Reading a book / watching a film where the author just spoon-feeds you their worldview (even if you agree with it) is one of the most insufferable experiences, especially when these "works of art" get paraded around in public discourse like it's some profound and deep exploration of the subject matter, despite the nature of storytelling necessitating the writer to oversimplify the issue to deliver a coherent and adequately-paced story.Allegory and social commentary is self-congratulatory. Academics and elites engage in these works to appear sophisticated and to signify their status as people with high taste. In reality it's cowardice. Any argument presented as a story could be more easily and more purely expressed in a philosophy essay.For instance, consider if you had a unique argument on abortion, and wanted to express that argument. Your first option is to write a philosophy essay, which uses plain, straightforward language to explain your points. You can caveat when necessary, and even preemptively address some objections. Your second option is to write a novel that is ten times the length of the essay where you have to simplify the issue (to ensure the story has good pacing), and can now be misinterpreted by the reader, as you are using indirect literary devices to communicate your argument.In art, the purpose is art, not social commentary, and therefore the purpose of critically studying art should be focused on the aesthetic pleasure of art. Imagine if we treated music theory like the way we treat literary critique - instead of examining why certain chord progressions are aesthetically pleasing or the harmonic nature of melodies, you instead analyze rap lyrics for their "brilliant" social commentary. Imagine how cheated you would feel if you enrolled into such a program under false pretences. That's literary critique. Instead of aesthetic examination, the focus is shifted to banal social commentary. Does anyone really need to read 1984 to know that totalitarianism is bad? Couldn't the arguments be more easily (and with far more brevity) expressed in a short essay? Admittedly, there are aspects of literary critique that do examine the aesthetic; archetypal critique, comparative mythology. But they are only a small part of the curriculum. The vast majority of literary analysis ignores the aesthetic in favour of "what the book is trying to say", as if the goal of art is intellectual stimulation and not catharsis. They reduce art to mere playing cards, to be deployed in passing conversation; "Dude you have to check out Lord of the Flies, it says a lot about our society".Subtext is for cowards. Allegory for fools. Social commentary for the impotent. If you have a good argument, you would present it plainly, not cower behind a veneer of metaphor and obfuscation. In reality, they know their arguments are asinine or obvious, and so they paint a coating of literary devices and pretend it's depth. It's not depth. It's bullshit.
>>24778038Just to make this clear, literary analysis is not supposed to be watching like 3 video "essays" where someone explains the plot to you. Literary analysis is also not meant to "solve" or replace the work it is analyzing as if art were an open problem that requires fixing. It is giving close attention to something beloved in a way that highlights resonances within the work and between the work and the world that produced it. Yes, that can include noticing how certain patterns or ideas imported by the author have intended or unintended political connotations. But ultimately, it is meant to deepen and enrich it.If you never experienced a work deepening itself as you payed attention to it, or heard someone passionate about it highlight things you did not notice, if your surface level gut feeling is the only thing you ever get out of the books you read, that is honestly kind of sad.
>>24778038You're so filtered from top to bottom by "things pertaining to what it is to be a human" that I don't even know where to begin. So I won't. Here's your (You), go eat peach pits, crybaby.
I feel like this post should be bullshit but I also kind of agree with it. What's the point of engaging with art for some purpose other than itself? It's always an indulgent activity.
>>24778105 (me)>The vast majority of literary analysis ignores the aesthetic in favour of "what the book is trying to say", as if the goal of art is intellectual stimulation and not catharsis.I think it boils down to this: intellectual stimulation of the type you get when literature 'makes you think' is just a form of that catharsis.
>>24778038>Subtext is for cowards. Allegory for fools. Social commentary for the impotent. Though I disliked your post, I liked this turn of phrase.
>>24778038Not reading your post, and I'm not arguing in favor of "analysis" either, but the line >Subtext is for cowardsIs repeated by people who are too afraid to think.
>>24778191You like it because he stole it from the world's most chilling horror writer.
