I just wanted to say how thankful I am for your channel and literary critiques. I rarely find people who can convey their love of an art form in clear ways, especially with literature. Most book reviewers I've seen on RUclips have either been people who only review Young Adult fiction and who don't view literature in any critical ways and those who are pretentious. Though both aren't inherently bad, I think you've done an excellent job existing beyond these tropes of critiques. Thank you and keep up the great work.
I very much enjoyed your discussion here, and the enthusiasm you convey about literature and all the different eyes we readers can open in order to see what is written in the fullest possible way. I only will suggest slowing down a bit so we can better savor all of the things you bring up in your talks (maybe hard to do when one is as enthusiast as you are about such a beloved subject, huh?)
Thanks for sharing. As an Undergrad English Major its nice to have a video of Literary Theory that reignites my enjoyment of theorizing/criticizing literature. I feel, at times, that all the theories I learned have blurred and the many philosophers of Freud, Lacan and more are lost in the jumble of my own mind, so its always good to revisit the theories in order to re-ground yourself when it comes to writing about a text, either for academia or casual study/enjoyment. I’d recommend Charles E. Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, which nicely covers the history of literary theory as well as breaking down the theories themselves for newcomers to understand.
Another great video. If you ever have the time, could you perhaps provide a tutorial or a list of readings on the methods of close reading? I've always found the task of actually doing any kind of close reading of a text, be it in a class setting or during independent reading, to be immensely difficult. It's not exactly something philosophy majors are trained to do (whereas something like literary criticism comes a little more natural for us). Thanks!
I'm reading Jonathan Culler's book and it's great so far! I've had two existential crises and I'm only on the first chapter (not so great lol, but everything else is)
My reaction to the fiction prize was "who is this guy?", but I'm intrigued by the book and I'd like to read it soon. As for Damn., as a rap fan I'm happy about it of course, but I am not nearly American enough to understand the full implications of giving the Music Pulitzer to a rapper for the first time ;)
I don't like him very much, I disagree with his hierarchical takes on issues of genre and cannot subscribe to his stance on realism, and there's the matter of this episode concerning The Fortress of Solitude: lareviewofbooks.org/article/my-disappointment-critic/ (I highly recommend the article, makes for an interesting read)
Yeah, your camera loses focus randomly in the videos and is a bit distracting. I think it is refocusing on your hands when you're gesticulating. That's why I asked.
No - e in realtà conosco ancora poco circa il mito che lo circonda (per lo più ricordo la famosa illustrazione dei due tizi che diventano un coccodrillo!)
I read “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream” (fantastic short story) last night. The author, Harlan Ellison talked about (in the story’s memoir) how he wasn’t a real fan of literary criticism on his story, especially the fact that they tried to draw so much philosophy and politics out of it and he just saw it as what it is. I just thought it’s interesting how different writers see literary criticism on their own work.
It is, very much! But of course one of the principles of (much) criticism is that, once a work is "out there," the writer has no real role in deciding how it's interpreted; it's the reader's role. The author is, at best, a priviledged reader. Eco famously said, ironically of course, that writers should die as soon as they're done writing a book, because the moment they start commenting on it they inevitably influence readers' perceptions :)
You mean the part about overcoming postmodernism? Sure he did :) the whole idea of postmodernism as a party that's run its course ( www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/16/alex-abramovich/wallace-v-the-terrible-master/ ) or the ending of E Unibus Pluram, with the idea that "future" writers should overcome irony and crave more honest connections with the reader! Isn't it so?
