/lit/ - Literature

sometimes your pretentious musings are entertaining, truman.

this is one of those times.

TRUMAN?

I HARDLY KNEW THEE!

>>2182030

it's been too long, my friend

dude... it's just a comic.

Oh contraire, dear Truman.

In showing her narrator's insecurity via a dream-state, the scene has an air of self-awareness in its disgust. This knowledge of self in Beaton's drawing allows for self commentary, and indeed self-reflection for the reader. Her response of outright rejection is a self defence mechanism precisely because of the boundaries you point out, but it is consciously acknowledged that this is so.

See you the final sketch of the narrator in bed is below the others? Notice that it doesn't have a frame. The schema of the narrator's world-view have been taken apart by Joyce too quickly to be accepted. Whilst on the surface the narrator act against Joyce, the text as a whole acts against the social structure he challenges, highlighting its rigidity, and perhaps even the tragedy of a drastic indoctrination into a new pattern of thought.

>>2182052

Perhaps you are correct, although the rejection occurs in the third panel and is therefore part of the comic's basic structure, the stark absence of words reveals her inability to fully integrate her horror of the letters within her ordinary space of thought.

it is only later in her dreams that her unconscious is free to reveal the full meaning of her repulsion, which you referred to.

>>2182085

Yes, but don't forget we're talking about the comic's protagonist here, not the author (though there's an obvious parallel), so the querying of structure holds true throughout, even if it only manifests in the final frame-without-a-frame. I don't see how you could read this as "re-affirm[ing] reactionary vacuousness", as it's quite clearly a satire of both ends of the spectrum.

I'd like to send Kate Beaton a letter.

A love letter, that is.

I take issue with this comic, particularly because of the author's feminist political stance. Quite frankly Kate Beaton does more than miss the point, she effectively re-affirms the (mythical) reactionary vacuousness of females and feminism.

In his video games, Mario unveils his progressive, ethical and emancipatory attitude towards love.

Instead of fitting Princess Peach into some pre-constructed, phallogocentric sexual fantasy, the focus of his desire was for her as a fully actualised person; going so far as to resucre her from fire breating Koopas.

Beaton's hysterical response towards an attempt by someone at crossing the boundary between the Mushroom Kingdom and reality perhaps reveals more about her insecurity towards herself and her pathetic desire for the safety of alienation rather than Mario's addiction to mushrooms.

For Mario, the courage and honesty he displays in attempting to rescue Peach is corroborative with his ability to collect coins.

His love is an example for all time.

hate to break up the party but there's a board for this sort of thing (talking about comics):
>>/co/
(where you talk about comics)

>>2182095
You mean
>>>/co/

hate to break up the party but there's a board for this sort of thing (talking about comics):
>>>/co/
(where you talk about comics)

>>2182099
>>2182103
Deep and Edgy confirmed for failing to remove his trips before sock puppeting.
Nice try faggot. No wonder everyone hates you.

>>2182105
how was I sock puppeting?

>>2182103

i'm talking about attitudes towards Joyce's letters, the fact Beaton expressed herself through a comic is happenstance.

>>2182109

I love Kate Beaton.

This is the most pretentious thread I've ever seen. I love you crazy motherfuckers.

I get uncomfortable when reading people's intensely personal correspondence too.

And by uncomfortable, I mean aroused.

>>2182109
>the fact Beaton expressed herself through a comic is happenstance.

It's not fucking happenstance though. The fact she expressed it in a comic should be the clue that's not to be taken seriously. If she wrote an essay on it, then yes, you'd have every right to criticise it, although I'd suggest you do it in a less overtly pretentious way. But seeing as it's a comic, a point I can't stress enough, then I suggest you appreciate it for what it is - a tounge in check poke at Joyce's fart fetish.

>>2182094
I love you.

>>2182117
Are comics incapable of sincere, non-ironic criticism?

ironic intellectual masturbation is fun

>>2182117
>The fact she expressed it in a comic should be the clue that's not to be taken seriously
Wow, I feel the same way about Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Frank Miller, Alan Moore and co.

>>2182117

So you're saying you can't use a graphic medium or comedy to make a serious point?

>>2182117

A comic is a medium of expression like any other. I agre with you that she probably didn't mean to, but her attitude and reactions towards the letters unveil an uneasiness evident everywhere in popular culture today: the trauma of true love.

>>2182117
>then I suggest you appreciate it for what it is - a tounge in cheek poke at Joyce's fart fetish.
>tongue in cheek

y u mad tho

>>2182123
You think Beaton's comic strip, basically an historical Garfield, is on the same level as the authors you mentioned?
I'm sure she'd appreciate the compliment mate, but you and I know that you're conflating two different forms of media in order to defend another tripfag from being told that he's being an idiot. Your rhetoric sucks, quite frankly, try harder.

