/lit/ - Literature

80% of characters in ASOIAF

Actually the best characters in that whole series are usually secondaries.

Reading for plot is stupid.

Stop doing it.

I hated the character in A Confederacy of Dunces, and that's still one of my favorite books

Depends. Is it the protagonist i don't like? in which cause i usually put the book down because its impossible to enjoy.

>if you don't like a character you can't care about what happens to them
ITT: empathy-less pseudo-sociopaths who claim to be able to understand the human dialogue of literature

I thought the characters in The Sun Also Rises were all despicable cynics that brought me no joy and I would hate to spend my time with them, (even though in typing this out I realize my closest friends basically are Brett and Mike) but I do realize that Hemingway was intentionally conveying those auras in order to draw out the theme of the book. I did enjoy the book as a whole and was able to appreciate the message, but I do feel the characters are gross people.

>If you don't care for some character then you can't care for what happens to them

I begin to understand why "carefag" is a classic 4chan insult.

Characters are not my friends. They are interesting people. And what is interesting is not what they do, but how the writer tells us what he do. "Characters I don't care about" are characters the writer can't write because the writer himself is shit. A good use of words is more than enough for any story and character, no matter how petty they are, be interesting.

Half the time I read books with characters I don't like just to see what happens to them.

Not in the sense that I expect the author to discipline and punish them, but unlikable characters are oftentimes more interesting to follow (and write for) than likeable ones.

I'm not sure if I love Richard III, hate him or love to hate him. Fortunately he has the same problem, so we've got that in common.

>>2878135
this

There are plenty of dicks in books I've read. Here are my top 3:

Werther. Whiny little twat.
Josef K. Although this probably doesn't qualify as I'm not sure I actually enjoyed The Trial.
George Bowling from Coming Up For Air. Fat, useless cunt.

>>2878109

>Reading for plot is stupid.

elaborate, what else would I read a fiction story for? the punctuation?

No one has even mentioned Holden Caulfield yet.

>>2878175
For the prose, you twat.

>>2878135

>A good use of words is more than enough for any story

that's like saying a good use of graphics is more than enough to make a good video game.

you sound really superficial, but most of lit is that way

>>2878175
I think he was talking about characters?

>am really in no position to talk for someone else though

>>2878185
So I can write meaningless fluff as long as I use pretty words?

>>2878185

>Read For the prose, you twat.

wtf does this mean?

why would I care about pretty words that don't convey an interesting story or ideas

you must think the best video games are the ones with the best graphics

graphics and words are a medium to express a story, thats all

no wonder fiction is so boring, all they do is write pretentious purple prose with no substance behind it

ever.

Don't feed the troll. He's clearly starving.

>>2878200
>>2878198
>>2878185
You're all missing the Goddamn point.
When have you ever picked up a book and said, I am going to read this for nothing but the prose/plot/characters/etc.?
When the fuck has a good book ever been good for one thing and one thing only?
It takes a hell of a lot of components to write well. If you're not reading for plot or you're not reading for characters, there are always other things to look for.

plot > characters > ideas > prose

>>2878186
>>2878198
>>2878200
But words are not like that at all to me. Words are the flesh and bone of the ideas. A plot can be summed up in three or four paragraphs, and the lenght of a book is not just there to give the book some weight.

You can write something about the smallest of things, a cup of tea for Proust is not like any other. Saramago talking about a man sitting in a desk at night is more interesting than most plot-driven stories to me. It's the way they say it that makes it interesting. Beckett is another example. And look at Borges for christ's sake! He describes experiences like no one, like a new form of ancient literature.

It's not just fancy words thrown left and right, but they form shapes and new shapes you could never imagine without the author, little twists that draw you inside the character's head.

There is much more than just "and then he said 'let's go to that mountain', 'ok', he replied"...

>>2878297

Beckett (and Borgers to a lesser degree) is extremely plot driven. When the Unnamable stomps on the entrails of his family -- a moment of literary purity.

>>2878297
>You can write something about the smallest of things, a cup of tea for Proust is not like any other.

what is interesting about it? what bearing does it have on the story, the characters, the action, the philosophy behind the story? Nothing.

