/lit/ - Literature

brainlet

fpbp you're a brainlet OP. his prose is sparse. love it or hate it, it is his voice and no less valuable than yours. assuming you could even write anything worth reading.

>>12174274
>wait what is this guy talking ab...
>"it's impossible to speed read"
>oh, he's a retard

got about 70 pages into To Have And Have Not and haven't gone back since I accidentally took a different book on the train. Wouldn't agree with most of what you've said other than repetition, "nigger" was once a page on average, but I didn't find it difficult to read at a fast pace at all and enjoyed how his straightforward approach to prose influenced the dialogue.

> The town was very nice and our house was very fine. The river ran behind us and the town had been captured very handsomely but the mountains beyond it could not be taken and I was very glad that the Austrians seemed to want to come back to the town some time, if the war should end, because they did not bombard it to destroy it but only a little in a military way.

This is what I'm referring to when I say it's dry and repetitious. Everything is described in the simplest, most unimaginative terms. "Very," "nice," "it was ___ and ___." I'm fine with sentences running on when there's some measure of poetry to them, but in Hemingway's case, it's just brief thoughts tacked together with no punctuation.

>t.
What's it like not having an imagination, OP?

>>12174290
>>12174282
>>12174326

He's right and you are brainlets - there's an ongoing discussion in academia about throwing this hack off the canon because he writes incredibly badly, and after the political references have grown stale there is virtually no value to his novels.

>>12174319
Look at this fucking piece of prose and tell me if you didn't call anyone who posted it as his own on this board a retard.

>>12174362
Steinbeck is exactly the same. OPs still a retard over the speedreading gripe though.

>>12174362
Hemingway was massively influential. Only overheated brainlets of academia could possibly work up the anger to "throw him out" of the canon. As if to make room for someone else. Someone more diverse. You're too late. Hemingway's mark was made decades ago, his influence on the beats and the rest of the wild generations in the second half of the 20th are with us still. Go be a bugman somewhere else, we talk about literature here.

>>12174362
Yeah like im gonna trust numale academics who feel threatened by traditionally masculine writing that women often dont understand

>>12174370

>Hemingway's mark was made decades ago, his influence on the beats and the rest of the wild generations in the second half of the 20th are with us still.

Hemingway is trash and most of the beats are trash as well. Reread the road. There's a reason nobody takes that shit seriously in academia beside self-entitled hipsters who confuse typing with writing. People talk about literature here and in fact the names popping up more often are Joyce, Pynchon, Nabokov and other people who actually can structure novels in an interesting way and can master the english language. Not the beats the shit you read to pick up girls at your local Starbucks. Not the minimalist Carverian shit they tell you to read at your creative writing university, insisting on writing short brief sentences because most people are just unable to articulate their thoughts with proper phrases.

>>12174371

Yeah nobody thinks about getting Melville, McCarthy or Faulkner out of the canon - despite all of them being pretty "racist" and "sexist" and traditionally masculine for our current standards. Do you ever ask yourself because Blood Meridian is still in university courses and Hemingway is almost nowhere to be seen? Why Moby Dick is still studied while people are consistently dropping this hack?

>>12174362
>>12174381
>>12174388
>what is parataxis

>>12174381
Nabokov is kind of shit, and Pynchon writes pomo tomes nobody reads. And you've got to be pulling my leg about Joyce. Author of Finngeans fucking Wake really. It's gibberish. Well educated, well sown with obscure easter eggs, but gibberish.

Hemingway's influence was more than just the beats you fucking dope. Every author and artist who said fuck it I'm doing what I want with my writing, damn the approval, was following Hemingway's lead. Those like you who can't "do" -- teach. Stuff your regrets. Go read Proust and come back to post a safe opinion you got from someone else.

>>12174381
The road was terrible desu

>>12174408
he meant on the road. his criticism is invalid because we're talking about Hemingway not Keruoac.

fucking brainlet op christ now i'm seriously mad. fucking opinion makers trying to herd art into what their twisted silly opinion and theories say it should be. hang all dilettantes.

