/lit/ - Literature

It's overrated tripe. Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/07/myers.htm

As a stylist. Well, he's clearly very proud of himself. I sometimes wonder if he couldn't learn a little from more accomplished writers who don't (as he seems to do) draw constant attention to the. perfectly. weighted. sentences. rising. and. falling. in. palpable. sublimity.

As far as content.goes, it's about as empty or as profound as any other praised-to-the-skies American novel of the last 25 years. Hmmmmmmmm.

>>1547516
Seriously dude? You're bringing that BR Myers as incontrovertible evidence for something being tripe?

Myers' argument feels good, it's very appealing - and I think there's a good point to be made about the way literary writing is self-conscious and appeals to itself in America today. But his argument really is not very strong. He goes way too far in his hagiography, almost, of older writing and in his critique of modern writing. He makes interesting points, but there are also very good reason to be skeptical about his argument. his specific points tend to be overblown and tendentious. Overly critical.

I don't know. I certainly think making an ipse dixit argument from BJ Myers is flawed.

>>1547526

> ipse dixit

>>1547516

I'm enjoying this, thanks. even if it does remind me how much this novel irritated me when I first read it

>>1547516
I remember that article. He ended up writing a book out of it. If I remember correctly, I like the points he makes that "serious novels" have gotten increasingly esoteric, just pandering to the crowd that feels something great should also be incomprehensible. But White Noise is really pretty fantastic. I dunno, Myers makes some points that sound pretty good, but he doesn't dissuade me from thinking that DeLillo and Cormac McCarthy are really worth reading.

>>1547526
When Myers goes off on something it's usually very satisfying to read, "heh heh, so true, get 'im!!" when I agree with him and easy to poke holes in and roll my eyes at when I don't. Obviously he's not Armond White-level but I do kind of read them for the same reasons

>>1547559
Yeah I agree with that. Like I say, his arguments are enjoyable, I think you naturally kind of go, you know, yeah, right on, stick it to em. But if you think about it it's not that coherent. And so it's important to be skeptical about the argument even while you agree with it.

"this is more evidence of DeLillo's belief—apparently shared by Mark Leyner, Brett Easton Ellis, and others—that writing trite and diffuse prose is a brilliant way to capture the trite and diffuse nature of modern life."

I must say, I'm really enjoying this article.

>>1547526

He may be overly critical, and in fact I've read some rebuttals to the extended version of that article. But I think his basic point stands--there's a trend toward overblown prose that tries to make up for its lack of precision with an excessive amount of fireworks. I mean, contrast some of the quotes from that article with Updike, Bellow, Hemingway, etc.

Not to mention the fact that DeLillo's characters are flatter than Keira Knightley. I couldn't even finish Mao II because the dialog was so unbelievable.

>>1547516
I agreed entirely with Myers on Delillo and McCarthy, thanks for posting for me.

Oh boy. Looks like the anti-intellectual fantasy readers here finally have something to latch on to.

>>1547612
that's the other problem with the article - i think it gives an argument that people who are more or less just anti-intellectual can use and seem respectable

(obviously you're wrong about that being specific to fantasy readers)

>>1547612
I have nothing against fantasy, though, in truth, I've read very little of it. Currently re-reading Tess; dipping into the poems of Yeats; while continuing my battle to make head nor tale of Kant.

Although, in a sense, yes, I am anti-intellectual. In that, I'm against intellectuality as an end in itself, which a lot of prose quoted in this article (and which I had the painful experience of reading first time around) seems to do. I would also say that my mistrust extends to much post-war (although I'm quite young myself) criticism too. Whether in fact the literature and criticism fails even in the mean endeavors it has assigned itself, and appears instead rather empty is, I suppose, dependent on the reader. Or perhaps, on the refinement of said reader's taste.

Thank you so much to whoever posted that article. It’s quite nice to know one is not wholly alone in a forest of pomo posturing. Anyway, back to rating literary theories out of ten threads.

>>1547643
Please just type like a normal human being, especially if you can't handle the more verbose prose without grammatical errors.

>>1547668
see
>>1547612

>>1547668
>especially if you can't handle *the* more verbose prose without grammatical errors.

fantastic sentence construction there, bro.

