Export thread

JD Salinger dead at 91

#1

ElJuski

ElJuski

Fucking bummer.

I don't think it would have all got me quite so down if just once in a while--just once in a while--there was at least some polite little perfunctory implication that knowledge should lead to wisdom, and that if it doesn't, it's just a disgusting waste of time!
Click to expand...
One of my favorite lines from his amazing book Franny and Zooey. Of course, he is most known for Catcher in the Rye, one of the greatest American contributions to literature. Really sad to see an American cultural landmark pass.

EDIT: My friend did bring up that, on the bright side, we may be seeing more of his work that he had nutshelled away all these years. Hopefully its not garbage :(

EDIT 2: It kind of scares me that this page will slowly sink to the bottom...but the iPad thread...


#2



kaykordeath

ElJuski said:
Fucking bummer.

I don't think it would have all got me quite so down if just once in a while--just once in a while--there was at least some polite little perfunctory implication that knowledge should lead to wisdom, and that if it doesn't, it's just a disgusting waste of time!
Click to expand...
One of my favorite lines from his amazing book Franny and Zooey. Of course, he is most known for Catcher in the Rye, one of the greatest American contributions to literature. Really sad to see an American cultural landmark pass.

EDIT: My friend did bring up that, on the bright side, we may be seeing more of his work that he had nutshelled away all these years. Hopefully its not garbage :(

EDIT 2: It kind of scares me that this page will slowly sink to the bottom...but the iPad thread...
Click to expand...
FUCK!!!! I mean, I know he was getting old, but this still sucks big time. Catcher was the first book I ever RE-read.

Actually worked with his son at one point. And yes, the one from the really bad 1980's Captain America movie...nice enough guy, but never would have pegged him to be related if I hadn't been told.

This makes me a sad penguin.


#3

@Li3n

@Li3n

I got to read Catcher in the Rye already...

But 91 ain't a bad age to go...


#4

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Well, I hope he did keep writing and has a trove of good material to read.


#5

ElJuski

ElJuski

91 and bad at ALL! It's just weird to think Catcher in the Rye and his other work under these conditions. JD Salinger had always been the author and the recluse of pop culture to me. I really hope the stuff he has shelled away isn't just really bad fan fic.


#6

Allen who is Quiet

Allen, who is Quiet

It all turns out to be hundreds of pages of Holden slash fiction


#7



Dusty668

I'm gonna miss him and his work, hope it don't get all lawyered up.


#8

ElJuski

ElJuski

Allen said:
It all turns out to be hundreds of pages of Holden slash fiction
Click to expand...
"Catcher" in the Rye


#9



Kitty Sinatra

Catch 'Er In The Eye



(Sorry Calleja)


#10



Koko

Here's a poem I wrote for Catcher in the Rye last year for English class.

Encompassing Reality

I see that man, he embraces it,
I see that woman, she adores it,
I see myself, and I can’t stand it.
Far from fantasy, it is everything,
I despise it, but I must fill my thoughts with it,
I don’t understand it, everyone does,
I fear it, it’s always present.
Reality will be the end of me.

Daily routine of monotonous misery,
I can’t escape it.
Like a recurring nightmare it is always waiting,
for it cares not of my expectant hunger of freedom.
Every time I think I can break out,
it slams into my face in every form imaginable,
an enraged fist, unsatisfied lips, or a harsh slamming of a door.

As tears form below unsuspecting eyes,
I have but one final addendum to those of like minds,
you can try to pretend to the masses or free them of ignorance,
but the only true release of the soul comes from appreciation.
Appreciation of what you truly are, what everyone else is, and the importance of knowing the difference.


#11

Zappit

Zappit

Wizard claimed that Salinger was Marvel's "Writer X" back from 2000, and he was a huge comics fan - wouldn't it be a kick if his secret trove was full of comic scripts?


#12

drawn_inward

drawn_inward

Hey there salinger, what did you do? Just when the world was looking at you
Click to expand...
Here's to life!


#13

phil

phil

I just started reading Catcher in the Rye a couple weeks ago. What a weird coincidence.


#14

bhamv3

bhamv3

Well, Brazelton had been taking Hollywood celebs recently, I guess he had to balance it out with some literature.

