/lit/ - Literature

I know mang, I'm on like page 25 and it's fucking page after page of incoherent dialogue.

why didn't he just write a fucking play

>>1833306
Wait till you read the next chapter bro, this shit is driving me fucking crazy.

Holy god damned are you people stupid?

First of all, you know why this is considered a good book? Well, let me tell you: IT ALL FUCKING ADDS UP. You don't read a book for the first twenty five pages, you read for a whole. You know why he did all the incoherent dialogue? Because Benjy is mentally retarded, and that's all he remembers. I am surprised you guys can't relate since you're the same fucking way. `You know why Benjy's pieces of memory are so incoherent? Because that's HOW HE THINKS. Faulkner is relating the characters thoughts to the audience to show his simple mind; he follows and remembers based on the things around him, nothing else. He's describes thing as they happen. "Soups in the bowl. then it's gone" He can't have complex thoughts (sound familiar, retards?)

Now let me explain to you why you're so wrong. You know this book? It is a whole MASTERPIECE of plot and development! Nothing is wasted and everything is important. I am sorry you're small feeble minds can't handle this, but the novel is written to follow THOUGHTS. That's why it is famous and you're sitting slack-jawed reading a novel obviously too complex for you.

Keep reading OP, it's worth it.

four chapters, each from a different person's perspective

the first is from the perspective of a 35 year old retard with the mind of a 6 year old

go figure you dumbfucks

second chapter is where you begin to realise how faulkner is an absolute master of prose

Wow having retarded character is really no excuse for bad writing guys Where's the rule that says just because a mentally ill person doesn't perceive the world coherently in reality, it has to be written like that too?
It's a really poor excuse because a stable, healthy person would never be capable of 1:1 perceiving the consciousness of a retard (see nagel but uh change the bat to a retard), and writing as though he could is pretty cheap and misleading.

Good writers bend the the demands of otherness to their literary mastery. Bad writers use it as an excuse to throw forward obnoxious prose.

Go print out the character list from Sparksnotes and refer to it every time you can't keep track of who's who. That'll help you out immensely.

>>1833336
Fuck that pussy shit, real men go in and figure it out the second chapter.

>>1833332
Are you retarded? I am really starting to wonder. Have you seen memento, where it has a nonlinear time due to Leonard's condition, allowing the audience to perceive Leonard's life? Well this is an advanced version of that sixty years before Memento was created. It's all about connection.

>>1833343
>real men

you dun showed me up.

Weren't no spark notes in 1931.

>>1833302
>>1833306
>>1833310
>>1833332

I'm getting a real sense of samefag in this topic.

>>1833357
Weren't no sparknotes in the 1600's either yet somehow they got them for most of Shakespeare's plays. Must be time machine magic.

>>1833364
Yeah, but back in the 1600's people still got the complex meanings of Shakespeare, didn't they, uder fuder? Probably whilst watching the damned things.

>>1833343
There's absolutely no reason that movie couldn't have been shot in conventional linear time, and with nothing as a matter of perspective lost.
And actually, we don't "perceive" his life, what we perceive is a series of cuts and sequences we're encouraged to treat as a process of identification with the character; it would be impossible to actually perceive his life as he lives it. So really we're back at what I was criticising to begin with: the means of representation, and to me, all these sorts of conveying a perspective are rather cheap and misleading because they promise a subjectivity we could never have. Of course, some of these have a kind of entertaining value as gimmicks, see memento, but others are just nuisances wrapped up as faux imitations, see faulkner.

>>1833372
Oh my fuck lord, you've confirmed it. You're now retarded. The use of the structure to tell the story, to utilize every bit of a story to develop character and theme, is key to works as a whole, and if you can't see the genius of utilizing this, well, have fun in third grade forever.

>>1833380
>hasn't filtered !pSkjEcB9sQ yet.

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>1833380
>The use of the structure to tell the story, to utilize every bit of a story to develop character and theme, is key to works as a whole
I never said it wasn't, just that there's not as much worth in such underhanded, self-obsessed techniques as you and others in the literary community like to think. It's repugnant textual self-immersion typical to that era, and while I do credit Faulkner for at least engaging with social issues, it's unforgivable that he convey them in the most subjective, repressed manner.

