<p>The core of what I’ve said, you have ignored. My poem, my suggestions for how to interpret Literature, the short story I pm’ed to you. I was trying to help, not debate about semantics. I’m not interested in fighting or reading your long, wordy posts</p>
<p>It’s called normal. </p>
<p>I read roughly 50 books per year now. The last time I read a novel was for an undergrad english class. Either you’re a fiction person or you aren’t. </p>
<p>Much of what is taught in highschool and freshman year at college is a total waste of time. It doesn’t help you and will likely be forgotten.</p>
<p>Still, do well in any Lit classes so you can pad your GPA.</p>
<p>LOL leolibby wants me to read and critique his poem and short story. And calls that helping me. No thanks.</p>
<p>I want to know if you’re capable.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry, I was mistaken, I thought you wanted to learn how to interpret literature using nothing but your own brain.</p>
<p>Uh, come again? My only purpose for making this thread was to singlehandedly make the scroll bar narrow.</p>
<p>That’s a great reason… wish I thought of that.</p>
<p>So, for the sake of amusement, lets assume literary analysis is an ENTIRELY UNIQUE skill that cannot be applied to other subjects. In your fantasyland, critical reading is nothing like statistical analysis and the skill of dissecting a novel is useless when manipulating and understanding numerical data.</p>
<p>The fact remains that you aren’t reading an abridged version of the novel. If you were, then I think you’d be losing the subtleties and the mushy “beauty” of the work, but you’d at least still have original thoughts. But no, you are using OTHER PEOPLE’S THOUGHTS as a crutch to induce your own understanding of a novel you never read. As others said, it is just like browsing through a solution manual before considering a problem. Yes, you may understand the problem after reading its solution but you’ve never practiced solving new, unanswered problems.</p>
<p>Now, in your made up fantasyland, you don’t care about learning to solve the problem because you don’t care about the analytical process–it won’t be relevant outside of literature. But when you see someone cheating on a test or reading a solutions manual, you know they’re not just missing out on the material. They’re also developing a character. And when you time after time use other people’s ideas to form your own, you are building a dependence on other people’s thoughts. With practice comes habits. You will struggle to solve problems in any subject by yourself when you solved “problems” in literature with a crutch. </p>
<p>When it’s all said and done, you’re a leech–at least in your lit classes. You insist that you work hard but it’s not your work ethic that lacks, its your ability to learn things yourself. </p>
<p>And we still must wonder how you can segregate literary analysis from all other skills and abilities. As anyone can tell these posts that I write without editing, my thoughts aren’t always focused. Yet, I certainly used to think more haphazardly, and I know that sifting through a complex text to identify it’s overarching message or whatnot has helped me hone in on key points when needed. CERTAINLY that’s a transferable skill: Weeding out irrelevant information is critical in stats and economics.</p>
<p>I’m kind of wondering why I’m bothering to reply to this, but since you took the trouble to rant so much about my post…</p>
<p>I think, if we compare posts, it’s clear that you have a bigger ego than I do, or at least are more defensive about it…I, along with I think, most of the people who posted here, thought you were genuinely looking for help, and that you did want to understand literary analysis, now it seems that you’re only looking for confirmation in your own brilliance…</p>
<p>I’m sure you do fine in your Lit classes, but I bet you don’t tell your professors you haven’t read the book…Oh, and how many Lit classes have you taken again? and in what context? Most of my English classes demand that no outside sources be used… Forgive me for assuming you only use sparknotes, I believe you mentioned using them? Reading something like Bloom’s Literary Criticisms will, in fact, enable you to fake your way through Lit, but guess what, your still faking it. As has been reiterated countless times, you aren’t doing your own work… </p>
<p>You say I basically repackaged your original posts, I was pointing out the central problem, its implication have been explored, that you can’t use analysis in other forms…you think you know what analysis is? Dictionary. com gives " the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements ( opposed to synthesis)." I simplified when I said analysis in one discipline is identical to another, but the basic skill is the same, addition doesn’t change when you add variables into math, it’s the same thing. </p>
<p>The point of literary analysis is to see something in the book that appeals to you specifically. Literature endures bc even as circumstances change, these specific books have become eternal. You don’t have to be living in 16th century England to have Canterbury Tales resonate with you. If all you’re reading for is plot, you’ve missed the point.</p>
