>can't analyze and interpret deeper meaning of book
>have to use google to understand the message of the book
should I kill myself for being retarded?
>read book. >can't analyze and interpret deeper meaning of book
>should I kill myself
>am I retarded?
Depends how long I've been reading I guess. This is a muscle that you should be able to build over time if you continue to try to analyze a book prior to looking into the analysis of others.
*you've, not I've
Stop relying on the internet. Just extract the meaning you want out of it, whatever it may be. It could be incredibly personal to you or it could be a broader meaning. Who cares. Stop using google as a crutch, or you'll never be able to analyse a book
anon, I was same as you a few months ago, but I'm starting see works of art in a different perspective and interpreting their meaning but I still can't analyse a book, there's still a long way to go, so don't worry too much everything will come naturally but you gotta keep reading and try to look at things from a different perspective.
this is normal. if you ever doubt this, try interacting with anyone on LULZ while being anything but literal.
Read Mortimer Adler's book. Make notes. Think about why people acted the way they did. Think about the themes. Idk.
No thank you.
Idk anon, I think that discovering what others have uncovered after reading a book or watching a kino is an intregral part of the fun.
Damn I wish I was in a book club, thank god for LULZ
It’ll come anon, don’t worry.
This "every book has deep meanings" thing is a product of 20th century formalist criticism, which solidified in "Literature Departments" (no such thing) coincidentally right as European culture died in the great wars and modernism failed to complete its great quest to make man fully actual and fully authentic, and resolve all lingering paradoxes in human nature with a new religiosity that dialectically synthesizes science and faith, immanence and transcendence. Right as the soul of this joint enterprise died and European man collapsed comatose in a heap on the ground, "literature professors" came out of the woodwork to tell you that "literature" is a thing that humans do, and the right way to interact with it is to "analyze" it for hidden "meanings," like that Bilbo was a "metaphor" for capitalism.
They took the seed of something that was actually noble - higher criticism, in the higher sense of Arnold, Eliot, Auerbach, and Frye - and fused it with the "school of suspicion," but gutted of all originality. The hermeneutics of suspicion, Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx, but gutted of Freud's and Marx's scientific rationalism which "suspects" (critiques) because it actually believes it has real answers, and Nietzsche's promethean millenarianism, which critiques because it wants bourgeois man to live dangerously again, and turned it into bourgeois neoliebral gays analyzing things to see where the secret gay and liberal is. They want you to exclusively read 19th and 20th century "the modern novel"'s and endlessly analyze the three or four basic conceptual moves those novels make, when you could get the entire gist by reading Lukacs on the European novel.
Just read lots of things and your taste will naturally improve. Think about them meaningfully and look for patterns and analogies by the author but don't trouble yourself over it. Read good critics. Ignore everything written after 1965.
Based and redpilled (for the lack of better words). A similar point as yours was made by Susan Sontag. The revenge of content (taken on aesthetics). I think that content doesn't matter that much if you push the right buttons even as thematic analysis is fun to do after the fact. But this formalist thinking comes from a place of feeling of interiority.
Yep and it's strange how even postwar philosophers seem to unconsciously identify as epigones and johnny come latelies whose only contribution should be counting the number of i's Heidegger forgot to dot in some manuscript. The whole post-WW2 era knows it has been cut off from the springs of life and the wheel of history and destiny, and has a guilty conscience about it. Lutz Niethammer has a book about "post history" and I saw something by Hartog talking about this that looked interesting, something on Koolhas' junkspace but applied to the sense of time. But this crap itself is part of the problem, more epigones writing epigone books on other epigones' "use or Heidegger" to "diagnose" the times, so some other epigone will cite them
No always read what you love but always keep one eye open for the increasingly thin and diluted character of life and art after post-modernity, for example DFW had the right idea mocking Dan DeLillo style look at me I'm a writer who has read Lyotard on literature isn't that crazy, in In Unibus Pluram
Just don't be gatekept by some phony cognitive elite incapable of creating, read Nietzsche's Use and Abuse of History essay
I think Pynchon even wrote some letter in which he says am I just rewriting the same book again and again. The most dangerous class as usual is the liberal professors because they are experts in mediocrity and complacency and just want to count dots in Pynchon manuscripts for clout at the local watering hole, even as the hole gets smaller and more squalid every year. They're Nietzsche's eunuchs
>DFW had the right idea mocking Dan DeLillo style
Delillo was one of dfw’s favorite writer, if not the favorite.
