EPTKinda scary... Every time i hear things like "our country", "growth" or "we" i get headaches.
And some journalists are paid to analyse those discourses lol
What Are You Reading 2014 - Page 35
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Kinda scary... Every time i hear things like "our country", "growth" or "we" i get headaches. And some journalists are paid to analyse those discourses lol | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 28 2014 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I just link that every time Baudrillard comes up now. It's glorious. Just hilarious, I need to read Baudrillard now, or not, I wonder. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 28 2014 00:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I just link that every time Baudrillard comes up now. It's glorious. What do you think about it, I wonder? It's clearly the work of someone who has read Baudrillard and taken him quite seriously. I think it's important, when reading him, to realize that he is pretty much always joking (so therefore, a parody of his views is probably one of the best ways to present those views). If you are trying to understand his "theory," like i.e. trying to assemble his sentences into a doctrine, you are missing the joke. If you think that he is just spewing obscurantist bullshit, you are also missing the joke. At any rate, if you don't enjoy reading it, don't read it. I don't think people who complain about theory understand what theory is. It's not philosophy, it's not fiction, but it's something of both. And the novel is pretty much dead, but theory isn't. Just think about B. et al as "writers" writing some sort of literary form in a time when distinctions between "fiction" and "non-fiction" don't seem to make as much sense as they used to. You wouldn't criticize, say, Samuel Beckett for "not making sense." I think it's just as dumb to talk about Baudrillard, or say Deleuze and Guattari, in this way. It's just a confusion about genre. A lot of times it's best to think of it as prose-poetry, or a philosophical project which proceeds primarily in terms of an aesthetic, rather than logical, methodology. Also, can we please drop this tiresome debate about how my reading practice is superior to yours and just talk about books? you are making a fool of yourself, zulu. You're not actually interested in creating discussion (if you were, you would practice what you preach rather than just preachin' it). | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Let's all think like mathematicians and we will be all good, logical men. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On May 28 2014 02:07 bookwyrm wrote: And the novel is pretty much dead, but theory isn't. lol | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
I finished reading Spin by Robert Charles Wilson. The premise was kinda interesting, but the writing was pretty mediocre. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
this is why we cant have nice things | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 28 2014 02:52 zulu_nation8 wrote: how is the novel dead? Idk, what was the last novel that got published that really blasted open the space of possibility for what a novel could be? I'm not saying that nobody writes novels, or even that nobody writes novels that are worth reading (I recommend checking out a book by Nathaniel Rich called Odds Against Tomorrow), but rather that "the novel" is not really the most interesting frontier of what's happening in literature. It's been pacified. It's a domestic animal. Which is fine, it's okay to keep housecats, but sometimes you wanna go out in the bush and wrestle with a lion. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
: a style of art, architecture, literature, etc., that uses ideas and methods which are very different from those used in the past or : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression That's what you mean right? | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 28 2014 02:07 bookwyrm wrote: What do you think about it, I wonder? It's clearly the work of someone who has read Baudrillard and taken him quite seriously. I like it, I think it's funny, and it's impossible to write a parody of this quality without having a serious appreciation, whether visceral or intellectual, of the parodied object. Note that this does not necessitate agreement with the object in question. I think it's important, when reading him, to realize that he is pretty much always joking (so therefore, a parody of his views is probably one of the best ways to present those views). If you are trying to understand his "theory," like i.e. trying to assemble his sentences into a doctrine, you are missing the joke. If you think that he is just spewing obscurantist bullshit, you are also missing the joke. At any rate, if you don't enjoy reading it, don't read it. Yes, I think most of this goes without saying. I don't think people who complain about theory understand what theory is. It's not philosophy, it's not fiction, but it's something of both. And the novel is pretty much dead, but theory isn't. Just think about B. et al as "writers" writing some sort of literary form in a time when distinctions between "fiction" and "non-fiction" don't seem to make as much sense as they used to. You wouldn't criticize, say, Samuel Beckett for "not making sense." I think it's just as dumb to talk about Baudrillard, or say Deleuze and Guattari, in this way. It's just a confusion about genre. A lot of times it's best to think of it as prose-poetry, or a philosophical project which proceeds primarily in terms of an aesthetic, rather than logical, methodology. I think this is a silly view, because it's quite straightforward to point at something and identify it as theory or not theory. Yes you can find me a bunch of edge cases, but so what, it's true 99% of the time. And it's absurd to generalize all theory as proceeding from an aesthetic and not logical perspective. You're also setting up a strawman distinction between theory and aesthetic merit. No one has claimed that one precludes the other, yet you seem to use that as the cornerstone of your argument. Literally no one has criticized theory using "it doesn't make sense" or "it's not aesthetic" or "it's not logical" as a basis. Also, saying the novel is