File: 1339538804291.jpg-(73 KB, 367x493, the chimp that beat the shit o(...).jpg)

>>2716120

Defamiliarization is one of literature's strengths. It can defamiliarize those things with which we are so familiar that we forget how incredible they really are.

Poetry does it best, I think. It can take a sight as common as sheets blowing in the wind, a butterfly, etc, and remind us of the magic, the wonder and aching beauty, of life all around us.

Take Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" which takes a common ferry ride and gets us to think about the continuity of ourselves with past and future ages, how the "eternal now" of our minds are separated by a vast gulf. "It avails not, time nor place - distance avails not. I am with you"

OP you are a moron.

File: 1339539288805.jpg-(53 KB, 400x400, 1339354721021.jpg)

Count Brass, you are the worst trip on this board, and that is the most retarded wall of text I've ever read. You've said nothing bar "who wants to be like those faggots".
>falsified the mundane thing and replaced its mundaneness with your non-mundane language.
You're assuming that the mundane thing is even mundane in the first place and that the original representation is the true one.

File: 1339539464250.png-(987 KB, 1000x1000, 34san.png)

>>2716140
>Count Brass thread

like I give a shit about posting pornography here

>>2716137
>It can defamiliarize those things with which we are so familiar that we forget how incredible they really are.
But there isn't anything incredible about a sheet blowing in the wind, unless you are impressed by basic atmospheric phenomena. There is something incredible about the cistine chapel, namely the degree of human achievement and inventiveness involved in its production.

>which takes a common ferry ride and gets us to think about the continuity of ourselves with past and future ages
I don't know about anyone else but ferry rides just make me think about ferry rides. I can think about historical continuity whenever I want.

>>2716143
>You're assuming that the mundane thing is even mundane
Well it is for me and people like me, who have rich aesthetic tastes and eventful lives. I mean, maybe other people don't, that's fine. I'm only speaking for myself and people like me, don't get offended.

>the original representation is the true one.
What do you mean?

>>2716152
sauce pl0x

>>2716159
it is what it is
http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/34-san/1

>>2716152
That must be the gayest picture ever gayed on all this gay internet

>>2716158
>rich aesthetic taste
define please
>what do you mean?
I mean that you're presuming that the mundane thing has always been mundane, is mundane and always will be mundane. Mundanity is a product of experience, and an author reversing time and removing the reader's jadedness is one of the great joys of literature.

like Joyce said, he had nothing to do with the invention of the "Stream of consciousness", authors like Shakespeare had already used it.

Shakespeare also did this defamiliarisation thing:

"This guest of summer,
The temple-haunting martlet, does approve
By his loved mansionary that the heaven's breath
Smells wooingly here: no jutty, frieze,
Buttress, nor coign of vantage, but this bird
Hath made his pendent bed and procreant cradle:
Where they most breed and haunt, I have observed
The air is delicate."

These theorists are dumb.

Also, modern musicians are doing something similar by using instruments and sounds produced by ordinary objects and sounds heard in ordinary situations, as opposed to specially crafted instruments that produce artificial sounds that are intended for the traditional orchestra.

>But there isn't anything incredible about a sheet blowing in the wind,

You live in a very sad world :(

You should read some Walt Whitman. His Leaves of Grass is about how exciting and wonderful and beautiful all of creation is just because it IS.

If you don't see a beetle crawling across a piece of wood and have your soul want to explode at the beauty of it, I don't know what to say.

>>2716167
enjoy your 19th century understanding of gender and sexuality

>>2716174
>define please
It's a family resemblance of relative sensibilities and preferences

>I mean that you're presuming that the mundane thing has always been mundane, is mundane and always will be mundane
Where did I do that? I just said that some things were mundane. I'm sure that cloth wasn't mundane for the first people who experienced it. What's your point? This is obvious.

>an author reversing time and removing the reader's jadedness is one of the great joys of literature.
Who said anything about jadedness? You're not seriously suggesting that because I don't treat my toilet bowl like a marvellous and new invention every time I sit down to take a shit I have to be jaded towards it?

>>2716158
>But there isn't anything incredible about a sheet blowing in the wind, unless you are impressed by basic atmospheric phenomena. There is something incredible about the cistine chapel, namely the degree of human achievement and inventiveness involved in its production.

I don't think this is particularly true.

First, you seem to believe the concept that beauty and admiration can only begin when you romanticize about an object, based off what it's trying to convey. But beauty (and any feelings associated to it, such as admiration or love) can also be found in the abstract.

