From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


What's this page for? How RWish is it? I can haz a delete? Totnesmartin 05:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I can only quote "I just wanted to let you know that RW now contains now just the most comprehensive and concise set of material on literature worldwide and throughout history, but that (thanks to you!) we also have the most concise treatment of literary criticism as well! You can see it here! I have checked our Google rankings for "RationalWiki literature concise worldwide complete efforts pretty language", and while we're already probably at number seven for the results: and no doubt moving up! Also, I have a source at a major atheist website that tells me that something big is probably going to happen to boost our reach soon!--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 04:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)" [1] OMIGOD ITSA JOKE! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I started at that message. Please excuse me, I've only had one coffee so far today. Totnesmartin 05:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Literary theory as woo[edit]

Much LT does seem to be woo-ish: one idea extended over 500+ pages, promoting the 'author's' viewpoint and denouncing other writes on flimsier ground than angels dancing on a pin. (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people's analysis of much literary critecism would match that of Grignr - Mrfik. (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is a reference to 'The Eye of Argon.'

LT is not woo. It's not science but there is logic to it's analysis. Though they teach in high schools that "If you think that's what he meant than your right" that isn't the truth. There are specific standards. A lot of people don't "get" lit and poetry, and even those who do might not "get" literary analysis. It's one of those things where when one person doesn't understand or like something he projects it on everyone. No offense.

Writer misinterpreting own work [citation needed][edit]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the misinterpreted author was Isaac Asimov - but it may be an "old chestnut". (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. Searching for Asimov “You are only the author” turns up an interesting item or two; I found nothing about it on snopes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular literature[edit]

Sells: that is the problem literary criticism has with it. (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the critics prefer to say that it "sells out". Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Except that you can very much write a Ph.D. dissertation in a lit department on Peanuts or some other popular writing. And the article as we have it now conflates disdain for the popular amongst lit crits with disdain for the living, which is not at all the same thing. most Nobel laureates in lit get the award while they're still breathing, and lit departments take Eco, Marquez, Cohen, Naiipul, Walcott, Morrison, Calvino, etc. etc. etc. pretty seriously. P-Foster (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Science-Related Literature"[edit]

I added a section about "Science-related literature" (for lack of a better title; please change it if you have a better idea) for the interest of RW readers, and because I feel a lot of math and science related works are severely neglected. Feel free to add your own.

I don't want this to be a little cubby-hole for Fandom as much as a place for people to get started thinking about fictional versions of scientific subjects. Not all science fiction exactly jumps off the page, and most of it simply uses science as a trope for a magical solution to all problems. I thought it might be best to try to keep Physics and Math in the foreground. Keep this in mind.

If you add David Foster Wallace I will come to your house, burn your entire book collection and restock according to actual quality.--Asklepius (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like this[edit]

[2] And I don't think I do, either. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

@Thomas Tallis Why don't George Gamow and Terry Pratchett count? —ClickerClock (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologise, you can keep them on there if you want. Gamow is known more as a physicist rather than a novelist though.--Thomas Tallis (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. —ClickerClock (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)