New General Edition.What is this general? It's a safe haven for discussing schools of literary theory and criticism. It is not a space for receiving critique on your own creative or non-fiction writing — use the Writing General for that.If this general proves popular, a FAQ and a resource pastebin may be added to the OP over time. Posting resources, such as introductions, useful tools and websites, reading lists, and infographics, etc., is welcome and appreciated!Which school of literary criticism do you find most compelling or useful, and why?
a general that's not low iq slop? good luck but i'd like to see it succeed
I want to move beyond saying things like ‘I like this book because it’s well written (doesn't know what it actually means) or the characters are relatable.’ What should I read to learn about literary criticism and how to analyze a work?
>>24794367It would certainly be beneficial for the board as a whole to have at least one general where discussions can take place without the constant invocation of covert ideologue boogeymen in every other post.
>>24794402It largely depends on what you read. If you're into poetry or epics, for instance, you might want to explore versification and theories of metaphor.Currently, litcrit is somewhat in the background, as media theory has become more relevant and essentially stems from literary theory. So, if you're interested, you might want to explore that to get a broader perspective. Start with an introductory resource, like pic related, or check out >>24794408.From there, you can dive into specific interpretations and start forming your own questions. For example, how does this author interpret the text differently from me? Over time, you'll develop the ability to craft your own informed critique. Every text has its context and metatext, and it's all about consuming all three in the right balance with a healthy degree of critical reflection.https://iep.utm.edu/literary/ for very quick overview.
>>24794402watch these https://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300https://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291
>>24794429i used to love literary theory, but as u can see from that table of contents it's mostly just applications of various 20th century ideologies to texts that often predate them. now i prefer criticism by someone like baudelaire rather than this 20th century theory thing of reading "through a lens" of this or that.
How do you judge if a character is well written?
>>24794429Right now I'm discovering modern japanese fiction and going through Dostoievski's work (never read it before)Thanks for the recommendations, I want to stop using shallow words to explain why a work is better than another
>>24794451the trite answer is if they are conflicted in some way and grow/change throughout the novel, but that feels like formulaic sloppery to me. someone recommend us a better reading.
>>24794461Moder japanese fiction => primarily the mystery genre because I discovered how its evolution and treatment differ from those in the West, it's really interesting
>>24794461literary theory doesn't really judge the quality of works so much as interpret them for meaning. to me theory and criticism are different things. for example, in that yale intro to lit theory class linked above, the prof applies the school of theory from each class to the children's book "tony the tow truck" rather than, say, some shit like "rime of the ancient mariner" or whatever.
>>24794473Ah I see, well it was a misunderstanding from me then, I want to learn how to judge fiction, the objective criteria (if they exist) that one can use to determine what is good, what is better (comparison) etc.
>>24794485for that you might want to look at syllabi from mfa creative writing curricula, seems like that might be where it could be found. i'm actually interested as well, if anyone want to post recs or a chart.
>>24794485that yale "american novel since 1945" class also linked above will show you erudite ways to talk about novels including stuff you've prob already read like wise blood, tcol49, and blood meridian. worth checking out.
>>24794332I only do chud theory. It's just a mix of gender studies and post colonialism but it's about how much I hate women and minorities. Huge Frank Norris fan now.
>>24794367theory is just leftist slop
>>24794408I hate to burst your bubble but pretty much any school of literary criticism since the mid-twentieth century is just a thinly veiled application of an ideology onto a text. What dominates most schools in the US (gender/feminist theory) isn’t even veiled.
>>24794621>things can be read objectivelyKek
>>24794628Never said that.
>>24794628lol dont you think there's a certain level of objectivity we can all base ourself on to do critiques?
>>24794613then leave, this general obviously isn't for you
>>24794683No. Everything in the perception of language is subjective. Actual absolutely objective communication is impossible. But that doesn't mean that you can't attempt to communicate to express experiences and appreciate what you and many others perceive as beauty.
>>24794746do you know what objective means?
>>24794746>>24794621>>24794613>>24794607There is no doubt that contemporary scholars have a strong progressive sentiment. If those approaches aren't to your liking, this general should also serve as a place to discuss more conservative approaches to literary criticism, such as formalism or New Criticism.Pomo and grievance studies are already dragged through the mud in every other thread on this board. Let's keep this general focused on original, open thought rather than mindless parroting of whatever the hot-button issue is.
>>24794791>Pomo and grievance studies are already dragged through the mud in every other thread on this board.That's because you aren't allowed to criticize them anywhere else, so yes, there will be a little homogeneity here.
