Be me

>If I don't like it, nobody should talk about it
You remind me of my kid brother, who got really mad when I mentioned the socio-economic commentary of They Live. Except he was a dumb edgy teenager. Not everything plays into your weird strawman fantasies OP.

>b-but muh SJWs!
I swear to fucking christ. People can't discuss anything without triggering you fucking manchildren. Why are you even in a lit class if you only want to read Hemingway and jerk off?

Who are you quoting?

Shakespeare doesn't have any queer themes you fucking SJW. Stop trying to rewrite history.

analysis by queer theory does not necessarily assume shakespeare was writing with queer themes in mind. there is a fair bit of crossdressing to work with though, and let's not forget the cultural context of women played by men.

t. nu-male cucks

Uh-oh. Hemingway is your favorite author, isn't he?

>Bloom outlines the term "School of Resentment" in the introduction to his book The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (1994). Bloom stresses that he does not necessarily object to analysis and discussion of social and political issues in literature, but expresses indignation toward college literature professors who teach their own political motives through literature more than the aesthetics of literary worth. In his book, Bloom defends the Western canon of literature from this "School of Resentment", which in his view threatens to break down the canon through the insertion of potentially inferior literary works for political purposes. Bloom believes that the goals of reading must be solitary aesthetic pleasure and self-insight rather than the "forces of resentment" or a goal of "improving" one's society, which he casts as an absurd aim, writing: "The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured by reading someone of their own origins rather than reading Shakespeare is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." His position is that politics has no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, he says, but likely nothing about Hamlet itself.

>Shakespeare most definitely deals with themes of non heterosexual relationships
How could he have done so if he had no conception of such a dichotomy?

Youre taking this out of proportion. I am not at all hinting at any homosexuality where there isnt none. All im saying is that analyzing these themes changes your understanding of the plays.

shakespeare wasn't writing with existentialists in mind either, but i can guarantee you there's a few academics who've devoted a lot of energy to reading shakespeare through the lens of nietzsche and sartre.

is this rewriting history, or does that begin and end with forbidden subjects like degenerate gays?

Nope. Good argument though.

I am confused. Are you implying that homosexual relationships are new?

>shakespeare wasn't writing with existentialists in mind either, but i can guarantee you there's a few academics who've devoted a lot of energy to reading shakespeare through the lens of nietzsche and sartre.
I dislike all forms of that, but queer theory is more insidious because of it being political. I would object to a fascist reading of Shakespeare too. This evidences a decay of literary theory where people are more caught up in their own ideas than actually engaging with artists.
>is this rewriting history, or does that begin and end with forbidden subjects like degenerate gays?
Are you implying that homosexuality is a "forbidden subject" in 2017? kek

homosexual and 'queer' identities are a product of modern capitalism and biopolitics. The romans had no words for 'homosexuality' or 'heterosexuality'

screaming NO really loud isn't an argument either, so don't even try to take the moral high ground, cockslap

I love how obvious it is when a poster is a woman

Don't let your emotions get the best of you on Veeky Forums.

>no politics11!!!! only le aesthetics, I have no ideology
>t. white cis bourgeois male

ill concede the point that you have made in reference to there being no terminology in reference to non traditional sexuality, but this isnt a reflection of the ideology. he primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminised". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older. There were still societal stigmas behind the act of homosexual sex. because of this, shakespeare forcefully had knowledge of relationships between two same sex individuals so these themes could possibly be reflected upon his writing.

>everybody needs to pity me for being weak and degenerate!
>t. black queer poor female

That's not an argument either. You're really bad at this.

You weren't making an argument either, sweetie.

Well, if I did, would you listen?