But feel free to keep yammering "genius", it's doing you a lot of good.

>>1833392
Well what do you think is a good way of expressing the story? In a linear fashion where we lose the background information of Benjy's character? A lot of people exclaim "Show, don't tell" an that's part of this. I don't think you even understand the simple idea of storytelling in complex form. You're telling me there's a better way Faulkner could have shown Benjy's mindset? Really? What would that be?

>>1833403
>Well what do you think is a good way of expressing the story?
Coherently

>A lot of people exclaim "Show, don't tell" an that's part of this.
They don't expect a bunch of wild gestures though

>I don't think you even understand the simple idea of storytelling in complex form
Just because it's harder to understand doesn't make it any more complex. That's a slap in the face to some of the greatest conventional narratives ever produced.

>You're telling me there's a better way Faulkner could have shown Benjy's mindset? Really? What would that be?
Stop trying to show people what they'll never be able to understand. Write coherently but masterfully. It's not rocket science, it just takes talent and sill, and it's served most of the best writers in human history fairly well. I'm only concerned with highlighting the weakness of such a technique, not with replacing it.

>>1833421
Nope, I am done, fucking done.

>>1833428
toodle pip

>>1833421
Hey, you got that stupid picture where there is a carpenter, nutritionist, composer and professor that's an expert on literature? The one saying that Ulysses is a good book and why it's better than shit like GRRM? I want to post that in response to your stupid posts.

>>1833434
I think you missed the point of that image, sorry.

>>1833306
It's stream of conciseness from a retard. He has flashbacks/remembrances all the time and he hardly can differentiate them from the present world.

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

The next chapter is even more difficult. Maybe authors like Joyce and Faulkner are too hard for you at this point? Work your way up to more complex and difficult works. Maybe start with As I Lay Dying for Faulkner, it's much more straight forward.

>>1833421
>Coherently

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it incoherent.

>They don't expect a bunch of wild gestures though

And who are you to say what people expect out of a work? Every person has their own interpretation of something.

Rest of the post isn't worth responding to.

>>1833449
>Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it incoherent.

Exactly.

>>1833421

>Write coherently but masterfully. It's not rocket science, it just takes talent and sill,

>Write coherently It's not rocket science, just talent and sill,

> coherently, talent and sill

>sill

>sill

Enjoy your sillful writing, you gormless bogtrotting piece of fucking shit.

>>1833446
>It's stream of conciseness from a retard
It's not a stream of consciousness, although it's similar.

>maybe authors like Joyce and Faulkner are too hard for you at this point?
No, I just don't like wasting my time with authors who have their heads stuck up the arse of subjectivity.

>Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it incoherent.
I do understand it though, I understand that it's incoherent. That's the point.

>And who are you to say what people expect out of a work? Every person has their own interpretation of something.
I'm just a person who critically appreciates literature, nd I speak for everyone who does or wishes to critically appreciate literature as well.

>Every person has their own interpretation of something
Sure, but not all are equal relative to the end of critical evaluation.

>Rest of the post isn't worth responding to.
I guess you didn't understand the rest then

D&E, maybe stuff like Orwell and Vonnegut is better for you. It's great literature, but very simple.

>>1833452
I hope you don't try to read this book because you don't seem to be very good at filling in blanks

>>1833332

>Good writers bend the the demands of otherness to their literary mastery. Bad writers use it as an excuse to throw forward obnoxious prose.

You fucking maladjusted monkey. I hate you with a passion. You know why I hate you baby.

D&E confirmed for troglodyte.

>>1833458

Why don;t you come here and fill in the gaps in my fucking arse with your fucking tongue, you shitlicking piece of fucking filth? How about you just fuck off and die on the Isle of Man, you abject wankstain on the blanket of humanity?

>>1833456
No thanks, I prefer people like James, Dostoevsky, maupassant and Chekov. Dostoevsky, for example, had a remarkable talent of conveying multiple points of view (the polyphonic novel) without turning the text to illegible shit, truly amazing

Continuing from >>1833466

>Stop trying to show people what they'll never be able to understand. Write coherently but masterfully.
I think we've covered this. Something coherent was expressed because it was understood by at least some readers. It's your own fault if you can't understand.