Purple prose for the sake of purple prose is for old women with low IQs. NO EXCEPTIONS.

>>2878261
>>2878261
>>2878261
>>2878261


This ^ x 1000
The only time PROSE Is #1 is in poetry.

If I'm reading fiction I don't need seventy descriptions about one object and about one feeling all using different adjectives and metaphors to illustrate one thing--fuck off idiot writers

>>2878340

It's a very overstimated concern. Post some REAL purple prose, sister.

>>2878261

ideas > characters > prose > plot

>>2878348

ideas are #1 in a philosophical work not in a fiction work

style (prose) is #1 in poetry because poetry is short and can afford to be all style and no substance

plot+characters are #1 in fiction because fiction is story telling, it revolves around characters and what happens to them--everything else is secondary

this is why "literature" as a genre is never taken seriously, it puts prose ahead of characters, story and ideas, and does none of them well--purple prose is terrible to read--all literature is just purple prose with no substance behind it

>>2878350

>all literature is just purple prose with no substance behind it

Have you ever read Faulkner? Pynchon? Any number of writers who can write beautifully, tell stories, and create rich characters? What the hell kind of literature are you reading to make such a statement?

>>2878365
He´s been reading the novelization of Shrek because IT´S A FUCKING TROLL.

>>2878340
You don't find it interesting, I get it.

But it's not purple prose I'm talking about, I'm not a guy for purple prose myself. You can say something simple about something simple and still be incredible. It's about word play and words are the "philosophy behind the story", if you can even call it that. If books were films, the script would be the plot but the prose would be the job of the director, do you get what I'm saying?

The prose is what made Shakespeare stand out, it's what made Lolita a great book and not the account from a creep, it's what makes a murder story have tension, despite the plot points of the murder. It's the witty remarks of Sherlock Holmes, it's the game Twain plays and Joyce and Dostoyevsky and lots of others.

Plot-driven stories are not worse, that's not what I'm saying. Just that you are putting aside what makes books more than just unfolding premises, going from here to there. Fantasy, sci-fi, adventure, these are usually plot-driven stories, but introspection is achieved mainly by the prose.

There is a story by Nabokov called Spring in Fialta and his description of the city alone is incredible and he takes you from the eye of a man passing by, to the woman he sees, to the place that he met her and back to the present and he goes in circles around their relationship in the most beautiful way. The plot? Man meets woman on the streets and has a flashback. It's meaningless.

>>2878365

yes faulkner and pynchon are readable to some extent but never enjoyable. full stop.


their characters are boring normal people, pynchon adds some quackery to his characters because he has nothing interesting to say in general

>>2878376
>It's meaningless.
>implying

>>2878377

>never enjoyable

I enjoy both of them immensely

>>2878376

>. If books were films, the script would be the plot but the prose would be....3D graphics, get what I'm saying?

yes I get that you are dazzled by superficial elements that have little bearing on the substance of the book--it's an aesthetic preference I get it--you are probably impressed by the new wave of 3D movies because they are so PRETTY

ya? pretty writing? get out.

>>2878383
That's the absolute opposite of what I'm saying. The superficial part of it is the contrary, the 3D graphics is a long and monotonous description of the landscape and the character's clothes. I'm talking intensity, introspection, word play, mind games, philosophy, emotion, dialogue, fluid time, fluid space, complex characters. The plot is just what is happening superficially, while the mind of the character is what really grabs the attention.

>>2878402

ideas are important yes
plot is important
characters are important

prose and flowery metaphors are the least important. yes.

>>2878402

> The plot is just what is happening superficially
>what is happening superficially

I know what you're saying but it only applies to 'literature'
because everything that happens in 'literature' is superficial and irrelevant, Every character in literature is superficial and irrelevant

all that matters in literature is how to describe a fence or state of mind in 20 different, but equally boring ways.

Enjoy.

>>2878402

Wait a DAMN minute...Moby Dick...really wasn't about the whale?

>>2878411
>>2878414
>>2878416
u mad