![HaroldBloom2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OPqTAQD.jpg "HaroldBloom2[1].jpg")
Is the the school of resentment winning the battle /lit/ ?
>>8005697
They've won it a long time ago, Harold.
You've said before, something like, "I can't believe the common reader will ever die," that there will always be people who will read great literature for characters, their stories, their voices, and overall aesthetic spleandor. However, looking at how the only people who read the classics treat them only as weight lifting, apparently the common reader is dying out too.
Deep Reading is a dead activity, Harold.
>>8005697
nobody won.
>>8005724
Should I read Voyage to Arcturus?
>>8005697
the battle has moved on to the field of pop culture. Less and less people care enough for 'serious literature' as to sperg out about it
>>8005697
The school of resentment is fulfilling a political purpose to the people in power. Its position is invincible in our culture, and will be until we have a one world government.
![shakespeare01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/B4Xcxzp.jpg "shakespeare01[1].jpg")
Is /lit/ the last bastion of classics?
>>8005841
>Should I read Voyage to Arcturus?
If you like really bad books, then yes.
>>8005969
Actually, yeah. I would agree with that.
>>8005969
this post is legitimately hilarious to me
>>8005841
It's a great book! I would recommend.
>>8005977
>hasn't read it
>>8005697
The concept of ideology-free criticism is the purest ideology of all
>>8005697
(this will be longish)
So I will lay my cards out on the table first. I am a committed Marxist (not a Leninist) with anarchist leanings. I like Hegel. I also like Nietzsche, and I have a romantic/aesthetic streak a mile wide. While I shy away from grand eschatological Revolution theory, I believe at least in class struggle and standing up for the little guy.
I am happy to propose a re-evaluation of the canon, and the reassessment of works from non-white non-Western non-men and whatever. I think we praise a lot of 'canonical' work just (esp. the Romans) for being old and pompous. I have some sympathy for the postmodern attempt to knock down ideas of knowable absolute truth -- but Socrates also did this. Fine, whatever.
Despite all this, I really hate where literary theory has gone in the last half-century. To quote wikipedia:
>Broadly, Bloom terms "Schools of Resentment" approaches associated with Marxist critical theory, including African American Studies, Marxist literary criticism, New Historicist criticism, feminist criticism, and poststructuralism — specifically as promoted by Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.
I like most of those things, especially Marxism, feminism (in a certain sense), post-structuralism, Lacan and Foucault.
I will admit that not all of it was solid gold, because they're just smart people, not demigods, and the Sorbonne and friends spawned their fair share of charlatans too.
But all these European guys out there weren't doing literaty criticism, they were doing philosophy. In the case of Marx and Foucault, they were actively trying to build weapons to wield against capitalism or the state or Power or whatever you want to call it. Even when someone like Foucault or Lacan (or Zizek) writes about culture (film, literature) it's like a vet using animal shit (culture) to diagnose the status of the animal (society).
These theories all fell upon deaf ears in the Anglo academic philosophical establishment, partially because of analytical philosophy and that scene being a bit politically stuffy and, at best, "liberal" and reformist.
But Lit departments imported the ideas of these thinkers, these tools or weapons, and started using them like toys, to write endless exigeses and impermeable hermeneutical analyses.
tl;dr All these powerful tools and lovely ideas for how to think about the world got turned into shitty toys for getting tenure. Just a bunch of kids playing with Daddy's shotgun.
>>8007679
or maybe they're doing exactly what they were intended to do, convincing retards to tear down the culture that allowed them to have a well-paying job in the first place.
>>8007679
>specifically as promoted by Jacques Lacan
that's idiotic. Just because Lacan has been misused doesn't mean that's what he promoted
>the battle
i'm glad no writers actually give a shit about >the battle. literary critics end up having as much of an influence on literature as film critics do on film - none. the true artists will create what they want outside of the notion of >the battle. sure, some academics might make a carefully constructed philosophical novel in the vein of the classics, but, those novels - at least currently - tend to be dead and lifeless. even on /lit/ the meme trilogy consists of one academic; dfw - and that guy was a pop culture loon.
note: i'm not bashing if you are into lit crit. everyone has their thing - but to think that the >the battle is looming over all of literature and its creators is just one big goddamn motherfucking spook.
>>8007686
I'd rather have a good chat than just trade insults with you.
Firstly, the 'culture that allowed them to have good paying jobs' -- and the eight hour day, and workplace safety laws, and overtime, and a bit of dignity -- includes unions and socialists and people working to, again, stand up for the little guy. The desire for that stuff is created by society, and the conditions in it. These movements are internal to 'society', not some evil thing swinging in from stage left to attack it.
And my vision for the world -- and that of all of my comrades I've met -- isn't about tearing anything down, but building up, using what we have to make an even better world tomorrow.
I mean, look at what I wrote above. I'm ANGRY at people who want to use philosophy to tear down the beautiful work that we've built up over milennia. In this sense I am a communist -- our literary history is shared, it's a "commons". We all own that stuff together.
