Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Literature

2008-02-22T04:25:16Z

Gigg: /* Content? */

==Content?==
This page is almost absurdly devoid of content about one of the great topics of... well, life. It is simply insane that there are huge articles devoted to a thousand different iterations of homosexual topics, but that this is the page for something so vital to a full life and educated mind. Literature is a word commonly used to denote the great books, so at least some discussion of literary study or criticism would be good. Instead the page's content is essentially a copied dictionary definition, a copied encyclopedia definition, a mediocre metaphysical poem, and a terribly written quote from a free online study guide. It's a travesty.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 22:59, 21 February 2008 (EST)
:I hate to sound patronizing, but... please improve it? That's what Wikis are for, right? This is still a very young (albeit successful!) project, so your help would be appreciated.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:00, 21 February 2008 (EST)
::I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST)
:::It's easy to criticize, but...
:::Honestly, I'd add, but it seems like you know the subject better. It's not my specialty, really , so I'd rather someone who feels impassioned about it contributes. I could add "''Atonement'' is a pretty good book," but, again...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:11, 21 February 2008 (EST)
::::I understand, and I hope someone who is impassioned does stop by. I heard about this site on Wikipedia, and I think it is an interesting idea. Ultimately, however, I disagree with its intent, and do not think my contributions would be consistent with what is desired here (a conservative Christian viewpoint). I would not feel comfortable contributing, so the most help I feel I can give is by pointing out weaknesses. I don't know how many users there are here, though, so I am sure now that it has been pointed out the matter will be remedied soon enough. Bon chance.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 23:15, 21 February 2008 (EST)
:::::It's hard to make "literature" controversial :-). You're welcome to give it a try, but I understand your reluctance, while I don't think it's necessary. May the Wikibug bite you in the end... :-)-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)
::::::I wouldn't have thought it was possible to politicize [[deconstruction]] either, but apparently it can be done. You seem good-natured, so I wish you well.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 23:25, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Literature

2008-02-22T04:15:48Z

Gigg: /* Content? */

Talk:Literature

2008-02-22T04:06:28Z

Gigg: /* Content? */

Talk:Literature

2008-02-22T03:59:23Z

Gigg: New page: ==Content?== This page is almost absurdly devoid of content about one of the great topics of... well, life. It is simply insane that there are huge articles devoted to a thousand differen...

Talk:Deconstruction

2008-02-22T01:08:21Z

Gigg:

==Wildly inaccurate==
This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction, and I suggest that whoever wrote it has been strongly misled. What is described seems to be some form of reader response theory, as explored by such postmodernists as Stanley Fish. While they are both arguably postmodernist, deconstruction is absolutely not what is described here. Apparently the problem is the primary source, which I see is not available online and so I can't check that out. The other sources appear to be much on target - the Britannica Online and Bartleby articles describe Derrida's approach fairly well.

Deconstruction is an approach which emphasizes a great deal of language analysis... examining "what is not said" (much like a Pinter play) as well as the dichotomy created by so many language "pairs" whose connotative comparison implies strength in one. The end implication is that there is not one meaning, but this is different from reader response, wherein meaning is derived through personal interpretation or Fish's reader communities, in that the meaning is ultimately said to be "undecidable", but rather a subtle elimination of the underlying assumptions behind the meaning. Derrida himself resisted defining the approach his entire life, and it is exceedingly hard to summarize in English the process, but that is certainly much closer than the nonsense on this page.--[[User:Gigg|Gigg]] 20:08, 21 February 2008 (EST)

== He or She? ==

Only men write books? [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 19:53, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: No, the word "he" is generic and general, as it has been used for hundreds of years before [[liberals]] tried to redefine things for their ideological purposes. Be politically correct somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 17 February 2008 (EST)
::I normally try to be understanding when unwitting-yet-genuine insult occurs in our speech and mannerisms. But I'd have to agree that people who get in a tizzy over using "he" are just pushing political correctness too far. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:59, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==Postmodernism vs. Postmodernity==
Something which may be helpful in writing this page is making the distinction between these two terms. According to Dr. Douglas Groothius, a Christian philosopher, we can describe postmodernism as the technical philosophical school of thought promoted by thinkers such as Derrida, Lyotard, etc... We can rely on such authors to describe what we mean by Literary Deconstruction. On the other hand, Postmodernity describes something more of a cultural mood or posturing; on this view, postmodernity deals with the cultural consequences and attitudes about truth and meaning which really aren't based on any rigorous analysis of Western philosophical tradition, so much as it is based on a feeling or attitude of cynicism against traditional ideas and methods.[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:47, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Go ahead and explain that in a new section in the entry, if possible!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)