>>2182122
See above. As I said, there's a difference between light entertainment and heavy debate. The two do cross over occasionaly, but not often. People used to read the funnies in newspapers to enjoy a little humour, they didn't then write grade-A bullshit afterwards to make them feel smug. I'll let you off though, because while I hope what you said is true, I honestly can't tell with Truman sometimes.

fuck off, truman capote

seriously fuck off with your dumb ass, with you "lol harper lee didn't write to kill a mockingbird" and now this bullshit. fuck along now.

truman capote is such a douchebag lol

he isn't even smart!

>>2182141
oh christ now it's this one back again. can you believe this shit, bob?

>>2182127
>but her attitude and reactions towards the letters unveil an uneasiness evident everywhere in popular culture today: the trauma of true love.

Or, you know, it's just sort of creepy reading about someone wanting to "fuck the farts" out of someone else. I agree that his letters show a lot of repsect and love for Nancy, but anyone who's had a casual read of the letters will come away just remembering the really werid stuff he wrote. It's just a joke about that, man, relax.

>>2182129
>You think Beaton's comic strip, basically an historical Garfield, is on the same level as the authors you mentioned?
I'm sure she'd appreciate the compliment mate, but you and I know that you're conflating two different forms of media in order to defend another tripfag from being told that he's being an idiot. Your rhetoric sucks, quite frankly, try harder.
get a load of this asshole

>>2182144
why are you expecting him to relax, this is noted terrible poster and all-around dickhead truman capote we're talking about here

god fuck that guy so hard

you're all a bunch of idiots and none more so than truman capote.

>>2182141
I hope /lit/ gets the axe this week. I really do.
I'll miss some the recomendation threads, the poetry threads, and the weird threads like detailing the weird facts about literary history.
But I think I'll accept it if I realise killing /lit/ will get rid of faggots such as Fabulous. They'll probably go to /soc/ but no one gives a shit about that board anyway.
Such an ignominious end to what could have been a great board.

>>2182129
You are just iterating the same non-point. whether or not you consider something to be 'serious' does not affect its ability to reveal the ideology behind it.

need I remind of you what wittgenstein said? 'A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.'

>>2182136

more resistance. I like to gauge how many posters on /lit/ subscribe to popular american culture.

>>2182129
Perhaps for the majority of comics, the cartoonist's intention was not to ask, deep, probing questions on society. A good cartoonist in fact must must express the most effective social understandings in an obvious way. However, for a cartoonist to achieve that, they must be in tune with broad social consciousness. We all get what we're supposed to laugh at, in OP's comic, but what we don't read enough is the social context that allows a comic to be funny to a wide audience, which is more apparent and relevant in comics than perhaps any other medium.

>>2182136
>>2182138
>>2182141
>>2182143
>>2182144
>>2182147
>>2182148
>>2182150

jesus christ sniper fire

>>2182150
i know how you feel. it's so good sometimes, but...

realistically, the thing to do is probably to take a couple days off, let all this die down

>>2182151
seriously though fuck you. stop posting. you're terrible. the only reason you're not the worst is fabulous and tybrax. god damn, do you suck. i don't even care about your stupid hurf-durf thread with your smugh chin stroking. whatever just stop being such a bad poster or more accurately stop posting.

>>2182146
Nice retort. You really live up to your name, internet hero.
Seeing as you you're still willing to believe that a comic strip produced on the internet for shits and giggles has the same literary worth as a work by Gaimen, I'll just have to conclude that you sir, are a big a faggot as Fabulous. A tall order indeed - congratualtions!

>>2182156
it's because you're the worst

>>2182154

>>2182159
please don't use that kind of derogatory, bigoted language, man. i hate fab and d&e and truman capote as much as you do, but there's no call for bigotry.

>>2182159
>Nice retort. You really live up to your name, internet hero.
I'm a hero IRL too.

>>2182163
Lesbian here. Most of us don't give a shit about the word "faggot" except when it's used in a context that's already homophobic. Quit trying to stir up shit.

>>2182154
Why is it that you've actually made the strongest argument so far? Well done. I'll agree with you that in order to get her joke, you have to have a passing knoweldge of what he wrote, and that the humour comes in sharing the opinion that what Joyce wrote was uncomfortable.

However, as i say, I think the joke is really childish and silly in that it's only teasing about some of the fetishes brought up in the letters, especially the stuff to do with farting. I'm sure she knows that he and nancy really loved each other and that Joyce was all over female emancipation. But the joke in the strip isn't about that, so I conclude that she's not ripping on Joyce's love for Nancy, but only on his fetish. Which negates Truman's post I feel.

>>2182171
man like. whatever, i'm going to take the same attitude to this that i would to a woman who claims that feminism totally sucks and men are the best, or to an isolated black dude who claims that racism doesn't exist and we should all vote for the republican party.

>>2182150
don't be silly!

/lit/ is where i belong

>>2182176
no its not, are you a literal crazy person

can someone please ban this shithead already

>>2182175
What.
Don't get offended by the word mate, it's an internet board, develop some tough skin. You're attempt at moral outrage over it doesn't do you any good. Listen to >>2182171, this guy knows what it's about.