dead is like saying [classical music], [art], [poetry], [god], [insert object here] is dead. Trust me, you're not being nearly as edgy as you think you are. On May 28 2014 03:09 bookwyrm wrote: Idk, what was the last novel that got published that really blasted open the space of possibility for what a novel could be? I'm not saying that nobody writes novels, or even that nobody writes novels that are worth reading (I recommend checking out a book by Nathaniel Rich called Odds Against Tomorrow), but rather that "the novel" is not really the most interesting frontier of what's happening in literature. It's been pacified. It's a domestic animal. Which is fine, it's okay to keep housecats, but sometimes you wanna go out in the bush and wrestle with a lion. That's a big leap from "it's domesticated" to "it's dead." Never mind the fact that I dispute the very premise to begin with. On May 28 2014 03:28 bookwyrm wrote: Well, no. My claim is that what is "interesting happening in literature" is, precisely, theory! For the exact reason that I DON'T think that the "novel should forever remain modernist." Or, for that matter, post-modernist, which today can pretty much only be a self-parody of a self-parody. People can write novels if they want, I hope they do (I plan to myself, someday). But I'd be surprised if you end up with anything other than a house-cat. Which is not to knock house-cats, who have their uses. But it's hardly the vanguard of "literature." If anything, theory is dead. Unless you elaborate, "the vanguard of literature" is a meaningless phrase. Do you condemn the novel for no longer being novel? | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
@Above: sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying to me. At any rate, I don't think I'm being edgy, I think I'm saying something rather obvious that everybody basically already thinks. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21248 Posts
alternatively http://www.themillions.com/2014/05/epitaphs-for-the-novel.html | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
"Punk rock died when the first kid said "Punk's not dead, punk's not dead"" | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Reminds me of the bw is dead argument. On May 28 2014 03:51 bookwyrm wrote: "you know what really captured the spirit of the times in music in 2014? " For some reason i really don't want to know the answer lol. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On May 28 2014 03:51 bookwyrm wrote: You're just not even listening. I pretty much said the opposite of all the things you wrote above. I think the modernist impulse has pretty much played itself out, and the perpetual search for novelty has become pointless and banal. This makes the novel a domesticated form. So I read this argument as Because the modernist impulse is played out, hence the novel has become a domesticated form. This, to my best understanding, implies that the worth of the novel form was closely attached to values of modernism, and when they became outdated, the novel became domesticated, which again, to my best understanding, implies that there is a set of commonly accepted aesthetic values which dictate modernism = exciting, no modernism = house-cat. Have I understood your argument? On May 28 2014 03:51 bookwyrm wrote: Nowhere did I imply that this means you can't write "good" novels (in fact, I went out of my way to claim the opposite). But I do think that if you are looking for the "spirit of the age" in literature, the novel is the wrong place to look (you will accuse me of not explaining why I think this, but you also would mock my explanation without thinking about it, so I'll demur). So you are saying, firstly, that it's not enough to write a "good" novel, but it also has to embody something called "spirit of the age." I think I understand what you are saying, but can you give some examples where a different kind of literature, in recent times, has embodied the spirit of the age? On May 28 2014 03:51 bookwyrm wrote: It's just like, I wouldn't mind going to a show with bands that sounded basically like the Clash, the Ramones, whatever. I'd probably enjoy it. In fact, I think you could have a really GOOD band that sounded like the Clash and the Ramones. But I wouldn't look back at 2014 and go "you know what really captured the spirit of the times in music in 2014? Bands that sounded like the Clash and the Ramones!" So in this example you are comparing bands like the Clash to, what is assumed, the modernist novel, which for you, represented the last time the novel was interesting. Bands today copy the Clash and the Ramones, assuming novels today generally try to emulate the modernist novel. But because they are only lesser versions of the the great modernist novels, they are house cats. If I am correct in my interpretation of your post, which I hope I am, I would to argue that no, I do not think the "goodness" of a novel has necessarily anything to do with embodying a "spirit of the age" in literature. I am not certain if a "spirit" can even be found when we are living in it right now. Oh and what is a spirit? I am also unsure if the perspective that all contemporary fiction are inferior knock-offs of modernist novels is correct. In fact I would even venture to say that not even half, or most, or maybe even 75% if we really go wild here, are. I agree that modernist literature has profoundly influenced the novel. But I am unsure if all novels which have come after are bound by their modernist influence that they cannot find any essence of their own. I am curious what you think of novels that came before modernism, or writers who do not try to force their way to the "vanguard" of literature, and are content to be domesticated house-cats. Can they still be exciting for you? Can they be exciting for anyone? Housecat | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
zulu, if you want just nice words on a page, i highly recommend some of the stuff by Guy Gavriel Kay. He's got gorgeous prose, and if you're into history at all putting together some of the parallels between his fictional settings and reality is quite fun. His stories and characters are a bit unsatisfying, but overall one of the best novelists I've read. Just finished rereading Snow Falling on Cedars, not bad though a bit wordy at times. | ||
| ||