RIP Salinger. I loved Catcher in the Rye.


#15



redapples

BBC radio reported this as author of Catcher in the Rye and little after that! Which is interesting. I wonder if this is a cultural biase towards short story writing. Looking at his bibliography there were a further 3 books (Raise High is my favourite) and 22 short stories. Hardly little.


Oh and that Cap America film was 1990, I checked.


#16

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Craig Ferguson did his whole monologue in tribute to Salinger. I have not checked to see if it is on YouTube yet.


#17

phil

phil

ElJuski said:
EDIT 2: It kind of scares me that this page will slowly sink to the bottom...but the iPad thread...
Click to expand...
Well, what's there to say about it? He's dead, and it kinda sucks, but then again he lived a long life and is a revered author.


I can't think of much else to say on the matter.


#18

ElJuski

ElJuski

phil;335169][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
EDIT 2: It kind of scares me that this page will slowly sink to the bottom...but the iPad thread...
Click to expand...
Well, what's there to say about it? He's dead, and it kinda sucks, but then again he lived a long life and is a revered author.


I can't think of much else to say on the matter.[/QUOTE]

I think there's tons to say about the writer of one of the quintissential american novels. Or, you know, at least about his work. I just think it's remarkable how much stuff like this reflects on society's cultural literacy. As much as I defend low-brain, shut-off-your-face entertainment, its times like these that make me feel really depressed how we've seemingly regressed.


#19

phil

phil

Well sure, there's a bunch we could talk about in regards to Salinger himself or his works. Why not kick the discussion off? What do you want to talk about?


#20



Chazwozel

Catcher in the Rye sucked. That's right I said it.


#21



Twitch

How so Juice? I'm sure most people here have read Salinger but his death doesn't change his work. Perhaps if you started a thread on, say, Catcher in the Rye then people would discuss it. He wasn't enough of a public figure outside of his works themselves that there's much to discuss unlike someone like Michael Jackson, etc


#22

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Is that the novel about the rich kid whining about how tough life is?

a paraphrase of Rosy O'Donnell last night.


#23



makare

Yeah I hated Catcher in the Rye too.. I am somewhat depressed that it is among the "quintessential american novels". Im kind of depressed now :(

I havent read anything else by him so I guess I would be willing to try it. Sometimes an author's best known work isn't their best work so it is good to give the others a chance.


#24



Chazwozel

makare1 said:
Yeah I hated Catcher in the Rye too.. I am somewhat depressed that it is among the "quintessential american novels". Im kind of depressed now :(

I havent read anything else by him so I guess I would be willing to try it. Sometimes an author's best known work isn't their best work so it is good to give the others a chance.
Click to expand...
Catcher in the Rye was his only novel. I hate the way it ended. Oh I'm in a mental asylum now, don't live like me or it'll happen to you too.


#25

Dave

Dave

SPOILER ALERT!! :rofl:


#26



Chazwozel

Dave said:
SPOILER ALERT!! :rofl:
Click to expand...

I thought about it, and then I said good gravy if you haven't read Catcher in the Rye at this point I might as well yell it in your ear that King Kong dies. :)


#27



Deschain

He's dead? How will I be able to tell?


#28

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

When I read Catcher, I thought it was a fantastic cultural deconstruction of the whitewashed utopic view if post-war America, and that it was equally fascinating how our continual romanticization of that time period keeps Catcher culturally relevant.

But that doesn't make Holden any kind of credible icon for modern teenage rebellion, nor does it make owning/reading Catcher a social indication of anything except that you went to English class in 7th grade for at least a week or two. I'm completely mystified about current complaints of profanity, inciting to rebellion, etc., as if it was anything except a book about a rich teenager.


#29

ElJuski

ElJuski

Chazwozel;335240][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Yeah I hated Catcher in the Rye too.. I am somewhat depressed that it is among the "quintessential american novels". Im kind of depressed now :(

I havent read anything else by him so I guess I would be willing to try it. Sometimes an author's best known work isn't their best work so it is good to give the others a chance.
Click to expand...
Catcher in the Rye was his only novel.[/QUOTE]

Uhhhh no?