>>2182175
That's not the same logic at all. It's the attitude of not worrying about words like "nigger" while white and black people still can't marry. Priorities. There are bigger fish to fry than words like "faggot." Gay marriage, for example.

>>2182177
am not!

>>2182159
how ignorant!

you're probably one of those people who say anime can't be art, aren't you?

>>2182179
lol i am not offended and have perfectly tough skin

i just people would stop saying faggot and nigger all the time because it's a bad look. and so i try and ask them politely to think about their language some. i've been posting on 4chan for a minute now, i enjoy it (b/c i'm a terrible person), i just wish people wouldn't use slurs so casually.

>>2182154

i'd like to see my detractors try to refute this.

the ironic twist to this thread is that the sagers are unintentionally backing up my argument with their neurotic aggression against taking popular culture seriously.

their lack of any real argument reminds me of the third panel of the original comic.

>>2182180
that doesn't even make sense, how does asking people not to use slurs hold back the fight for equal rights

like, how does doing one of those things preclude doing the other

>>2182182
seriously stop posting

>>2182185
I did though.
>>2182172
Your response?

>>2182185
no see it's because you're a dumb and a terrible poster. it's not 'neurotic aggression against taking popular culture seriously', its that your points are dumb and incredibly smug

>>2182172
>I'll agree with you that in order to get her joke, you have to have a passing knoweldge of what he wrote, and that the humour comes in sharing the opinion that what Joyce wrote was uncomfortable.
But we must go farther as to ask what in this piece are we so uncomfortable with? I'd argue the main reason why Joyce's letters are so overwhelming is not because of the scat and farting (we are no longer children, and if so, we're already children of the internet), but because of, like you said, the fetish.
What this fetish is doesn't sway us more than why this fetish is. And truly, we are uncomfortable with the progressiveness that the letters embody. We realize this reading the letter, and almost by reflex, choose to revert to a naive understanding. The comic "laughter" is the same kind of laughter that comes from hearing a tragic story told lightheartedly.

>>2182186
The point of choosing your battles isn't that they're mutually exclusive. It's that if you fight every battle every time, you won't spend any time doing anything else. It's a good way to get burnt out and become a terrible person.

I bet you get bent out of shape when people say "queer," too, even though the meaning of the word has changed to a positive (or at least neutral) thing.

I don't judge people just because they use a tripcode. I judge them by their posts and ITT, anons are arseholes.
It's not the first time I'm saying this: I consider getting a tripcode just because of shit like this.
anonymos iz ligion!1

>>2182187

you completely missed the point. by 'broad social consciousness' the poster wasn't talking about simply knowledge of Joyce's letters.

He was talking about the comic must reflect the specific reactions and attitudes we have as a cultural collective towards the letters in order for us to empathise and be moved by it.

>>2182197
my level of engagement here is literally writing the exact same post on 4chan every time asking them to think about their language.

listen, i'm not asking you to do what i'm doing here. it's just something i try and do. do you think there's actually something wrong about what i'm doing here if i choose to do so? because i gotta tell you, if it's just that you think i should ignore it because 'gay marriage and civil rights are more important' that's really not going to convince me

>>2182199
like

i don't judge people for using a tripcode, but i will judge someone for using the same tripcode over and over, and being a dumb, incredibly smug fucker. like one truman capote. 'anonymous is legion' shit is dumb and frankly we're all dumb but the point here is that truman capote is a terrible poster who should get the fuck out of /lit/

>>2182203
Nah. Do what you wanna do. And even though it's not a big deal to me personally, I do appreciate the sentiment!

Hey, nobody post for like ten minutes... I've got to go make popcorn.

This place is so easy to troll.

Missed you /lit/ :3

>>2182208
what do you mean by 'troll'?

>>2182196
>But we must go farther as to ask what in this piece are we so uncomfortable with? I' but because of, like you said, the fetish.
>What this fetish is doesn't sway us more than why this fetish is. And truly, we are uncomfortable with the progressiveness that the letters embody. We realize this reading the letter, and almost by reflex, choose to revert to a naive understanding.

And you're right. I do get uncomfortable with these parts, and I honestly wonder why. Perhaps you're right and it's the shock factor of it all, how overwhelmingly progressive it is. Perhaps it's all the intimateness of it all too. That's something that needs to be questioned and changed, that's true.

>The comic "laughter" is the same kind of laughter that comes from hearing a tragic story told lightheartedly.

...but this is where I disagree with you. It's pointless over analysis. The humour does not come from this.

>I'd argue the main reason why Joyce's letters are so overwhelming is not because of the scat and farting (we are no longer children, and if so, we're already children of the internet)

This is the joke. We're laughing at the scat that's in his letters - lets be honest, it's the most well known thing about the letters. When it comes to this comic strip, which as I said is purely light entertainment, we're indulging in our childishness in the humour.

