i think i LIKE literary ideas, but only when they're presented in explicit form. i can't handle teasing out the symbolism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773779)

criticism stands in a position of refined contempt for the world of fact, which artists continue to inhabit.. art is vulgar; the critical mind is purified.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773882)

holy shit this movie is fucking lame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773828)

A lot of "great" literature requires so much reading between the lines that most non-professionals can't really understand it, no matter how hard they try.

It depends on the author, of course, but for example, I'd say most people who claim to have "gotten" Ulysses without a commentary are full of it.

The reason (good) literary criticism is often so engaging is because the author has to take stuff that's buried quite deep in allegory and symbolism, and spell it out clearly.

The result of this, when done well, is turns of argument that have a certain analytic virtuosity about them, a kind of logical precision that writers in very few disciplines can match.

I remember taking a logic course with a pretty well regarded analytic philosophy prof, and being recommended to read literary criticism to see really masterful written logic on display.

At the time, I was a little skeptical...

"Take a humanities course to see elite-level *LOGIC*???"

But it's true.

A lot of these writers are really masters at spelling out that which is hidden in the text.

It's not acknowledged often, but english lit profs are some of the most "legit" people in modern humanities and social science academia, along with certain types of philosophers and historians.

Of course, this doesn't apply to those writers who write through a marxist or identity politics lense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773826)

i'm not saying the literary critics are better writers or are more logical than the authors themselves. for all i know, the authors of the books could "spell out" the ideas contained within them much better than their critics actually do. i just prefer the literary criticism form of conveying ideas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773899)

i get more out of reading spark notes than from reading a book.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1957560&forum_id=2#20773903)