>>12174407
All literature is almost by definition divisive counterculture. The "fuck it I'm doing what I want" sentiment doesn't earn you a place in history.

Hemingway is populist garbage responsible for three things: 1) teaching 10th graders to close read Hills Like White Elephants, 2) teaching 12th grade compositon teachers that a 9th grade reading level is ideal, 3) teaching edgy college freshmen girls to say, "omg I love Hemingway, he was so depressed but so beautiful."

>>12174429
spoken like a twenty-two year old. nobody -- NOBODY -- cares what students think. stop posting and finish your homework.

>>12174403

It's the average man modality of writing. Writing short sentences and paratactic prose in general are accessible to most people, which is why they are pushed as aesthetically pleasing and rewarding when you write. They are the correspondent of an Avenger movie in terms of appealing for the average person. It has no other merit than that.

>>12174407
>Nabokov is kind of shit and Pynchon writes porno tomes nobody reads
Validation from the public is not an indication of quality - validation from peers and experts is. And writers (except your average 35 year old who has written 1 and half short stories and plans to write a novel since he was 21 because he thought that was a viable way to get laid in college) are progressively abandoning Hemingway.
Also, when you quote Joyce, there's Ulysses, Dubliners and Portrait to engage with - why do you cherrypick the only unreadable novel he wrote?
As for Nabokov "kind of shit" is not an argument - have you read Pale Fire? The Gift? The True Life of Sebastian Knight? Those books are genius in terms of style and structure.

>Every author and artist who said fuck it I'm doing what I want with my writing, damn the approval, was following Hemingway's lead.
That's the basic of art - doing it like you want. You don't need an alcoholic uncle to tell you that you should do what you want: that's how you begin to write stories. Moreover, that sounds like the motivational speech a bad writer would give himself (and you) to tell you to go on despite the fact that they have bad style (something to which Hemingway agreed, both explicitly and implicitly). He's a troglodite rediscovering truths about writing which every person with an ounce of talent would discover within the first year of actually working on something. The point is you - and the general average coffee+macbook BrainGriffin-style writer which you represent - don't.

>>12174412
My criticism is valide, you undergrad jelly, because his argument was that Hemingway is good because he influenced people - which first is not an indicator of quality in itself, and second is not an indicator of quality if the people you influence are also shit (see Kerouac).

>>12174274
>lit major
well theres your problem right there

>>12174495
>They are the correspondent of an Avenger movie in terms of appealing for the average person. It has no other merit than that.
I don't have to read the rest of your post, even if it is addressed to me. With this sentiment you have proven yourself a brainless hump who thinks (somehow) it is better for an author to be obscure and unread than accessible and ubiquitous. Go moulder on a shelf somewhere, then, useless.

>why do you cherrypick the only unreadable novel he wrote?
rofl BECAUSE HE PROVES YOU ARE AN I-D-I-O-T DON'T YOU SEE THAT. he was making fun of you and your kind.

>>12174407
>shits on Proust and Joyce
>puts Hemingway on a pedastal
Damn, I was hoping someone fucking smart would show up to defend Hemingway when I saw this thread

>>12174381
>doesn't like Hemingway
>doesn't like Kerouac
>doesn't like Carver

You know why? Cause I'll fucking tell you. You actually need to live a life to truly understand the honesty behind their work. You'll never get how truly sincere is that Kerouac in the first chapter of On The Road it's so beat up by the journey that he almost goes back unless you've been there.

>validation from peers and experts is an indication of quality
woof. "experts." in the field of literature. only fucking brainless idiots could swallow that one. highly educated people who do not create art because they CAN'T telling others what is "good art" and why. grading the minds of writers as if they were one of their fucking class assignments.

>>12174542
Proust is excellent, but the types I abhor flock to him. Joyce is alright, except for his thunderwords brappppp book. Hemingway ranks among them, despite what any of these talentless, odious cretins says about the man's prose.

