JD Salinger dead at 91
- Thread starter ElJuski
- Start date
- Status
Here he is.
And this is why i never read stuff for school, only looked up a synopsis... because i'd end up hating the work otherwise...
ElJuski
Staff member
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*
K
Kitty Sinatra
Here's hoping JD will be happy in his cornfield heaven.
. . . we are talking about this guy, right?
. . . we are talking about this guy, right?
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...
M
makare
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.
C
Chazwozel
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.
M
makare
Animal Farm is on my list of books I hate. But my hatred for all things Orwell should be well known.
K
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
Why the Orwell hate? I love Animal Farm, myself. Hehe, silly pigs.
M
makare
Hmm somewhere I have an elaborate blog post about my hatred for Orwell. I don't know where it is though.
C
Chazwozel
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.
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...
K
Kitty Sinatra
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.
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.
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.
M
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.
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.
Z
Zarvox
[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]
M
makare
[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.
Z
Zarvox
[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.
C
Chazwozel
[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.
ElJuski
Staff member
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!)
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!)
M
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.
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.
K
Kitty Sinatra
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?
ElJuski
Staff member
M
makare
I know about Bathory but it doesn't really change how I read Dracula.
ElJuski
Staff member
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 ----------
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.
---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------
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.
M
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.
- Status