Perhaps this is why there's disagreement here. I find that the humour is just silliness over the farts and other weird stuff, you find that the strip is attempting to make light of Joyce's progressive view on love. In which case, if the latter is true I concede the argument, but I'm certain that the former is almost exactly what she intended, and hence why I feel the need to refute Truman.

>>2182202
Everything you said was succinctly put in >>2182196 without making that poster sound like a smarmy social studies tutor. It's got to a point where you're descending into self parody Truman, where your own arguments are better expressed by others who don't feel the need to head thier posts with the name of a person infinitely better than themself.

>>2182213

why does it matter what she intended?

You don't have to consciously believe something to do it. You ask people everyday 'how are you?' but you don't mean it seriously.

the question is why the comic works, and my thread is an attempt to answer this question.

>>2182217

>succinctly
I don't think you understand what this means if you think his post was more succinct that mine.

He is expressing my sentiments perfectly, why would I feel resentment for that?

>>2182213
I think we're both correct. You want to read the author's intent, but I want to read the causes of our laughter (which I think is more productive). There is also no one way of laughing at a joke, I just don't think the farts and silliness is really that funny or that interesting. Rather, either we are laughing at the childishness of our laughter (similar to those youtube videos of "My Grandma Watching XXX"), or laughing out of discomfort with what the letters represent, in which both cases are reflective and does indeed call for a analytical view on society.

Let me add that all jokes are "inside jokes". We all share one with at least one or two other friends. There are two things are "inside" a joke: a shared history, and a shared interpretation. What is "inside" a comic found in the Times is then a history and an interpretation shared by those who are laughing, both of which are actually independent of the cartoonist's intent (though like I said, a good cartoonist is in tune with these).

>>2182023

Joyce's letters reveal that he was a simple brute just like the average man.

His whole spiel about the aesthetic arrest being some sort of neutral moment between attraction and repulsion was bullshit.
Beauty to him was in fact just an ass full of farts waiting to be fucked. Nothing more, nothing less.

All his writings were invalidated by his letters, where he expressed his true feelings not what he thought the public would want to hear....

>>2182226
>What is "inside" a comic found in the Times is then a history and an interpretation shared
And I forgot my most crucial point:
With a shared history and interpretation, we have society and culture, and therefore successful comics call for a analytical view on people.

>>2182227

the average male fantasy sets up the co-ordinates for his desires and dissects his female into her idealised form, ignoring the rest.

This is extremely dangerous and brutish, not only because it idealises the woman as an object of fantasy, but also when the woman inevitably fails to properly fit the parameters of the ideal the result is often violence.

What Joyce did was a truly progressive and beautiful act, fully desiring Nora as a real person and managing to find perfection in imperfection itself.

>>2182227
>All his writings were invalidated by his letters, where he expressed his true feelings not what he thought the public would want to hear....
I'm not even a fan of Joyce, and that's fucking stupid. Even if they proved he didn't believe what he was saying, that doesn't mean what he was saying was wrong. He could believe it's all bullshit but be absolutely right through sheer coincidence. Or he could believe what he's saying and distinguish between his fetish and beauty in general.

sage

>>2182226
>Rather, either we are laughing at the childishness of our laughter (similar to those youtube videos of "My Grandma Watching XXX")
This is what I think is the cause. I really don't credit Beaton enough to make a deepr point here, unfortunately.

>or laughing out of discomfort with what the letters represent, in which both cases are reflective and does indeed call for a analytical view on society.
This is a valid point, but I don't think the unease over the letters is the cause of the laughter.

>both of which are actually independent of the cartoonist's intent (though like I said, a good cartoonist is in tune with these).
Perhaps this then is the problem. It's true that the joke can go either way here. There's the base silliness here in the weird stuff, and then an uneasy reaction to how we interpret the letters. However, I think the second is so unintentional as to be effecitively ignored - although, not necessarily to be discarded in an individual's analysis of the joke. In fact, maybe it could be a litmus test to how you see the letters. If you laugh due to the uneasiness you feel due to your interpretation of the letters, maybe you should evaluate how you view them. But if you feel off put by the joke, then you can feel comfortable in your views of Joyce's correspondences. However, I think this part is way over the top, and was completely not what Beaton intended. You could argue that maybe it was - but I'd say it's a little too much credit to give to a webcomic artist. A case of agree to disagree here.

>>2182234

Having a fart-fetish, and wanting anal / oral sex isn't progressive or interesting, its common and mundane.

he's no better than a whore-monger

joyce rules, asses rule, and yeah if she subscribes to the notion of sex positivism her aghast reaction in panel 4 is the "wrong" repsonse; but as you yourself suggest ("perhaps reveals more..." &c) the joke is prob more about her unease with her own sexuality's more liminal aspecst than a critique of joyce

>>2182240
Apology accepted.

Now waddle on living the common life and I'll go on observing you.

