/lit/ - Literature

>>22348872
Been way longer than a few weeks.
You should've seen how all of the shilling stopped for numerous days after Keith Woods' Twitter thread about BAP blew up.

>>20434278
>Corncobby Chronicles

What's up Faggots

Which authors have the best, most beautiful prose? Preferably in English originally, so I don't have to worry about translator's interference.

>>19329610
Fuck, forgot pic>>19328404

Specifically the works outside of Lolita, which most anons here just like for absolutely the wrong reasons. I’m reading Invitation to a Beheading right now and the prose is captivating, humorous, lyrical, metatextual, overall excellent. Pale Fire is great too. Why the hate bros, did Vlad filter you?

>>18819280
Yes? Unless they're Tsukushi, that guy can hang.

Starting with an easy one.

ITT: Your favorite writers in style, content, and form.
For me:
>Style
Nabokov
>Content
Burroughs
>Form
Beckett

I need a writer that is going to improve my prose but also not sound like a total flowery faggot. Who does /lit/ recommend?

>>17002451
But he did attack Joyce

>A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Never liked it. A feeble and garrulous book.
>Finnegans Wake. A formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book. Conventional and drab, redeemed from utter insipidity only by infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations. Detest it. A cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy, allegory. Indifferent to it, as to all regional literature written in dialect. A tragic failure and a frightful bore.

Who is the best prose stylist that fits the following criteria:

- beautiful flow
- syntax seems functional and well-ordered
- uses complex wording when appropriate
- doesn't feel like he is using prose to show off

>Drug addicts, especially young ones, are conformists flocking together in sticky groups, and I do not write for groups, nor approve of group therapy (the big scene in the Freudian farce); as I have said often enough, I write for myself in multiplicate, a not unfamiliar phenomenon on the horizon of shimmering deserts. Young dunces who turn to drugs cannot read “Lolita,” or any of my books, some in fact cannot read at all. Let me also observe that the term “square” already dates as a slang word, for nothing dates quicker than conservative youth, nor is there anything more philistine, more bourgeois, more ovine than this business of drug duncery. Half a century ago, a similar fashion among the smart set of St. Petersburg was cocaine sniffing combined with phony orientalities. The better and brighter minds of my young American readers are far removed from those juvenile fads and faddists. I also used to know in the past a Communist agent who got so involved in trying to wreck anti-Bolshevist groups by distributing drugs among them that he became an addict himself and lapsed into a dreamy state of commendable metempsychic sloth. He must be grazing today on some grassy slope in Tibet if he has not yet lined the coat of his fortunate shepherd.

Cunny

How is it possible for a literary genius to have such terrible opinions about literature?

>Joyce, James. Great. A favorite between the ages of 20 and 40, and thereafter. Let people compare me to Joyce by all means, but my English is patball to Joyce's champion game. A genius.
>A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Never liked it. A feeble and garrulous book.
>Finnegans Wake. A formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book. Conventional and drab, redeemed from utter insipidity only by infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations. Detest it. A cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy, allegory. Indifferent to it, as to all regional literature written in dialect. A tragic failure and a frightful bore.
What did he mean by this?

What was his philosophy?

Invitation of a beheading had some kind of Gnostic backdrop and part of Ada was dedicated to some kind of strange texture of time thing.