Go make the world revolution somewhere else

Greatest work of Queer preformance art of our generation?
youtube.com/watch?v=HtRZFGUJnOA

>shakespeare wasn't writing with existentialists in mind either, but i can guarantee you there's a few academics who've devoted a lot of energy to reading shakespeare through the lens of nietzsche and sartre.
>I dislike all forms of that
time goes on, retroactive analysis is exploring works of the past with the tools and knowledge of today. nobody worth a second thought is claiming historic poets as early purveyors of their own models, it's a contemporary context to elaborate on knowledge of a past work.
>but queer theory is more insidious because of it being political.
any theory of criticism is political. to take a perspective is to be political.
>I would object to a fascist reading of Shakespeare too. This evidences a decay of literary theory where people are more caught up in their own ideas than actually engaging with artists.
but this is stupid. for starters, what is there to object to? a fascist reading of shakespeare does not erase or replace traditional readings. the problem of decay exists within universities themselves, and to an extent i agree that gimmicky work is being exalted over quality work, but this doesn't itself devalue any one reading.

do you object to theories of modern architecture and engineering as applied to ancient structures?

>Queer Theory in a Nutshell
woah im so cool and edgy because I like to get fucked in the ass. Nevermind that our society basically worships faggotry ie. Glee, Modern Family, Rainbow Spice lattes at starbucks.

>Modern Family
There was this thing about how the gay couple didn't actually engage in physical affection for 2 seasons. And then only in the background. So. There's that.

we need more gay sex on tv! replace all tv programming with hardcore gay fisting porn for max diversity and progress! Let's end bigotry once and for all!

But gay sex is misogynistic and exclusionary! And don't forget about gay trans men who don't have ani.

are you implying there isn't any heterosexual sex on tv?

don't worry, the world is quickly becoming more enlightened and progressive

Can we not talk about sex ever again?

On a website of virginal autists obsessed with sex? Not gonna happen.

>I kinda wish my landlord would let me have a dog...
>SO YOU CAN FUCK IT RIGHT? Don't worry, there's dog fucking club you can join, dog fucker.
That's what you sound like.
I don't understand how people can equate wanting to be represented fairly in media with shit like this. Gays aren't trying to convert you.

>hehe, nothing to see here goyim, just let kids be sexualized on tv haha
>le personal is political
You're a meme.

>In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." [28]

Media is not neutral, but an instrument of mass propaganda and social engineering. It does not 'represent' society it shapes it. I used to be for gay marriage and 'tolerance', but things have gone way too far. I'm for Western Civilisation now

This, only uptight Puritans think that broadcasting porn on TV is a bad thing

get in line you fucking reactionaries

This. Every board I used to use is now absolutely filled with sex.
/b/ - used to have some good stuff before 2010. Although it was always shit, now it's filled with literal faggots.
/a/ - possibly always about sex and I happened to disillusion myself. 90% of threads are about anime girls and masturbating to said anime girls.
/v/ - filled with literal faggots posting genderbent or trap characters. every thread, which starts as a shit template thread, degenerates to underage kids talking about sex or posting r34.
/r9k/ - filled with complete normalfags and women bloggers.
/tv/ - the last bastion of Veeky Forums pedophiles. Constant cuck posting, BBC posting and celebrity worshiping faggots. Sometimes comedy gold meme threads but it's mostly shit.

The popular boards are ruined. Veeky Forums is a lot more gay now, and as a result, hedonistic. Instead of a bunch of nerds talking about hobbies, it's a bunch of faggots talking about sex. Some of the slower boards are alright.

>one guy says it, so it's true
People also say obama is a lizard. Also, when people say stuff like that, they're usually talking about normalizing queers by showing kids that there's nothing wrong with it. Since, you know- you can't turn people gay.

Yeah, there's no homoeroticism in Mercutio's banter in Romeo and Juliet. Ok. Whatever you say mate.

The world revolves around sex. Deal with it, virgin.

Except he's an ADVOCATE for queers.

And yes, you absolutely can turn people gay. Expose them to the stimulus enough and they'll start to imitate it. Look at how many people have become gay due to traps.

BTFO
T
F
O

Do you study literature in your political science class very often?

That has been pretty common discourse in the gay movement since its inception.

>tfw you realise Anita Bryant was right all along.