<p>If you get the point through criticism, give us an example…tell us something creative you’ve done with someone else’s work…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? You’re conceding your position? Well, okay, that was easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is something I should have addressed much earlier. Get this in your head: there is nothing holy about the original text. Now repeat that a few times. The text is great at transmitting literary ideas in a literary way. That’s why those novels have lived on. Some people like to apprehend the literary ideas in the literary way, that is, read just the text and report in their essays merely what they find. Good for them. I prefer to arrive at the literary ideas in an expository way, and then to do quite a bit of analysis in my essays. I present new ways of looking at the book and at the theories about the book. Though my way is different, there is nothing uncreative or false about it. There are definitely problems being solved. Yes, it is not absent problem-solving. It is not cheating. It is not crutch-like. To say that literary criticism is crutch-like is similar to saying that physics is crutch-like in relying on someone else’s mathematics, and that therefore physicists are inherently uncreative and unoriginal. No, not so. It is simply doing a different task. It matters not that the book has to come before the criticism, just like it matters not that math has to be discovered before the application. Hence it is nothing like memorizing a solution manual where no thought is required other than tracing someone else’s steps, and nothing new is created.</p>
<p>Also, please come to grips with the fact that nothing in your head is completely original. Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum, not yours nor the author’s. You are not some Virgin Mary of ideas when you sit down and squeeze out your papers. We have all been contaminated by the various discourses of the world, and there is no reason to be ashamed about that. So instead of obsessing over these artificial categories of “my own work” or “not my own work,” worry about how much work you actually do, and the content. Are you analyzing or not? Are you thinking hard or not? What particular skills have you used? These are the real questions, and I have answered them satisfactorily for myself in my case. There is absolutely nothing that I fail to do except literary analysis. And that was the purpose of this thread – to determine the consequences of that failing. I have done so. The consequences are quite important. You can see that from my other posts. But they are not some quasi-mystical ‘moral’ failing of not doing my own work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, that’s a damn stretch. I mean, really, come on, you’ve got nothing else? So I have sinned and will therefore be a sinner forever. That’s your point. It’s weak and I don’t buy it.</p>
<p>Second, it doesn’t even matter. I showed above that there is nothing intellectually illegitimate with what I am doing. Thus this vague bad habit will not form, because it is not bad, it is good. I am practicing good habits, so quite obviously I will flower into a beautiful character and experience magical success in everything I ever do. /sarcasm</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry to break it to you, but I’m learning a lot. In fact, everything but literary analysis – which is why I made this thread questioning that decision. On the whole, though, I know I am learning deeper and more transferrable skills than those who do literary analysis at the expense of analyzing ideas. And there is a trade-off, don’t kid yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh no, not this again. Fanciful thinking leading to an absurd conclusion. You’ve failed to show how a skill so abstract as “weeding out irrelevant information” is the same in literature as it is in economics. A conceptual similarity is not the same as a cognitive one. This is an argument I’ve made several times now, which you have once again ignored. And there goes your credibility when you tout your ability to identify key points.</p>
<p>See, kids, reading books doesn’t always get you somewhere. If your thinking is poor, you will still lose an argument to a non-reader.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same, dude. But I’ve always been kind of OCD.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I have been fair in the few cases where I have dismissed arguments out of hand. The rest, well, no need to comment on my ego, because my words speak for themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have taken 2 English classes, and they were both intermediate level. They were each centered on a major topic in literature, and the official readings included both books and literary criticism articles. By literary criticism I don’t mean the NYTimes variety where the writer tells the customer if he should buy the book or not. I mean actual heavy literary theory that gets your brain going. I find it exceedingly strange that you are not allowed to use “outside sources.” So this means any source but the book itself? If so, that’s absurd, considering how disconnected you guys are with the practices of actual academics (who, surprise, see bringing in outside ideas as the first step to doing original, creative work). It’s not just an issue of practice, most literary theorists disagree with the whole philosophy that drives that “no-idea-but-my-own” policy. If all you have to say are more reiterations that I’m not doing my work, refer back to my own reiterations where I flatly disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I’ve addressed this very adequately in my responses to justtotalk. Look there. I just have say this argument is weak beyond belief, you guys are seriously gasping at straws. Gogo dictionary.com absent common sense.</p>
<p>