>It's not rocket science, it just takes talent and sill [sic], and it's served most of the best writers in human history fairly well. I'm only concerned with highlighting the weakness of such a technique, not with replacing it.
The traditional techniques "serving some of the best writers in history" is pure tautology, a very bad habit you must have picked up from some intellectual whore. Why is Faulkner not one of the best writers in history? Because he didn't use those techniques, right? Try again.

Isn't everyone glad we have Derp here to champion traditional literary techniques? By the way, I think you should look to your own weaknesses before trying to find them in great works of literature.

>>1833421
>Coherently
That's a very low bar, and one that is met by Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. If it was entirely incoherent, then there would be no understanding of the story from anyone. I don't think you should project your own reading deficiencies onto others.

>They don't expect a bunch of wild gestures though
The difference between a wild gesture and a non-wild gesture? I'm guessing one lives in the African safari while the other lives in a zoo. That answer would be par for the course in your case.

>Just because it's harder to understand doesn't make it any more complex. That's a slap in the face to some of the greatest conventional narratives ever produced.
Actually yes, something hard to understand does produce interpretational complexities due to the varying reactions to the writing, including philistine criticisms like your own. Whether a novel is complex is a separate issue from whether it's good or not, but the only issue here is whether difficulty understanding a work introduces complexity.

>>1833463

Dostoevsky is actually a bigger cunt than you, and so over-rated it's fucking unbelievable. Chekhov, mind you, there's a writer.

Dostoevsky? I shit the cunt.

What's all this hebrew shit in my captcha? Do I look like a fucking jew or something?

>>1833463
You know what's cool? Faulkner, Joyce, other writers, saw these guys work, read them and loved the, but they thought
- I bet I could do something more. I need to do something more with my work.

And they fucking did, and that's why they're great.

Just wait till it gets to the perspective of a neurotic college student. And that asshole, Jason.

>>1833466
>>1833468

Ooh, herp and derpy, the big yellow bus is here to take you to school.

Why not retreat into some ad hominem shit, or maybe just repeating the same post over and over, or whatever autistic shit you usually pull, because you have been fucking TOLD.

>>1833466
>That's a very low bar, and one that is met by Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. If it was entirely incoherent, then there would be no understanding of the story from anyone
You're failing to appreciate the sense in which I use the word incoherent. It's by no means syntactically incoherent.

>The difference between a wild gesture and a non-wild gesture? I'm guessing one lives in the African safari while the other lives in a zoo. That answer would be par for the course in your case.
Again, you're just playing on the ambuigity of the word 'wild' to attack a sense I haven't used the word in. Seriously dude if you don't understand what I'm saying you should just ask me to clarify my meaning instead of wasting your own time by attacking strawmen positions.

>omething hard to understand does produce interpretational complexities due to the varying reactions to the writing
Just because something produces more than one kind of reaction doesn't make that thing itself any more complex. You're mistaking the effect of one thing with another.

>>1833434
I've already argued this before in different ways, but let me try again:
Two master carpenters, and even if they were of absolutely equal levels of skill, could disagree on the merits of a table. This can be extended on and on throughout those metaphors.
The origin of terms as objective signs of quality may not differ (let's call the wood the origin, the cutting and joining of it being the terms of quality, all of which are, hypothetically speaking, objective points which could lead to the table's objective level of quality) however what is relative is the selection of terms by each carpenter. This one may prefer such and such cut and join, the other prefers a different one. Both agree the grain of wood is fine, but one thinks it is the wrong type of wood to use for a large dinner table such as this one; the other insists that the wood chosen has less relevance than that the grain is fine. This argument can continue forever with neither carpenter ever addressing the other carpenter's selection of terms, only addressing his own, and both addressing the objective quality correctly without ever once understanding it.

>>1833470
>they thought - I bet I could do something more
except what they did turned out to be quite a bit less, and conducted under an entirely different dominant, a dominant that privileged bourgeois notions of individualism and subjectivity at the cost of tradition and convention, the aggregate of centuries of human achievement.