Gotta try a concise answer. EUP has a SOCIOLOGICAL argument, and it says: - Pynchon, DeLillo et al.: both great art and socially useful - Postmodern wannabes of the 80s and 90s (e.g. Leyner): both bad art and socially detrimental. The Interview quoted in that link: - the phrase "past few years of the postmodern era" taken out like that misrepresents the argument. He's again talking about what he thinks are the postmodern wannabes of the 80s and 90s. In that interview, he's talking Bret Easton Ellis, and has just stated that Nabokov, Carver et al. "were real geniuses." Yes, DFW's SOCIOLOGICAL argument is that the real postmodern geniuses of the 60s used irony for awesome and useful (social) reasons, but that now, again for (social) reasons, it is time to move on/back to something different (basically: now, in the 90s, we need Dostoevsky more than Pynchon). But this is a "lit as social mission" argument that has NOTHING to do with the intrinsic value of Pynchon, DeLillo etc. It's still an argument you can disagree with. But it is not the argument: "pynchon et al. are shallow and empty." In fact, even when he made his "lit as social mission" argument (in EUP and that interview, for example), DFW always repeated that Pynchon et al. were both geniuses and socially perfect for their time, and that he's angry at the pomo wannabes of the 80s and 90s, whose "use of postmodern irony sucks and is detrimental to society. There is an interview (which I can't find right now but remember vividly) where, when asked about the classic postmodernists, he says: "they did the most impossible thing, they kept reminding you that what you were reading was mediated, created, fake etc. And yet they told you, and showed, you: "I can still knock your damn socks off, make you laugh your lass off, make you cry your heart out"....they were fucking geniuses." Maybe not so concise but yea.
I see what you mean and I understand your distinction between aesthetic judgment and sociology of literature - I'll be more careful with it in the future :*
I just wanted to say how thankful I am for your channel and literary critiques. I rarely find people who can convey their love of an art form in clear ways, especially with literature. Most book reviewers I've seen on RUclips have either been people who only review Young Adult fiction and who don't view literature in any critical ways and those who are pretentious. Though both aren't inherently bad, I think you've done an excellent job existing beyond these tropes of critiques. Thank you and keep up the great work.
Thanks man!
I very much enjoyed your discussion here, and the enthusiasm you convey about literature and all the different eyes we readers can open in order to see what is written in the fullest possible way.
I only will suggest slowing down a bit so we can better savor all of the things you bring up in your talks (maybe hard to do when one is as enthusiast as you are about such a beloved subject, huh?)
Thanks for sharing. As an Undergrad English Major its nice to have a video of Literary Theory that reignites my enjoyment of theorizing/criticizing literature. I feel, at times, that all the theories I learned have blurred and the many philosophers of Freud, Lacan and more are lost in the jumble of my own mind, so its always good to revisit the theories in order to re-ground yourself when it comes to writing about a text, either for academia or casual study/enjoyment.
I’d recommend Charles E. Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, which nicely covers the history of literary theory as well as breaking down the theories themselves for newcomers to understand.
Another great video. If you ever have the time, could you perhaps provide a tutorial or a list of readings on the methods of close reading? I've always found the task of actually doing any kind of close reading of a text, be it in a class setting or during independent reading, to be immensely difficult. It's not exactly something philosophy majors are trained to do (whereas something like literary criticism comes a little more natural for us). Thanks!
I picked up "The Maximalist Novel" that you recommended in one of your videos. It's a great read so far.
Wait did I recommend it? I am largely skeptical about it - but I'm glad you're finding it useful :)!
Literary theory isn’t interesting, but you are! Thanks for covering this topic!
I study literature at uni. I really enjoy this type of content.
I'm reading Jonathan Culler's book and it's great so far! I've had two existential crises and I'm only on the first chapter (not so great lol, but everything else is)
i'm always interested in the academic stuff!
Thank you so much for this video! I wouldn't mind more about this topic :)
Book chemist who would you rather travel with - Quiote and Panza or Dean and Sal?
Dean and Sal, no question.
Don and Panza for sure :)
thanks for this, I'm investing in the first two
Hey would you react to the Pulitzer prize this year? Thoughts on Kendrick Lamar winning for DAMN.?
My reaction to the fiction prize was "who is this guy?", but I'm intrigued by the book and I'd like to read it soon. As for Damn., as a rap fan I'm happy about it of course, but I am not nearly American enough to understand the full implications of giving the Music Pulitzer to a rapper for the first time ;)
What do you think about James Woods? I have one of his books on writing.