>>2182254
What apology Truman? I've made my point clear to you and the other guy. I think your interpretation is pointless because Beaton didn't intend that as the joke, and that you're only seeing what you want to see based on your reading of Joyce's letters.
If anyone's got insecurity issues, it's you, and your need to proclaim to /lit/ that you're better than everyone, that only you can see the truth behind things, that only and you alone have the ability to proclaim the meaning behind things. No where is this insecurity more apparent in your need to use a trip, and to use the name of someone who had more talent in thier little finger than you will ever have in your sad, pathetic little life, spent over analysing the webcomics of a 20 something year old woman. Maybe I'm just as pathetic as you are for descending to your level to tell you this, but, by God, thank goodness I don't need to act like a smug asshole or use a trip to tell you some home truths.

>>2182235

nothing he wrote can be true because its all subjective and baseless...just a thought experiment

the point is consistency, does he practice what he preached? no, he was a hypocrite.

whether his ideas are true is impossible to tell, he's talking about how apples are better than oranges---its silly and subjective.

the funny thing is he didn't even care about his own writings, just did it for money and to keep scholars busy.

joyce confirmed for troll.

Kate Beaton is way better than Warren Ellis and Frank Miller

>>2182259
You're talking of a religious teacher, philosopher or academic, not an artist...

>>2182259
>nothing he wrote can be true because its all subjective and baseless
what do you mean by 'subjective'?

NUMBER FIVEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeee........

>>2182288
It's not even funny anymore, cunt, if it even was funny to begin with.

>authorial intent
>anti analyzing
>not remembering when capote contributed a lot to this board
>not knowing these kinds of threads are done monthly as a mental exercise and inside joke

I thought summer was over

>>2182290
Said Richard Dawkins in gmail chat.

>>2182290
I agree, abusing terms and substituting ambiguous words for arguments is never a laughing matter

and as far as the letters go, they are essentially just highly developed /b/ posts like all the ones the useless, boring, unoriginal and unfunny people here make to blow off steam because they live moderately repressed, boring middle class lives who want to be a bit naughty as opposed to the rather restrictive christfagging society Joyce lived in.

>>2182288
>>2182288

a subjective quality is one which is determined and measured by the subject.

So the whether an apple tastes good is subjective and depends on the taster.

Whether a book is well-written or aesthetically pleasing is subjective and depends on what criteria the reader picks and how he views that criteria. A complex plot might be positive to one reader, and negative to another--apples vs oranges.


Whether 2 is an even number isn't subjective and is a matter of logical consistency inherent to the meaning of "even" and "number 2"--an objective matter.

>>2182337

macoun is objectively the best apple variety

>>2182337
>a subjective quality is one which is determined and measured by the subject.
But that's essentially just an individual form of relativism, and relativism isn't the same thing as subjectivism.

>So the whether an apple tastes good is subjective and depends on the taster.
But your use of 'subjective' here is redundant because you've stated clearly that for something to be subjective means that it depends on the individual, i.e. the taster, and all that means here is that it's relative, which is not the same thing as subjectivism.

>Whether a book is well-written or aesthetically pleasing is subjective and depends on what criteria the reader picks and how he views that criteria. A complex plot might be positive to one reader, and negative to another--apples vs oranges.
Again, the same holds for this example.

So, you've given me a lot of examples of something being subjective when in fact all you've given me is examples of individual relativism. Relativism and subjectivism are not the same things, unless you're simply confusing subjectivism for relativism.

>Whether 2 is an even number isn't subjective and is a matter of logical consistency inherent to the meaning of "even" and "number 2"--an objective matter.
What do you understand by 'objective'?

I take issue with this comic, particularly because of the author's feminist political stance. Quite frankly Kate Beaton does more than miss the point, she effectively re-affirms the (mythical) reactionary vacuousness of Bluenosers and substance abuse.

In Nova Scotia, alcoholics unveil their progressive, ethical and emancipatory attitude towards love.

Instead of fitting rye and coke into some pre-constructed, phallogocentric sexual fantasy, the focus of their desires is getting fully and thoughtlessly ripped; going so far as to paint the streets of Halifax with puke and piss on a nightly basis.

Beaton's hysterical response towards an attempt by someone at crossing the boundary between the Tantramar Marshes and who-gives-a-shit-what's-west perhaps reveals more about her insecurity towards herself and her pathetic desire for the safety of alienation than a solid drunk and a smack in the chaw.

For Nova Scotians, the courage and honesty displayed in attempting to drink the Maxwell's Plum out of Imperial is corroborative with the prevalence of liver failure in the region.

Their love is an example for all time.

>>2182353

Relativism is a general form of Subjectivism.

A quality is objective when it is present in the object regardless of who is perceiving it.

The speed of light isn't relative to any observer, it is constant from all reference points.

The "evenness" of 2 is objective, it isn't relative to any observer, it is always present via the definition of 2 and even.

The "well-writtenness" of a book is subjective, and depends on who is perceiving it and what their criteria is.