Him and Pynchon, but the style itself was exhausted by the '80s and definitely by the '90s. I just always remember him bullying those kitsch versions of post-modern self-awareness in that essay.
Very lucid take on stuff that I've been obsessed with recently but not been able to put quite so concisely; I will now seek you out in your mountain recluse hut and endure your various mystifying tests in order to become your student.
Do you think there's a solution or no?
Yeah, this is the fun of any aesthetic interest and literature is no different as long as you don't get caught up in believing what are essentially mystical claims about somehow "transcending" or "leaving behind" the deeply rooted joys and meanings (even if "meaning" is taken in the more aesthetic sense in which something that has a describable form is "meaningful") of art.
Would love to get people's takes on, e.g., "Leaving the Atocha Station" by John Ashbery - he also has an interview where he says that it's about the "experience of experience", it's meaningless because the experience it's describing was meaningless, only "lesser" poetry has an "essay-like subject", etc. This is the sort of mysticism I mean, it seems insane to treat it any other way than dismissively, but I'm insecure enough that the idea I might be missing something continues to nag at me.
>Does that mean to avoid postmodernist literature in its entirety? I haven't read Pynchon, DFW, Barth and most of modern literary fiction. Though i enjoyed Calvino, Eco and some others. Why should we avoid literature from the 1965 in particular?
My bad. I fucked up the formatting.
>Just read lots of things and your taste will naturally improve
People really underestimate how powerful broad exposure is for developing taste. I've made a point of looking at hundreds of thousands of paintings and sculptures over the last decade and I developed taste without any kind of formal study whatsoever. Reading is the same way. Doesn't even have to be high literature, either. You could just plumb the scifi/fantasy section at your local library and eventually you'll develop some level of taste, even if it's just understanding what it is that you like, even if you can't articulate why.
The only thing I can't recommend this approach to is alcohol, or drugs or any other chemically addictive substance. Nothing good comes of broad exposure to tobacco, alcohol, etc for the purpose of developing "taste". Just fake it like every other non-alcoholic.
That's what taste IS. (R)ea(d/t)ing things until you can discern the subtle differences and develop preferences. The only really tasteless people are dilettantes, even shit taste is some kind of taste.
that is beautiful
If I had a dime for every sarcasm quote in this post I could buy a pepsi and some potato chips
Potato chips need TAPATIO hot sauce
t.higher critic lingering paradox
>Freud's and Marx's scientific rationalism
Bait. All replies are samefag or Twitter tourists
The more you read the easier it should be. Not because you're honing some special literature analyzing skill, but simply because you're gathering more knowledge to understand the allusions.
Our experience paints our subconscious. You do not always need to comprehend something consciously in order to understand it.
I find explanations from other people are simply retarded. Come up with the best conclusion you can, then read one online to compare your interpretation. Remember, art is to be interpreted, and interpretation is an art in itself.
No. It takes times, specially if you are just starting. Specially if you never talked with anyone about literature. Specially if you are not reading other people's opinions on it. Just takes time.
For example, Literature students in Uni take a while until they actually start arguing their own thoughts. First year papers tend to be very dull.
DeLillo’s style is so vastly different from pynchon and barth I’m sure he wasn’t including him in that essay. Not the least of which that essay came out in ‘90 and dfw’s letters to delillo about libra and underworld (‘92 and ‘97) are glowing in praise, in comparison with his thoughts about vineland (said pynchon’s been smoking pot and watching tv for 20 years).
You're caught in the hermeneutics of suspicion. There is no "deeper" meaning being hidden, unless you are reading hacks.
How do you know you arent overanalyzing and there is no deeper meaning?
And whats wrong with the meaning being on the surface?
You are the only person on earth who uses goggle for good.