It's funny because people constantly misunderstand Catcher in the Rye because they're reading it face value. The text itself--beyond being a beautiful example of the bildungsroman--has depth to it if you decide to read it from even a remotely critical angle.

Let me ruin it for you: you're SUPPOSED to hate Holden Caulfield. He's kind of the perfect whiny middle-class American prick, ain't he? Which leads us into calling him out on being a faulty narrator, and beginning to break down his worldview and Salinger's worldview (they don't always exactly align).

Now, on to Salinger himself, Franny and Zooey is another great novel which definitely holds homage to Hesse and his brilliant bildungsroman, Siddhartha. The family in this novel is intrinsically flawed, too (lawdy, a trend!), and trying to pick up the pieces of their lives in the world they created around them. It's a quick, fascinating read, and leads to that really wonderful quote I have up top.

The man's also written a shitton of short stories, many of which have not been republished or collected in an available place, but Nine Stories is brilliant too. Salinger had a great style and had some beautiful dialogue that reflected the 40's and 50's so well. It's a shame that Catcher in the Rye gets taught so improperly in schools where students aren't supposed to look critically at the text, but just go "WELP, he's a looney all right, and maybe a pedo too!"

Beyond that, though, there's no denying taste, and I can't chastise someone for not liking the novel. However, you should try it out again, looking at Holden critically, rather than a sympathetic narrator. The world around Holden opens up in awesome new ways.


#30

Espy

Espy

I'm glad he lived a long life... should be interesting to see whats in his writing bunker.

Now I'm heading over to the iPad thread to have some REAL fun.:laugh:


#31



makare

If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.


#32



Chazwozel

makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...

Well you do like to use French toast for sandwich bread...so the plus 1 is to Juski in that regard...


#33

ElJuski

ElJuski

I wasn't referring to you specifically, no. And yes, if you find it boring and stunted and looking at it more than just having to dredge through it that one time in high school, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing.

Interacting with the text, and forming a judgment based on that interaction.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------
Espy;335292 Now I'm heading over to the iPad thread to have some REAL fun.:laugh:[/QUOTE said:
OHHHH YOUUUUUUUUU
Click to expand...


#34

Espy

Espy

ElJuski said:
Espy;335292 Now I'm heading over to the iPad thread to have some REAL fun.:laugh:[/QUOTE said:
OHHHH YOUUUUUUUUU
Click to expand...
I cannot wait to buy my iPad and re-read Catcher in the Rye on it. THEN REALITIES WILL CONVERGE. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW???
Click to expand...


#35



Chazwozel

Espy;335346][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
Espy;335292 Now I'm heading over to the iPad thread to have some REAL fun.:laugh:[/QUOTE said:
OHHHH YOUUUUUUUUU
Click to expand...
I cannot wait to buy my iPad and re-read Catcher in the Rye on it. THEN REALITIES WILL CONVERGE. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW???
Click to expand...

View attachment 282.

Attachments



#36

ElJuski

ElJuski

.


#37

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker



Here he is.


#38

@Li3n

@Li3n

makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...


#39

ElJuski

ElJuski

@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

*raises finger*

*lowers it*

*shoots himself*


#40



Kitty Sinatra

Here's hoping JD will be happy in his cornfield heaven.


. . . we are talking about this guy, right?


#41

@Li3n

@Li3n

ElJuski;335455][QUOTE=@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

*raises finger*

*lowers it*

*shoots himself*[/QUOTE]

Relax, i actually read some of the stuff afterwards, and it was fine...


#42



makare

@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

That kind of sucks though. Many works are only truly great once you analyze them.


#43

ElJuski

ElJuski

A-yup.


#44

Vagabond

V.Bond

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bunch_of_phonies_mourn_j_d


#45



Chazwozel

makare1;335488][QUOTE=@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

That kind of sucks though. Many works are only truly great once you analyze them.[/QUOTE]

Except for Animal Farm. I like reading that as a story about pigs usurping power than an allegory of communism. Lousy pigs.


#46



makare

Animal Farm is on my list of books I hate. But my hatred for all things Orwell should be well known.