>>1833480

Yeah you tell em

In 20 years D&E is going to look back at the time he spent here and all the stupid shit he said and he's going to be filled with shame. He's going to think to himself,"man, was I a stupid kid! even I would hate myself if I met myself back then!"

>>1833480
>This argument can continue forever with neither carpenter ever addressing the other carpenter's selection of terms
And that is why carpenters, or anyone arguing over anything with anyone, can only come to a conclusion when there is agreement over some relative end. Of course, in this alienated environment of an argument between two people, no conclusion could ever be expected to be arrived at, but in real life we have every right to assume that under the proper conditions a conclusion can be formed and supported. It's not a big fucking deal dude, go to any debate: the other person wins if he persuades the crowd, not his opponent, and not by pinning down some vital truth or end-point. So disputation can come to an end only according to some manner of settlement, whether it be by consensus, coercion or otherwise. Nothing about objectivity or truth to be said here.

>>1833480
fucking hell, you read too much zhuangzi or something

>>1833495
I wasn't talking objectivity or truth. I was talking about two carpenters arguing.

Quentin's part is one of the greatest things I've ever read.

It's no shameful feat to have to read it at least a few times to get it all.

>>1833523
I read the part with his Stream of Consciousness many times, because I loved the raw emotion. It's so good, and to understand it completely is almost impossible.

>>1833478
>You're failing to appreciate the sense in which I use the word incoherent. It's by no means syntactically incoherent.
Your accusations of incoherence in narrative and dialogue were what I was responding to, as well as your implication that the overall novel was systematically incoherent. I only pointed out the obvious truth that it wasn't due to the perception of a coherent narrative among readers not suffering from retardation.

>Again, you're just playing on the ambuigity of the word 'wild' to attack a sense I haven't used the word in. Seriously dude if you don't understand what I'm saying you should just ask me to clarify my meaning instead of wasting your own time by attacking strawmen positions.
Very perceptive of you. I'm sure no one else could figure that out by themselves. I can play with the vagueness of a term when there is a paucity of both meaning and intellect behind it. If you have a reason, don't dither with "I have a reason for using that term" and not explain yourself.

>Just because something produces more than one kind of reaction doesn't make that thing itself any more complex. You're mistaking the effect of one thing with another.
You're conflating text that introduces complexities with the evidence thereof. The multiple interpretations the text produces is evidence of the complexity of the text, and relatively sound evidence that you cannot grasp the reason why it produces those interpretations. This fact also adds to the already ample data that your difficulties have more to do with your minuscule reading ability than with the text itself.

>>1833455
>I do understand it though, I understand that it's incoherent. That's the point

You need to seriously proofread what you write if you want any credibility whatsoever. This statement above doesn't make sense, which is actually kind of ironic. Anyway, if it was truly incoherent no meaningful conclusion would be ascertained from it and that is obviously not the case.

>>1833458
lol you can't complain about incoherency and then tell people to fill in the blanks in order to understand you.

>>1833540
This guy is my new favorite poster.

>make this thread
>go to the gym
>come back
>45 new replies

Anyway, I'm using spark-notes an it's helping now, I won't give it and I'll reread it if I have to.

>>1833540
>your implication that the overall novel was systematically incoherent.
Where did I imply that?

>I only pointed out the obvious truth that it wasn't due to the perception of a coherent narrative among readers not suffering from retardation.
No-one, at any stage has called into question the linguistic coherence of the text, and you're kind of foolish for thinking anyone has.

>Very perceptive of you. I'm sure no one else could figure that out by themselves. I can play with the vagueness of a term when there is a paucity of both meaning and intellect behind it. If you have a reason, don't dither with "I have a reason for using that term" and not explain yourself.
Again, you're free to ask me what I mean instead of wasting your own time by arguing against your own misunderstandings.

>You're conflating text that introduces complexities with the evidence thereof
Where did I do that?

>The multiple interpretations the text produces is evidence of the complexity of the text
No, it's evidence that people are capable of multiple interpretations, which isn't at all surprising. You've yet to demonstrate how this equates to complexity.

