Why is he right, Veeky Forums?

"I think the word pretension has become like the word ironic – just this catch–all term to distance people from interesting experiences and cultural engagement and possible embarrassment. Pretension can lead to other things. You know, the first time I read Gravity's Rainbow, I did so because I thought it would make me seem cool. That was my original motivation. But now I've read it six times, and I find it hilarious and great and I understand it. You can't be afraid to embarrass yourself sometimes."

lmao just open that image and actually look at his face and then re-read that

now that's what I call kek

James Murphy is dope.

>this catch–all term to distance people from interesting experiences and cultural engagement and possible embarrassment

That's spot on. I have certain friends who have pleb taste in everything and whenever I try to share something with them that I enjoy, they say I'm pretentious for liking it. Liking things that are perceived as high(er) culture is not automatically "pretentious".

I think it is ultimately a way for the speaker to call the other person's authenticity into question when they feel insecure about their own personal taste. e.g. "My friend likes x but I don't understand it. It's not possible that someone could actually have more sophisticated taste than me. (to paraphrase Hobbes- everyone thinks he is the most wise because he perceives his own wit at hand and others' at a distance) Therefore, my friend is being "pretentious".

It's really too bad. It's part of a general trend against the arts/humanities. Anyone with a genuine interest in literature, music, film, art, whatever is immediately labeled as pretentious by peers.

>You know, the first time I read Gravity's Rainbow, I did so because I thought it would make me seem cool. That was my original motivation. But now I've read it six times, and I find it hilarious and great and I understand it.

This is really fucking true. People don't realize that your taste will always stay shit unless you force yourself out of your comfort zone.

Because it's a word that tends to be used by proles to legitimize their dislike of anything that doesn't pander to their sensibilities. There are legitimately pretentious things which affect an air of importance that isn't there, but most of the time people use that word they just mean "I don't like this because it made me feel dumb".

In fact, I'd say the people who call everything pretentious are more likely to be impressed by actually pretentious things than they are by those with any substance.

>Has over 2000 years of Western thought to draw his argument from
>Chooses an ad hominem that was plebeian by the time Socrates was teaching

"lmaooo nigga baka"

You're correct that they say that to feel better about themselves. However, you are also saying this to feel better about yourself. "Shit taste" is subjective, plenty of people would consider your taste shit. Stop trying to cast aspersions on what other people like and simply enjoy what you enjoy.

As for the idea of pretension, the distinction lies entirely in intent. The first time Murphy read GR, he was being pretentious. Then, when he read it again for pleasure, he was not being pretentious. It's as simple as that.

i'm sure you look like a million bucks yourself will

James Murphy is dope.

>"Shit taste" is subjective, plenty of people would consider your taste shit. Stop trying to cast aspersions on what other people like and simply enjoy what you enjoy.

Not all taste is subjective. Joyce is better taste than Stephanie Meyer. I bet you're a cultural relativist. :^)

>Joyce is better taste than Stephanie Meyer.
he is a better writer, yes, but can't vouch for either of them on the taste front. based on their sexy letters, I assume both taste like sweat and dirt. no thank u

>better taste

This is a meaningless statement, and if you think about it for thirty seconds you'll agree. I certainly prefer Joyce to the Twilight books, as does anyone who reads literary fiction. That doesn't mean your statement isn't intellectually bankrupt and thoughtlessly regurgitated.

>"Shit taste" is subjective, plenty of people would consider your taste shit.

I was going to use Hamlet and Captain Underpants. Regardless, the ideas subjective/objective impose this mutually exclusive binary that I'm not sure 100% applies in this case. To compare my childhood drawings to a DaVinci and simply comment "It's all subjective, man. Stop casting aspersions..." is an incredibly hardline stance. Just pointing that out. By the way, I'm not saying it's complete OBJECTIVE either, nor did I in my post. I said they have shit taste, which is clearly a value judgement and therefore subjective.

>As for the idea of pretension, the distinction lies entirely in intent. The first time Murphy read GR, he was being pretentious. Then, when he read it again for pleasure, he was not being pretentious. It's as simple as that.

Of course, I know the dictionary definition of the word. I was referring to how people frequently use it (incorrectly) in the real world. It has absolutely become a catch-all term, as Murphy described, and I was just trying to provide my thoughts on the psychology behind that.

>literally defending Twilight
>being this summer

To a ten year old Captain Underpants is objectively better than Hamlet. If at twenty years old, one still finds Captain Underpants better than Hamlet, you might question their cognitive ability but they wouldnt be any less correct.

>To a ten year old
>objectively better

You are abusing these terms.

To a ten year old Captain Underpants is subjectively better than Hamlet.

Fixed that for you.

And to you, Hamlet is subjectively better than Captain Underpants. Again, I would agree, but there's no reason to pretend your opinion is "truth".

I'm not defending Twilight, I'm defending the impressionable minds of the users of this board from the absurd, unfounded idea that objectively measurable quality exists in literature. Please keep being disingenuous though, it only makes you look better to idiots and they were lost causes in the first place.

>there's no reason to pretend your opinion is "truth".