#47



Kitty Sinatra

Orwell's one of my favorite authors. Keep the Aspidistra Flyingis my fave of his, but I was somehow enthralled by Burmese Days, and Coming Up For Air, too


#48

Dieb

Dieb

makare1 said:
Animal Farm is on my list of books I hate. But my hatred for all things Orwell should be well known.
Click to expand...
Why the Orwell hate? I love Animal Farm, myself. Hehe, silly pigs.


#49



makare

Hmm somewhere I have an elaborate blog post about my hatred for Orwell. I don't know where it is though.


#50



Chazwozel

Dieb;335569][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Animal Farm is on my list of books I hate. But my hatred for all things Orwell should be well known.
Click to expand...
Why the Orwell hate? I love Animal Farm, myself. Hehe, silly pigs.[/QUOTE]

I'm not fond of Orwell either, but that's because I confuse him with Orson Welles.


#51

@Li3n

@Li3n

makare1;335488][QUOTE=@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

That kind of sucks though. Many works are only truly great once you analyze them.[/QUOTE]

But not that great when you're only allowed to use that one interpretation someone put in a school book 50 years ago...


#52



Kitty Sinatra

Chazwozel;335603][QUOTE=Dieb;335569][QUOTE=makare1 said:
Animal Farm is on my list of books I hate. But my hatred for all things Orwell should be well known.
Click to expand...
Why the Orwell hate? I love Animal Farm, myself. Hehe, silly pigs.[/QUOTE]

I'm not fond of Orwell either, but that's because I confuse him with Orson Welles.[/QUOTE]
That's the guy who wrote Ender's Game, right? I don't like him.


#53

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

@Li3n;335614][QUOTE=makare1;335488][QUOTE=@Li3n;335440][QUOTE=makare1 said:
If you are addressing me I assure you I read it critically. After 7 years of literary scholarship I can't read anything without looking at it critically. I thought the book was boring and intellectually stunted and I will never understand why it gets so much praise.
Click to expand...
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...[/QUOTE]

That kind of sucks though. Many works are only truly great once you analyze them.[/QUOTE]

But not that great when you're only allowed to use that one interpretation someone put in a school book 50 years ago...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's always fun. I liked getting C's on my papers regarding the Iliad and Oddysey in college because the professor said I was "reading it wrong." Yeah, I'm sorry I was actually enjoying the books.


#54

Espy

Espy

I had an English prof at my art school who gave me hell because I disagreed that "Into the Wild" was not the most amazing book ever. Sorry if some rich young dipshit screwing his life up doesn't fill me with awe like it does you just because you hate your life, your wife and your kids and fantasize about taking one of your 18 year old students on the road for adventures.


#55



makare

You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.


#56

Espy

Espy

makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. My first college english prof, the guy from my post above? Spent most of his classes telling us how mean his wife was and how much he just wanted to party (with the lovely implication that all the ladies needed to do was ask). He was grade A gross.


#57



Zarvox

makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
[unlurk]Which is ridiculous anyway. How can there be more than one right answer? Either your statements are correct or incorrect. Admittedly, an author could be saying multiple things in the same passage, and a paper could just focus on one of those, but the idea that you can interpret it any way you like –*as long as you can drum up some sort of weird support from the text –*has never made any sense to me.[/unlurk]


#58



makare

Zarvox;335920][QUOTE=makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
[unlurk]Which is ridiculous anyway. How can there be more than one right answer? Either your statements are correct or incorrect. Admittedly, an author could be saying multiple things in the same passage, and a paper could just focus on one of those, but the idea that you can interpret it any way you like –*as long as you can drum up some sort of weird support from the text –*has never made any sense to me.[/unlurk][/QUOTE]

That's why literary analysis is finding possible interpretations. Unless the author wrote about his or her own intentions with the work there is no way to know the right answer. Which means that you can interpret it however you like AS LONG AS you can support it with the text. Especially if you are interpreting it from a different perspective. It makes perfect sense.