>>24778038So any time a character does anything and the fictional world of the book reacts to it in any way, it's cowardice and the entire book needs to be a blogpost instead?Any time a character, who doesn't exist in a fictional world that is 100% divorced from our consensual reality, says something, the author should have made a tweet about it instead?According to you, Melville should have written a philosophical autobiography instead of Moby Dick, huh?I suppose Dostoevski should have just written a little essay about how committing a violent crime is bad, mmkay and Victor Hugo should have just blown it out his ass?Somewhat unrelated, but I wonder if Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde would have a lot of followers on twitter...
>>24778038>Admittedly, there are aspects of literary critique that do examine the aesthetic; archetypal critique, comparative mythology.those don't deal with aesthetic at all. formalism is closer to what you're looking for. >Subtext is for cowards.this is idiotic. subtext is just something that isn't visible on the surface, and is undeniably part of the aesthetic appeal. the abortion in hills like white elephants is subtext. those aside, everyone who is actually into this art form should agree that stories shouldn't be reduced to symbols for ideological generalities and should be appreciated as particular artistic creations.
>pacingfunny that no one cared about this or even used this word until the last 50 yearsinto the trash it goes
>“Critics explain!” What do they explain?>The artist, if a real artist, has by his work transmitted to others the feeling he experienced. What is there, then, to explain?>If a work be good as art, then the feeling expressed by the artist—be it moral or immoral—transmits itself to other people. If transmitted to others, then they feel it, and all interpretations are superfluous. If the work does not infect people, no explanation can make it contagious. An artist’s work cannot be interpreted. Had it been possible to explain in words what he wished to convey, the artist would have expressed himself in words. He expressed it by his art, only because the feeling he experienced could not be otherwise transmitted. The interpretation of works of art by words only indicates that the interpreter is himself incapable of feeling the infection of art. And this is actually the case, for, however strange it may seem to say so, critics have always been people less susceptible than other men to the contagion of art. For the most part they are able writers, educated and clever, but with their capacity of being infected by art quite perverted or atrophied. And therefore their writings have always largely contributed, and still contribute, to the perversion of the taste of that public which reads them and trusts them
>>24778252>Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde would have a lot of followers on twitter...If they were around today they'd be insufferable 'trump bad' late night hosts and /lit/ would despise them.
>>24778350Subtext is also common in day to day interaction, in any kind of relationship but particularly workplaces. It's a part of life.
>dude, other people spoonfeed you their worldview! listen to me instead!
>>24778038>He doesn't flawlessly integrate top tier style, innovation, allegory, deeper anagogic meanings, symbolisms, imagery, plot, aesthetics, and a deep and systematic philosophy all while speaking through a web of potential allusions.Don't mess with the GOAT.
>>24779718>Dude, the individual is le absolute. You and you're opinions are what matters most. Freedom is individuality and self-assertion. No, you don't need to learn from the wise or work hard to achieve freedom through the cultivation of the virtues, you just do what you want and that's how you are free. Being ignorant won't make you a slave to truths that lie outside your understanding. Just do and think what feels right; that totally won't lead to being a slave to ignorance, the appetites, and the passions!I'ma suggest you read this.
>>24779723Sorry, that was meant for OP.
>>24778038In reality OP is just mad he can't understand a metaphor because he has autism and so he made this juvenile post in an attempt to justify to himself why it's actually good he's retarded.
>>24778038>Reading a book / watching a film where the author just spoon-feeds you their worldview is one of the most insufferable experiencesIronically, most literary analysis deals with extracting this worldview and presenting it in essay form, just the way you want it. >In art, the purpose is art, not social commentaryMeaning assigned to a literary work is a part of this work of art. You've got a problem with both meaningful interpretation of literature and literature as an artistic medium (to express ideas). Yet in your case, the former would be the perfect solution to the latter.
>>24778038Any time a book or movie brings up hitler I get an urge to drop it.In the context of the views expressed in the OP, how does 1984 measure up?
