|
Nakar posted:You could call it a midquel, if you hate yourself. I'm not sure what the smart term would be. Interstitial? Gaiden
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
DLC
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
A lot of Shakespeare nerds really liked Holly Golightly's performance as Ophelia because she'd slam a bunch of dope backstage and be properly spaced out and apathetic. Also Branagh's adaptation is ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
WatermelonGun posted:A lot of Shakespeare nerds really liked Holly Golightly's performance as Ophelia because she'd slam a bunch of dope backstage and be properly spaced out and apathetic. Branagh's adaptation is ridiculously great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Kenneth Branagh doesnt get enough credit for Thor
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Branagh's adaptation is ridiculously great. It's dumb but I loving love it.  Kozintsev's movie is also boss. http://i.imgur.com/x366b7C.gifv BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
There is nothing dumb about Branagh's Hamlet. It's my first exposure to Hamlet and I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Kenneth Branagh doesnt get enough credit for Thor Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit was pretty forgettable tho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
What's you guys' take on Death of the Author? If I get the impression that a book (or other piece of media for that matter) is trying to tell me something, but the author actually wanted to express something else, is my read on it still valid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
it's actually a cabal of literatis with harold bloom on top who decide the actual meaning of books. a couple of this thread's regulars are in it, too, but i don't think they can reveal it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Alright let me rephrase it a little. Let's say that an author has directly explained what message he was trying to convey in writing his book. If someone else notices a different meaning, is it worthwhile to analyze that, considering that the author didn't mean to give that impression and thus all meaning found there is arguably incidental?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Do you mean like if someone writes like endless excruciating rape porno and then says it's feminist and people are like I don't think so Like is that OK
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Alright let me rephrase it a little. i think Ras Het gave a good example why it can be worthwhile. in any text a lot of meaning unintended by the author can creep up, and often it's even more interesting than whatever message the author was trying to force through. so, even if austen wrote a book to parody the uptight people of her class, you can do a feminist reading of it and come out with several good insights about the gender roles in her world even if she wasn't consciously trying to put that stuff in the book. as far as i'm concerned, you can analyse them as an allegory of gold standard and i wouldn't care in the slightes, but generally ppl would ask for at least some evidence in why you see this or that meaning in the book. if you can find it in the book and it stands the test - i absolutely don't see why you should be a slave to the author's intent. also, a lot of human experiences and social structures have a similar pattern to them, which is why you can ascribe lots of different meanings to stories that are vague enough - in particular I'm thinking about children's books like Alice in Wonderland and Oz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
People think 'Death of the Author' means "OK literally never talk about the author at all" as if it's a virtue not to mention that an author in the 19th century probably intended 'plastic' to mean something different to how we say it. The actual essay saysquote:The reader has never been the concern of classical criticism; for it, there is no other man in literature but the one who writes. We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases, by which our society proudly champions precisely what it dismisses, ignores, smothers or destroys; we know that to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author. There is no such thing as an 'Author' in the sense that a work comes out fully formed and totally original, it is actually from a process of a lifetime of reading. Also, the 'Author' is themselves a reader of their own work, interpreting it. I like to imagine it as everyone carrying around a personal mental dictionary. What he's talking about is a change in attitude when you read something. The example of the rape fantasy the author intended as feminist is a great example of how we are kind of attuned to that attitude anyway, we have to kind of go through mental gymnastics to say "well he intended this, so this is exactly what it means/does".