>>1833541
>This statement above doesn't make sense
Of course it does, otherwise you wouldn't be capable of judging that it didn't make any sense. So really you're just saying that you don't grasp the sense, which is your own problem.

>if it was truly incoherent no meaningful conclusion would be ascertained from it
But no-one has said anything about anything truly incoherent, or meaning.

>you can't complain about incoherency and then tell people to fill in the blanks in order to understand you
Tu quoque fallacy

yawn.

>>1833665
D&E: Many words typed, nothing said

>>1833600
Wow, that's just hyperbolic. At least in the original I used real-life examples that happen every day on /lit/. I'm not railing against an entire academic community, I'm simply saying that one technique may not be worth as much credit as it's actually given, and I'm not the first to say this, Lukacs also held a similar position with regard to subjectivity and its derivative techniques in literature.

>>1833666
Nice job bro. I approve.

>>1833670
If there was nothing said then you wouldn't have anything to respond to.

>>1833665
Holy backpeddling, Batman.

>>1833684
How am I backpeddling?

I think I may stop the book I'm reading now and start up The Sound and the Fury. I finished As I Lay Dying a while ago and really enjoyed it.

I know I can always count on pretentious highschoolers like D&E to set my priorities straight.

>>1833731
It really is Faulkner's Magnum Opus. It's brilliant, and it deals with many issues: racism, destruction of the south, feminism. It's a fantastic novel, every crazy bit of it.

>>1833665
>Where did I imply that?
Systematic incoherence would mean you accused major parts of the novel overall of incoherence. Dialogue is a major part of the novel, thus you accuse the book of having systemic incoherence.

>Again, you're free to ask me what I mean instead of wasting your own time by arguing against your own misunderstandings.
You should back up your own ideas instead of vacillating on the point like a pompous windbag. I don't care if you do or not since it's not my argument.

>Where did I do that?
>No, it's evidence that people are capable of multiple interpretations, which isn't at all surprising. You've yet to demonstrate how this equates to complexity.
There actually. More clearly, you assumed conflation of the two when you accused me of arguing that the two are the same. One does not automatically equate to the other, though. However, multiple interpretations do provide evidence of complexity. Why? Simple narratives, like Aesop's Fables for example, give only a few or a single interpretation. Less dignified but more apropros, Dick and Jane don't produce many interpretations of the text because it is simple. More complex narratives produce more widely varying interpretations. Therefore, The Sound and the Fury is very likely (but not necessarily) a complex novel based on the interpretations it has produced.

The Sound and The Fury is an awesome book!

>>1833962
Yeah! Fuck you Deep&edgy! You've gone too far this time!

/lit/ fights are awesome.

d&e this is some of the worst trolling i've seen yet

not sure if i'm more disappointed with you or the anons that waste their time bickering with your stupid claims

>>1833840
>Systematic incoherence would mean you accused major parts of the novel overall of incoherence.
Where did I say anything about "systematic incoherence"?

>You should back up your own ideas instead of vacillating on the point like a pompous windbag
I've argued for every point put forward by me in this thread

>More clearly, you assumed conflation of the two when you accused me of arguing that the two are the same
How did you think I assumed conflation of the two?

>Simple narratives, like Aesop's Fables for example, give only a few or a single interpretation
Even the simplest of narratives have a vast potentiality of differences of interpretation.

>Dick and Jane don't produce many interpretations of the text because it is simple
So what

>More complex narratives produce more widely varying interpretations
Now you're just assuming what you've yet to prove

try a little harder buddy

stop feeding the troll

it's bad enough that he spends his entire days trolling high schoolers, but do you guys have to bite the bait

every
single
time?

Internet arguments are so pointless it's embarrassing to watch. They always end with "I proved you wrong. Pwnd" "No, faggot, I proved YOU wrong." "lol i trolled you" "no way I trolled you harder u mad"


also lol @ d&e talking about dostoevsky's polyphony. Dostoevsky isn't shitty! He's polyphonic! Bitch, please, you know you're dealing with a retard when he brings up Bakhtin and Dostoevsky