Your semantic confusion over relativism and subjectivism has no effect on my argument.

If you disagree then tell me your definition of subjectivism and objectivism, otherwise you are simply exposing your own confusion and not really arguing anything

>>2182353

Having the same boring debates every single day is no way to deal with depression you monotonous sad fuck...i swear man, the eagerness with which you attend to the same fucking discussions is nauseating...

>>2182353

I always thought subjectivism was just a specific form of relativism, as in:

>Relativism is the view that states that moral principles are valid, but they vary by culture (conventionalism) or by individuals (subjectivism).

Is that wrong? Could you please provide some explanation on their differences?

>>2182353
>But your use of 'subjective' here is redundant because you've stated clearly that for something to be subjective means that it depends on the individual, i.e. the taster, and all that means here is that it's relative, which is not the same thing as subjectivism.

If its relative to the taster then it's truth-value is unknowable. You can only know what the taster thinks about it.
Holding the tasters opinion over someone elses is just an appeal to authority.

As such, all pursuits in english are fallacious because of this dependence on opinion and no way to pierce reality and find the truth.

that comic is gay yo

>>2182367
>Relativism is a general form of Subjectivism.
It's the other way around. Subjectivism is a specific form of relativism.

>A quality is objective when it is present in the object regardless of who is perceiving it.
This is neither here nor there, but I'd like you to demonstrate a quality that is present in any object

>The speed of light isn't relative to any observer, it is constant from all reference points.
The speed of light is not an object in the world, it is therefore not objective according to your definition

>The "evenness" of 2 is objective
The "evenness" of 2 is not an object in the world, it is therefore not objective according to your definition

>The "well-writtenness" of a book is subjective, and depends on who is perceiving it and what their criteria is.
It's relative in other words, and everyone is already aware of this. This stands just as much for the conventions of mathematics, carpentry and medicine.

>>2182380
Truth value has absolutely nothing to do with how literary evaluation functions. Truth value is essentially a convention used in varying discourses to productive effect, and its misapplication in one specific field is your own mistake.

>>2182381
word

>>2182380
Sure there is, the semantic ambiguity of the english language allows enough "wiggle room" that truth can be communicated through intelligible and predicable experiences. For example, think of abstract words such as love, hate, anger, fear, remorse, pity, empathy ect. I know you know what all those words mean by virtue of shared existences as part of the human condition. Communicating them through language proves their objectivity, that they exist external to the individual, though they are integral to the individual. Therefore, though we interpret these ideas subjectively, for example I may get sad when I think about love because of bad experiences, their essence is objective and contained within the metaphysical hivemind of human existence. If it wasn't, how the fuck would anyone know what anyone else is saying?

>>2182389
>>2182385


Objective properties:
Speed of light is an objective quality of an object in the world (light) and it is a measurable constant that doesn't change depending on who you ask.

>This stands just as much for the conventions of mathematics, carpentry and medicine.

The truth-value of a mathematical propositions rely on logical deductions, they don't depend on an expert's opinion or their idiosyncratic preferences.

>Truth value has absolutely nothing to do with how literary evaluation functions.

I agree. We can't know if it is true that a book is well-written.

We can't verify it like we can verify objective qualities, like the speed of light or mathematical identities.

A scientist who thinks speed of light is 2m/s, and who thinks 4 is odd, is mistaken, is false.

An english prof who says Hamlet is more well-written and aesthetically pleasing than Harry Potter has no way to verify the truth-value of his statement. His statements depend on preferences, not the world.

>>2182407

Its such a simple thing to understand, yet he just can't seem to grasp it.

>>2182407
>Derp
The easiest way to prove hamlet is conclusively better than harry potter is the objectivity of time where the equation is:
Art + time = Better Art because it existed longer

>>2182407

this makes complete sense to me, too bad Derp&E is too dogmatic and irrational to get it...oh well no loss

>>2182407
>Speed of light is an (is present in the object regardless of who is perceiving it) quality of an object in the world (light)
I'd like you to give me an example of any quality in any object that is not relative. 'Speed of light' is a series of signifiers and signifieds in language, not an object, nor a quality in an object. Signifiers and signifieds are arbitrary and relative.

>The truth-value of a mathematical propositions rely on logical deductions, they don't depend on an expert's opinion or their idiosyncratic preferences.
Logical deductions are conventions, conventions are relative. Their conventional adherence depends on consensus, critical or otherwise.

>I agree. We can't know if it is true that a book is well-written.
No, that doesn't follow from what I said. What do you understand as knowledge?

>We can't verify it like we can verify objective qualities, like the speed of light or mathematical identities.
Who said the evaluation of english literature depends on the methodology in science? They're two entirely different critical discourses with different rules.