Yes, what appeals to me specifically is the ideas. I never said I was reading only the plot. That’s a gross misunderstanding. I don’t even know what to say at this point. The books resonate with me on a more abstract plane. If you are advising that I stick only with what I like, then I am doing just that. But, in fact, I am being more open-minded than you by investigating precisely what I don’t like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You make this sound as if in lieu of literary analysis, I must be doing something crazy like tearing the book to little pieces and making a collage. Sorry, it’s not that exciting. Look at an article in an academic literary journal. (I can’t believe you don’t read any of these.) Suffice to say most of my paper is dedicated to these second-hand ideas as they apply to the first-hand interpretations (which in my papers I take for granted as a backdrop). As a result, my essays are conceptually rigorous and theoretical. Again, as I’ve said before, this comes at the cost of neglecting the social/emotional side of doing and writing about the literary analyses. Ultimately my papers are creative insofar as a philosophy paper is creative (though I’ve taken no philosophy classes). But I still see myself as handling literary ideas, not philosophical ones. The boundary does get blurry, but that’s no problem on my part because the academic fields themselves sort of do, too.</p>
<p>You’ve honestly got your head so far up your own ass that I don’t know how you can even function anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, to sum up your posts, you know nothing of either literature or philosophy, yet like to use names of the subject areas absently in order to justify your own narrow views of: what you believe literary analysis to be; your gross overestimation of your own intelligence; and your inability to think for yourself regarding textual analysis. As a classics major, I can assure you that you will never understand the entirety of the text without reading it. Even key plot points are missing from those horrid SparkNotes pages. If you can really get through an intermediate level English course without reading any primary sources, you should find a new school because that is absolutely pathetic. If I had attempted to write a paper on Thucydides or Herodotus without reading The History of the Peloponnesian War or The Histories I would have received an F right away because it would have been apparent that I had not read the primary source. Not only that, it reveals a great deal about your own work ethic and priorities, which are apparently to avoid being well rounded due to your own preferences on what you believe postsecondary education is meant for: suiting your own agenda.</p>
<p>As far as your “no thought is original” argument, one could easily argue otherwise. Our thoughts and beliefs are the accumulation of what we have experienced, but that does not eliminate their originality. Everything has a source of origin, so if you’d like to be completely absolute with this theory, nothing is original. However, we know this idea to be false since the result of an accumulation of ideas is not any one of those ideas and is therefore something new altogether. Now when we expand this idea of “uniqueness” we might see that someone may have had the same idea at a different time. Does this make your thought process any less significant? Maybe, but this is college. The point of college is to develop skills for the future and to learn how to create your own input and views based off of not only texts that you have (not) read, but also…well…everything. Critical reading is an essential skill and, from your previous posts involving your own pseudo-logic, you seem to be lacking in it.</p>
<p>Ideas in literature are conveyed through literary techniques. Not reading the books causes you to miss the methods through which they are conveyed and thereby lessen your understanding of said works, regardless of how many secondary sources you read.</p>
<p>LOL is this a joke? I know you spent a lot time making your post sound sophisticated. Too bad you forgot to put some thought behind those empty words. You sound like some freshman who got his tummy rubbed a lot by his professor this semester. Now you think you’re soooo academic, even picked the Classics major that you seem to wear on your sleeve.</p>
<p>Where in that giant mess did you address any of my points or arguments? Of course, you did no such thing. All you did was make windy assertions that I know nothing and you know everything. That’s absolutely all you did. I’m not even exaggerating, and I’m kind of amazed by that. How does someone use such long sentences to say so little, and none of it worth listening to?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then, as a non-classics major, I am just going to have to take my superior’s word for it! Your assurance means so much… Guess what? Shove it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Too bad I don’t care about every plot point, and I don’t rely solely on Sparknotes.</p>
<p>This is probably the only non-moronic thing that you posted. But in the context of this thread, it’s still pretty moronic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More wise words from the almighty Classics major. Hey, when you’re done name-dropping your academics and talking up your professors, you can try posting something relevant. What, do I look like your mom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the tip. But I like where I am. Need I say what I think is absolutely pathetic?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you just spent your first paragraph completely blowing off everything I had to say. Just outright dismissing everything and claiming that your narrow little view knows better. And NOW you want to talk? As in, present an actual argument… instead of sitting on your fat ass and preaching how I don’t know anything about literature or philosophy? Pardon me if I give you the finger and walk away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure where in this thread I demonstrated use or misuse or disuse of either critical reading or logic. I think you need to learn something before you talk.</p>
<p>Honestly, I could have gone line by line and dismantled everything you wrote. But the rest are just bald assertions or statements of what is trivially true that you made to sound nice and fancy. So I’ll leave off here. My advice is for you to crawl back into your hole and resume lecturing your sock puppets.</p>