>>12174566
>someone who has actually spent some time on earth has joined the thread
hallelujah

>>12174274
He's not bad, but he has only written one great chapter

>>12174274
OP if you don't even understand Hemingway then you might legitimately have a double-digit IQ

>>12174537
I don't mind reading insults as it's part of the local culture, but if you could put some arguments with those?
Why would Joyce make fun of "my kind" by writing an unreadable novel, when all of his previous ones already fairly challenging? Bring some support to your thesis, if you have one which is not out of wikipedia of some furry tumblr blog

>>12174566
How is sincerity related to quality? Also, does it result necessarily in writing like shit? Because if you can be sincere and write well then what you say makes no fucking sense

>>12174601
>but if you could put some arguments with those?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Joyce did it first, called it Finnegans Wake.

>>12174575

>woof. "experts." in the field of literature. only fucking brainless idiots could swallow that one. highly educated people who do not create art because they CAN'T telling others what is "good art" and why. grading the minds of writers as if they were one of their fucking class assignments.

What is a valid indication of quality then? If you decide by popular vote, the Hunger Games is better than Hemingway. If you decide by what I called experts, Joyce is better than Hemingway. Is everything the same to you? Do you believe that it is possible to judge quality of a novel? Because as soon as you introduce the notion of quality in something, someone will achieve higher levels, and someone lower.
I have given you a criteria to judge quality: peers and experts. What is yours?

>>12174601
>How is sincerity related to quality?
jesus christ just look at the question you are asking.

sincerity is the substance of a story. i feel bad explaining this to you but: humans read to feel, to be clay in the author's hand. only academic NPCs read to feel smart, to say to themselves 'i understood that reference' or break down a narrative into components which are to be graded by their frequency vis-a-vis similar works.

>>12174620
>academic NPCs read to feel smart, to say to themselves 'i understood that reference' or break down a narrative into components which are to be graded by their frequency vis-a-vis similar works.
these people exist?

>>12174601
>How is sincerity related to quality?
Seriously? No wonder you guys like straight up conmen like Peterson so much

>>12174634
Peterson is sincere though

>>12174613
>that post
You deserve every single time I called you a brainlet so far.

Books of literary merit (I would say this means they, on some level, move the average middle-brow) are high art, like paintings. One either understands a work or they don't. There is no wrong, and there is no "better."

>>12174632
OP is one.

>>12174620
>>12174634

Being astonished is not an explanation. How the fuck did people write the Iliad by being sincere? Were they sitting there, fighting with the gods? How are historical novels ever written? Do people travel in time? I'm not one of your mongoloid artsy one-night stands (male or female): use an argument, not rhetoric.

Also, the question stands: does writing "sincerely" implies you write poorly, like Kerouac? Are you making an argument to defend bad quality by saying that if you FEEL life than you can't keep it in the boundaries of your writing because the FEELING is so overwhelming that it BREAKS OUT FROM THE RULES and also that that's the way you make the reader FEEL? Am I assuming too much or is this your actual aesthetic theory? I'm open to new opinions. Enlighten me, wise men.

>>12174653

Thank you Oscar Wilde, now go back to prison, maybe someone will appreciate your witty aphorisms in there. Let me know if you feel like explaining things or arguing when you've finished eating by that massive bag of dicks you have there

>>12174662
>does writing "sincerely" implies you write poorly, like Kerouac? Are you making an argument to defend bad quality by saying that if you FEEL life than you can't keep it in the boundaries of your writing because the FEELING is so overwhelming that it BREAKS OUT FROM THE RULES
no dummy. i'm busy petting a cat right now and don't have time to indulge your ignorance. but i will do it anyway.

writing sincerely means being knowledgeable enough about the human endeavor that what you write is not only emotional powerful but also credible. the actual delivery method prose or what have you does not matter, as everyone has different tastes. you are the only brainlet here who is under the delusion that writers should be graded by experts and peers, wise men with degrees -- but not creators themselves -- who induct or expel artists from the canon.

>>12174653

>Books of literary merit (I would say this means they, on some level, move the average middle-brow) are high art, like paintings. One either understands a work or they don't. There is no wrong, and there is no "better."

