|
A 2000 word lit. analysis in 2 weeks isn't bad at all. Do it heart
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 23, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I never understood why Eagleton's Literary Theory is considered a textbook introduction to Critical Theory when its pretty clearly an argument that only a Marxist Materialist interpretation of literature matters. It seems better than How To Read Literature Like a Professor. What would you suggest is a better introduction?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Yeah that would involve them to actually be productive and participate in analytical discussion beyond 'lol gently caress you'
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:Extremely worthwhile and productive discussion about how stupid you have to be to care about books with names like ARCADIA UNLOCKED I'm not disagreeing, the book sounds terrible. However, ahh's barely puts any efforts into their criticisms or jokes. The challenge isn't for them to enjoy the book, it's to actively make them a decent poster, and the book was the fodder. ahh has esoteric tastes in books, and if anyone has an interest in something outside of that narrow frame, ahh lazily writes them off with a 'lol, dumbass' from a holier-than-thou perch and, as far as I've seen, only barely ever makes effort posts. They've recommended me one or two books that were interesting, so it's not like they have poo poo taste, their poo poo-posting is boring. Most of the Lit. thread regulars are just as opinionated and abrasive as ahh, but most are willing to at least discuss things and analyze the books they read and defend them. ahh does not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I cannot even tell if this is sarcasm or not Cast Insight or Detection. I think you only need a d10, but they may have some hidden defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 20:48
|
|