#59



Zarvox

makare1;335923][QUOTE=Zarvox;335920][QUOTE=makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
[unlurk]Which is ridiculous anyway. How can there be more than one right answer? Either your statements are correct or incorrect. Admittedly, an author could be saying multiple things in the same passage, and a paper could just focus on one of those, but the idea that you can interpret it any way you like –*as long as you can drum up some sort of weird support from the text –*has never made any sense to me.[/unlurk][/QUOTE]

That's why literary analysis is finding possible interpretations. Unless the author wrote about his or her own intentions with the work there is no way to know the right answer. Which means that you can interpret it however you like AS LONG AS you can support it with the text. Especially if you are interpreting it from a different perspective. It makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]

True, except that I've been told by a professor that, even if the author wrote about his intentions, you can still interpret it however you want. This is more what I'm addressing.


#60



Chazwozel

makare1;335923][QUOTE=Zarvox;335920][QUOTE=makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
[unlurk]Which is ridiculous anyway. How can there be more than one right answer? Either your statements are correct or incorrect. Admittedly, an author could be saying multiple things in the same passage, and a paper could just focus on one of those, but the idea that you can interpret it any way you like –*as long as you can drum up some sort of weird support from the text –*has never made any sense to me.[/unlurk][/QUOTE]

That's why literary analysis is finding possible interpretations. Unless the author wrote about his or her own intentions with the work there is no way to know the right answer. Which means that you can interpret it however you like AS LONG AS you can support it with the text. Especially if you are interpreting it from a different perspective. It makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]

My friend is getting her Ph.D. in Contemporary American and English Lit. She tells me she's the master of (soon to be doctor of) shoveling bullshit.


#61

ElJuski

ElJuski

God, english professors. So much of it IS just straight up bullshit, I freely admit that.

I think there's a fine line of where you can go with interpreting literature. First of all, the person has to be able to be convincing while drawing from the text--and not all readers have been taught to do that properly, so that complicates things further.

The interesting thing about literature is how the reader perceives it as history goes on. There's a thing called an implied reader--which is the perfect reader the author had in mind when writing the text. Too bad that there's several layers of potential breakdowns between what the author was trying to say, what he is actually saying, what the reader is told to be thinking, and what the reader is actually thinking. But in between all those abstract cogs can be some pretty exciting stuff. Alas, a major portion of it is probably misguided bullshit.

For instance, a great conversation I had with my buddy about Dracula, where I got my ass schooled--he studied Dracula in Romania. All my carefully paced theories and interperetations--though still valid, and proved by the text--kind of got dashed by the reality of the situation. Art is weird (and mostly just masturbatory, but masturbating is a helluva passtime!)


#62



makare

My favorite way to analyze lit is to take it from a completely different perspective, my specialty is the feminist critique, from what the author could even have possibly imagined about the work. At that point you are analyzing the work from the effect it had.

I really miss studying literature. Now all I get to do is talk about it with my friend who gets to be an English grad student. Well, I also talk with this other guy in my dorms but he is one of those asshole English scholars who uses the big words for no reason and puts more value in being academic than being intellectually stimulated, so I don't really enjoy talking to him.


#63



Kitty Sinatra

ElJuski said:
For instance, a great conversation I had with my buddy about Dracula, where I got my ass schooled--he studied Dracula in Romania. All my carefully paced theories and interperetations--though still valid, and proved by the text--kind of got dashed by the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
I'm a little lost about what Romania has to do with Dracula. The author was Irish, and I believe he lived in London when he was an author. I also don't recall the book being particularly concerned about historical and geographical accuracy. Not that I know how much Mr Stoker actually knew about the subject. He could've researched the shit out of the topic, but I'd assume most of that research would have come more from literary sources and the hearsay of British society.

Was Dracula really about Romania in any significant way?


#64

ElJuski

ElJuski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory


#65



makare

I know about Bathory but it doesn't really change how I read Dracula.


#66

ElJuski

ElJuski

And, basically, that the Bathory family wanted to sue Stoker for using their family name (the rest of them weren't as, uh, nuts) so there was a lot of last minute name and pronoun adjusting. Although, the more and more that I think about it, I think I still believe what I was originally taught much more. And, regardless of the whole Bathory thing, Dracula reads as an awesome analysis of homosexuality and sexuality in Stoker's time.