To use the Sistine Chapel as an example, it's beauty is not simply in the message it (its artist) is attempting to convey. There are metaphysical properties to it that we all subjectively admire in different ways which help shape our concept of why it's beautiful.

>>2716177
>If you don't see a beetle crawling across a piece of wood and have your soul want to explode at the beauty of it, I don't know what to say.

Come on, don't be a faggot. There's more to life than being rapt in the contemplation of beauty. You can't go around forcing every object you see into some overall beautiful image. Some things are just ugly.

>>2716158
>"But there isn't anything incredible about a sheet blowing in the wind"

"He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe; is as good as dead; his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

File: 1339540256411.jpg-(15 KB, 414x378, finger.jpg)

>>2716190
How about you pause and wonder at this, you cunt.

>>2716187
it's not about ugliness or beauty, necessarily. It's about wondrousness; it took that beetle 500,000,000,000 ancestors to become what it is, and even if it's disgusting, that ability to instill disgust in greater animals such as humans is a wondrous ability in itself.

Your whole argument casts value-judgements against the established human aesthetic without explicitly rationalizing in a sound manner their principles.

>children

>>2716183
>You're not seriously suggesting that because I don't treat my toilet bowl like a marvellous and new invention every time I sit down to take a shit I have to be jaded towards it?
I am indeed. Do you want to explain why it's not?
>Where did I do that?
So you have really just falsified the mundane thing and replaced its mundaneness with your non-mundane language

You're so confused mate.

>>2716198
Yes, but if you continue down that line then you'll have to accept all of Existence and everything in it as "wondrous".

And that's no good.

>>2716177
>You live in a very sad world :(
No, I live in a very developed world where things like the Sistine Chapel impress me and leaves of grass do not.

>You should read some Walt Whitman
I have, about half. It's basically mysticism, and self-contradictory mysticism. The universe doesn't give a shit about its image, and yet here Walt is exalting it to his best ability.

>>2716184
>beauty and admiration can only begin when you romanticize about an object
Where did I say anything about romanticisation?

>it's beauty is not simply in the message it (its artist) is attempting to convey. There are metaphysical properties to it that we all subjectively admire in different ways which help shape our concept of why it's beautiful.
Yeah, no. I think you are in the wrong thread or something, no-one is talking about "messages" or "metaphysical properties" or "subjectivity" here.

>>2716200
>I am indeed. Do you want to explain why it's not?
Because that's completely ridiculous. If we took you seriously it would mean that people have an inventory of jaded mental regarding the objects of everyday experience, but this is empirically wrong. You are confusing people with various forms and stages of depression and cynicism with normal, functioning human beings.

>So you have really just falsified the mundane thing and replaced its mundaneness with your non-mundane language
Where did I presume that the mundane thing has always been mundane, is mundane and always will be mundane in that statement?

>>2716206
there you go again, casting value judgments

sorry creation's wondrous, but that's just how it is

File: 1339540881756.gif-(1.91 MB, 320x183, hatersgonnahayt.gif)

>>2716217
>there you go again, casting value judgments
>sorry creation's wondrous, but that's just how it is

So I'm not allowed to "cast value judgments", but you are? And with as little justification as "that's just how it is"?

lmfao

Question: what makes the Sistine Chapel more beautiful than a toilet bowl?

The Sistine Chapel is simply a bunch of, admittedly pretty, scribbles. A toilet bowl, and everything connected with it, is the product of centuries of human accomplishment. It is a centrepiece of our modern lives.

I contend the toilet bowl is more beautiful than the Sistine Chapel.

It seems like OP hates everything I love about literature.

OP, what do you love about literature?

haven't been here in a week or so, when did D&E change his name?

>>2716215
>Tired, bored, or lacking enthusiasm, typically after having had too much of something
Are you okay with this definition of jaded? Go back and read what you said.
>Where did I presume that the mundane thing has always been mundane, is mundane and always will be mundane in that statement?
By using the term "falsified".

>>2716224
>The Sistine Chapel is simply a bunch of, admittedly pretty, scribbles
The Sistine Chapel is also, indirectly, the product of centuries of human accomplishment, or rather, the product of an exceptionally skilled individual who himself was the product of centuries of human accomplishment, so this is a moot point. The Sistine Chapel is not a scribble. A scribble is a meaningless and styleless mark. There is only one Sistine Chapel in the world, and its production has never been mirrored.

>I contend the toilet bowl is more beautiful than the Sistine Chapel.
Good for you, you like mundane things. There are more than a million toilet bowls out there, it doesn't take a lot of skill to make one.

