Depressing Literature - Page 3

synkr0nized · 02-25-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyrosNine

As for the expletive, Meister has explained why I can never tell you.

Don't be silly. It's just <expletive deleted>.

Lyaer · 02-26-2010, 01:44 AM

I do love me some senselessly depressing sensationalist literature, but I couldn't say why they're making you read it. None of the writing/Englishy type classes I've taken really went off the dark end, but they were all pretty introductory, so maybe they thought we couldn't comprehend the literary depth of all that raping, yet.

Is it all like that? Or is it more of a mixed bag of stories, where you're just noticing the angsty ones because they stick out like a sore thumb + now you're looking for them, 'cause sometimes that happens, too.

One of my writing teachers suggested that short stories might lend themselves to more abrupt, tragic conclusions, just because of their length. Less time for denouement + less time to become fully invested in the characters, expect things to work out okay.

Regarding the trope, I think a big part of it is backlash against the opposite dynamic, where you have an inordinate number of whitewashed, sentimental, good guys win with the power of friendship type stories that often times really aren't all that honest. These types of stories are inoffensive and pander to wish fulfillment of the "average person," so they are safe to publish/produce. Plus they are unlikely to traumatize children, so most of us grow up on them. In some cases you even have people that will outright dismiss a story that deviates from the expected happy-ending formula.

So then the first instinct of anyone who develops a shred of disillusionment over anything, ever is going to be that this stuff is tripe and real writers should have the testicles to tell the real truth about how everyone's really a secret rapist, or what have you. Though I would personally expect a more nuanced view from the academic sector.

I think it shows integrity when a writer is willing to say things that other people don't want to hear. And there are plenty of horrific things about human character and societies that fall under that category. But some of the things people want to hear are just as true, and if you neglect them, you're still presenting a skewed view of reality. It's easy to take this reasoning and go "oh, then stories should be bittersweet." No. They should be honest.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-26-2010, 09:15 AM

There quite a large difference between New Criticism and Death of Authour. New criticism stresses that there is a "correct" reading of a text whereas death of the authour says that there is not- reading the text is subjectively depedent on the readers own dialogue.
While New Criticism is fairly ridiculous, death of the authour- while extreme- asks many very important questions which need to be considered in the analysis of a text. To ignore the context of the reader is as ridiculous as to ignore the context of the authour.

katiuska · 02-26-2010, 09:23 AM

Yeah, personally I wouldn't say there's a "correct" reading; there's plenty of things that the author may not realize or didn't consider, but I do think that their interpretation carries some weight, since they wrote the damn thing.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-26-2010, 09:41 AM

The problem with this- though- is that authours are very much limited to the thought processes of their time even if they don't conciously understand it to be so. Which is the same with readers. Death of the authour is not about depowering the author, it is about the subjectivity of the reader- there may be a true reading of the text and it may be the authour's intention- the reader can never read it though.
This is the central problem of historical linguistics in that we're trying to recreate/relive the past but how do we do that from sources when we are infinetely removed from the mindset of the text authours.

katiuska · 02-26-2010, 12:08 PM

Right, and when that's the argument being made, I don't have much of a problem. All I'm saying is if I want to interpret A Dream Deferred as being about my desire to open a pizza parlour, I can do that, but I'd be remiss to ignore the input of everyone else, including Langston Hughes.

I think we're more or less on the same page here. You just seem to like counterarguing people who are essentially making the same points. :p

BloodyMage · 02-26-2010, 08:53 PM

I think he's just clarifying.

My only real problem with the Death of the Author is that it allows someone to ignore word of god so to speak in favour of their own opinion. For instance, Toiken's Lord of the Rings which has the well known interpretation of being a Second World War allegory despite the author repeatedly denying the idea. Yet some people stick to that interpretation and ignore the authors opinion, which just seems really stupid.

01d55 · 02-27-2010, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyMage

I think he's just clarifying.

My only real problem with the Death of the Author is that it allows someone to ignore word of god so to speak in favour of their own opinion. For instance, Toiken's Lord of the Rings which has the well known interpretation of being a Second World War allegory despite the author repeatedly denying the idea. Yet some people stick to that interpretation and ignore the authors opinion, which just seems really stupid.

Well yeah, everyone knows it's a World War I allegory.

That's the war Tolkein actually fought in, after all. Specifically, the way Orcs tear up the landscape comes from No Man's Land, the long belt of Europe that was torn up into a swathe of mud and corpses.

More to the general point, a bullshit reading of a work is bullshit independent of any reference to the author's mind.