>Are you making an argument to defend bad quality by saying that if you FEEL life than you can't keep it in the boundaries of your writing because the FEELING is so overwhelming that it BREAKS OUT FROM THE RULES and also that that's the way you make the reader FEEL?

>>12174671
>instead of admitting some art is just "not for him," he chooses to say it is lacking in quality
pic. it's you.

>>12174662
>Being astonished is not an explanation. How the fuck did people write the Iliad by being sincere? Were they sitting there, fighting with the gods? How are historical novels ever written? Do people travel in time? I'm not one of your mongoloid artsy one-night stands (male or female): use an argument, not rhetoric.
HOLY SHIT

>>12174679

I feel like you are still in your teens

>>12174689
yeah i think i pegged him right. 22 years old and dumb as rocks.

>>12174691
no i am a very old fart with a cat.

>>12174694

Post pic of the cat

>>12174707
no you are all furries and perverts on this site

>>12174708

perverts maybe, furries I doubt

>>12174691
>>12174692

>liking daddy issues the author

>>12174274
t. roastie

>>12174274
9:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhsuwg5Jns
watch the whole show and even the series if you want to actually know where your opinions arise from.

>>12174689

>being astonished is not an explanation
>HOLY SHIT

>>12174694
>>12174707
>>12174708
is it a black cat? black cats are the true patrician /lit/izen choice

>>12174721
Lmao incel

>>12174274
I remember reading his The Old Man and The Sea in high school, and didn't enjoy it at all.
All the lit teachers went into a lengthy analysis of "struggle between man and the nature," which I found exaggerated. At least I learnt that if you like a story enough, you can attribute any fantastical elements to the text and interpret it in pretty much any way.

>>12174726
Look, seriously? It's not my fault if a retard thinks that writing with sincerity means that you have to actually experience what you're writing in details. Like, plot wise. Like, history wise.
Writing with sincerity means that the author feels or has felt the emotional baggage with which he weighs his work. You can write a good love story in a period piece cause love is fucking universal and Goethe got heartbroken in the XIX same way you got heartbroken last tuesday.

>>12174721
good post. OP is only proving he doesn't understand Hemingway. The work is not inferior, OP's ability to access all of its meaning is.

>>12174662
Different anon. You can make a case that all writing is in some way insincere (if you suppose that indirectness is somehow always insincere). You can also argue for the insincerity via some psychoanalytic route, I suspect.

"No matter what pitch of frankness, directness, or authenticity he may strive for, the writer's mask and the reader's are less removable than those of the oral communicator and his hearer. For writing is itself an indirection. Direct com- munication by script is impossible. This makes writing not less but more interesting, although perhaps less noble than speech. For man lives largely by indirection, and only beneath the in- directions that sustain him is his true nature to be found. Writing, alone, however, will never bring us truly beneath to the actuality."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/461344.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>12174758

Then what the fuck did that matter to your discussion? Are you arguing that Hemingway and Kerouac wrote with more sincerity than Joyce and then criticizing the guy by saying there's no such thing as a scale of quality in judging art? You are all over the place, feed your cat instead of posting!!

Hemingway is garbage and the only reason /lit/ defends him is because he was obsessed with his "masculine" self-image like most of the manlets here.

>>12174784
that's not me. i'm leaving for errands. OP is a dope, art is art, and academics are the worst judge of artistic ability. stay black /lit/.

>>12174759
but like everything is subjective and I surely must have an opinion if I read books for four years, like my own opinion I mean. whatever. I don't even believe in anything but science even though that means I don't exist as a coherent person and my opinions are constructed too, but it's all politics and I'm just a channel anyhow. It's not like I have to work at developing a taste for something, that's what we're born with, I think. taste is subjective, which doesn't exist, so this opinion doesn't even matter anyhow. you're all just being mean and I hope you Hemmingway yourselves too.