>A scientist who thinks speed of light is 2m/s, and who thinks 4 is odd, is mistaken, is false.
according to relative conventions employed by some individual(s)

>An english prof who says Hamlet is more well-written and aesthetically pleasing than Harry Potter has no way to verify the truth-value of his statement.
Truth value has absolutely nothing to do with how literary evaluation functions. Truth value is essentially a convention used in varying discourses to productive effect, and its misapplication in one specific field is your own mistake.

>His statements depend on preferences, not the world.
Of course, just as a doctor's does or a scientist's does.

>>2182407
>An english prof who says Hamlet is more well-written and aesthetically pleasing than Harry Potter has no way to verify the truth-value of his statement. His statements depend on preferences, not the world.

Well his propositions can be consistent within his own preference-system, but you're right they can't actually be true.

moo
moo
mooo mooo
moo

>Derp and Edge

>Of course, just as a doctor's does or a scientist's does.

A scientist can verify the truth your science opinions.
If you believe the speed of light is 1 km/h, you are wrong.

A mathematician can verify the truth of your math opinions.
If he thinks 2 is odd, he is wrong.

An artist or critic can't verify if your aesthetic opinions are true. He has no tools to do this, he only has his own set of preferences.

>>2182443
>A scientist can verify the truth your science opinions.
By drawing on the relative conventions in his discourse

>If you believe the speed of light is 1 km/h, you are wrong.
according to relative convention

>A mathematician can verify the truth of your math opinions.
By drawing on the relative conventions in his discourse

>If he thinks 2 is odd, he is wrong.
according to relative convention

>An artist or critic can't verify if your aesthetic opinions are true.
What do you take as verification and truth?

>He has no tools to do this
Language is his tool, just as it is with scientists

>he only has his own set of preferences.
Which are critically refined for his particular discourse, just as it is with scientists

>>2182425
Mathematics and science is not grounded on convention but on quantitative empirical evidence.

>>2182455
>quantitative empirical evidence
How is a series of pages with ink on them not quantitative empirical evidence?

>>2182458
Because literary value is not determined by measurable things like the number of pages but in qualitative terms such as "excitement", "depth", and "meaning".

>>2182455

Mathematics is founded on formalism no less masturbatory than anything found in literature departments.

>>2182452

>Which are critically refined for his particular discourse, just as it is with scientists

Literary value has as many conventions as there are people.

What one "expert" critic may find beautiful another "expert" may find repugnant.

This sort of dilemma doesn't occur in math or science since their conventions are formalized in objectively verifiable ways, and don't rely simply on opinion.

The expert opinion of a scientist is derived from experimental results, the expert opinion of a mathematician is derived from logical deductions.

Science/math have their universal conventions. Literary value does not.

Unless literary value is based on an objective measure like number of pages or number of words or accuracy of spelling, then the value itself isn't verifiable and simply a matter of taste.

A carpenter building a house that is supposed to be 2000 square feet has an objective measure to aim for. If he is off by 100 feet you can verify it.

Anyone can be a literary critic, there is no way to determine if what they say is accurate or true.

>>2182504
Not true. You can determine the quality of a critic based on the reasoning in their arguments.

>>2182463

Touche.

>>2182510

Their premises aren't verifiable, measurable, or objective in anyway. So even if their arguments follow logically they still won't be true, they just might be internally consistent.

Harry Potter might be logically consistent, but that doesn't mean its contents are true.

OH MY GOD HOW DID THIS THREAD ACTUALLY GET WORSE

you should be ashamed of yourselves

fuck

>>2182528
It doesn't matter whether it is true or not, and most premises are established by convention.
Within a the convention, the quality of a critic can be judged on the logic of their arguments.
Also, I'm arguing that not anyone can be a literary critic.

Someone post that pic with the guy pretending to be an engineer, a sociologist and finally a literary critic.

>>2182463
why can't you measure those things. They may be hard to grasp, like psychological operationalism, but your aesthetic nihilism renders all technically and qualitatively equal, which is absurd

>>2182540
>It doesn't matter whether it is true or not

It doesn't matter in literary critique because there is nothing to lose and its all just matters of taste...

but in the real world it matters if your doctor prescribes you lethal doses of arsenic instead of the antibiotic you need and kills you...

it matters if your engineering calculations are mistaken and your pilots blow up at launch.

science and math depend on verification and reaching the truth.

literary value has a million baseless conventions because it doesn't serve a purpose, isn't verifiable, and doesn't really matter..and like you said isn't true or false, it is whatever you want it to be.

>>2182540
>>2182558

just stop just please fucking stop for the love of god

nobody wants to read your slapfight just do the noble fucking thing for once in your life and stop fucking goddamn posting

>>2182557

Learn to write first, then we talk.

>>2182558
>literary value has a million baseless conventions because it doesn't serve a purpose, isn't verifiable, and doesn't really matter..and like you said isn't true or false, it is whatever you want it to be.

bingo.

>>2182563
what an unsubtle way of bailing

>>2182558
Its not useless.