>>24794796You are absolutely allowed to criticize them, and people rake in a significant amount of money doing so on the internet. A quick browse through PhilPapers will quickly convince you that essays and articles are published against the current zeitgeist.As I’ve said, pomo and the academic environment are already the topics of discussion in almost every thread. So, if you have nothing to add to the topic of literary theory, then stop derailing the thread. I understand you have an axe to grind, but do that somewhere else.
>>24794816Are you paid by an outside organization to be a part of some tepid subversion campaign or are you just a naturally whiny, pro-status quo hall monitor type?I hope for your sake it's the former.
>>24794829If you have any anti status-quo topic you wish to discuss you are welcome to do so, as long as it's a topic in the field of Literary theory.
>>24794840>you are welcome to do soThere's that hall monitor again!
has new sincerity really taken off in modern literature since 08? i don't know what to read to feel hopeful about the current times outside of old media that feels optimistic about the future
>>24794848>still no contribution to the topicBetter a hall monitor than a stupid attention whore.
>>24794898Are you getting paid per response? It'd be a shame if you were incompetently flailing in your own thread for free.
>>24794898You're an attention whore faggot
>>24794902I don't do it for free, I hope to engage with someone who shares interest in the topic of literary criticism and theory. That is my reward. You are the one bumping my thread and making an idiot out of yourself. I at least get to post my charts and keep the thread alive.Tell me, are you paid per post or do you do this from some weird pleasure derived from your own humiliation?
>>24794791>>24794816>>24794840>>24794898>>24794933based diagramanon, desaucer would be proud
>>24794933>tfw the UML cancer keeps migrating between CS and Lit using Linguistics grad students as vectors
>>24794933Happy to help. I'm enjoying the conversation you've been hall monitoring thus far. A real meeting of minds.
where the fuck do I start. I've read how to read literature like a professor
>>24794791I think pomo philosophy is quite interesting but I'm unsure how it connects to literary theory exactly. What do postmodern literary critics talk about? How do they take on a text?
>>24794791That was my point. You can literally adapt it to make Chud theory, or intersectional antisemite theory. Its actually very easy to build a white nationalist ideology that is fully fleshed out using left wing theory than from a traditionalist lens. Similar to how Hitler built out his theory, but without the garbage that worships money and power over race.
>>24795318Adapt what? >Its actually very easy to build a white nationalist ideology that is fully fleshed out using left wing theory than from a traditionalist lens.wdym by that? Left wing theory?
What a clusterfuck of a thread.
>>24795389Just goes to show how /lit/tered with pseuds the whole board is. No sane discussion of anything besides the same three metadiscours talking points can take place, the very notion of critique is rejected outright.People don't want knowledge, tools for their own analysis. They want dogma and easily memorizable quips. The less thinking the better. Literary critique shouls be at home on Literature board, unless it's filled with useless mentally ill fucks.
>>24795351Once you assert that:> justice = whites being on top> Liberation = whites being liberated from nonwhites existing> Oppression =nonwhites existingIt all flows from there. Like if you substitute proletariat for whites and jews for everything bad in Marxism. Just take a "left-wing" stream of thought stemming from Marxism and do that with it.
>>24795507What would incel literary theory look like (dead serious here)?
>>24795527if character == woman then if woman == virginprint "queeeen"elseprint "WHORE!!!!"if character == manthen if man == gets_pussyprint "He's over 6 feet, rich and handsome... of course girls give him attention"elseprint "Yeah just a normal guy, like me, of course he doesn't get pussy"Then I guess hmm if it doesn't end with the virgin going with the least desirable man or shooting everyone it's hack and derivative or some shit? Of course he'd get the virgin not by changing or becoming a better person but sinking deeper into the idea that the world is the problem not him.
Why did it all become faggotry circa 1950? Where does one go to read criticism and analysis that isn't primarily concerned with gay buttfucking and women?
>>24795559What about building it out of feminist and disability theory to help show narratives that disenfranchise and oppress men who aren't in the top percent for sexual selection and how a system designed to devalue and destroy them reinforces this with narrative structures?