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------
makare1 said:
I know about Bathory but it doesn't really change how I read Dracula.
Click to expand...
Right, and it shouldn't. I just thought of it as an awesome "A-ha!" moment. Well, and sometimes that the reality of the author's intent may just make in depth analysis of the book on other points more masturbatory.

Which, again, is still fine and fun, if you can back it up.

I think I've stopped making sense since I'm not even arguing against anything anymore.


#67



makare

Along those lines, I hated Shakespeare until I started studying the history of the times. Then it really opened up for me and now his work is some of my favorites. Without the historical context it is just a bunch of stories as regurgitated in his time as it is in ours. Context is important.


#68

Espy

Espy

Context is ridiculously important and it's amazing how few people care about it that I meet.


#69

ElJuski

ElJuski

Building an understanding is part of the fun! It makes us engaged. <3 books <3


#70

Calleja

Calleja

But what happened in Shakespeare's time is irrelevant, people, they didn't have the mothereffin' iPad!


#71

@Li3n

@Li3n

makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
Even the good teachers had us learn the mainstream interpretation because they didn't want us to fail tests...

ElJuski said:
he studied Dracula in Romania.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?! Except that he'd know that Bukovina isn't part of Transylvania...

Zarvox said:
True, except that I've been told by a professor that, even if the author wrote about his intentions, you can still interpret it however you want. This is more what I'm addressing.
Click to expand...
I give you George Lucas and the many contradictory interpretations he gave for SW over the years... you'll probably find authors of literature that did the same.

The idea is that you're learning how to apply critical thinking to literature or something...

And there's also the fact that there are examples where a still living author came out saying that the critics where full of shit and got what he/she was trying to say wrong.

And then there's the stuff that comes out subconsciously etc.


#72



makare

@Li3n;336058][QUOTE=makare1 said:
You guys must have had shitty teachers or something. All my profs were of the mind that you can interpret things however you want as long as you can support it with the text.
Click to expand...
Even the good teachers had us learn the mainstream interpretation because they didn't want us to fail tests...
[/QUOTE]

What tests? All of my Lit tests were essay tests written by the teacher so it was just another area where we got to show our own interpretations.


#73

@Li3n

@Li3n

Well rub it in why don't you...


#74



Chazwozel

@Li3n said:
Well rub it in why don't you...
Click to expand...

yeah, I'm pretty confused as to standardized lit tests?


#75

@Li3n

@Li3n

Well they weren't standardized per se, but they did try to make them resemble the one we would take once highschool was over...


#76



Chazwozel

@Li3n said:
Well they weren't standardized per se, but they did try to make them resemble the one we would take once highschool was over...
Click to expand...

Like what? From experience college level lit profs do things their own way. I've never heard of a gold standard lit paper. Do me a favor and stop trying to pile 10lbs of bullshit in a 5lbs sack.


#77

tegid

tegid

He's not talking about college but a sort of standarized test at the end of high school. We have one that determines access priority to different universities.


#78

ElJuski

ElJuski

But those tests are broken up into different sections...the multiple choice parts don't question interpretation but rather how well one can read for figurative language, context clues and understanding of basic reading comprehension. There's usually a graded essay portion that goes along with it whose purpose is to see whether or not the student understands analysis and interpretation. And, it usually isn't graded on what the grader deems is the CORRECT interpretation, but if the student knows how to apply it to the text itself.


#79

tegid

tegid

Well, as I understand it, what @lien is saying is exactly that, in his case, the graders only take into account if you know what's supposed to be the correct version.
I believe there was some of that in my case too :S


#80

ElJuski

ElJuski

I mean, you can believe what you want. Personally, its more reasonable that in your cases you were both in the wrong, and not the graders. A case of not understanding HOW to interpret, which is what the graders are grading--not the actual interpretation itself.


#81



Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
I mean, you can believe what you want. Personally, its more reasonable that in your cases you were both in the wrong, and not the graders. A case of not understanding HOW to interpret, which is what the graders are grading--not the actual interpretation itself.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, tests like the SATs, are looking for basic reading comprehension and not in dept literary analysis of the short essays they make you read. There is a difference.


