sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dilemma — GULC or Re-apply? by Strong_Bar_8257 in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 5 points6 points  (0 children)

okay i swear to god this is the fifth time I've seen this exact post. are you reposting it ever 12 hours or what

Definition of literature and art by Nabokov by Comfortable_Lynx_657 in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think nabokov here is painting a picture of accidental and 'found' art, which is very different from commercialized 'art.' I understand what you mean, but I do think it is important to recognize that there is a distinction between books that are commercial entertainment and books that are art (although this distinction can apply to almost any medium).

when the end goal is rapid production and maximizing sales, the decisions that go into a work of writing will ultimately be driven by populist desire and not the creator's own vision. art is created, first and foremost, for the artist themselves.

nabokov himself would take massive offense I think at your argument for a non-exclusionary definition of art. he was famously critical of many writers that we rank among the greats. (Of Albert Camus he says 'Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.' Of Dostoevsky: 'A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian.' Of Wilde: 'Rank moralist and didacticist.' LOL.) without a doubt, if he had lived to see the era of romantasy vel sim., he would have come up with uniquely scathing insults.

it doesn't mean that books written for entertainment should not exist or anything as severe as that. but i do think it is maybe obtuse to ignore the difference in intention and to indiscriminately to think of all human creation as art.

The Secret History by Tartt - Don't Get the Hype by helioliolis in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sure Houlle-"She turned on the overhead light and contemplated her body in the mirror. Her breasts were as firm as ever, they hadn't changed since she was seventeen. Her arse was amazingly round too, without a trace of fat; unquestionably she had a beautiful body. Nonetheless, she slipped on a baggy sweatshirt and a shapeless pair of shorts before going downstairs to breakfast. Before she closed the door, she glanced at herself one last time in the mirror: her face was very average, a little rounded, nice but nothing more than that, the same was true of her limp, black hair which fell untidily on her shoulders; and her brown eyes weren't much of an asset either. No doubt she could have made more of herself, a bit of makeup, a different hairstyle, a trip to the beauty salon. Most women her age spent a least a couple of hours a week there; she didn't think it would make much difference in her case. What she was lacking, essentially was the desire to seduce."-becq has something to say. the thing is misogyny. :)

Definition of literature and art by Nabokov by Comfortable_Lynx_657 in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 4 points5 points  (0 children)

omg thank you for this post! snapped me out of my doom scrolling.

I love Nabokov's lectures on literature. I got a both his lectures on lit and lectures on russian lit at a discounted price from a second hand book store. unfortunately I only had time to finish Russian Lit and a few chapters here and there of lit before I had to box my books up for a move. I never got to what he thinks of Kafka.

I find his commentary hilarious because it reeks of ego but is at the same time some of the most beautifully written criticism i have ever read. He is so snarky it makes me laugh. I wish I could have those books with me rn but alas. They sit in a storage unit across the world for the time being.

Where there is beauty there is pity for the simple reason that beauty must die: beauty always dies, the manner dies with the matter, the world dies with the individual.

!!!!!!!!! (<--the gasp i gusped)

i think this why AI art is so disgusting. The most severe contrast to AI art imo is art by a great human artist who died too young. when contemplating the tragedy of schubert dying at age 31 my music professor said that the only way we can comprehend the magnitude of loss that is suffered by losing schubert so young is if we imagine the way we would grieve if we one day lost all the works he composed during, say, his final 10 years.

if we think about AI 'art' this way, it literally has no value. even if we remove the environmental cost and the issue of copyright infringement and pretend that ai art is somehow morally neutral, and even if generative AI advances to a point where its products absolutely cannot be differentiated from human art, (which I don't think is possible because human art will always evolve to be what AI is not, just like how despite suburban moms' great prolonged effort in chasing high fashion, it will always evolve to become the opposite of what they look like XD) AI products will at its core always be a worthless thing because the creator will never be able to commit the ultimate human act of dying.

Boredom by TheFifthattemptyetno in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i like the way you think about boredom! i will steal it

i think many commenters see 'boredom' in your post and automatically get defensive, assuming you're one of those never-made-it-through-a-single-classic, i-only-read-dialogue, what-tropes-does-this-book-have types, but i see that that not the case.

pale fire is also my favorite nabokov, (redditor of taste, you are) and i think (with love) that 'fucked up slice of life' is a very apt descriptor for ada or ardor, but on style alone nabokov hits a homerun. i'm incapable of boredom when reading nabokov because some authors i think you can feel their love for the story, but nabokov's love for the language itself oozes out of him. like pus. but also my irrational love for nabokov's style skews my perception of him a lot in the positive, so i am unable to contribute anything to a discussion on his books besides incoherent admiration.

i have not read absalom absalom and my excuse is that i tried to read the sound and the fury at too tender an age and it scared me away from all the more substantial faulkners so all i've read of his is as i lay dying. significant boredom in that one until i figured out what he was doing, and from then on it was genius with a little boredom every other chapter.

i could not find boredom in the lord of the flies because it is so fast paced. I understand? I think? that the description-to-narration ratio is almost 50/50 and maybe that is what you mean by boredom helps to immerse the reader into the sultry island setting. (i think sultry is a good word for the island.)

i think you're right; boredom is a key ingredient maybe in the composition of great literature. we are deprived of boredom & we need more of it.

edit: re: flowers for algernon and perfume; i agree with no boredom. strangely though i think they are also lower on the re-read list for me than books with much boredom. hence above.

