07a.jpg
[Hide] (11.2KB, 170x297) >>41774
>Have you forgotten your own thesis?
You mean this: >>41749
<I am in no way denying the historical significance of Robinson Crusoe, as it started the entire genre of "stranded island" fiction that later stories like Swiss Family Robinson would pick up on. That being said, it's a trash book that doesn't really provide anything of value beyond being a footnote in history.
>You are aware that you are interpreting these positions into an made up Englishman.
And I take it that you have "never" experienced a story before where the protagonist is just a self-insert of the writer for the expressed purpose of spouting bullshit that the writer agrees with. Do you honestly believe that's just a "recent" trend?
>Did you know that the England and Spain were rivals at the time and the Spanish empire still existed?
Yeah
>This should be the end of any modern interpretation of whatever the author has written into his hero's head.
It actually makes it even more damning because writers and stories are, on some degree, suppose to be above those kinds of trivialities and pettiness. And even in the instances where they aren't, they still should have the finesse to write a story that makes the character understandable in his position even if you disagree with them. Warhammer 40k is a prime example of this, where we can understand why the society in the franchise developed the way that they did, why they developed certain attitudes and practices, and we can empathize and sympathize with the actions of those characters living in that universe but that in no way means anyone is ever advocating that it's acceptable to genuinely "live" that way. Another example is majority of WWII related media from before 2010, where the thrust of their argument for why we were at war with Germany and Japan simply boiled down to Germany invading every single Europoor nation with no signs of stopping and Japan attacking a dozen American bases all across the Pacific (Not "just" Pearl Harbor) when we weren't at war with them. You can make whatever arguments you want about how they were more "Moral" (Which they weren't), or how they were "cornered" into making those decisions (Which still doesn't justify their actions), but all of that ignores the simple issue that no one likes having their home taken from them and no one likes getting decked. Because the moment those happen, all bets are off.
My enjoyment of something like the Nehza films or the webseries Metal Family can be disconnected from the geopolitical mess that the former is Chinese soft-power produced under a regime that wants my country destroyed, and the latter being produced (Independently) in a country we're tangentially at war with on two fronts (Supplying the Ukrainians and bombing the IRGC). Though who even knows anymore with Trump trying to get that diesel deal going. For those who don't know about the latter series, It's posted here: https://redirect.invidious.io/channel/UCdARvxgVxVzxvtyPb2CqO-w
With a dub available here: https://redirect.invidious.io/channel/UCuiERoR0BqE-6A7OZf38dKQ
And subs available here: https://redirect.invidious.io/channel/UCpg4VKaYFUS5WpjE5uhMdUg
And here: https://redirect.invidious.io/channel/UCIm7ABiHVurOwwEzI_4dZ9w
>You also don't get to turn the tables here.
Why?
>Most people, except idiot savants maybe, forget 80% of anything what they have had read, watched or heard
In my experience, I'm not one of those people. In fact, my folks have joked since middle school that it astounds that I can remember a random TV commercial that I only saw twice a decade ago meanwhile cannot even remember what food I ate yesterday. Not saying my memory is always perfect, but media is one of those things I have a better time remembering. As opposed to all those hours I've dumped into Anki and still managing to mix up「待つ」and 「持つ」.
And even taking your argument to be true, that still poses two problems. The first is that it means both of us are idiots arguing about a matter in a book that neither of us entirely remember, and thereby making this argument pointless for having started in the first place. The second is that such an argument could easily be resolved by one of us rereading the book, and quoting from it, to put the other in his place. But I have zero interested in rereading the damn thing because it wasn't a pleasant experience the first time around, and I have other books that I want to read.
>It just seems a little odd that you remember some miniscule political theme
Probably because it was so out of place. As I said, The Idiot did the same thing when the story stopped for an entire chapter just to talk about what an existential threat Poland is to the continued existence of Russian society. You don't put the a story on hold to bitch about politics unless you're trying to say something.
>about you not getting the point of an adventure novel that has defined a literary genre named after itself
You sure it's not the reverse? Where everyone, understandably, latched onto the more appealing idea of being stranded on a deserted island, and entirely left all the political bullshit behind to be forgotten as it had nothing to do with the story in the first place. Kind of like how the Jaws movie dropped the entire subplot from the book about the affair between the marine biologist and the sheriff's wife. Or how people missed that the entire point of First Blood was that it was a story about a traumatized soldier coming back to a society where everyone hates his guts for just doing his job in the middle of a warzone and against an amoral enemy, and all the later works just being mindless action flicks that entirely gloss over this guy being a PTSD ridden broken shell of a man.
>I mean intelligent readers who don't read to enrage themselves and engage with their reading material
You unironically think I went into Crusoe for the expressed purpose of getting angry? A book that, prior to my reading it, I knew nothing about aside from the generalities.
Also, if I did drop the book over that, wouldn't your argument then be about how I'm too "stupid", "illiterate", and "uneducated" to understand the "deep meaning" behind Defoe's storytelling quirks of such a cherished novel? Actually, I have been accused of that even when I did finish the book. Well, not a book, it was the comic book Watchmen, and that guy was not amused at all that I hated it.
>Part of it is realizing that literal modern literature may not for them and looking for different reading material.
You mean books designed for an actual person to read and enjoy, as oppose to "modern literature" like American Psycho, where it's padded to Hell and back to the point that I did drop it halfway through because the writer somehow made a story about a serial killer fucking boring, or Ecotopia, which was just the writer's self-fellatio about this eco-Socialist dream society that doesn't make a lick of sense when you think for two seconds about how the French government managed to supply a secessionist revolution along the American West Coast in the 1970's or spending an entire chapter detailing how the "only" popular gaming event is tennis as opposed to literally anything from cricket or bocce to playing "intellectual" games like Chess and Go in this supposedly "intelligent" society that has managed to survive entirely isolated from the rest of the count for 30 years (And then I give up 15 chapters into the book, looked up the plot summary online, and realize I made the right decision as the protag proceeds to abandon his wife despite spending several segments talking about how he wants to repair his strained marriage. No, it doesn't make it "Better" that he apparently asks his wife to join him. If anything, that only makes the Eco-Socialist society seem even more like a cult.)? All reading "Real Literature" has increasingly is made me realize that the entire concept is one big scam designed to make self-important idiots come across as more intelligent than they really are. With the true irony being that a sign of a truly smart individual is getting to the point without wasting people's time more than is needed.
But all that being said, how am I suppose to instinctively "know" which literature is "for me", or any media for that matter? Because my approach has been to go out, take a chance, and experience a little bit of everything because I honestly don't know what I like until I find it.
>In reality, I think the people who mainly read works by those guys are normalfags who read the very popular literature news rags and the internet tells them to read.
And did you ever consider that "real literature" was never anything else more than that? Which is why I said that it's all about keeping up appearances.