#82

tegid

tegid

Well, from what I remember I was asked to describe the characteristics of a particular writer's style found in a text, so it's not my case.
But, as I read @lien's case, the teachers actually taught the dry-cut 'correct' answers to prepare them for that exam, so that they would pass.


#83

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Graduated lit major here. Let me clarify.

Each professor does their own thing. A good literature professor is going to expect you to interpret things based on the text. This means if you have something to say, you better back that shit up with something from the text itself, and be prepared for other stuff from the text to counter it.

A bad literature professor will want you to interpret things their way, with or without examples. I decided to test this with one of my professors who I was certain was a bad one. I wrote a crappy final essay for the class, didn't cite, didn't try, it was a C- or D paper. I was betting my final grade on it as well. I wrote it tailored to her tastes though, how she interpreted the book, in fact vehemently arguing her point of view.

Got a B+.


#84



makare

I never had a professor like that. I did have a professor who was constantly telling me how every idea I had fit into someone else's theory - oh that's very Foucaultian or very Sartresque. She is a brilliant professor, and now a good friend. But it really pissed me off.

But I do have a deep seated understanding of pastiche. Lol.


#85

@Li3n

@Li3n

Whoa, it's almost as if i went to school in another country then you guys... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

To clarify, our SAT equivalent had us, besides some other stuff, do a synopsis mixed with a literary analysis of a major work we studied during highschool...


Oh, and i'm still looking for an explanation to this btw:

ElJuski said:
he studied Dracula in Romania.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?! Except that he'd know that Bukovina isn't part of Transylvania...
Click to expand...


#86



Chazwozel

escushion said:
Graduated lit major here. Let me clarify.

Each professor does their own thing. A good literature professor is going to expect you to interpret things based on the text. This means if you have something to say, you better back that shit up with something from the text itself, and be prepared for other stuff from the text to counter it.

A bad literature professor will want you to interpret things their way, with or without examples. I decided to test this with one of my professors who I was certain was a bad one. I wrote a crappy final essay for the class, didn't cite, didn't try, it was a C- or D paper. I was betting my final grade on it as well. I wrote it tailored to her tastes though, how she interpreted the book, in fact vehemently arguing her point of view.

Got a B+.
Click to expand...
That's the easiest way to get good grades in liberal arts courses. I had to take a bunch of that shit due to university requirements. I swear those were the easiest classes to ace. No studying involved. Just show up to class, get the gist of what the prof likes to hear, write bullshit term papers, and viola.


#87



Kitty Sinatra

@Li3n said:
Oh, and i'm still looking for an explanation to this btw:
Click to expand...
I asked the same thing earlier and was answered with a link to some sexy serial killer chick.


#88

ElJuski

ElJuski

@Li3n said:
Whoa, it's almost as if i went to school in another country then you guys... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

To clarify, our SAT equivalent had us, besides some other stuff, do a synopsis mixed with a literary analysis of a major work we studied during highschool...


Oh, and i'm still looking for an explanation to this btw:

ElJuski said:
he studied Dracula in Romania.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?! Except that he'd know that Bukovina isn't part of Transylvania...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I...I answered that...like a page ago...guy.


#89



Kitty Sinatra

You answered it with a link with no explanation. Did Stoker care about historical and geographical accuracy? Was he writing with any significant knowledge of Romania? Because, if the facts he was drawing on were just the gossip or fancy tales circulating through London at the time, a reader with far knows Romania isn't gonna be able to analyze his work as well as someone who knows London.


I mean, knowledge of the Catholic Church doesn't help you analyze anything in the DaVinci code beyond "Dan Brown is spouting bullshit" But then, Brown wasn't writing about the Catholic Church, he was making shit up to tell the story he wanted to tell.

Was Stoker writing about Romania, or was he making up shit to tell the story he wanted to tell?


#90

ElJuski

ElJuski

The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.


#91



Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the lady that got her jollies off by bathing in virgin girls' blood?


#92



Kitty Sinatra

ElJuski said:
The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.
Click to expand...
This doesn't help me understand how someone studying the book in Romania can school you on the book.


