literature, certain writers and their influences, but you can't shift focus easily and can't even master one literary movement given how they often lean on each other.
It's the old argument "well, you haven't wasted your life reading all this Marxist theory so you better be quiet" which leads into all sorts of fallacies.
![lead_82079[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/tI6ih7q.png "lead_82079[1].png")
>>8275570
Recently i read Bloom's Canon, it was mostly "muh Shakespeare" and when he didn't know what to add, he simply compared the author with Shakespeare. So yeah, i'd say you are right.
>>8276569
>Clichés and typos while advocating haste and scepticism of readers ability
It's like pottery
>>8278066
Any links to the certainty issue?
>>8275570
No, they're not.
>>8275570
girls swallowing things they dislike while trying to keep it together is my fetish
>>8275570
>Unlike most other media / art, literature takes tons of time to consume
Actually literature is one of the arts where you have a degree of control over the time it costs you.
>in b4 not watching movies at 2x
>>8278050
>Yeah, the less time you spend on reading literature makes you all the more of a critic
>Death of the author and all that
what the fuck are you on kid. you have no idea what you're saying.
>>8278272
'artefact' is an alt. spelling in brit. & co. fyi senpai desu
>>8279983
I rewatch movies at 1x, 8x, 4x, 2x, 1x, 0.5x, and then 0.25x to get all the detail.
>>8279973
you must be a shitty cook
>>8275570
everything i've read the author usually specializes in a very select number of authors, sometime just the one, usually reading them through the lens of a select number of thinkers, sometimes just a one.
I suppose this always was the case but in the older stuff they seem to be drawing from a deeper well.
I've also read anecdotes from writers about how literary professors admit to not reading the assigned texts. but you're probably overblowing the "bluff" thing since you have to be about that life to get these jobs
>>8280332
everything recent*
