/lit/ - Literature

The value of literary criticism has been questioned by some prominent artists. Vladimir Nabokov argued that good readers don't read books, and particularly literary masterpieces, "for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations"

Stephen J. Joyce, grandson of James Joyce, at a 1986 academic conference of Joyceans in Copenhagen, said "If my grandfather was here, he would have died laughing ... Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be picked up, read, and enjoyed by virtually anybody without scholarly guides, theories, and intricate explanations, as can Ulysses, if you forget about all the hue and cry." And he questioned whether anything has been added to the legacy of Joyce's art by the 261 books of literary criticism stored in the Library of Congress.

>>6972266
Stephen J. Joyce, the original edgelord

>>6972257
Explain this, Vlad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Nabokov_bibliography#Criticism

Thoughts?

>>6972210

I have a tattoo of the Graph of desire.
It's Graph 1 tho

>>6972317
says the middle-aged dude who writes books about middle-aged dudes fucking kids

>>6972257
I agree with this. I'm an English major, and it breaks my heart to see people contort "texts" into unrecognizable shapes just to get a reading on it.

Literary theory generally doesn't pay enough attention to the way books work on you emotionally. I think the problem is we're taught to read books by theme & meaning, when we should read books by the effects they wring out of us.

>>6972282
His granddad was no slouch when it came to fucking with academics either. Really it just runs in the family.

>>6972257
He was right. Plati's criticism of artists from the Republic is also correct, and anyone who thinks that analyzing literature will reveal truths about reality is a fool. So is anyone who denies the existence of truth and reality.
>inb4 antirealist pigs

>>6972317
https://youtu.be/OxmzGT1w_kk

>>6972210
I think it's fascinating and have spent a decent portion of my life studying and writing about it.

/lit/ hates it, though, because it doesn't spoon-feed you immediate gratification and isn't entertaining to read, by and large. Most people don't seem to understand that one can be interested in and invest a great deal of time in studying something that doesn't claim to reveal the ultimate truths of the world or to be the greatest work of art of all time.

>>6972686
/lit/ hates it
Half the posters on this board are English majors who read this stuff daily

>>6972700
Well, because they're required to, I assume. I check this board and its archive at least once a day and this is the first thread on lit theory I've seen in a week, maybe longer. It's no secret that it's boring and pedantic, and I don't think most people feel like they're investing their time wisely when they read something like that.

Also, if you think that most English majors actually read for their classes, even the fiction, you're living in a fantasy world. Doubly so when it comes to assigned theory.

>>6972715
It's also completely useless. Why do you read it?

>>6972997
I think it's interesting, and I don't share your opinion that it is completely useless. It's also important that I have a working knowledge of it or I would find myself in a lot of embarrassing situations.

Holy shit I just realized Sonic the Hedgehog is called Sonic because he runs at the speed of sound holy shit

>>6972343
uhhhhhhhhhhhh, no. Theme and Meaning first, always, definitely.

>>6972700
this board would be much better if that were the case

>>6972343

>Literary theory generally doesn't pay enough attention to the way books work on you emotionally.

That's all phenomenology IS, you goof.

>>6973085
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...nah bruh.

meme and theaming tpbuh smdh

>>6972317
This is the only way to be a true reader really. You have to approach the text as an assumed, autonomous object. It's easy to do a feminist or ethinc study of a work because the tools at the disposal of those types of studies already predispose one to a particular reading. Immanent critique is much more difficult, but also much more respectful in its approach to literature. One should approach a book the way one approaches a wild, rare animal. Cautiously, respectfully, understanding it on its own terms.

>>6975057
*unassumed, autonomous object

>>6975066
Except that's not the case, it's like you didn't even read the passage.

>>6972320

Queer.

If you cite Nabokov on these sorts of things then it just shows that you are not well read. Nabokov had perverse opinions on almost everything literary. He was an insufferable contrarian.

It's silly to ask what anyone "thinks" of literary theory at this point because literary theory is all there is. It has practically replaced all of philosophy. Okay, that's an overstatement but it's become an essential branch of philosophy, you can call it applied hermeneutics if that makes you feel better but if you're not reading literary theory articles literally every single day then you are not even trying to parse and make sense of the world around you.

>>6975057
This. At most look up some historical context, but otherwise its better to approach things within their own context. I dont see how you can claim to understand a thing otherwise.

>>6975122
>it's become an essential branch of philosophy
>if you're not reading literary theory articles literally every single day then you are not even trying to parse and make sense of the world around you

Just...no. I hope you're an undergraduate, because that is such a hopeful and innocent opinion. Please, keep your idealism alive as long as you can, because when you realize how useless literary theory actually is, you're going to be very unhappy.

>Start watching Joseph Campbell's last interview
>It's taken off of youtube due to a claim from the Campbell foundation
>Read through their website
>It's obviously a cult

Not sure what to think about this.

>>6975122
>He was an insufferable contrarian.
You have to be that way to be a patrician, fuck off pleb.
>at this point because literary theory is all there is. It has practically replaced all of philosophy. Okay, that's an overstatement but it's become an essential branch of philosophy, you can call it applied hermeneutics if that makes you feel better but if you're not reading literary theory articles literally every single day then you are not even trying to parse and make sense of the world around you.
kek

Daily reminder than SJ Joyce has no kids and Joyce's genes will soon fade from the gene pool

>>6972372
Arguments against antirealism? Please educate me.

>>6972317
he writes like a really tryhard poster in a critique thread

as for the content of what he said, eh, I guess so, but works should also be considered in relation to what the author intended