I never said it was objective (repeating myself here). Keep saying that though. Seriously, just keep saying it over and over again. Your argument relies on the linguistic concepts "objective" and "subjective", which exclude each other. Thus, your belief is informed by language. This platitude you keep reciting- that "it's all subjective" is a positive claim that requires some sort of argument to back it up. I never said it was objective, but I am skeptical of YOUR POSITIVE ASSERTION that not one iota of objectivity can be admitted when assessing art. This is why I brought up Hamlet & Captian Underpants, hoping you had some compelling reason persuading me to your belief, but you haven't provided any justification whatsoever. You just keep repeating it as if it doesn't require a defense.

You think you are somehow debunking what I said, or being "skeptical" by calling attention to the fact that I made a value judgement, then continuing to say that I did so to "feel better about myself". This is exactly the type of behavior that James Murphy is criticizing in the OP (trying to take someone down a peg by calling their authenticity into question). It follows from your assertion that value judgements with respect to literature are totally arbitrary and useless- regardless of how intelligent or well-read someone may be, all opinions are "equal" because they are all subjective. If you are so concerned with objectivity, why do you even give a shit about literature?

>I'm defending the impressionable minds of the users of this board from the absurd, unfounded idea that objectively measurable quality exists in literature.

Again, nobody made this positive assertion that there is objectivity. Just questioning your positive assertion that it is entirely subjective.

>the linguistic concepts "objective" and "subjective", which exclude each other
no they don't?

>no they don't?

Amazing. This is the the crux of the argument of the person I am replying to. This is specifically what I am calling into question. Did you read my whole post or just stop there?

How do you fix that sagging left eyeball shit I'm starting to develop it

jesus at the right hand of god, kill yourself

What my argument depends on is the fact that "quality" in literature is nothing more than an amalgamation of opinions. I am not a philistine, I don't give a shit about the STEM vs lit argument. But the fact is that I am not making a positive claim, I am making a claim for the NON-existence of value or quality in literature because I see nothing that points to their existence other than the aforementioned opinions.

I am interested in literature because it has value for me personally, but I don't believe that everyone should have to share this personal (subjective) feeling.

I agree with Murphy, in the sense that my interest in lit was at first motivated partly by pretension, and it led to genuine interest which remained after I had grown out of said pretension. Having had this conversation, I doubt you were trying to make yourself feel better, I'm sure you genuinely believe what you said. I'm just asking you to examine your statements and see if you can back you up.

And I'm not trying to "bring anyone down to my level", I simply find the concept of "levels" in literature to be a repugnant cancer attached to an otherwise beautiful entity.

This is technically true. With respect to books, I can be subjectively impressed by a clever turn of phrase, while I can objectively measure the number of words or pages in the book. When you start applying "objective" to the book's supposed value, however, your claims are baseless.

>Having had this conversation, I doubt you were trying to make yourself feel better, I'm sure you genuinely believe what you said. I'm just asking you to examine your statements and see if you can back you up.

I see where you are coming from. Having said that, I can say "Hamlet is better than Captain Underpants" or "I prefer Hamlet to Captain Underpants" and, regardless of phrasing, it is understood that I am voicing my opinion There is no need to call attention to it and imply as a consequence that nothing meaningful has been said.

It could be argued that some opinions have more justification than others. For instance, I am not a food connoisseur- food is simply not that important to me. I'm sure there are exotic dishes a food connoisseur would love that I would hate. The connoisseur could say "user has shit taste in food" and I would be inclined to agree, simply by virtue of the fact that I'm not passionate about food and haven't developed my tastes. If we were on equal footing experience-wise, it might be a different story. Similarly, if someone who rarely or never reads prefers Captain Underpants to Hamlet, I could say "x has shit taste", which of course is a subjective claim but also possibly has some "truth" (using this for lack of a better word, hah) to it. For instance, what reasons for preferring Captain Underpants are being articulated? While all opinions are, strictly speaking, subjective, some seem to be more carefully considered. I'm not trying to conflate that with "value" or "quality" but I do think it's worth pointing out.

I'm not saying you're flat out wrong, but I do think it might not be as black & white as you're making it out to be.

We aren't approaching this from the same angle. I would certainly take a recommendation from someone who's read 1000 books over one from someone who's read 100, simply because the former has more competition and had to work harder for its spot as a favorite. But my point is the books themselves contain no "literary value", because that's not a definable concept. It's just the manifestation of a critical pseudo-consensus, nothing more.

So basically he was a literary charlatan but it's now okay because, after repeated readings, he now appreciates the work he originally read out of nothing more than vanity.

If you're reading things for the wrong reasons, you aren't suddenly vindicated for realizing the work in question also has some substance.

And the funny thing is, Gravity's Rainbow has very little.

this is the most needlessly cynical reading of a completely inoffensive personal anecdote i've ever read

>Why is he right, Veeky Forums?
Because he isn't.

He's just pretentious, and so are you.

How long have you been frequenting Veeky Forums?

This is such a great opinion. It so refreshing to read good shot on here, thanks.

The word pretentious is dead. People use it when they no actual pretense in mind. People use it without knowing what pretense is.

27 years bitch

hot!

Murphy is a big Pynchon fanboy. He loves Mason & Dixon, too.

And you're a fucking trilobite.

omfg stop using the word pleb. you sound so butthurt.
it was literally made up by a tripfag to troll newfags like you.

fuck off/ mu/

>The word 'pleb' was made up by a tripfag on Veeky Forums