>>8007688
I think that's just referring to Lacan, Derrida and Foucault as the people who promoted (their vision of) poststructuralism, not the whole rest of the paragraph.
>>8005969
>4chan being a bastion for anything.
Oh shit. We're fucked aren't we?
>>8007699
Ah, you sound more like a national socialist.
>>8007714
Well, I dabbled in the Right (and Guenon and Evola) before I ended up where I am. Spent maybe six months describing as a National Anarchist and all that Volkisch stuff.
But I'm not racialist, and I don't much believe in borders. If you count 'working people of the world' as my Nation, it is vaguely applicable. But I am against coercive authority. I don't believe in 'equality' (silly/hard to measure), my aim is more like 'liberation', the right to do as you please as part of your community, and I think (for instance) that many ambitious and intelligent women still have a hard time of it today.
I think there are local traditions (of workers, and in some places peasants) worth preserving. And when I look to high culture, I think that it was the sweat of slaves, peasants and workers, extracted and exploited for milennia, that allowed a Plato or a Milton or a Beethoven the kind of leisure required to make their art. Ultimately it belongs to us, it belongs to all of us.
>>8005697
I honest to god wish I could just check out from this entire thing. The endless political bullshit. It follows you everywhere.
>>8007741
Kill yourself via "blood eagle".
>>8007741
You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
If you check out, sooner or later you'll find that politics means a nightstick aimed at your head, or an empty plate for yourself and your family while a billionaire and his harem eat beef and lobster on a yacht.
Even if you're meek and only love literature, if you check out from politics you'll wake up to discover all the writers are in camps, all the canon is locked away, and you're too dead to read.
>>8007746
Dark shit, true words.
>>8007825
I said I didn't want to trade insults anon. I know you can do a bit better than this.
>>8007737
>But I'm not racialist, and I don't much believe in borders.
So you're an effeminate cuck beta who denies objective science?
>>8007843
>>8007851
"Not being a racialist" and "not believing in borders" is an exclusively effeminate, white progressive personality quirk, and possibly a symptom of late stage civilization.
Barbarians care about and are interested in your borders very much, regardless of whether you 'believe" in them.
>Let those who din into my ears once more the story of past disasters and ancient sorrows observe that in your time I suffer such things no longer. No barbarian foe shatters my bars with his spear, nor with strange arms and dress and hair goes roving through my captured city, carrying off my young men to bondage across the Alps [Against Symmachus 2, 690-95]
>The above words were written in 403 AD. Seven years later, Rome fell to the Visigoths, who plundered it for three days. The Empire imploded as one barbarian nation after another moved in. In 455, Rome was sacked a second time—the Vandals were allowed to enter unopposed after promising not to kill anyone. With the return of piracy and brigandage, trade sharply declined, as did food production and maintenance of roads, ports, and aqueducts. Neither life nor property was secure. It is estimated that this period saw Europe’s population shrink by about a third through war, famine, and plague. So ended the Pax Romana.
>>8007851
>>8007885
Another retrospectively hilarious quote:
>Shall I tell you, Roman, what cause it was that so exalted your labours, what it was that nursed your glory to such a height of fame that it has put rein and bridle on the world? God, wishing to bring into partnership peoples of different speech and realms of discordant manners, determined that all the civilised world should be harnessed to one ruling power and bear gentle bonds in harmony under the yoke, so that love of their religion should hold men’s hearts in union; for no bond is made that is worthy of Christ unless unity of spirit leagues together the nations it associates. Only concord knows God; it alone worships the beneficent Father aright in peace. The untroubled harmony of human union wins his favour for the world; by division it drives Him away, with cruel warfare it makes Him wroth; it satisfies Him with the offering of peace and holds Him fast with quietness and brotherly love. [Against Symmachus 2, 583-597]
>>8007843
be careful if you throw that word around. You might get your post removed.
>>8007885
Sorry, I didn't realise I was talking to a Roman aristocrat. How's the lead in your vino?
The answer to not losing your empire is to not build overambitious expansionist empires in the first place. Same goes for America today. Life should be about making a living, not a killing. When the Roman aristocracy (bourgeoisie, even) got decadent and started contracting out their defence, they paved the way for a bad day. I am a military man myself, posted to a high-readiness response unit, and I did this to prove to myself that I won't ever need to subcontract my safety out to the Visigoths.
As for barbarianism, every European is a descendant of the intermixing of that same set of bloodlines. A strict European racialist today would have been a dirty half-caste to a Roman aristocrat, or a Vandal chieftain. People have been moving around long before the nation-state came into being in the 18th century.
As for effeminate, nothing I post could prove you wrong, so if you want me to be effeminate for the sake of argument I guess I'll just have to cop it.
>>8007696
Academics absolutely have an effect on the teaching of literature, if not the writing of it. This is why so many works have been removed from the syllabus it given trigger warnings. You can't teach The Metamorphosis now without warning your trans and genderfluid students that it may trigger dysphoria.
