/lit/ - Literature

>>1776304
>>1776304
it doesn't come after structularism, it just takes issue with the structuralist way of thinking and aims to improve upon it.

go read Derrida

here's an essay:
http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/sign-play.html

>>1750700
>>1750700
okay

>it was a really good film

>visit amazon get a one star review of the book you're currently reading
>post it here and then post yfw reading it

Under the volcano - Malcolm Lowry
>I know it's incredibly pretentious, arrogant even, to give the lowest mark to a classic, the `prophetic book for a whole generation', a novel Burgess himself called a masterpiece - or so it says on the jacket. But be warned. Lowry himself conceded that Under The Volcano `gets off to a slow start' (I quote the introduction).

>It isn't just a slow start: it never starts. The novel has Geoffrey Firmin, ex-English Consul in a secondary Mexican town, drink himself to perdition on the very day his divorced, sluttish but repentant and benevolent wife comes back to be reunited with him. That is it; there is nothing more. Of course, the best plots are psychological. But Under The Volcano doesn't delve into psychology; it is a manifest, a book about fate, about self-destruction as philosophical act. Thus its dialogues are stylistically indistinguishable from the rest. Its setting, Mexico on the day of the dead, 1938, gets pages of description but fails to relate to the plotline; this might as well happen anywhere. And it is all told a year after the fact, leaving no room for a protagonist's inner struggle. Indeed, my impression is that Under The Volcano's refusal to tell a story in the accepted sense was the very reason for its popularity.
(cont)

>>1682369
>>1682369
i said chaucer IS good from a liteary standpoint...
please actually read the thread before posting
if you don't think translating a text is easy why did you reply
>Ignore this twat - typical Brit who can't read in more than one language. Illiterate, savage island.
when i said
>translation into other languages is difficult on a base level, never mind bringing in 'hidden meanings'

>>1674990
>>1674990
no you didn't
you didn't 'define' anything

you're Brazillian so you're naturally good at football
is that me defining the word 'Brazillian'?

>>1674990
>>1674990
> An individual who finds himself superior to others by some undetermined mean
no it's not undetermined, i'm superior to you because i'm more intelligent, charismatic and broasty.

>rather it's by being "trendy" or eating the most expensive foods or reading the most obscure texts
dressing nicely = hipster
being able to afford expensive and nice food = hipster
reading things others don't = hipster
okay bro i think you made a fatal error there.

mfw hipsters started out as rich white kids trying to be like poor black jazz musicians.

>utilize their obscure trendy tastes to allege that they are superior to others

i'm not superior to you because of my 'obscure' (lololololol) tastes, but because i don't go around making retarded posts like the one i'm replying to right now.

>but don't take my word for it!
believe me, i wasn't going to

>Alice in Wonderland is an allegory for WW2
>mfw

mfw i upload essays about literary theory and people ignore them

try and educate yourselves you fucking idiots.

and you know what, if you have NO interest in the essays i post, then don't fucking reply, but posting about your hatred for the tripfags, coupled with a 'sage' for literature related (lolsoedgybro) is just retarded, and makes me anti-sage it.

people here get too caught up looking at the name of the poster, once they learn to keep their tempers in check and their eyes on the content of the posts we'd have a decent board, but intul then? we're stuck with the people who think anonymousilegiun xD lolsorandum hivemind! and that's all it should be.
i remember when i first joined this board and tried to discuss literature.
Boy were those the days, i really enjoyed my 6 replies.

>>1413268
>>1413268

>>1372186
>>1372186
i have noticed several problems within your post, though i'm not entirely sure if you meant for them to be there in some kind of satire of what a normal anonymous post is like.

The fact you 'saged' the post contributes to the possibility of this post being of a sarcastic and mocking tone. After all, if you wanted to generate healthy and creative discussion wouldn't you allow the post to be seen by the greatest number of eyes?

You create for yourself a deluded illusion of a poster here on 4chan, you attribute to me the phrases 'u dum' and 'u mad' and whilst within this thread i have never uttered those phrases or even given you chance to think i would use i'm sure you can recall some thread long ago where i did indeed use the term 'u mad'. You'd be correct of course, but i have never said 'u dum' here on /lit/ or 4chan in general for that matter. Please stick to the facts within future posts.