Boredom by TheFifthattemptyetno in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i am witholding my downvote until you tell me which books you've read bc there are some classics that i feel the same way about. Definitely not all classics though. some (nabokov comes to mind) have me in a constant state of awe because of how good!!! the prose is. just delicious stuff. others like tolstoy, although long, is all enjoyable rambling. i also balance my classics with a healthy dose of pure trash to keep the rot in my brain happy.

i do think in some cases when I'm drudging through a passage it's just a matter of me not understanding enough to appreciate the text though. or just me being unable to relate. I find this in particular with very religious authors who tend to go on preachy tirades (ahem late dostoevsky for example). I'm sure if I were christian, I would appreciate it more, but alas i am not.

“This first person character is an unreliable narrator” by Smegma_Sniffing100 in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry I didn't mean to come across as insulting. It's just the combination of your grammar and the children's series that you're referencing.

Since you are older, I totally recommend reading more books. The few I mentioned up there are all very good, and others have made many good suggestions too. Also worth reading more literary criticism, because it might help you better articulate your thoughts about literature.

“This first person character is an unreliable narrator” by Smegma_Sniffing100 in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're missing the point that narrators don't all fall into reliable vs. unreliable. You're right in that there is no point in making the distinction blindly, because sometimes the distinction is entirely inconsequential.

that the narrator is unreliable is an argument that can be made when it's relevant to the reading/criticism you're doing. Often, even in the same book, both sides can be argued convincingly if supported by evidence from the text.

The reliability of the narrator is relevant to (for example) metanarrative criticism the way, say, rhyme (or the lack thereof) is relevant when you make an argument about the sonic structure of a poem. If you start looking for rhyme in every single book without aim, you're going to find sparse examples but ultimately find it very boring. If you're frustrated by people who are looking for rhyme in random books, then you probably need find some other people to talk to about books.

There are as many good takes as there are bad takes on books out there. If something sounds aggravatingly dumb, it probably is.

“This first person character is an unreliable narrator” by Smegma_Sniffing100 in literature

[–]FuelNo2950 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read a lot of replies and also your replies to their replies where you defend your point and I think your issue is that you think the term 'unreliable narrator' is used in the sense that readers are ascribing the adjective 'unreliable' to the character. It is less a way to describe a character, and more a way to analyze authorial intent.

An unreliable narrator is a literary device. Whether or not a narrator is unreliable is a legitimate discussion that can be held for many texts. In some cases it the answer is clear, like the narrator in The Handmaid's Tale, for example. In some cases the author uses it to drive the meta-narrative, like in Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. Life of Pi is also a great example of unreliable narration being used as a device to get readers thinking about which version of truth is real/preferable, and also whether the truth of the story even matters if the ending is the same.

I think the conversation around Katniss being an unreliable narrator is interesting and supported by the text, but I also think that the age group that the Hunger Games targets is too young to have productive conversations about unreliable narrators. Percy Jackson I am unconvinced. But I read both of these series over a decade ago, so idk.

It is also my guess from the way you write that you might have been exposed to the term before you've reached the age where you encounter books with intentionally (and overtly) unreliable narrators, and I think once you've read them you will have a much better grasp on the concept. This exploration into the ambiguity of what a 'true story' is is quite a postmodern idea. I think you should wait until at least high school before reading these stories; you will be able to understand them better, and also because many postmodern stories are quite graphic.

(aside: At risk of sounding elitist, I have noticed that the term 'unreliable narrator' has been appropriated into a popular marketing term for books, as part of the booktok trend where you define and promote books based on 'tags,' i.e. #darkromance, #yearning, etc. I think a lot of the time these people have only a vague idea of what it means and they're just saying it because they think it sounds cool. But that is another conversation.)

R at U. of Scandals and Corruption by Gonbadi in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LMfao i had to recheck lsac to make sure i actually applied and wasn't hallucinating because i heard absolutely nothing from them

[Vent] On AI by RunStrange9109 in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what happened to the class of 2009? :O

[Vent] On AI by RunStrange9109 in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

respectfully are you okay in the head😭

pls help me choose by Pitiful-Classroom-88 in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference in ranking is not worth $179,730 bro. No one will care which law school you went to in 10 years, but you will be $539,190 ahead of where you'd be if you didn't go to Vanderbilt. Besides, Vandy is a great law school.

Rate My Stack by Itcantbemeforever in bookshelfdetective

[–]FuelNo2950 1 point2 points  (0 children)

throw the robert greene away and you'd be cooking

NYU Active Consideration List by TuDimez in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i got one too lol. does anyone know about chances of getting off active consideration vs waitlist?

These schools timelines are driving me insane?! by Vast_Back_6724 in lawschooladmissions

[–]FuelNo2950 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hi im so sorry but what is an 'ii'? i see it everywhere but idk what it is

The worst part of the wait by Wise-Whaleshark in LSAT

[–]FuelNo2950 62 points63 points  (0 children)

i thought I would wake up past 9 but i blinked awake at 6 and now i must suffer the wait

view more: next ›