What does lit think about reading theory?

what does lit think about reading theory?

Other urls found in this thread:

breaktheirhaughtypower.org/ontological-difference-and-the-neo-liberal-war-on-the-social-deconstruction-and-deindustrialization/
webcitation.org/query?url=http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/telos37.htm&date=2009-10-25 03:26:25
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I gave up thought a long time ago, but have a funny picture.

its not necessary for the layman and thats ok.

very helpful if you want to take your understanding of literature to the "next level" beyond just reading primary texts


pseuds are militantly anti-theory

do it in moderation unless you're an academic, for the sake of your own sanity.

Smart people who intend on having a career in literature enjoy it, especially when it is challenging.

Casuals who are less interested in thinking about literature, its production, its reception and so on but enjoy novels for the plot and the human characters only ever read theory in their university English courses before they go on to teach high school or work in publishing.

Transient frogposters from /pol/ and /r9k/ (60% of Veeky Forums now apparently) hate theory because it's somehow associated with Hillary Clinton and libruls in their puny, puny minds. Generally it's best to ignore these virgin mutants, but occasionally, if one is certain of one's own patricianhood, it is beneficial to the board to smack these illiterate reprobates down.

Simply ask them what books they read and they start foaming at the mouth.

I'd rather read practice.

If you read anything with pretensions to classification as 'high literature', as most of this board does, and don't read theory, you are getting a hilariously shallow experience of the work. I've appreciated postmodern works in particular so much more with a decent grasp of theory (Perec especially).

Good theory also has literary merit in itself. Barthes' the Pleasure of the Text is one of my favorite works, along with the best fiction.

Essentially, if you don't read theory you don't like literature. You aren't even properly reading literature if you don't have cursory knowledge of at least the contemporary theory.

I'm probably not a representative frogposter by any means, but all my friends are into theory. IME frogs make better use of theory because they don't have a mental block from applying it to the various forms of leftism, whereas leftists into theory can only see fascism, fascism everywhere.

Honestly, WTF even is fascism? At this point I can only recognize it by jackboots, but that's quite obviously not its essence.

inb4 Nick Land

But what exactly is 'theory'?
It's not literary theory we're talking about.
And it's not critical theory as Althusser did not belong to the school as far as I'm aware.

>But what exactly is 'theory'?
Intellectual masturbation by moronic marxist professors.

see: >pseuds are militantly anti-theory

Please leave this board for the sake of yourself and others before further embarrassment

Look, just because you spend thousands of dollars and read many books about learning to eat and appreciate the fine aromas of human excrement doesn't change the fact that all you've done is brainwash yourself into thinking that eating poop is an enjoyable experience. And if I tell you that what you're eating is shit and disgusting, you'll look at me with a literal shit eating grin and tell me that I'm such a pleb for not understanding the layers of subtleties of excrement consumption. So this argument is pretty pointless.

This applies for modern art too.

You forgot your frog picture

Your whole post boils down to the unsound argument "I don't like something, Therefore it's wrong."

post your favorite theory books

Use your imagination.

But there are plenty of things which I don't like but belatedly admit are right. So no, you're incorrect.

>But there are plenty of things which I don't like but belatedly admit are right. So no, you're incorrect.
Was I addressing instances where you don't like something but "belatedly admit [it is] right" or your post in particular?

>This applies for modern art too.

"My three-year-old could draw that!"

No, but that is irrelevant. You drew a false conclusion from the fact that I attacked one of the things you liked. If anyone is suffering from the behavior you accuse me of having, it's you.

Pretty much.

Honest question, did you go to University?

Yes, and most probably a better one than yours. I am a "STEM master race".

I never took a single literature course though. I'm wholly ignorant on literature theory, I read books without any preconstructed lenses handed down from a professor. So that might explain our differences in opinion.

Well you could have fooled me

You might just be projecting.

>No, but that is irrelevant. You drew a false conclusion from the fact that I attacked one of the things you liked. If anyone is suffering from the behavior you accuse me of having, it's you.
First of all, I'm not the guy you were arguing with. Second of all, it wasn't a conclusion, nor was it false. It was an observation I made by reading your post and articulating it in plain English. "Your whole post boils down to the unsound argument "I don't like something, Therefore it's wrong."" is a single statement devoid of any supporting premises; but that's because it wasn't intended to be an argument in the first place.

>If anyone is suffering from the behavior you accuse me of having, it's you
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to (1) believe that the tone of somebody's text correlates, stereotypically, with his or her mental states and (2) to attribute psychological predicates to anonymous posters you don't know nothing about over the internet.

I'm a different poster. Sincerely: leave.

pic

>First of all, I'm not the guy you were arguing with.
Okay

> Second of all, it wasn't a conclusion, nor was it false
Agree to disagree.

Your conclusion that my post boils down to "I don't like this so it's wrong" is wrong. Hence my response.

I understand why you think my post boils down to this. It's an easy way to smugly dismiss the opposition.
Anyways this is going way too far. I'll have a medium coffee please.

>I'm not sure I'd go as far as to (1) believe that the tone of somebody's text correlates, stereotypically, with his or her mental states and (2) to attribute psychological predicates to anonymous posters you don't know nothing about over the internet.
That sounds like indecision to me.

I went to MIT. Kindly kill yourself.

Most "theory" isn't only useless but counter-productive. Its explosion on the left resulted in a shifted away from seriously trying to grasp political economy and the scientific evolutionary forces driving society towards mere masturbatory intellectual posturing.

breaktheirhaughtypower.org/ontological-difference-and-the-neo-liberal-war-on-the-social-deconstruction-and-deindustrialization/

>Honestly, WTF even is fascism? At this point I can only recognize it by jackboots, but that's quite obviously not its essence.

webcitation.org/query?url=http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/telos37.htm&date=2009-10-25 03:26:25

Ideology and Utopia by Karl Mannheim is foundational and probably better than most of the mystifying post-60s rubbish that you'll get recommended.

There are a lot of dumb people on Veeky Forums, the thread.

What's wrong with masturbation?

Can you recommend more theory books? Since you mentioned Barthes. I think you were in the Italo Calvino thread by your Perec reference. Maybe not. But I like Barthes and share your opinion more or less so I'd like to what else you thought is good.

Ha that was me yes. I haven't read nearly as much theory as I wish, (a problem articulated in Culler's decent overview of theory; a very short introduction to literary theory), but these are my favorites so far (p ''pleb''')

Sontag's Against Interpretation and other essays
Stein's essays Composition as Explanation and Masterpieces
Derrida's Writing and Difference
Bataille's Literature and Evil essay collection
Lacan's essay the Purloined Poe is a really fascinating piece of literary criticism. Helps to have read his essay on mirror-stage theory as well
Anything by Gass. On Being Blue is my favorite piece of 'literary theory' along with the Pleasure of the Text

bump