>inb4 tumblr picture of a well-made toilet bowl :(

>>2716240
ITT; OP has no sense of humor or play and automatically loses all likability thereof

>>2716240

You're an idiot.

This thread is lazy excrement.

>flush
>/thread

>>2716229
The ability to tell an extraordinary story, and to tell it well. Let me be clear, however, that reading literature is not my most favourite activity in the world.

>>2716238
That definition of jaded still holds with the reason I've given for rejecting your explanation. I'm not tired of sitting on my toilet bowl, unenthused (or enthused), or over-exposed to it, nor are most people.

>By using the term "falsified".
Can you elaborate on how you think I implied those things when I used that term?

>>2716248
Next time make jokes that don't contradict anything I say.

>>2716252
>You're an idiot.
What makes you think that

>>2716109

Count Brass is being dumb again. Why do you keep talking to this guy?

>>2716263
>Why do you keep talking to this guy?

Most people are looking for an excuse to be passive aggressive on these imageboards and the things I write about provide the kneejerk incentive to do just that, regardless of whether they are right or wrong

>>2716259

Because you think it takes more skill to make a Sistine Chapel than a toilet bowl and its accompanying infrastructure. Neither, I'll add, is the Sistine Chapel anything more than pretty. And is it one of the cornerstones of civilisation? No. Toilet bowls are. You argue above:

>>2716158
>There is something incredible about the cistine chapel, namely the degree of human achievement and inventiveness involved in its production.

You fail to realise just how much more work has gone into making toilet bowls, and connecting them, and figuring out what to do with all the shit and piss they gobble.

Ergo, you're an idiot, and this thread is bullshit.

Go away. You may post again when you upgrade your reasoning faculties.

>That definition of jaded still holds with the reason I've given for rejecting your explanation. I'm not tired of sitting on my toilet bowl, unenthused (or enthused), or over-exposed to it, nor are most people.
You see it as mundane precisely because you're over-exposed to it. If you lived with wolves and shat in the woods, then had to use a toilet, it would not be mundane.
>Can you elaborate on how...
Because when you say that the lack of mundanity has been falsified, you imply that the thing can only be perceived as mundane. If you think something that is mundane can only be mundane, see what I said avoce.

lol come on, what, exactly, is wrong with bringing out the beauty in the mundane? not all works of art have to be about apocalyptic events

>>2716276
*above

I don't know, OP. I think some mundane things can be very beautiful, and when they're wonderfully described by a talented writer I can definitely see them being enchanting. Simple isn't always bad. However, I get your point. Some things simply are, and I also think it can be annoying when a writer lingers on a description of something as unimpressive as say, a toilet bowl.

>>2716275
>Because you think it takes more skill to make a Sistine Chapel than a toilet bowl and its accompanying infrastructure
I'm only talking about a toilet bowl, I'm not talking about plumbing. There are millions of people who could make a toilet bowl, there are few people who could do the sistine chapel.

>Neither, I'll add, is the Sistine Chapel anything more than pretty.
It doesn't need to be.

>is it one of the cornerstones of civilisation? No.
No, it's a cornerstone of art. Not everyone can produce art.

>You fail to realise just how much more work has gone into making toilet bowls, and connecting them, and figuring out what to do with all the shit and piss they gobble.
You are confusing plumbing with the object that is a toilet bowl. Please come back when you are willing to talk about a toilet bowl.

>Ergo, you're an idiot, and this thread is bullshit.
Ergo, you cannot read. Maybe I should start talking about masonry, carpentry, the production and refinement of oils from minerals and scriptural interpretation, and the breeding of italian nobles in order to force my point as well, you cheap, irrelevant asshole.

>>2716276
>If you lived with wolves and shat in the woods, then had to use a toilet, it would not be mundane.
Sure, if I were a lesser human being and more primitive it would not be mundane to me, but I'm not, so it isn't. What's your point?

>Because when you say that the lack of mundanity has been falsified, you imply that the thing can only be perceived as mundane.
It's unfortunate that you think that's what I implied, I'm glad to tell you you're mistaken, that's not at all what I meant to imply.

>You're replying to a guy who uses two tripcodes at once.

>>2716306

You know, you're only proving to the people that think you're an idiot that you actually are by replying to someone who is comparing the Sistine Chapel to a toilet bowl. You were saying something about wasting time on mundane things..?

>>2716313
I guess you're even more of an idiot then. If that's all you have to contribute, you can leave now.

