Talk:Literature/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

How

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! ħuman 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

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. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people's analysis of much literary critecism would match that of Grignr - Mrfik. 82.44.143.26 (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.