>>8007939
>As for barbarianism, every European is a descendant of the intermixing of that same set of bloodlines. A strict European racialist today would have been a dirty half-caste to a Roman aristocrat, or a Vandal chieftain. People have been moving around long before the nation-state came into being in the 18th century.
None of this is even wrong, nor is it relevant to our discussion. "Not being a racialist" is a sly way for you to say we should try to turn sub-Saharan Africans into neurosurgeons.
A communism of the type you advocate in a multicultural society such as ours means the capable support the incapable. Yes, you're correct in saying much of what we see now is a result of a globalist/expansionist empire, but I never advocated for that in the first place.
>And when I look to high culture, I think that it was the sweat of slaves, peasants and workers, extracted and exploited for milennia, that allowed a Plato or a Milton or a Beethoven the kind of leisure required to make their art. Ultimately it belongs to us, it belongs to all of us.
Except not everyone is a Plato or a Milton or a Beethoven, nor can they be made into one. It seems your issue is with hierarchy of any kind, which sadly is baked into the fabric of existence.
Also I find it odd that you say you really like Nietszche yet you espouse these views. You have read him, right?
>>8007939
Not an argument.
We haven't had anything close to Rome since it's collapse, and it's been over 1000 years.
>>8007976
If we could teach sub-Saharan Africans to be neurosurgeons, should we not? If there is even one on the entire continent with the capacity to be a neurosurgeon, and the world needs neurosurgeons, I say let's do what we can to make him one.
>A communism of the type you advocate in a multicultural society such as ours means the capable support the incapable.
The strong ought to protect the weak. This is how we demonstrate strength. To call yourself "capable", pretend to be a man of boundless capacity, and yet sneakily and fearfully hold something back is just a sign of weakness. Are you afraid to die? To see even your best works smashed apart by fate? Afraid to stand by your own convictions though the heavens fall? Then you are not a man and your beloved Romans would laugh at you.
> hierarchy
There are hierarchies of everything, in nature -- of talent, wisdom, skill, strength -- but I detest anything that wants to narrow my field of possibilities without my consent.
I want everyone to share in the possibility of being not Beethoven or Milton but the best they can personally be, to "become what they are".
For billionaires to buy the government and police, and then claim that this is only natural, invites my scorn and resistance. Maybe it was different in the times when rulers got their title by knocking the heads off other men and taking their stuff, but it's not that way today.
Modern 'hierarchy' of wealth under capitalism is not the kind of hierarchy you're talking about.
>Nietzsche
Gay Science aphorism 377. I don't agree with all he's ever said, but his take down of nationalism accords with mine. I am no fan of the complacent herd either, and I will seek always to be above and striving for spiritual greatness.
>>8007939
just wanted to say nice work arguing with clarity against someone who is trolling at best.
I appreciate your posts.
>>8007746
>but politics is interested in you.
>
>If you check out, sooner or later you'll find that politics means a nightstick aimed at your head, or an empty plate for yourself and your family while a billionaire and his harem eat beef and lobster on a yacht.
>
>Even if you're meek and only love literature, if you check out from politics you'll wake up to discover all the writers are in camps, all the canon is locked away, and you're too dead to read.
Wrong, I'll just kill myself if politics ever forces itself on me, simple as that.
>>8007674
With that attitude it is.
>>8008027
>and the world needs neurosurgeons
You mean, "and white people are willing to pay for neurosurgeons"? The world doesn't need anything—certainly not neurosurgeons. Nor, by making one man a neurosurgeon, have you given him to "the world".
>>8007949
>you can't teach (whatever work)
when i was in high school we read the metamorphosis. using anecdotal evidence proves nothing. sure these things exists, but the south has long had a history of not allowing certain books to be taught throughout the reconstruction era up until modern times. has the state of literature suffered from it? who the fuck knows. to care about censorship in regards to what is being taught in this day and time with the internet that allows anyone to download whatever fucking book they want (and whatever fucking academic critique of work they want) is a moot point.
but again, all anecdotal ;^)
>>8005969
To the degree resentment and sjw shit haver 0 traction here, maybe yes.
There are some high level schools that still do good work, but even they prance around pretending this resentment shit is worth something at least.
>>8007737
Gonna puke at this point. + your miss characterization of desires under capitalism.
Hope you're only like 22 tops, maybe you will recover.
>>8007939
>I am a military man myself
Ah the Marxist is on welfare. Makes sense now.
>>8005969
A little bit, surprisingly, but it's a very shitty one
>>8007679
>Marxist
Stopped reading right there.
>>8009296
your reading habits are irrelevant to the conversation
>>8007679
kek, if marxist then cannot anarchist.
you are postmodern dumb.
>>8009506
why is that?
>>8009574
Reds? whatever, dude.
>>8007885
>"not believing in borders" is an exclusively effeminate, white progressive personality quirk, and possibly a symptom of late stage civilization.
Diogenes is a modern effeminate white progressive?
>>8009620
>modern
Never said modern.
>effeminate, white progressive
Yes.
>>8009296
u beat me 2 it