>Sure, if I were a lesser human being and more primitive it would not be mundane to me, but I'm not, so it isn't. What's your point?
Taking part of the analogy that doesn't affect the point itself and attacking it is kind of silly, don't you think?
>It's unfortunate that you think that's what I implied, I'm glad to tell you you're mistaken, that's not at all what I meant to imply.
That's what's implied, whether you wanted to imply it or not.

WHAT HE FUCK IS WRONG WITH FAGGOTS DESCRIBING NATURE?! LIKE WTHAFUCK MAN YOU TALK BOUT SHIT YOU LOOK AT EVRY FUCKING DAY, HOW CAN THE FIND BEAUTY IN PLANTS OR ANIMALS?
CONGRATS OP, CONGRATS MAN YOU JUST MADE PEE MY CHAIR JUST A LITTLE K, BECAUSE I COULDN'T AND CAN'T STOP LAUGHING XDDDDD CONGRATS MAN

>>2716312
it's at least 6 at this point

>>2716313
Presuming something is untrue because it sounds ridiculous is one of the first hallmarks of an idiot.

File: 1339543411978.jpg-(63 KB, 499x479, 1336588252975.jpg)

>tfw fourteen year old pretends there is anything much more than what we basically perceive in our external context

bitch please

For me, the impressive thing about writers who are able to vividly describe simple things like weather, how an object feels, the environment the characters are in, etc... is that it makes for a more believable world that the author has created.
Great fiction to me is one that makes me forget that Im reading words on paper and have become invested in the story. Great descriptions alone can't do this, but paired with a good story line and interesting characters It helps create that suspension of disbelief that is so necessary for good literature. Im a simple guy, I don't think a toilet is more beautiful than the Sistine Chapel no matter how well its described. However, If a writer can cause me to visualize a particular moment in a book while the protagonist is on the shitter without me even intentionally trying to picture it, than thats just good writing. Just my two cents.

File: 1339543680328.jpg-(18 KB, 480x360, thebunk04.jpg)

>>2716322
>mfw

You shall not bait me, sir.

>>2716317
>Taking part of the analogy that doesn't affect the point itself and attacking it is kind of silly, don't you think?
That's pretty much all that you are saying. It's untrue to say that a normal person is over-exposed to toilet bowls. That's a negative thing. When someone is over-exposed to radiation, for example, or computer games, we take it to mean something negative, like that their skin is peeling off or they are a basement-dwelling loser. The more appropriate term to use in this case is the term I originally used in my op, which is to say that a person is simply normalised to some thing, in this case a toilet-bowl.

>That's what's implied, whether you wanted to imply it or not.
Maybe it is to you bud, but I'm glad to correct you so that we can get on the same page.

>>2716339
cog dis is another one.

>>2716306
>There are millions of people who could make a toilet bowl, there are few people who could do the sistine chapel.

How many people could have originally have conceived the toilet bowl? What about bidets? What about toilets with electronics, that warm the seat, play music, automatically wash your asshole, dry it with hot air, and say "Hello" and "Bye"? That's certainly much more complex than the Sistine Chapel.

>[The Sistine Chapel] doesn't need to be [anything more than pretty].

So all books should stick to describing pretty things ... Right.

>[The Sistine Chapel is] a cornerstone of art. Not everyone can produce art.

Not everyone can produce a toilet bowl.

>Maybe I should start talking about masonry, carpentry, the production and refinement of oils from minerals and scriptural interpretation, and the breeding of italian nobles in order to force my point as well

Which would still be insignificant in comparison to what the construction of the simple toilet bowl has entailed.

>you cheap, irrelevant asshole.

This doesn't even make sense as an insult.

>>2716345
>How many people could have originally have conceived the toilet bowl?
We are not talking about people who can conceive them, we are talking about people who make them.
>What about bidets? What about toilets with electronics, that warm the seat, play music, automatically wash your asshole, dry it with hot air, and say "Hello" and "Bye"?
I am not talking about any of these things, I am talking about a simple toilet bowl. By the way, you are also talking about a different type of complexity that has little to do with the complexity involved in the craftsmanship of something like the sistine chapel. So unless you are actually willing to talk about the things I am talking about instead of introducing red herrings, please leave.

>So all books should stick to describing pretty things ... Right.
I didn't say that. So, not only are you leading the argument astray, you are also putting words in my mouth.

>Not everyone can produce a toilet bowl.
Now you are just wasting time. The number of people who can produce a toilet bowl is much higher, much more common, than those who could produce the sistine chapel.