>>12174800

>assuming Hemingway or any book written before 20 years ago would exist in bookshops or sell at all if academics didn't keep coming up with reasons why they are worth reading

Godspeed, anon

>>12174800
> academics are the worst judge of artistic ability
not since production of art started becoming an enormous circlejerk

>>12174362
the canon isn't a real thing, retard

>>12174274
>It's impossible to speed read because of this. I don't have time to sit and study a fuckin' novel like I did when I was a lit major.
lmao shut the fuck up fag

I read a paragraph excerpt in a writing craft guide that sampled about 100 prominent authors and it was certainly the worst - screamingly awful dreck. American authors are a plague, they need to stop existing yesterday.

>>12174721
>look at that face ... what is that??
>George Steiner was born in 1929 in Paris, to Viennese Jewish parents
Very weak attempt, shill

>>12174814
yeah, cause academics have the economic incentive to sell good books by dead authors. it's the economy stupid. academics are only apart of the process to validate the morals in some esoteric textual ceremony. the cathedral is important to business but only so because plebs need a moral authority. if the church removed that position, you'd say the same about them Sister

>>12174868

You're an idiot if you think that's true.

>>12174889
what am I reading

OP btfoing everybody in this thread lmao.

>>12174898
>t. OP

>>12174889

ma vattene affanculo, nessuno sta negando che c'è un valore economico, rincoglionito del cazzo - assumere che sia l'unico valore è da imbecilli e non risolve la domanda. Qual è il valore economico di Joyce?? Qual è il valore economico di Hemingway? In base a cosa si decide? Vedrai che dietro c'è il discorso accademico, per quanto l'accademia possa far cagare a me e a te

>>12174381
You haven’t read and like if Joyce if you don’t like Hemingway. Joyce is Hemingway but slightly more descriptive and flowery. Read some short stories from Dubliners if you don’t believe me

>>12174891
well, which books are in it? who decides them? can some writers be removed from it because they triggered people like op?

>>12174889
Is this too meta that I can't understand it or too dumb that it's on another plane of existence and thus I can't understand it?

>>12174936
> the canon is a myth!
>> no, it isn't
> well, what is a canon?

No, cunt, you first: what is your understanding of a canon?

Within a month of their move, the Nazis occupied Paris, and of the many Jewish children in Steiner's class at school, he was one of only two who survived the war.[6]
Dammit Hitler you had ONE job! Now look what happened!

Again his father's insight had saved his family, and this made Steiner feel like a survivor, which profoundly influenced his later writings. >>>>"My whole life has been about death, remembering and the Holocaust."<<<<[6] Steiner became a "grateful wanderer", saying that "Trees have roots and I have legs; I owe my life to that."
Der Ewiger, Wandernder Jude is very real, frens, know the signs, the life you save could be your own.

>>12174938
He is implying that academics are all controled by corps, we all know that only applies to medicine.

>>12174495

How can you honestly think Kerouac and Hemingway are shit? Both of them write with fresh perspectives and novel voices. Why make it more complicated? I am a big fan of the writers you seem to prefer, but I have to say I really, really enjoy Kerouacs work

Idk if you've read more than on the road but he was writing an old memory from when he was young there. There is a reason why Kerouac became so disillusioned with a lot of what you're complaining about and his later stories are so deep and reflective of his real growth...as pretentious as it is, it isn't on the road that makes Kerouac so special..Hemingway is similar when oh go big picture...greatest writer tier? Nooonono, but better than most? Yes

They're definitely not shit though. Kerouac I'm most defensive of right now

>>12174601

Finnegans wake is not unreadable....

So many narrow minds here...

Yup, Hemingway is shit. Fuck that fish.

Paintingway was superior.

>>12174946
He didn't ask you what 'a canon' was. He asked what was in the canon. Answer the question and stop deflecting.

hemingway's short declarative sentences are simple but there is elegance to be found in simplicity.

hemingway's iceberg theory is pleasant and is like homer where many things are not expressly said but still communicates the highest truths .

>>12174924
yeah this can be found in dubliners.it makes me think of the last sentence in A Painful Case... He felt that he was alone. this one simple sentence says soo much after reading the story

Hemingway was good. His short stories are good. He has a dignity in his world view and his writing that is admirable. There is a beauty to the cadence and roving details in his sentences. He was highly rated by his contemporaries. Writers recognize the value in his writing.

