fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2792 ]

[ SECRET POST #2792 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2792 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not to denigrate the entirety of the classic literature canon, but a huge chunk of the books that lit wonks these days jerk themselves into a stomachache over are actually quite shitty.

A lot of these books are considered classics precisely because there is a long history of (mostly white, mostly male) intellectuals insisting they are because that's what their (mostly white, mostly male) mentors impressed on them. That doesn't make it not still populist genre trash. In 100 years scholars (who will probably still be white and stuffy if not necessarily male) will be doing the exact same thing to 50 Shades of Gray.

Well, setting aside your remarks about 'populist genre trash', which are quite dumb but not really the relevant point here - what did you have in mind specifically as things that are actually shit but regarded as classic

The Sound and the Fury

Pride and Prejudice

Anything James Joyce ever wrote

War and Peace, trying to read that is basically a very slow motion form of bludgeoning yourself with it, when you could just actually physically slam the book into your face and be done with it in seconds -- it certainly qualifies as a blunt instrument

Waiting for Godot (admittedly better if you actually watch it as a play, depending on whether the production is competent and creative)

I could go on.

This isn't to say all classic literature is shit, or even classic literature before or after a certain time period. But a lot of the highly-regarded works are overrated at best.

I'd agree on most of those, but seriously, The Sound and the Fury? That book is epic. Like all Faulkner it's dense and hard to get into, and like all Faulkner it's absolutely wonderful. I usually hate it when people say that, but when people hate on Faulkner I can't help but suspect that they just didn't bother to read him with the attention and concentration you need.

Yes! I love Faulkner!

Yes, I completely agree. The others I was like, "Eh, sure," but The Sound and the Fury? No way. It is a straight-up literary masterpiece.

*wibbles* You... you hate Pride & Prejudice?

I liked P&P because I found it a fun piece of chicklit that did not, like a depressing amount of the chicklit I have tried, insult my intelligence, and SatF impressed me as a good piece of work even though I didn't like it that much. I haven't read the other three mentioned because I'm not that much a glutton for punishment. I feel like people will often push others to read a book, or even read a book themselves, because it's famous and they feel obligated and like their enjoyment isn't a legitimate reason to read or not read a specific book.

FUCKING JAMES JOYCE WAS THE BANE OF MY HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CLASS!

And don't even get me stared on One Day in the Life of Ivan Thesonuvabitch....

War and Peace is a philosophical treatise more than a fiction novel. I personally enjoyed it a lot.

What if it's black female cyborgs doing it*? Could happen man

*by this time I figure transhumanism will be an important part of identity.

Excuse me, you mean trans-speciesism. Transhumanism is a homo-centric word and offensive to those who will realize they are physically the wrong species once we encounter alien life.

You filthy grey head, nobody asked for you to show up here. But hey, you want to hope the weird shit out there will want to indulge your kirk fantasy, more bandwidth for me and the rest of the consensus who want to expand beyond the meatspace.

"Grey head" how humanist to go for such a homo-centric and contrived version of alien life. Thinking intelligent life can only be like humans is very limiting. What if they're more closely related to squids? Or reptiles? You can keep your bandwidth and meatspace, I'm going to sail on solar winds with gossamer tentacles and see the stunning sights of space.

Your going to get an STD from something that thought you were trying to shake it's hand greyhead. And Catgod will laugh as you burn.

I feel like it's ultimately probably a lot more constructive to just criticize individual books and say why you think they're bad - ideally by actually saying some shit about the books, instead of just your imagined conspiracy theories of why people claim to like them.

I mean jesus dude. Whether it's true or not, none of this criticism is meaningful at all unless you actually talk about the merits or flaws of an actual book. It's seriously just kneejerk anti-intellectualism gussied up with a few words about privilege.

LOL

What, you want me to give a deep analytic review of each entry in the classic literary canon and write a 3-page essay for each one on why they suck?

It's Fandom Fucking Secrets. Let me have my opinion without demanding charts and graphs and shit.

Anti-intellectualism, jesus

oh jeez, my mistake, i must have missed the fact that it was just your opinion while i was looking at all the parts about how these books are shit and the only reason people claim to like them is because they've been brainwashed by their professors

i'm not asking you to justify your opinion, actually, at all. i think it makes sense to either frame it as an opinion, or if it's a judgment, to make it a judgment about the books, and not about the people, about your opinions about academia, or whatever. i don't think that's crazy or unreasonable.

I'm sorry, nonny, but classic literature and academia are fairly intertwined. But I'm not obligated to actually give you what you're asking, particularly since you seem to think that my stance is one borne of anti-intellectualism. It's one thing to like classical literature, it's entirely another to suggest that people who don't are anti-intellectual.

We're done here. Have a good night.

You completely strawmanned the fuck out of what they were asking, though. All they were asking for was criticism of a book rather than criticism of a genre. You don't have to write a 3-page essay or even criticize every single piece of literature ever written, and you know that you don't, and you know that that's not what they wanted. You're just dodging and weaving.

The thing that's infuriating about you, and which is probably why you attract haters, is that you are completely incapable of considering the idea that you might be wrong, and you're a complete dick to anyone who dares to suggest that you might be.

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

dethtoll - 2014-08-26 02:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

(Anonymous) - 2014-08-26 02:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

dethtoll - 2014-08-26 02:45 (UTC) - Expand

AYRT and I want to be very clear here

I don't think that you're anti-intellectual because you don't like classic literature. I don't think that, in any way, at all. You could dislike every piece of classic literature ever written and that would not in itself make me think you were anti-intellectual.

The part that makes me think you're anti-intellectual is the part where you slam academics for being intellectual and talk about how it's all just nonsense. Where you dismiss the arguments that people make and say that the only reason they make them is because of class or gender, or because of their inability to come up with original thoughts. That's why I thought what you said was anti-intellectual - because the arguments you're making are arguments against the possibility of people liking these books for valid reasons. Because the arguments you're making dismiss the possibility of valid intellectual investigation into this field. That's why I thought it was anti-intellectual.

Agree with them or not. Like the books or not. I don't give a shit. But I don't think it's correct or reasonable to talk about how these books are obviously shit and academics keep them around solely because they're brainwashed.

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

dethtoll - 2014-08-26 02:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

(Anonymous) - 2014-08-26 04:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

feotakahari - 2014-08-26 03:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

(Anonymous) - 2014-08-26 06:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: CLASSIC LITERATURE FIGHT!!!

dethtoll - 2014-08-26 06:37 (UTC) - Expand

Anti-intellectualism, jesus

"...there is a long history of (mostly white, mostly male) intellectuals..."

"...populist genre trash..."

"In 100 years scholars (who will probably still be white and stuffy..."

I can't imagine why you would come across as anti-intellectual.

Also, what's with pulling the "bu bu but let me have my oppinnniiiooooon" bullshit? You put your opinion in a public place, even when that place is Fandom Fucking Secrets, then other people get to comment on it and even *gasp* think it's a shitty opinion and tell you why.

Hi AIRT.

That's nice.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only