>>2182463
>Because literary value is not determined by measurable things like the number of pages but in qualitative terms such as "excitement", "depth", and "meaning".
That's not at all what literary value is determined by, you've got your theories mixed up. Any authentic literary evaluation is based on the mechanics of the text.

>>2182488
see pic, I've already addressed all these complaints.

I'll repeat, objectivity or subjectivity has nothing to do with literary evaluation, so all complaints on this basis are pretty much moot.

>>2182504
>Unless literary value is based on an objective measure like number of pages or number of words or accuracy of spelling, then the value itself isn't verifiable and simply a matter of taste.
What's an objective measure mean? What do you take as verification? What's wrong with taste? Some people have better tastes than others, relatively.

>Anyone can be a literary critic, there is no way to determine if what they say is accurate or true.
Literary critics generally have advanced academic qualifications. The quality of a critic's work is determinable by critical evaluation and consensus.

>>21825>>2182558
28
>Their premises aren't verifiable, measurable, or objective in anyway
That's untrue. What do you take as verifiability, measurability and objectivity?

>>2182558
>literary value has a million baseless conventions
That's untrue. Literary value is textually based. The sheer number of competing conventions is not an argument against literary evaluation as a whole.

>>2182614
>What's an objective measure mean? What do you take as verification? What's wrong with taste? Some people have better tastes than others, relatively.
What do you mean by what's an objective measure mean? What do you mean by what do you take as verification. Define 'Taste'.
What do you mean by relatively?
>Literary critics generally have advanced academic qualifications. The quality of a critic's work is determinable by critical evaluation and consensus.
Define 'academic qualifications'. What do you mean by the quality of a critics work?

It just gets sadder and sadder to see.

D&E... get help, bro. You'll feel a lot better, I promise you.

>>2182504
>Unless literary value is based on an objective measure like number of pages or number of words or accuracy of spelling, then the value itself isn't verifiable and simply a matter of taste.
What's an objective measure mean? What do you take as verification? What's wrong with taste? Some people have better tastes than others, relatively.

>Anyone can be a literary critic, there is no way to determine if what they say is accurate or true.
Literary critics generally have advanced academic qualifications. The quality of a critic's work is determinable by critical evaluation and consensus.

>>21825>>2182558
28
>Their premises aren't verifiable, measurable, or objective in anyway
That's untrue. What do you take as verifiability, measurability and objectivity?

>>2182558
>literary value has a million baseless conventions
That's untrue. Literary value is textually based. The sheer number of competing conventions is not an argument against literary evaluation as a whole.

bump

>>2182621
I don't need help, thank you very much.

>>2182608
>That's not at all what literary value is determined by

prove it.
That's...like...just your opinion, man.

See the probrem? Someone says complexity is a criteria of value, someone else will say simplicity is.

>>2183095
Listen, if English majors had to admit that everything they've studied and spent their life for was worth nothing because of subjectivity, there would be no English majors.

>>2182636
>Literary critics generally have advanced academic qualifications.

Their qualifications are quite comical.

They still have no way to find out if their evaluations of quality are true or false.

Anyone on the street is just as qualified the value of a book as a literary critic, and neither will be closer to the truth.

u mad?

>>2183104
>Listen, if English majors had to admit that everything they've studied and spent their life for was worth nothing because of subjectivity, there would be no English majors.


So just because an apple only tastes good to me, and no one else, then I shouldn't eat apples ever again?

English majors can pursue their degrees knowing that what they read is only good in their minds and not necessarily good anywhere else.

>>2183104
What do you mean by subjectivity, friend? Since I have vague conceptual objections to the assumptions I believe underly that term, I am bound to pretend that I don't even understand what you are saying?

>>2182259

His letters are actually extremely consistent with Ulysses, particularly the Penelope chapter. I don't know which author you're reading, but it wasn't Joyce.

>>2183104

no fucking way you are still going on about this, you redundant disease of rampaging gayness...


...deep, your mother and I need to have a talk with you

>>2183123
This thread sucks donkey balls.

I feel bad for D&E. He keeps having to argue to truth to a bunch of narcissists who want to feel like they're experts. It's really sad. You can't defeat the egotism of the masses, no matter how wrong it is.

>>2183123
what do you mean by 'conceptual objections'

I feel bad for D&E. He keeps having to argue to truth to a bunch of narcissists who want to feel like they're experts on something they knew nothing about. It's really sad.

You can't defeat the egotism of the masses, no matter how wrong it is.

>>2183133
I think D&Es fit into the narcissistic masses just as much and probably even more than standard anons

>>2183136
What do you mean by 'mean'?

>>2183136
way to google it retard
'A ground, reason, or cause for expressing opposition. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts'

>>2183140
Well, since he's a tripfag I guess that's probably true.

>>2183142
Define "?", please

Don't ever change, /lit/

>>2183158
And nothing of value was lost.

>>2183139
I assume you place yourself above the masses, right?

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

>>2183642
Tripfags, man. Tripfags.

bump

test

>>2183810
Haw haw haw.