What do you call this type of person -- I like ideas but not literature

[silence_kit]

<p>However, judging from your internet testimony, it appears that you are just so far ahead of your peers that it doesn’t matter. Superman don’t need no seat belt.</p>

[manarius]

<p>Holy <strong><em>, man. You’re a </em></strong>* parrot. You read what other people think and regurgitate it in a slightly different way. You have no original thought. It doesn’t make you better or worse than anyone else. You get awesome grades and write awesome papers. Congratulations. We all think that you’re really cool.</p>

[TomWolfe321]

<p>I can’t tell if this guy is joking because his posts have gotten more and more absurd and…he just CAN’T be serious. But reading literature might help ground him in reality a bit more and maybe prevent him from freaking out on people on a message board.</p>

[augustus1]

<p>Eh, I’m an English major and I usually read only half of the assigned reading.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don’t think it has to do with literary analysis “tools” or whatever “theoretical construct of the novel” that was discussed earlier; I just do it for pleasure. I enjoy relishing the text’s diction, syntax, imagery, figurative language, etc. </p>

<p>Shocking–I actually enjoy my chosen field of interest? If the dude doesn’t like reading literature, then the dude doesn’t like reading literature.</p>

<p>What do I call this type of person? I call him someone who doesn’t care for reading. The discussion that ensued is kind of absurd.</p>

[liek0806]

<p>I’m not going through the 5 pages of post, but “I like ideas but not literature” should be “I like ideas but not reading(for hours/a whole work of literature/etc”. I don’t think there is a word or phrase to describe this type of person. I, personally, have a hard time enjoying the act of reading(sitting for hours and reading text). I get anxious and impatient, but I love the “ideas”. A lot of the ideas you learn to pick up after experience reading complete works. If you’re a literature major, your professors will point out phrases, give you the context of the work, and then little by little you start to develop those skills for yourself. That, or if you are particularly looking for certain ideas about a given theme or subject, you actively notice them when you read.
In literature, all details usually are there for a purpose, if you understand that, you can then learn to make certain connections for yourself, or research possible connections.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>Zchryvns</p>

<p>A know-it-all who knows nothing is the most loathsome creature on the planet. If it were not for the education I’m about to paddle you with, you would probably not know any better.</p>

<p>

Why is it that whenever I make a post or am mentioned, you do what you have since my first post and simply dismiss every point I made without ever creating a real argument, or even attempting to refute my points? For someone who makes an effort to point out the flaws in the arguments of others, you sure do leave a lot of loose ends.

</p>

<p>How has it not gotten into your thick skull that the reason I didn’t make any arguments is because your first post was devoid of content. It was just you sermonizing about the virtues of academia as it is traditionally known, and hoisting yourself as an exemplar of that phony excellence. Reading your post didn’t make me think. It made me want to gag.</p>

<p>Now why do you keep mewing for attention as if I hadn’t made that clear enough?</p>

<p>

You’ve also apparently never taken a basic psychology course because if you had you’d know that certain skills, such as critical thinking, are cumulative and widespread, and developing those skills in one area can very easily improve your reasoning abilities in other areas.

</p>

<p>So not only are you a pseudo-philosopher and pseudo-intellectual, you’re also a pseudo-psychologist. You’ve picked all the bad things in life, bro.</p>

<p>The point is this: if you want to talk psychology, then talk psychology. Where are your sources, the studies that back your claims? Or does psychology nowadays consist of making blanket statements with no facts?</p>

<p>

So your argument is that a useful skill that is widely valued by society (e.g. employers, professors, peers, etc.) is not valuable. Logical indeed. How about you take a formal logic course before talking to me about logic.

