Is there any value in literary criticism?

woah

>says there's no value in lit crit
>while posting on a board dedicated to talking about lit
>while being retarded

It is still a crime against your own conscious. You willed yourself to perform something which is degrading to yourself.

>Would it be rape if you could stop time and have sex with her? If no time passes then nothing has actually happened because the act occurred in a state of nonexistent because the flow of time determines a state of existence.
rape is when a woman ends up choosing being fucked by sub-chad. you are a sub-chad, therefore it will be rape.

>writing articles about art which nobody reads is the only thing that makes art valuable
geg

she has only four toes on her right foot

You can clearly see the contour of her pinky toe forming. Despite this it does look like her toes are throwing up gang signs, obscuring the actual toe

shut up nerd

Back to /r9k/

overwrought american slut. garden variety.

God, this is the 10th professional writer I've seen using a misplaced modifier

First: that girl is hot, damn

Now to the matter

You know , to me there are two main species of literary critics: a) those who try to interpret what the author meant with his text and b) those who analyze the literary techniques used by the author (metaphors and similes creation, versification , metrification , the structuring of dialogue, punctuation, uses and transformation of source material, descriptions, creation of stream of consciousness: style in general).

In my opinion the critics of category (a ) ( which are by far the most abundant and the most famous - Harold Bloom, for example , is one of them ) are generally useless and, in general, pretentious : you have every reason to want to make your own understanding: who are these gentlemen to have the authority to say what the author wanted to convey through his text? If they can discover the meaning of an author’s text, we also can.

As for the critics of category (b), I must say that they are special people: they spend their whole lives doing a strenuous job than earns them no money and no fame, just for the sake of the love they have for the artists who they are analyzing. The reading of such critics should be constant for young writers: there is nothing that favors more the formation of an young author than the analysis of the bowels of the works of the masters (that and also reading and writing a lot and constantly, of course). Unfortunately critics of category (b) are few and little known (even among serious readers).

Yes, when a brilliant critic understands a difficult author and can communicate some of the depths of the author's accomplishments to a lesser prepared public. Postmodern and identity politic critics not so much ...

It's worth something just as a way to pose a view on a work, but if you then don't critique the view of the critic you're not really engaging with the process of understanding and scrutinising literature.

i would very much like to cum on those feet

that's all. thanks for listening

yes, in money

Actual critique work seeks to explain and discuss why a peice of literature has value, and explain that value. all the Veeky Forums boards which discuss a thread are just like the back office of a store, where fans discuss and shit on each other.

Except those people in the bookstore are friends, not anonymous cowards who can say anything and lie, and actually go outside. Veeky Forums doesn't always do that, and what you get here can barely be called critique

Read Wilde's essay "The Critic as Artist".