>Which would still be insignificant in comparison to what the construction of the simple toilet bowl has entailed.
No it wouldn't. The toilet bowl is simply a porcelian mold. Again you are talking about plumbing and other peripheral things that are not toilet bowls, because you cannot actually address the argument I have put forward as it is.

>This doesn't even make sense as an insult.
It does, because you're drawing on irrelevant things that have nothing to do with my argument to have a point. You're being cheap.

I should have heeded the warnings of the people in this thread. Clearly, the OP's stupidity is not an uncommon feature of his posts.

>>2716396
>Clearly, the OP's stupidity is not an uncommon feature of his posts.
Why do you think that?

File: 1339546258650.jpg-(13 KB, 320x240, 1335798645704.jpg)

>See this.
>Read it with mild unpleasant feeling of confusion.
>Ultimately reject thesis.
>Oh look it's a tripfag!
Of course. Seriously you just threw a rock at aesthetic contemplation in general, not to mention (appeal to authority) the more or less explicit philosophies of Joyce, Proust and Nabokov just for example. Those were some silly pedants right OP?

In any case, I would say that in cases like the ones you're talking about, at least part of the pleasure is in the aptness, freshness of the language, the metaphors. This refinement of language is, I think, accompanies most intellectual disciplines and I think a pleasure in itself because it is the outward correlate of a refinement in thought. As humans it is pleasurable to understand, to see things fit together in a meaningful way.

You suck.

>>2716442
That "is" should be after "and" in that sentence with the two finite verbs together. 'S what happens when you revise your sentence.

>>2716442
>aesthetic contemplation in general
Who do you think you are? I don't waste my time on contemplating toilet bowls, nor do many other people

>Those were some silly pedants right OP?
Pretty much. Nabokov was alright, but the rest were great writers but poor artists.

>the pleasure is in the aptness, freshness of the language, the metaphors
Which highlights my point about how defamiliarisation is contradictory

>This refinement of language is, I think, accompanies most intellectual disciplines and I think a pleasure in itself because it is the outward correlate of a refinement in thought. As humans it is pleasurable to understand, to see things fit together in a meaningful way.
Uh-huh, whatever. I don't see what this has to do with defamiliarisation and you're certainly not very explicit about it yourself, but you can keep talking to yourself if you want.

give count brass some slack, guys. he just wants to read cool stories about serial killers and pedophiles. that doesn't reflect poorly on him, not at all

File: 1339547877977.jpg-(38 KB, 243x314, schwarzenegger_cigar1248290882(...).jpg)

Just sounds like butt mad teenager that thinks that things he doesn't like should be burned.

2/10 You made be post out of annoyance.

>>2716518
you are the person I described in this post:
>>2716271

File: 1339549201072.jpg-(78 KB, 655x492, 1309641061055.jpg)

>>2716560

>>2716575
I'm just pointing it out

File: 1339554577512.jpg-(246 KB, 1920x1080, 1280565879197.jpg)

>>2716650
>>2716650

File: 1339554867159.gif-(500 KB, 500x250, The fucks I give.gif)

>>2716109

>>2716777
>>2716784
He's just pointing it out

>>2716174
>>2716137
I think this thread can end now.

>>2716976
you seemed to have missed some posts:

>>2716109
>>2716158
>>2716183
>>2716208
>>2716215
>>2716240
>>2716253
>>2716259
>>2716271
>>2716306
>>2716316
>>2716379
>>2716461
>>2716560
>>2716650

File: 1339563867893.jpg-(66 KB, 2216x2240, krishnamurti.jpg)

>>2716158

>There is something incredible about the cistine chapel
> about the cistine chapel
>cistine

Stopped reading there. Your argument is invalid and Krishnamurti wouldn't even be amused. People do not pay attention of the details, which are essential for the enjoyment of life.

Pic related. Jiddu Krishnamurti

>>2716109
>falsifies the mundane thing

It falsifies nothing about the mundane thing except its mundanity. 'Falsify' may be the wrong word anyway, 'remove' is more neutral. The thing is still there, only now it has been uncovered. The language is not doing anything false, it is only calling attention to what was given no heed. Humans need to find their world strange to see it better sometimes. Or the author may need the "strangeness" to set the atmosphere for the scene. Or the character may be in a different state of consciousness. And there are many other aesthetic uses of this technique.

You claim there is nothing valuable in this? Why? Your post says nothing except "defamiliarisation is bad because defamiliarisation is defamiliarisation and people who disagree with me are brainwashed and weak". Because strength requires taking things for granted apparently. You got a reply. Did it feel good?