/lit/ - Literature

>doesn't understand beckett

>>4211906
Pleb general? Pleb general.

You realize that all of the great classics of literature, Homer, Aeschylus, Vergil, Dante, and Shakespeare are fundamentally storytellers and not stylists? Obsession with style is a preoccupation of the current and previous centuries

>>4211971
Agreed. If your primary concern is style, write poetry. Or, in this day and age, make movies. But don't write fiction... Of course, on some level a separation between style and plot, between matter and manner, is impossible. But the point is about emphasis, and especially the emphasis of the critics and the audience, and what is understood to be the important and central fact.

unrelated, but does anyone else feel that the second Rough for Theatre is basically 'Beckett does the Twilight Zone'? That's how I read it, and I love it.

>>4211993
>If your primary concern is style, write poetry
>Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare all wrote poetry

>>4211971
>shakespeare being good for anything but flowery prose

>all these embarrassing plebs railing against plot

Time to read a book:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm

>>4211993
Well, you think about all of the prose stylists of the past century, Butor, Perec, Robbe-Grillet, Cabrera Infante, and they've had an undeniable effect on literature precisely because they eschew plot or even characters to push narrative to its limits.
Beckett is wholly mis-understood. Most of his books have a central plot, it's just buried under piles of sucking stones and dirt.

>>4212042
lol

>prose
>disregarding his characters
>not understanding his multi layered, meticulously constructed plots

lol

>>4212042
>plays
>prose

Nigger please, even Waiting for Godot has beginning, middle and end.

>>4211906
>2013
>not understanding narrative inquiry

>>4211971
"Dont worry about style, just read and write and it will come by itself"- Paraphrase- Borges

>>4211971
Homer, Vergil, Dante, and Shakespeare are some of the greatest poets of all time. Jeez.

>>4212896
Well, fine. That would actually mean something if Borges had any sort of style.
I like the man, but only for his ideas. Stylistically there is nothing.

>>4213723
get out

>>4213723
Are you for real? Borges was a great writer as well as thinker.

>>4213829
borges is a horrible stylist.

>>4211971
>Homer, Aeschylus, Vergil, Dante, and Shakespeare are fundamentally storytellers

you haven't read a single one of these men's work.

>>4213829
borges had a pretty utilitarian prose in general, but he did try some things in "El fin"

>>4212514
Two of each, in fact.

>>4212514
>interpreting

>>4211971
dante wrote the divine comedy so he could put people he didn't like into various parts of hell

> plot

>>4213723
except Borges had a VERY particular voice. I'm curious about what you account as style.

>>4213849
there's a difference between disliking his style and it being bad. you clearly don't know the difference

>>4211945
>'understanding' an author
>hurr i've unlocked the objectively correct interpretation

>>4213861
What do you mean with utilitarian? Like straight to the point, just the necessary to transmit it?

>>4214453
there's a difference between being able to discern what's good and bad and being a mindless drone

>>4212488
>multi layered, meticulously constructed plots
lol no,but you are right about the characters.