Professor Smarmiarty · 02-27-2010, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyMage

I think he's just clarifying.

My only real problem with the Death of the Author is that it allows someone to ignore word of god so to speak in favour of their own opinion. For instance, Toiken's Lord of the Rings which has the well known interpretation of being a Second World War allegory despite the author repeatedly denying the idea. Yet some people stick to that interpretation and ignore the authors opinion, which just seems really stupid.

Dumbeldore is gay.

Azisien · 02-27-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Dumbeldore is gay.

Ah yes, the well-known Random Ass Trivia literary device.

02-26-2010, 09:23 AM	#4
katiuska Unlicensed Practitioner Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 801	Yeah, personally I wouldn't say there's a "correct" reading; there's plenty of things that the author may not realize or didn't consider, but I do think that their interpretation carries some weight, since they wrote the damn thing. __________________ If I try too hard my brain explodes, so don't expect me to be witty on purpose.

02-26-2010, 09:41 AM	#5
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The problem with this- though- is that authours are very much limited to the thought processes of their time even if they don't conciously understand it to be so. Which is the same with readers. Death of the authour is not about depowering the author, it is about the subjectivity of the reader- there may be a true reading of the text and it may be the authour's intention- the reader can never read it though. This is the central problem of historical linguistics in that we're trying to recreate/relive the past but how do we do that from sources when we are infinetely removed from the mindset of the text authours. Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 02-26-2010 at 09:46 AM.

02-26-2010, 12:08 PM	#6
katiuska Unlicensed Practitioner Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 801	Right, and when that's the argument being made, I don't have much of a problem. All I'm saying is if I want to interpret A Dream Deferred as being about my desire to open a pizza parlour, I can do that, but I'd be remiss to ignore the input of everyone else, including Langston Hughes. I think we're more or less on the same page here. You just seem to like counterarguing people who are essentially making the same points. :p __________________ If I try too hard my brain explodes, so don't expect me to be witty on purpose.

02-26-2010, 01:44 AM	#2
Lyaer Troopa Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon, United States Posts: 55	I do love me some senselessly depressing sensationalist literature, but I couldn't say why they're making you read it. None of the writing/Englishy type classes I've taken really went off the dark end, but they were all pretty introductory, so maybe they thought we couldn't comprehend the literary depth of all that raping, yet. Is it all like that? Or is it more of a mixed bag of stories, where you're just noticing the angsty ones because they stick out like a sore thumb + now you're looking for them, 'cause sometimes that happens, too. One of my writing teachers suggested that short stories might lend themselves to more abrupt, tragic conclusions, just because of their length. Less time for denouement + less time to become fully invested in the characters, expect things to work out okay. Regarding the trope, I think a big part of it is backlash against the opposite dynamic, where you have an inordinate number of whitewashed, sentimental, good guys win with the power of friendship type stories that often times really aren't all that honest. These types of stories are inoffensive and pander to wish fulfillment of the "average person," so they are safe to publish/produce. Plus they are unlikely to traumatize children, so most of us grow up on them. In some cases you even have people that will outright dismiss a story that deviates from the expected happy-ending formula. So then the first instinct of anyone who develops a shred of disillusionment over anything, ever is going to be that this stuff is tripe and real writers should have the testicles to tell the real truth about how everyone's really a secret rapist, or what have you. Though I would personally expect a more nuanced view from the academic sector. I think it shows integrity when a writer is willing to say things that other people don't want to hear. And there are plenty of horrific things about human character and societies that fall under that category. But some of the things people want to hear are just as true, and if you neglect them, you're still presenting a skewed view of reality. It's easy to take this reasoning and go "oh, then stories should be bittersweet." No. They should be honest.

02-26-2010, 09:15 AM	#3
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	There quite a large difference between New Criticism and Death of Authour. New criticism stresses that there is a "correct" reading of a text whereas death of the authour says that there is not- reading the text is subjectively depedent on the readers own dialogue. While New Criticism is fairly ridiculous, death of the authour- while extreme- asks many very important questions which need to be considered in the analysis of a text. To ignore the context of the reader is as ridiculous as to ignore the context of the authour.

02-26-2010, 08:53 PM	#7
BloodyMage I'm not even in the highscore. Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 667	I think he's just clarifying. My only real problem with the Death of the Author is that it allows someone to ignore word of god so to speak in favour of their own opinion. For instance, Toiken's Lord of the Rings which has the well known interpretation of being a Second World War allegory despite the author repeatedly denying the idea. Yet some people stick to that interpretation and ignore the authors opinion, which just seems really stupid.