Keats is dead so fuck me from behind

You sound like you don't really engage with society on any meaningful level and as such your criticism of it is lacking.

Man I wish we would go back to a time when people would use 'deconstruction' correctly.

Indeed. Destruction would be a better term in this case.Or just ignorance.

>mfw it's actually really good

Nah.

Yeah there's really nothing wrong with it.

Enjoying it quite a bit, in retrospect

>its fine
that so hmm?
care to explain?

>when someone privileges speech over the written word near you

>mfw it's actually really good
yea anything seems good to you fags when any "authority" figure praises it

Do you ever get tired of posting this shit? How long have you spent on Veeky Forums shitposting?

>Do you ever get tired of posting this shit?
do you ever get tired of deconstructionalism?

What is deconstructionalism?

Deconstruction as ideology.

Just like everything before, post modern art will finally have its day. Fortunately for us that day will one day come. Just maybe not in our life time.

What is deconstruction?

the opposite of construction

Help me out with this. What is she trying to do, bringing up all those dead romanticists? My first blush is that it's just a lame attempt to trigger people who revere them, but anyone who actually read any of those poets wouldn't give a shit. So that makes me think it's actually an even more cynical move, trying to cash in on facebook feminists who will retweet it because "lol dead white men." Which would be a shame if true, because I quite like the flow and the imagery of the schoolchildren walking and the shallow dead floating underneath contrasted with the almost uncomfortably raw sexual demands. But if they actually play some purpose that I'm missing, I'm all ears.

so deep; im cumming loads of shivering arrows as we speak

What is construction in a literary context?

Romanticism is dead.

>that article
>those comments
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: /pol/ was right again.

>Romanticism is dead.
oh boy! a true literary genius! thanks again for taking the time to stop furiously masturbating to your reflection and to come join us on the good old forums!

Nice poem.

>Nice poem.
Thank You.

I was hoping it wasn't anything as shallow as all that. Postmodernism buried romanticism in much more irreverent fashion 50 years ago.

The TL;DR of the poem is she likes men, not brooding sensitive manchildren idolising the innocence of childhood. And she implies that men are back although she obviously hasn't browsed Veeky Forums or tumblr or your diary desu.

>Wow Keats, autumn is different to other seasons! Great insight.

>The TL;DR of the poem is she likes men, not brooding sensitive manchildren idolising the innocence of childhood.
why do people find this interesting

its honestly getting really tiring

>haha fucking ideologues, im so beyond that with my own ideology

It's not particularly shallow because my comment isn't the poem. Romanticism died 100 years before postmodernism in any case.

What are you talking about?

i would guess the poet has a better understanding of and engagement with the romantic poets than you do, and it would be helpful for you to give her this benefit of the doubt and read the poem again.

it's obviously meant to be shocking, and the way it drifts between elegy and graphic, very literal sexual scenes is really jarring. so then the question i why is it jarring, why is she evoking these male poets, coopting their style and then breaking it with her graphic, unromantic images.

i mean, there probably isn't an answer, but it makes me think about the way love and sex is stepped around by the romantic poets especially, how it is hinted at and treated with reverence, and how she disposes of this.

or she attempts to/wants to, but can't. she still gets stuck in the romantic, still falls back to indirect romantic language like "shivering arrows". it is not meant to just be shocking, it is evidence of a struggle that remains inconclusive.

I don't really think those things are mutually exclusive, but this is a better interpretation than the alternatives.

What?

this is a terrible reading of the poem btw

It could mean the constructing of a sentence, or a story, it could mean the construction of a genre. The clichés, influences and conventions that make it what it is now. Deconstruction carefully weighs and examines those conventions and takes them apart.

Another mixed signal in the farrago of choke-me-but-don't-suggest-i-trim-my-armpits-a-little-daddy fickle pudding.

>What are you talking about?
what are you?

Notes:

'Forced perspective' is what I got out of it. Meta-irony, anticipating the male reader, meeting him exactly where she expects to find him, his interest in her as a woman 'qua' woman i.e. another fuck-toy. Unsettles that perspective by making her own desire to be sexually objectified manifest AS desire. Suggestion that maybe the product of these other poets is a form of siblimation. Some imaginative- conceptual smearing of 'real poets/poetry', 'real(ist) object of art', 'gendered expectations of capacity', 'fucking', 'ultimate end of fucking', etc.

Good post.

>What?
what?

I bonered...

puhahahah, it is an awful poem you autist. is this what they teach you at uni? to find depth and meaning where there is none, so you can keep fueling (((their))) attack on high culture (turning culture into propaganda machinery, that is). that abomination should not even be called a poem, and to explain why it is worthless would be analogous to the explanation of why 2+2 is not 5. it is simply true, if you cannot see it without any backup theory you should neck yourself.

to elaborate on this, don't expected a coherent statement from a poem. like, why write a poem and not an essay? you want to try and communicate something subjective and intangible. this is not a universal rule of course, but it fits here.

not trying to suggest that poetry somehow exists outside of ideology. it doesn't. and this poem definitely doesn't. it is interacting with masculine ideas about feminine sexual desire and it runs up against a romantic view of sexual relations. but more than that i think it is about how the interplay of these ideologies and perspectives actually feel on an individual, subjective level.

What a way to shift the burden.

this is a trash post.
i don't especially like the poem, i read poems i like more every day. but if you read the poem as an attack on high culture you're an idiot who is too mired in ideology to read poetry.

You're silly. That's a very limited way to think. There's nothing wrong with ascribing meaning to something. There's nothing wrong with a generous interpretation.
It'll spare you a lot of "hurrrrr everything is shit" type of posting I imagine you do a lot of.