Truly the hero we need

Are you baiting or are you an actual newfag

Maybe gays won the culture war and being straight is the new counterculture. There's nothing more obscene to the leftist than a white heterosexual couple having sex in the missionary position for the purpose of reproduction.

>implying those sicko gays wouldn't fuck dogs too if they had the chance

Wait a minute are you?

>Look at how many people have become gay due to traps.
How many?
>inb4 you pull a number out of your gaping ass because you have no fucking idea

By definition, being gay is abnormal. We should treat it as a harmless perversion but children should definitely, 100%, never be exposed to "queer sexuality." We don't expose kids to BDSM or any of the other sexual perversions so why should we expose them to gayness?

He's a Jew, hardly a white oppressor.

FOX is a major TV network. This is the slop being pushed on our kids. But anyways you people won't be satisfied until TV is nothing but a series of depraved sex acts involving dead animals.

...

He was probably mad you brought up the most blindingly obvious allegory as if it was some hidden gem.

Yes, anime has not enough yang energy

He's right in every conceivable way, but that doesn't mean the opposition are idiots. Just that they're wrong.
That is the opposite conclusion.

t. another Jew

>implying Jewish privilege isn't a thing

>being this new to Veeky Forums

>sure I'm rolling around in shit but so are you so I guess I win

Face it, Jews are a minority and therefore they're always right.

Depends on the situation.

An overrepresented minority, therefore privilege.

>the disgusting filth on Veeky Forums (particularly /b/) and their bait-addled rants and ravings are in any way representative of people and thought in wider society

>breker unironically
boring

the best

>board I used to use
>/b/ /a/ /v/ /r9k/ /tv/
>autistic virgin neet: an autobiography

you sound like an entirely mediocre reader. dont even respond to me, you're not worth it

Keke

9/10 strawman
made me chuckle

>any theory of criticism is political

Exactly. An analysis should be first concerned with the sensuous aspect of the work and later try to analyze it, and possibly with using the least amount of ideological lens possible.

>any theory of criticism is political. to take a perspective is to be political.
And atheism is a religion.
>for starters, what is there to object to?
le you can't argue with opinions man

you sound like an entirely mediocre reader. dont even respond to me, you're not worth it

Atheism is not by itself a religion, but they are atheist religions like Marxism, Nationalism, Scientism, new atheism, humanism. you can't escape metaphysics,

Atheism doesn't force you into Marxism or Scientism.

wow really original nice nabokov memeing
literature has never been purely sensual. communication of themes are at the core of the ancient greek myths, the great western classics. you cannot analyze dante narratologically or symbolically without taking on the politics of catholicism

Hence, we should teach grade school children all there is to know about 'fisting' and 'bug catching parties' you know, for tolerance

>no poetics!!! no aesthetics!!! literature is about hermeneutics that flatter my emotions and personal politics!!! my eisegetic wankery is NOT a form of hollow exploitative mysticism, it adds so many texts to the overall body of literary studies which keeps my professors employed
>t. student of identity-backed degree

I'd say good idea to drop out or switch. Literature is subtle and that won't mesh well with your autism.

who are you responding to?

OP tell us more about this situation.

himself

Who said anything about no aesthetics? Bad post.

This evidences a decay of Veeky Forums posts where people are more caught up in their own ideas than actually engaging with everyday life.

>sensuous aspect

Yes we need books of people talking about their own taste.

>using the least amount of ideological lens possible.

Why? Are you afraid of being brainwashed?

Sonnet 20, for one, is p aggressively gay/non het. Really don't need to be some crazy lib to realize the poem is about Willy Shakes thinking about fucking some guy and then deciding against it.

Yeah and Sappho was a (non-literal) lesbian.

People had different conceptions of sexuality back when homosexuality was a really bad thing. Doing gay shit wasn't gay (because of course you're not a sinful aberration of nature)—but this also extended to the actually gay people, who could hide it better.

I just feel like reading an original book, and not some hack's contrived interpretation of Shakespeare through a "Queer lens" would be less of a profound waste of time and mental energy.

Completely missed the point of my post, well done.

(with the least amount, not with no amount)