</p>

<p>Oooh, disssss. You got me. No formal logic course here.</p>

<p>If you think any of that interaction you are referring to has anything to do with formal logic, I would consider you a moron who talks out of his ass. So. You are a moron who talks out of his ass.</p>

<p>For the record, I didn’t make an argument in that exchange. I only explained why the other guy’s argument isn’t informative. Using “X is valued by society” to argue that “X is valuable” is not invalid, but is a reformulation of words rather than something that leads somewhere.</p>

<p>

Reading is a cumulative skill and falls under crystallized intelligence, the general abilities of which increase throughout one’s lifetime. Therefore, your Dr. Seuss metaphor is invalid seeing as you equated the level of writing to that of Dostoevsky.

</p>

<p>About the crystallized intelligence thing, link me to a study that says doing literary analysis is cognitively superior to analyzing ideas. Well, where is it?</p>

<p>I made the Dr. Seuss analogy to echo the other guy’s reasoning and show why it was bad. So my analogy was meant to be invalid. To make a larger point.</p>

<p>But of course you couldn’t see that because you were preoccupied being self-righteous and a vigilante defender of classic literature. Dostoevsky sends his regards from Russia.</p>

<p>

Also, regarding the definition of the word ‘insight’:

</p>

<p>Preemptively, I’d like to point out that just because insight has one entry in the dictionary, doesn’t mean there’s only one type of it in our practical existence.</p>

<p>

Seeing as you don’t read the assigned books, you have no proof of your own intuitive ideas (actually there is ample evidence against said intuition, provided generously by you) and are only a tool, regurgitating the thoughts of others who did the readings during their time in college and after.

</p>

<p>Refer to my response to tetrahedron. Post #76.</p>

<p>To conclude, you’ve again added nothing of value. But at least this time there was some semblance. Impressive improvement. Go and tell mommy and daddy.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>silence_kit</p>

<p>

I want ‘having insight’ to mean ‘knowing stuff about’. What’s so misleading about the word ‘insight’?

</p>

<p>Don’t be thick. I answered this in my last post. I thought you were setting up an either-or scenario. In which case you would be saying something contentious. That someone who reads only the book will always have more insight than someone who reads only crit/theory. Then it absolutely matters what you mean by insight.</p>

<p>Of course if you were just saying something trivial, no need to get specific about words, even ambiguous ones. </p>

<p>So you were saying something trivial all along.</p>

<p>Your posts aren’t even worth reading. Go be a lawyer or something.</p>

<p>

I see your point. You are probably still handicapping yourself in literary criticism or theory by not reading the books though. **Kind of like the science or math student is handicapping himself if he relies on solutions heavily and doesn’t bother to try to prove statements and work problems himself. **

</p>

<p>I’m glad you see my point.</p>

<p>But you ruined a perfectly good moment with use of that crappy analogy. I already stomped several posters who used it earlier. At this stage in the thread, I’m going to assume you did it on purpose. Let me know if you ever stop being dishonest.</p>

<p>

However, judging from your internet testimony, it appears that you are just so far ahead of your peers that it doesn’t matter. Superman don’t need no seat belt.

</p>

<p>It doesn’t matter for my GPA. But this thread is about more than my GPA.</p>

<p>silence_kit don’t need no relevance. He posts whatever the fawk he wants.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

How can you be better at literary criticism or theory when you use no primary sources?

</p>

<p>

You can’t, which is a point he misses completely.

</p>

<p>Why can’t I? I imagine your objections are the same as tetrahedron’s. So refer to my response, post #76.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>You still haven’t really made a case for yourself. When addressing why you haven’t given any real argument against my points, you’ve (unsuccessfully) attempted to insult my posts. I’d really like to see those superior cognitive abilities you claim to possess.</p>

<p>

Why can’t I?

Seeing as you don’t read the assigned books, you have no proof of your own intuitive ideas

</p>

<p>Did you just forget that part of my previous post? Heh.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>Then you understand the ideas (it’s not really a matter of “understanding” when they are being spoon fed to you, though), but do not know exactly how they are conveyed through the literature.</p>

<p>Like I said,

It’s not a one-or-the-other thing when it comes to primary or secondary sources.