>>12175017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon

Wow, look at that, I answered his question.

Given that each of his questions are covered within the first twenty minutes of any university canon meth formation course, I'm challenging the conclusion that he's at all familiar with the idea of a literary canon. Piss off.

>>12174924

I have read everything from Joyce and comparing dubliners with Hemingway is preposterous and only shows your complete inability of distinguishing different ways of using language.

>>12175029
hmmm…. nope still not real

People like the idea of Hemingway, his liquored lifestyle, and his pictures, like the one you posted. People don't actually like Hemingway.

>>12175039
Well, you've pretty much demonstrated your authority on the subject. Guess I'll bow out.

>>12175055
okay mister wikipedia

maybe the real canon was all the friends we made along the way

>>12175066
do... do you think we can save the canon with the power of Western friendship?

>>12175066

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Reflect on this

>>12175066
By the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, which ought to be the Canon, that is to say, the Rules of Christian life. And because all Rules of life, which men are in conscience bound to observe, are Laws; the question of the Scripture, is the question of what is Law throughout all Christendome, both Naturall, and Civill. For though it be not determined in Scripture, what Laws every Christian King shall constitute in his own Dominions; yet it is determined what laws he shall not constitute. Seeing therefore I have already proved, that Soveraigns in their own Dominions are the sole Legislators; those Books only are Canonicall, that is, Law, in every nation, which are established for such by the Soveraign Authority.

>>12175093
can·on1
/ˈkanən/Submit
noun
1.
a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
"the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity"
synonyms: principle, rule, law, tenet, precept; More
2.
a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
"the formation of the biblical canon"

>>12175098
>a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
accepted by WHOM, my dear property?

>>12175125
>by the Authority of our academic institutions

>>12174938
>>12174952
WHat? no. academics are not the gatekeepers of what old books get sold you idiots. these books are sold to a market, not disseminated by academics. their selection is inherent to the institution and the only books to disappear are those that lack some quality of possibly being made into moral arguments. this says nothing of the appetite of the market. sorry for the jargon and slipperiness.

>>12174915
back to work or back over the wall!

>>12175125
didn't you read this?>>12175093

>>12175162
who has dominion over the markets?who controls the publishing houses?who controls the media that influences people to buy this or that?

>>12175166
i-i... i can't read.

>>12175192
its obvious that jews of seized power in these areas and in academia as well and are undermining the western canon

>>12174915
Basato e rossopillolato

>>12175192
it's those 4chan nazis' isn't it? basturds think this big p-p-program is gonna work on me. I'll not submit to your religion yet you conservative hebrews

>>12175201
>2018
>getting tricked by the jews
just read whatever you like, my man

>>12174963
>tfw reading Desolations Angels right now
>tfw he is mostly incoherent but still pulls at my heart strings
Kerouac was one kawai drunk

>>12175192
>>12175214
Is this the /lit/erary Flat Earther equivalent?

>>12175231
>/lit/erary Flat Earther equivalent
no, that would be being monolingual

>>12175231
No, we got the data. And you aint gonna see it. Cause it's more fun for both sides this way.

>>12174429
>How literature is used by the educational system is indicative of it's quality
Dude, lame

>>12175273
> ignoring this whole discussion on canon

has any of you read "for whom the bell tolls"?
read it and tell me hemingway is not a hack, i challenge you.

>>12174274
Only parts I skipped were the love shit with him and his Stacie wife at the end I rejoiced when his whore wife and son born of sin died.the banter between the soldiers was kind In the first half

I never like Hemingway, and I never liked anyone who did either, desu.

>>12175317
i read it and it started to dawn on me that robert jordan was a fanatical brainwashed commie willing to do anything,he was the bad guy.

>>12175319
based incel poster

>>12174300
This, you're an idiot OP
/thread

>>12175307
I read as far down as my toilet visit allows and only pick out low hanging fruit

>>12175383
Reasonable.