>>24795565>Why did it all become faggotry circa 1950?truly a mystery
>>24795527Probably like it already does. It's funny how the whole pill ideology is unironically both postmodern and marxist despite them screeching about those two all day. They commodify sex and talk about it in terms of economy, there's a very materialist undertone to it especially when it comes down to the genetic blackpill shit. There are cries for liberation, victimhood sentiment. Incels crafted a whole class system based on sexual activity. That's how it's marxist.It's postmodern in the sense of rejection of the grand narrative of sexual reproduction 'someone out there for everyone', instead it affirms a plurality of narratives about different modes of oppression of the unattractive male. If it was just one guy thinking all this shit up, I would say he's doing a pretty good parody of current academic millieu, but since it's literally thousands of dudes believing that crap wholeheartedly I'd say we're fucked.
>>24795507The OP really wasn't much better desu
>>24795579I am the OP
Everyone loves to bitch about postmodern literary theory but so long as it doesn't get into politics and sticks to deconstruction purely of the text as in Derrida, de Man, and Johnson, it's pretty fucking interesting. Read "Melville's Fist: The Execution of "Billy Budd""
>>24795582I stand by my statement. Priggish pseudo-intellectualism isn't any better than people spamming slurs. It just takes longer to generate.
>>24795590What pseudo-intellectualism? I gatekept the thread from an annoying faggot that doesn't know what the role of a general is. Browse through the catalog. 70% of it is the same woke vs antiwoke bullshit. It's gotten boring real fucking quick. Would be nice if we could have a normal thread for a change, at least us few who are in it for the enjoyment of the subject-matter. Sometimes it feels like everyone is just an angsty teen looking up cool arguments to own his libshit parents. I've been here on and off for more than 10 years and everytime I return it's more and more like a fucking hick town. The pseud callout doesn't even have the same ring to it anymore. Anti-intellectualism hit these kids like crack did black neighborhoods. They are high of their own ignorance. Whole world smells like burger grease and corn syrup.
>>24795656>gatekeptDid you gatekeep it, or did you get baited into arguing over nothing for half the length of this thread?For someone who says he's been on 4chan for over 10 years, you sure do feed trolls rather easily. I get that you're trying to stand up for liberal principles in literary criticism, but coming off like a smarmy cunt then rolling in the mud with a pig doesn't convert anyone to your particular strand of state religion. Hence, the failure of this thread.
>>24795656I just want a coherent antiwoke lens. Just seems fun. But its just reader reaction and I can't get into the headspace.
>>24795671Liberal principles? It's litcrit, not political economy. If anything, it's post-left. Like flies to the shit with you people. I may get baited by a dicksucker making an ass of himself, but you get baited every day on the slightest tinge of ideological impurity. You can't have discussion because you guys have no framework. 50 years ago on the other side of the globe you'd ve hardcore neostalinists, it's funny you fail to see it.
>>24795704>Liberal principlesoxyMORON
>>24794332How do you use literary theory in general? Do people subscribe to one single theory and seek to analyze everything through that lens? Or do you vary it up based on some aspect of the text? I can definitely understand how certain texts would lend themselves more to Marxist or feminist analyses. Does the correctness of the analysis matter or is it more about an analysis being interesting?
>>24795727Imagine you are looking at a celestial body with a telescope and have various filters you can use on the eyepiece to help you enhance your ability to inspect the celestial body. The filters are the different theories of criticism. Yes they distort the celestial body but the distortion should be one that doesn't prevent you from seeing what you are looking for if it is an appropriate filter. Given experience with your kit you will get better at knowing which one to use when.
>>24794451>>24794464A well written character is first a well developed character. They have background and motivations, actions and dialogue consistent with their background and motivations, meaningful interactions in the story and with other characters, and flaws that create conflict. To be well written, these need to come together in ways that make the character complex and multi-faceted, and that are revealed through the story. All of this culminates into the suspension of disbelief, also the hallmark of a well written story. Some would also add growth or a character arc, but I would disagree that it's strictly necessary.
>>24795704You're making a great deal of assumptions about me because of three posts. This is why everyone shits on your thread, not because you're vastly intellectually superior, but because you're unpleasant and no smarter than the "ideologues" making fun of you.
this whole thread feels like samefag
>>24795744Have you ever encountered a lens that was totally inappropriate to what it was being applied to?
>>24795752Yeah. Sometimes you are like nope this isn't showing me anything and is just creating distortion. Same as with filters on a telescope.
>>24795752No. Any lens can be applied at any time. I mostly read texts through the lens of gender theory. I imagine if the gender roles were reversed and how it would change the reading of the novel. An example of this would be something like imagining Moby Dick as Moby Pussy and instead of wanting to kill the whale, Ahab wants to stimulate the whale with a little bullet vibrator on a stick (in place of the spear.)
>>24795761What would incel literary theory look like?
