For every major novel in literature there's are literally and entire industry making analysis and anlysis of...

>is almost as pathethic as being the top classical players like lang lang and never compose anything of worth.
Most composers are not players and vice-versa.

It's the same problem with Film critics. They cannot create even the lowest work so they must either tear down all actual work or either over analyze themselves a job or place in society. They are unable to create the lowest of film, music or literature so they must live on the backs of it.

>literature helpers create culture
Dumbest thing I've read this year yet

Its hilarious when a brainlet like me will create a work of art that others will overanalyse long after im dead.
t. artiste

And then they have the audacity to act above it all and to base papers which grant them supposed prestigious positions based off of other's work. It all wouldn't exist, their place would not be real if not for their created position that piggy backs on content from the lowest to the highs. It's no different than someone feeling as if liking a comic books makes them superior to another. These pretentious losers are the comic book elitist who knows how to articulate himself.

they don't create, they consume, that's the point retard

If you think analysis is a waste of time maybe you should stop reading such shallow material

Analysis of creative content shouldn't be a legacy, career, life's work, it shouldn't be an industry. It show an absolute shallowness, elitist behavior with a bottom feeders job. When all you can do is critique and not create you are the definition of a leech and parasite.

You mean academia? That's a societal amenity, not an industry.

almost every classical musician spends their whole lives playing other people's music, like an actor spends their whole lives acting other people's pays. neither are like Shakespeare at all, but they are sometimes very talented. creativity isn't the only worthwhile skill, the frogposter just thinks it is because he doesn't in fact have any skills, but he can imagine being creative if he really wanted to. I'm the same, but I don't feel the need to let my frustration out by insulting musicians for no reason.

>Critique and creation are mutually exclusive
Critique is an important part of developing and refining ideas and understandings.
Sounds like you're just mad as fuck that some people spend their lives engaging with complex materials and their historical contexts and implications instead of treating literature as a triviality
to read then discard

>societal amenity
it's a malignant tumor

Not him but I'm with T.S. Elliot when he says "I consider that the only jury of judgment is that of the ablest poetical practitioners of my own time."

Don't be so cyncial OP. Consider every different book about Shakespeare a different conversation you could be having with the author. Do you think it's pathetic to hold conversations about literature? I don't think so because that's what you're doing right not.
If you think it's pathetic because no one reads it again consider it differently. If it gets published a small circle of readers would be enough to please me.

I agree, everyone who dislikes black panther is a racist low IQ retard

>this post is a critique on the cult of literary critique
You are no better than the people you criticize, fuck off

Bach was more famous as a performer than composer

Chopin, Brahms, Liszt were all more famous as performers before they became composers

the only reason you think such brainlet thoughts is that you only see the composers of the past as just composers

hm

baby, baby you dont gotta read none of it !

Wow, you listed off a few hyper-famous exceptions, congratulations, you know about Bach and Chopin. Are great performers not due any praise just because they're not composers on the level of Bach?
That ought to be the case for many great works

Most players are not composers. But you're totally wrong about most composers not being players. Basically Schumann was the only exception. They were all virtuosos my dude.

berlioz wasn't a virtuoso off the top of my head. I bet I could find more examples if I cared to correct a retard.

>he can't into art criticism

dumb frogposter.

Not everyone is a creative genius or will have a legacy. and even if they were, they'd still have to pay for food and shelter and creative art is not a stable means to this whatsoever. There are a few other ways to get food: manual labor is a common one, as well as the service sector. Then there are high skill professions. These pay the best, and don't take creative genius: just the ability to concentrate on the skill they're learning and and long term commitment. Now some people get paid far better than most people just to teach people about creative geniuses and publish advanced analysis from time to time, if not for any reason other than to prove they're worth their salt.
Do they contribute directly to the amount of creative geniuses in the world? No. Are they final authorities on subjective matters? No, and they know this. But do they contribute to general social understanding of the works of the geniuses you appear to take yourself to be? Of course they do. And of course this social understanding gives an audience to them without which their genius would be dead and forgotten as the scholars themselves will be. They have to uphold the tradition of reading Shakespeare, or nobody else will. And that goes for your favorite author.

He was a virtuoso conductor, which took me about 5 seconds for me to figure out.

>he thinks he understands a classical work better than those who study it for years
You're a dunning Kruger son. Most classical works could be studied for an entire life time and you'd find something new to appreciate after each reading. Do you really think some young 20 something shitposter on Veeky Forums who couldn't even make sure his phone doesn't autocorrect "brainlet" truly "gets" these classical works of art better than those who dedicate their entire lives to understanding and meticulously studying the work?

That's not even close to being the same the thing to a virtuoso musician you absolute fucking mong.

Controversial: Postmodern literature is basically just would-be literary critics making literature.