I don't like him very much, I disagree with his hierarchical takes on issues of genre and cannot subscribe to his stance on realism, and there's the matter of this episode concerning The Fortress of Solitude:
lareviewofbooks.org/article/my-disappointment-critic/
(I highly recommend the article, makes for an interesting read)
Thanks I appreciate that.
Do you use auto-focus on your camera? If it has a manual focus, I would use that.
In all honesty, I have no idea - I'll look into it ;)
Yeah, your camera loses focus randomly in the videos and is a bit distracting. I think it is refocusing on your hands when you're gesticulating. That's why I asked.
Ohhhhh gosh, call me a nerd, but I love literary theory! 🤦
Yay to more academic books !
Mattia,perdona la curiosità off-topic,ma sei mai riuscito ad accaparrarti il Codex Seraphinianus?
No - e in realtà conosco ancora poco circa il mito che lo circonda (per lo più ricordo la famosa illustrazione dei due tizi che diventano un coccodrillo!)
Costa un rene,ma ne vale assolutamente la pena
I read “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream” (fantastic short story) last night. The author, Harlan Ellison talked about (in the story’s memoir) how he wasn’t a real fan of literary criticism on his story, especially the fact that they tried to draw so much philosophy and politics out of it and he just saw it as what it is. I just thought it’s interesting how different writers see literary criticism on their own work.
It is, very much! But of course one of the principles of (much) criticism is that, once a work is "out there," the writer has no real role in deciding how it's interpreted; it's the reader's role. The author is, at best, a priviledged reader. Eco famously said, ironically of course, that writers should die as soon as they're done writing a book, because the moment they start commenting on it they inevitably influence readers' perceptions :)
@@TheBookchemist Roland Barth's Death of the Author
:'( I love literary theory, how dare you lolol
I remember you mentioning that! You're a strange man :)
Have you read Fat City by Leonard Gardner? It’s a damn masterpiece and I don’t really care much for boxing.
No, I don't think I've ever heard of it! I've noted it down though ;)
sorry but I gotta say this! DFW never said that! It's the DFW critics who (wrongly) say he said that!
You mean the part about overcoming postmodernism? Sure he did :) the whole idea of postmodernism as a party that's run its course ( www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/16/alex-abramovich/wallace-v-the-terrible-master/ ) or the ending of E Unibus Pluram, with the idea that "future" writers should overcome irony and crave more honest connections with the reader! Isn't it so?
Gotta try a concise answer.
EUP has a SOCIOLOGICAL argument, and it says:
- Pynchon, DeLillo et al.: both great art and socially useful
- Postmodern wannabes of the 80s and 90s (e.g. Leyner): both bad art and socially detrimental.
The Interview quoted in that link:
- the phrase "past few years of the postmodern era" taken out like that misrepresents the argument. He's again talking about what he thinks are the postmodern wannabes of the 80s and 90s. In that interview, he's talking Bret Easton Ellis, and has just stated that Nabokov, Carver et al. "were real geniuses."
Yes, DFW's SOCIOLOGICAL argument is that the real postmodern geniuses of the 60s used irony for awesome and useful (social) reasons, but that now, again for (social) reasons, it is time to move on/back to something different (basically: now, in the 90s, we need Dostoevsky more than Pynchon). But this is a "lit as social mission" argument that has NOTHING to do with the intrinsic value of Pynchon, DeLillo etc. It's still an argument you can disagree with. But it is not the argument: "pynchon et al. are shallow and empty."
In fact, even when he made his "lit as social mission" argument (in EUP and that interview, for example), DFW always repeated that Pynchon et al. were both geniuses and socially perfect for their time, and that he's angry at the pomo wannabes of the 80s and 90s, whose "use of postmodern irony sucks and is detrimental to society.
There is an interview (which I can't find right now but remember vividly) where, when asked about the classic postmodernists, he says: "they did the most impossible thing, they kept reminding you that what you were reading was mediated, created, fake etc. And yet they told you, and showed, you: "I can still knock your damn socks off, make you laugh your lass off, make you cry your heart out"....they were fucking geniuses."
Maybe not so concise but yea.
I see what you mean and I understand your distinction between aesthetic judgment and sociology of literature - I'll be more careful with it in the future :*