>>24795745>Some would also add growth or a character arc, but I would disagree that it's strictly necessary.I mean what you described seems to be the grow of a character during the story no?Also how do you compare characters based on what you said? When you set side by side two multi-faceted and complex characters which one is more complex, have better dynamics with the story and other characters etc. It becomes a bit subjective no? For example with themes that resonate more with some readers
>>24795756Can you give an example? >>24795761Haha
>>24795574Are incels applying dialectical materialism to the "dating market?"
>>24795766Imagine an orb one hundreds miles in diameter. Now imagine a cube within that orb. It looks pretty silly right? That's what an incel literary theory would look like.
>>24795769>Can you give an example?I don't have time to humiliate you too. I know this is being asked in bad faith. I've already gatekept this thread from one retard and I won't do it twice.
>>24795769Classic one would be reading the book of Kings in the bible through a class lens of the text being written by the priestly class to justify their class interests. Compare that to a covenant theology theological reading and any other theological reading you want. Bible is a good place to explore it as materials are plentiful.
>>24795772I don't know, who even cares?
Alright where the fuck do I start?
>>24795704It's ok, big guy. Alright, now get back to filling those orders.
>>24795778I'm asking in good faith. I was trying to help get the thread back on track. >>24795781That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Does the fact that there are original elements in a work automatically make those elements a positive aspect of the work?For example, if we take a medium that, by nature or by culture, doesn’t often highlight women, so we rarely find well-written female characters, can a “good female cast” be considered a positive point, one of the work’s qualities?Is there any real value in separating the cast by gender (or age, etc.)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just talk about an interesting cast in general?
>>24795806If I'm trying to be as charitable as possible, I would say that some of those original elements expose unique relations or experiences that are worthy of study. If it's true that women really do experience things differently from men, then changing a male character for a female one is probably more meaningful than changing a tabby cat for a Russian blue. But I suppose that's not always given. Just because Ghostbusters used an all female cast doesn't mean it had anything interesting to say about women and society. So perhaps the issue is that original elements can lay a foundation for something meaningful but aren't meaningful automatically.
>>24795768I think there is a very important distinction between revelation and growth. There are some objective observations that can be made, but there is no such thing as truly objective criticism in literature.
>>24795785jakobson wrote up a summary, that's all i knoe
>>24795823So if an original element is good, does it carry more weight than a good but non-original one?
>>24795826>distinction between revelation and growthIf I understand correctly, it’s the difference between revelations that add depth to the character, making us reevaluate their words, themes, etc. in light of those revelations, without actually changing the character themselves (aka growth)?>There are some objective observations that can be madeDo you have any examples of objective criteria, observations etc. or possible approaches?
>>24795851Revelation is when we learn something new. Growth is when something we already knew changes as a result of something that's happened (not negligence). It's dependant on prior knowledge. Our perception of a character can change without the character having undergone any change. There's no objective criteria, the objective is of limited use and interest in literary criticism. Its primary importance is always going to be the relationship to the subjective, which is itself subjective.> "My parents died when I was young." We can objectively state that a detail of this character's background has been revealed. There may be some explicit, objective evidence that this exposition of background relates to and affects their motivations, their interactions with the story or characters, their flaws and their growth as the story progresses. That's aboug the extent of the duscussion. In a well-written character and narrative, the bulk of it will be implied and subjective. If you question that:>"My parents died when I was young, so now I'm going to destroy the world!"Now we have objective background and motivation. Whether this is well-written is a subjective quality judgement. We can still arrive at a concensus about its quality, and a consensus can already exist independent of our personal judgements and our consensus. It's a very basic example lacking in context, but I think we can broadly agree that it's not well-written, and that the character and story would be more interesting and better served if this background and motivational detail were implicit to the explicit statement of their intention, or that neither were explicit. Then we have something to interpret, something to discuss and arguements to make.
>>24794332new theory droppedneopagan (racist)
>>24796199tell us more about the pegans anonall i kno is that they have cure girls
cute*was peganposting lol
>>24796221>>24796222Not sure what he means but what about a form of cultural studies critique that focuses on how literature oppresses neopaganism as a form of white genocide?
>>24796237>omg she knows how to read she is ruinedhmm you might be onto something
How did I ever get by without the 6th wave feminist neo-structuralist lit theory
>>24794332Thank you OP for your chart which clearly shows that the schools of literary criticism become monotonically worse over time.
But why were the curtains blue doe?
How do I even know what theory I wanna use. Is there a wageslave chud theory