Poetry isn't reducible, but it also isn't above description. If your description reflects the intention, then I consider that aspect of the poem to be shallow.
Giving a poem the benefit of the doubt is total anathema to the subjectivity of poetry. It may be the case that I'll appreciate it more if I spend more time with the Romanticists, but holding my own interpretation hostage until such a time would defeat the purpose of reading it.

I don't find anything specifically lacking in your interpretation, but it still seems to me like well-trodden ground.
Now this is something I can work with.

>What a way to shift the burden.
hmmm just like in the poem

good reading.

>to find depth and meaning where there is none

True, there is no meaning in any text, my postmodern brother.

The name-dropping didn't achieve anything. The only "effective" part here was the dirty talk, and that only affected me in a stupid way. Sex is boring, stop using it, stop writing about it.

>You're an idiot for having your own interpretation

found the single 25+ likely overweight females

>If your description reflects the intention

I'm saying it doesn't.

>You're an idiot for having the interpretation of an idiot

>Giving a poem the benefit of the doubt is total anathema to the subjectivity of poetry
what are you talking about? you have to be willing to engage with a poem in order to read it. i don't suggest a preconceived notion that the poem is good, but you have to be willing to empathise to read poetry properly.

all interpretations are not equal. misinterpretations are bad.

sex is interesting and good.

When will we be free of bait threads?

>I'm the one who gets to distinguish an idiotic interpretation from a legitimate one, oh and I don't have to demonstrate that

>misinterpretations are bad.

Begging the question.

>sex is interesting and good.

Sex is not interesting and not good.

>all interpretations are not equal. misinterpretations are bad.
>the nature of poetry is subjectivity
>just not your own
autism.

>An interpretation that demonstrates nothing and attacks someone who does demonstrate an engagement with actual textual evidence in that interpretation is just as good -- if not better than -- that interpretation being attacked

"puhahahah, it is an awful poem you autist. is this what they teach you at uni? to find depth and meaning where there is none, so you can keep fueling (((their))) attack on high culture (turning culture into propaganda machinery, that is). that abomination should not even be called a poem, and to explain why it is worthless would be analogous to the explanation of why 2+2 is not 5. it is simply true, if you cannot see it without any backup theory you should neck yourself."

Outstanding! Publish this man!

>sex is interesting and good.
yes especially when every popular work is now about how liberated females are for having hairy armpits

to clarify, an interpretation clearly based on a misreading is worthless.
i'm not going to get mired in this reductive dissolution of meaning crap that prevents actual engagement with art.

i can't help but read these posts as the bitter ravings of the only losers of the sexual revolution. sad!

Name two.

>Eat my pussy from behind

I'm gonna fuck your asshole, cunt.

Fucking retard, off yourself

How do you distinguish a misreading from a good one? Stop dodging the question dumbass.

> sex is interesting and good

Grow up.

What is the point of the image? Also I see you're that same French user who hates all contemporary poetry and loves Keats

>04:07am

Jesus.

i can't define it in a way either of us would be satisfied with socrates

>i can't help but read these posts as the bitter ravings of the only losers of the sexual revolution.
I cant help but read these posts as the bitter ravings of hopelessly single females who know their biological clock is relentlessly marching onward. sad!

Are you actually so braindead you can't tell that it demonstrates that I'm not the user that posted this?

1. Not French.

2. I don't hate all contemporary poetry (just a vast majority of it), and I love many more poets than just Keats.

I don't get the point of posts like these. So you're defining yourself as the opposition, it doesn't resolve anything.

I am not offended by this poem. In fact, it didn't elicit any strong emotional response from me. Boring/10

I really don't get why so many people here are sperging so hard over this poem.

go to bed hera
btw the poem's good, carry on

>Are you actually so braindead you can't tell that it demonstrates that I'm not the user that posted this?

Maybe you should get some sleep. I'm not saying you're the same poster, but you're the one saying that interpretation is good.

There are like two people here sperging about it. Everyone else is at least ok with it.

>it doesn't resolve anything.
just like the ad hominem you posted. none of this ever resolves anything

Because it's another 'how edgy would it be if I mentioned fucking in my poem? Gosh I'm so completely original'

Do you get the office package free from your university? If you have to pay for it it's like a subscription now or some shit, such a fucking rip off.

I don't believe in interpretation theory (ie : Barthes tier shit), but I'm asking you questions to lead you somewhere.

I don't go to Uni yet, I work at a call center.

Is it? What makes this interpretation valid?

>it didn't elicit any strong emotional response from me. Boring/10
thats fine, i just dont think its "really good" like the people in the beginning of the thread had said
>it didn't elicit any strong emotional response from me
my problem was that it tried to do so on the cheap and it appears people fell for it.

So now you can go back to this post and try responding to it properly:

it's fun to talk about literature, this is a leisure activity

do you have a way to distinguish a valid interpretation from an invalid one, or are you saying it is an impossible task?

sex is not edgy, embarrassing

>it tried to do so on the cheap
what does this mean?

>What makes this interpretation valid?
what makes yours valid. fuck you.
can you be any more condescending you snide little cunt

youre not making yourself look intelligent by pretending to be an aloof asshole beyond responding to criticism

There's so many poems using graphic sexual imagery to create jarring images, that in the end it all feels like that's all they have going for them.

I see the contrast, but I think it's unnecessary and unpleasant to read - where's the beauty in 'keats is dead so fuck me from behind'? All you're left with is sex for the sake of being shocking and jarring

So you're saying no interpretation is valid?

>what does this mean?
do you lack basic reading comprehension or something?