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:People think 'Death of the Author' means "OK literally never talk about the author at all" as if it's a virtue not to mention that an author in the 19th century probably intended 'plastic' to mean something different to how we say it. What? That's silly. Why would anyone do that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
THey're dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:What? That's silly. Why would anyone do that? I'm not saying people do, it's just they hear of the concept and think 'gosh, that's silly' for said reason. So they dismiss the concept offhand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Death of the author can be bad because it makes people think that every reading of a book is correct
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Death of the author can be bad because it makes people think that every reading of a book is correct Naw that's more Stanley Fish
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Death of the author can be bad because it makes people think that every reading of a book is correct Since we just established that people have differente reading of various books, how are we supposed to establish if a reading is correct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Correct is the wrong word to use, reading isn't a maths test. Convincing is a better one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Correct is the wrong word to use, reading isn't a maths test. I prefer Valid
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Since we just established that people have differente reading of various books, how are we supposed to establish if a reading is correct? In 1975, chinua achebe wrote an essay about how the novel Heart of Darkness is racist. He had textual evidence which others can see to support this. I disagree with him, but his reading is correct
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
I holding back my urge to go ultra post-structuralist on this entire question
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:In 1975, chinua achebe wrote an essay about how the novel Heart of Darkness is racist. He had textual evidence which others can see to support this. I disagree with him, but his reading is correct This is going a bit far. I can't say that I disagree with something for good reason and that it is correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Post-structuralism is a conservative, bourgeois philosophy, comrade
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Post-structuralism is a conservative, bourgeois philosophy, comrade I will deconstruct your face bitch
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
at the date posted:This is going a bit far. I can't say that I disagree with something for good reason and that it is correct. Why not? To suggest otherwise is to imply there is an objective universal. Correctness is in itself an organic reflection of subjective experience. Something is only correct within the perspective of the one offering analysis, not an intangible outside factor equally understood by all readers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
There is a definitive right and wrong, but Achebe's argument is correct because it follows the correct argumentative forms
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:There is a definitive right my posts Smoking Crow posted:and wrong your posts
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Correctness is in itself an organic reflection of subjective experience. Something is only correct within the perspective of the one offering analysis, not an intangible outside factor equally understood by all readers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Why not? To suggest otherwise is to imply there is an objective universal. lol edit for everyone who isn't joking: I would never trust anyone to judge every opinionated essay written on Ulysses as right or wrong. In that sense, there is no objective reference for truth. Still, where two interpretations directly contradict, at least one must be wrong by definition. If you don't accept that, there's no point arguing at all. Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
his mind blown by truth so hard he is reduced to a state of manic laughter tragic
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you talking about Are you unable to have a conversation unless its terms are validated by Wikipedia
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
at the date posted:Still, where two interpretations directly contradict, at least one must be wrong by definition. If you don't accept that, there's no point arguing at all. Not necessarily. For that to be true we would have to assert there is an objective core to a text that is incorruptible by the subjective experience of the reader. I do not really agree with that. It is quite possible, and also quite frequent, for their to be two equally valid interpretations of a text that are at direct and irreconciable difference with each other that both come from a place of legitimate subjectivity. The question of racism in Huckleberry Finn is an example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
I just finished A Little Life. Actually, I finished it at 1:30 in the morning and then got not enough sleep. This is a remarkable novel. It's moving and real. And it has a lot to say. One of the most important things I took from the book is its message about love. I haven't read any reviews or discussion, so these are just my thoughts. I usually just enjoy reading powerful stories with good characters and writing, so if this stuff sounds trite that's because I rarely do much analysis of books. (It's why I'm a rhetoric major and not an English major) A Little Life is a story about love and its power to both heal and destroy. When we love someone, we give up a lot to them. The person we love has the power to help us or to hurt us, and often will do both. I think A Little Life addresses the old question "is it better to have loved and lost than never loved at all?" Is the pain that inevitable comes from loving someone worth it, even if it destroys us in the end? There is also a great deal about loving oneself in the book, but I know less what to make of it. I thought I would have more to write when I started this post but I'm not very good at putting my thoughts about a book's meaning into words. blue squares fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:What the gently caress are you talking about man in literature thread upset about big words
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:man in literature thread upset about big words Using big words is nice and all, but if you fail to communicate your message than all the long words in the world aren't going to make you look smart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
His message is perfectly clear. The meaning of a book is something that is created between each pair of reader & author. There is no one right thing. Each reader comes to the table with a different set of experiences and knowledge which will influence that reader's experience of the book. No two people will ever experience a book the same way, ever, so there can be no identical readings from a book between any two people, ever, so there is no one right answer, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
^ Pretty much. I would just say the interaction is between reader and text, not reader and author ^paradoxGentleman posted:Using big words is nice and all, but if you fail to communicate your message than all the long words in the world aren't going to make you look smart. Ok, what part is hard to parse? Our subjective experience is the basis by which we decide whether something is correct. There isn't a core idea of correctness that exists mutually between all people and is not affected by being a subjective observer. Therefore, people from polar subjective experiences can both have valid interpretations of a text that are simultaneously "correct" despite being in conflict with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:11
|
|