#93

Espy

Espy

Chazwozel;336593][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the lady that got her jollies off by bathing in virgin girls' blood?[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that is a legend that developed long after her actual atrocities were committed.


#94

Calleja

Calleja

My understanding is that is a legend the developed DURING the scandal of her arrest, conviction, etc.


#95

ElJuski

ElJuski

Gruebeard;336599][QUOTE=ElJuski said:
The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.
Click to expand...
This doesn't help me understand how someone studying the book in Romania can school you on the book.[/QUOTE]

Think of it as being in the Southwest or visiting the Chicago Art Musuem while studying Song of the Lark. There's immersion, and if done right, you get taught on multiple interlocking levels instead of just focusing on the book. You get more context.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

And, whenever the legend was developed, its still a legend, and purportedly the one that Stoker heavily based Dracula on.


#96

@Li3n

@Li3n

ElJuski;336558][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
Whoa, it's almost as if i went to school in another country then you guys... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

To clarify, our SAT equivalent had us, besides some other stuff, do a synopsis mixed with a literary analysis of a major work we studied during highschool...


Oh, and i'm still looking for an explanation to this btw:

ElJuski said:
he studied Dracula in Romania.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?! Except that he'd know that Bukovina isn't part of Transylvania...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I...I answered that...like a page ago...guy.[/QUOTE]

I looked and didn't see it... because you answered before i asked...


\"http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=336583#post336583\" The Countess Bathory, whom Stoker was purported to base Dracula on, who lived in Romania.
Click to expand...
No she didn't... even ignoring the fact that there was no Romania back then, she wasn't even in Transylvania, her family just had ties to it (it being under Austro-Hungary at the time).

Check the wiki link you posted, she was in what is Slovakia today...

Like i said, the only thing one would get from living in Romania is that Bukovina, where Dracula's castle was, is not a part of Transylvania, but Moldova, even if it was under the Austo-Hungarians at the time.


#97

ElJuski

ElJuski

Well, I must have been wrong about WHERE my friend went then; but he did study the book around the area, went and visited Bathary's place, etc. etc. My bad, but the point of immersion still is valid.


#98

Espy

Espy

ElJuski said:
[/COLOR]And, whenever the legend was developed, its still a legend, and purportedly the one that Stoker heavily based Dracula on.
Click to expand...
Oh, I wasn't saying it's not a valid story! Also, She did some REALLY horrible stuff, I'm sure she gave Stoker LOTS of material.


#99

ElJuski

ElJuski

There's a really shlocky D-movie based on her, too. Think its called "LADY DRACULA". Pretty shitty, funny stuff.


#100

@Li3n

@Li3n

ElJuski said:
Well, I must have been wrong about WHERE my friend went then; but he did study the book around the area, went and visited Bathary's place, etc. etc. My bad, but the point of immersion still is valid.
Click to expand...

Well it is pretty close... and her family did have castles in Transylvania (i believe one of them ruled it at the tiem). If they made a castle where Vlad Tepes (who ruled Wallachia, not Transylvania) stayed maybe a few months once into Dracula's Castle i'm sure they could have turned one of those into a tourist attraction.

\"Espy\" said:
Oh, I wasn't saying it's not a valid story! Also, She did some REALLY horrible stuff, I'm sure she gave Stoker LOTS of material.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read Dracula?! It's not very gory (by non-victoria standards anyway), so besides the "using blood to get young" and the area there's not much material there.

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 AM ----------

Oh, and the actual castle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Čachtice_Castle


#101



redapples

Countess Dracula: Its a classic Hammer Horror from 1971. How dare you call it shitty! :cry:


#102

Espy

Espy

@Li3n said:
\"Espy\" said:
Oh, I wasn't saying it's not a valid story! Also, She did some REALLY horrible stuff, I'm sure she gave Stoker LOTS of material.
Click to expand...
Have you actually read Dracula?!
Click to expand...
:facepalm: Yes I have. Thanks for asking.
@Li3n said:
It's not very gory (by non-victoria standards anyway), so besides the "using blood to get young" and the area there's not much material there.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't about "gory stuff", I have zero idea what he may have taken from her story, merely that there is plenty to her story an author could draw on.


Top