<p>Well, if his literature papers are anything like his posts, I think we know who wins the argument. No point in continuing.</p>
<p>Seriously. He actually didn’t make a single point in that post…impressive.</p>
<p>Well if it isn’t the master of pith, back with another cheap shot. What’s wrong, can’t stay away?</p>
<p>Man, I still don’t see him making a point. He’s really on a roll.</p>
<p>Just to make clear, that post above was to emhaveeul.</p>
<p>What’s Clssics boy doing still posting dumb comments in this thread? I hurt his feelings so he’s pandering for someone’s approval. Sorry kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d argue that there is some transfer between the two skills but not a whole lot. Otherwise, I tend to agree with this. </p>
<p>I think what’s setting people off in this thread is when you say things like this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are delusional if you think that you are really adding that much value in your essays. Sparknotes is putting the baseball on the tee for you so that you can hit the ball out of the infield.</p>
<p>The fact that you think that you have more insight about a book by reading a summary on wikipedia than a person who has, you know, actually read the book is absurd. You are the layman who one day read a Scientific American article about physics and now thinks that he has all of the answers to the unsolved problems in the field.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising to me why people are taking issue with what you are saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for your honesty. You get some respect. </p>
<p>It seems justtotalk got pushed into a corner on this same issue, and instead of admitting he’s wrong, decides to continue arguing in the form of a hypothetical “supposing you’re right…” And now he’s gone from the thread. Pathetic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Context, man, context. That was what I said early on. Literary analysis seemed like some secret code. Now I know better, and realize it’s a lot more. But it’s still not the holy thing that others make it out to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I’m delusional then my professors are also delusional. Either that or no one on the undergraduate level adds much value in their essays. I’m going to have to go with the latter. Nice try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I’m putting the baseball on a tee, then most people can’t hit the ball period. Who’s better and who’s worse? I’m not one to say, and neither are you. </p>
<p>If there is value, convince me of it. If there isn’t, then not doing it is merely a preference. After all, we wouldn’t chastise an MLB player for not bringing his own equipment to the game, and say that he’s relying on the crutch of having a manager.</p>
<p>Over the course of the thread, I indeed realized the value of doing literary analysis. I’ve always trusted that it must exist, I just didn’t know its nature. Now I do. So I have been in the wrong and need to amend my behavior. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up my entire position. </p>
<p>The past two pages, we’ve been arguing about what the value is. It’s been fun to read the imbecilic notions that people hold. This is an exceedingly touchy subject for them. They think if they throw a hissy fit about the use of Sparknotes, that I’ll just roll over and play dead. And they are outraged when I don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends what you mean by insight. To not define the term, or at least set some parameters, is absurd.</p>
<p>Someone who reads the book and only the book might have more insight into the story and the use of language. They will be more in tune, emotionally or artistically, with the general themes. They will appreciate the author’s voice. They will have a feel for the texture. They will be able to relate all of this to personal experience. Their connection to the book will in these ways be keen.</p>
<p>Such persons will not, however, have gotten all of their interpretations right. Their approach may be shallow, and will certainly be skewed by personal bias and personal ignorance. They will have no knowledge of the author’s history or social context, nor how said factors shaped the book. They will have no understanding of the literary form and the broader discourse that every book inevitably is a part of, and a response to. Their connection to the book will in these ways be blind.</p>
<p>Let me know what part of this is absurd. I’d love to know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My peers are doing cute gravity experiments with little red bouncy balls. I’m sitting at my desk reading academic research papers and getting a textbook education. There, I fixed your analogy for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not surprising to me either. </p>
<p>It’s obvious I’ve struck a chord with the uptight academic wanna-be’s. They get a sniff of someone using Sparknotes, and their panties get twisted. Just look at that Classics guy. I bet he’s still recovering.</p>
<p>I did what I set out to do with this thread. I learned some things and found out where I was wrong. </p>
<p>But these Sparknotes fanatics keep coming in all upset. They claim I won’t develop any reading skills, but it looks like they haven’t comprehended a single post. They come up with the same laughable arguments, over and over. I’ve been responding patiently, but when the topic of Sparknotes or Wikipedia is involved, it’s like talking to small children.</p>
<p>Do they not see the irony in regurgitating every little cliche repeated to them in English class… and then accusing me of idea regurgitation? I thought books are supposed to make you smarter.</p>
<p>At least this thread has been a good laugh. Thanks for the laughs.</p>