>>1547691
Nice dropping caps to hide that you're >>1547643

Also, "the" is correct in that case. I'm not talking about "more verbose prose" in general, I'm talking about the verbose prose *he* is using, specifically. Hence, "the more verbose prose," son.

>>1547713
then, coming back to your sentence construction, you should really have said 'the more verbose prose in your thread' (eg)

otherwise you end up with something sounding like (off the top of my head):

"You really should have taken more time in the reponse".

Anyway, that chicken won't fry itself son - time you got back to work?

>>1547732
>Anyway, that chicken won't fry itself son - time you got back to work?

Not cool, dude. Don't do this shit. Don't get overly involved in pedantic internet dickwrangling arguments about precise phrasing either. Just bad hoodoo.

>>1547750
He started it! (in a very poorly phrased post I might add)

>>1547732
That's unwieldy and unnecessary. Who else's "verbose prose" would I be talking about?

>>1547755
I don't care who started it. Knock it off.

>>1547760
OK OK (he did though)

(and he was wrong)

OK! I Stopped now

>>1547755
I started it because it's condescending to write the way you were writing on an imageboard, and when you manage to fuck up while doing so, then you look like a pseudo-intellectual douche, and are just inviting ridicule.

>(in a very poorly phrased post I might add)
Nope: >>1547757, >>1547713

>>1547766
I really, really don't care about your sentence construction on 4chan. Unless, that is, you're trying to write like Dickens or something, and come up with sentences like
>Currently re-reading Tess; dipping into the poems of Yeats; while continuing my battle to make head nor tale of Kant.
I mean, Jesus Christ.

>>1547757
Please fight battles you can win; you should use greater discretion with the choices

whose choices would I be talking about bro????.

>>1547766
>>1547772
>>1547787
>>1547790
I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU KIDS DON'T KNOCK IT OFF I'M TURNING THIS IMAGEBOARD AROUND

>>1547787
>criticizes other's grammar. now doesn't care when called up on his own

>>1547750
>>1547732
>>1547713
>>1547691
>>1547805
>>1547790
>>1547772
>>1547766
>>1547757
>>1547755

You are the cancer that is killing /lit/.

>>1547797
OK BUT HE KEEPS ON COMING AT ME:

A because I criticized his precious pomo writers without being some fantasy reading steroptype myself.

B Because I called him on his own pathetic method of attack

>>1547812
>OK BUT HE KEEPS ON COMING AT ME:

I don't care. You need to just let it go. You know he's only doing it because it bothers you so much. Stop it.

>>1547805
Sorry bro, I've defended my grammar. More to the point though....

are you ready for this?...

all the way back at the beginning of this shitstorm...

>>1547668
>Please just type like a normal human being
Ooohhhhh shiiiiiiiit! Looks like I wanted you to just type naturally all along!

Anyway, I'm starting to like you. So, back on topic, what do you think of White Noise? Have you read it? Do you feel Myers is correct in calling it out as hollow and sensationalist?

>>1547815
OK OK

"I should spend more time reading books, instead of arguing on the image board" you might say.

>>1547812
because I criticized his precious pomo writers without being some fantasy reading steroptype myself.

You got the wrong guy, man. This is the first on-topic post I've made in this thread: >>1547823
Mine have all been grammar shittery.

>>1547823
You flatter yourself that the fact that you are beginning to like me means:

A. I actually give a fuck
B. We can now have a conversation on your bullshit book on your terms.

So THAT'S what you call 'typing like a human being'.

>>1547512
Have read it.
Just Terrible.

>go on /lit/
>see this

Bye /lit/.

The only thing wrong with a Don Delillo book is that Don Delillo wrote it.

Writing is bullshitting on a massive scale. You get to decide whose brand you prefer. Me? I like McCarthy. The man is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the few living writers who can paint with prose. Delillo, on the other hand, is like the kind of painter who spends their career doing reproductions-- he's got the mechanics down, the perfect sentence here and there, but he hasn't got any real soul behind it.

But that's me.

>>1547516
Thanks for the link, the White Noise bashing made me smile a little on the inside

>>1547856

too low brow for you?