</p>

<p>

When I force myself to, I never comprehend or grasp the ideas within the text. Then I scamper off to some cheap second-hand source like SparkNotes, and even just reading the summaries I get so much out of it.

I think I have great analytical skills.

Contradiction.</p>

<p>

[QUOTE]
Anyway, I’ve taken 2 English courses. I loved the lectures, loved discussions <a href=“though%20I%20was%20often%20lost”>b</a>**<a href=“Because%20you%20didn’t%20read%20the%20books.”>/QUOTE</a></p>

<p>

I read and comprehend and utilize the literary theory I find in articles – and English nowadays is almost all about the theory – and I use them in conjunction with the text in an analytical way that my fellow students are not able to.

So you understand the ideas of others when it comes to literature, but are unable to formulate such analyses by yourself, or at the very least without lots of outside help for each specific book.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you did convey your own self-concept of cognitive superiority in comparison to your classmates.

I never said I possessed any superior cognitive abilities.

Hmm.</p>

<p>

I agree in literature you ascertain ideas by looking out for literary devices. But I think any such idea can exist in a more pure, or at least explicit, form. Take your example for example. I don’t know anything about star wars, but the symbolism of obi wan and anakin fighting in a lava planet would fly over my head.

Then you lack the necessary skills to analyze literature. That’s okay, but saying you shouldn’t, or shouldn’t need to, be able to do so is just incorrect, especially as a college student. I skim over readings sometimes, but when I do read the selections I am usually able to get a good amount of the themes, extended metaphors, archetypes, symbolism, etc.</p>

<p>

Note that after I read or watch a movie or book, I haven’t understood much of it. Other people are much better able to talk about said material. However, after I read some second-hand sources that explain the ideas in a more explicit way, I think I have a better handle on the content than most other people who peruse both source and second-hand source.

Again, expressing your own feelings of cognitive superiority.</p>

<p>As an ending point, I’ll just say this:</p>

<p>The point of literature is not only the ideas, but how those ideas are conveyed. You enjoy the the ideas of literature, not literature itself. That’s fine. However, you should not feel that writing okay papers on books that you have no first-hand knowledge of entitles you to feel superior to others (don’t bother objecting because I’ve already covered that in this post) or that understanding literature is a skill which carries no value. If you are not interested in literature at all, that’s okay; there are plenty novels I don’t enjoy. However, you’ve only demonstrated your own arrogance and inability to understand others views on the subject of literature throughout this thread.</p>

[yumetsukihime]

<p><em>sigh</em> I told myself I wouldn’t post…and yet I have (please don’t make a snarky comment about this). Before you say anything about me not understanding the discussion and your points, do note that I have read the entire thread. I was bored and attempting to procrastinate on doing my calculus homework.</p>

<p>I won’t argue that your essays aren’t better than the classmates who only read the primary text–they probably are. The reason for that, however, comes from the fact that you’re including the conclusions of experts from the secondary sources that you read. Unless I’m misunderstanding your points, you take those ideas and then write about them rather than the actual novel. Your professors are probably impressed that you were able to derive those points from the text in the first and then take them a step (maybe) further. The problem, of course, is that you weren’t the one to distill those points from the text. The experts, or whoever wrote the secondary text, did. </p>

<p>Your writing is fairly eloquent (or at least it was in the beginning), so I imagine your professors would look at that quality as an indication of how much work you’re putting into those essays. I’m sure you put a lot of research into writing those papers, but I have to disagree on principle with how you’re reading literature. Sure, you may get the ideas of the piece of work, but you won’t get how that particular author expressed those ideas. As was brought up by a previous poster, you’re able to synthesize ideas taken from various secondary sources into one essay. This does not mean, however, that you’re truly analyzing the text. You may be analyzing the secondary texts, but that’s not really analyzing literature. But whatever, literature may just not be your cup of tea. No problems with that, and being able to take pieces of other people’s analysis and coherently putting them in one essay is a skill. Still don’t agree with your points on the usefulness and definition of analyzing literature though. :P</p>