/lit/ - Literature

Not black

hack

Kind of wack

Certainly not on track

I'd like a Big Mac.

Stop that. Right now.

>>641662
And how?

>>641662
Just wow.

>>641662
Don't have a cow.

>>641662
To your deference, I'll bow

SWOUNDS!

>>641673
MOUNDS

>>641673
>>641677
These do not rhyme

I assume there are no oppinions on Lovecraft then ?

>>641682

They will in time.

>>641683

How about you check out the countless threads already devoted to him in the backlog. It's the same thought: poor writer, decent imagination.

>>641691

Poor writer ? Care to elaborate ?

>>641691
>If I keep saying "poor writer" it will be true

You just keep telling yourself that.

I like Nosferatu eh drink blood and doesnt afraid of anything

>>641696

His prose style is way, way too flowery and Victorian. Compare him with someone like Thomas Mann and you'll understand what I'm saying.

>>641717
>I hate anything that forces me to pick up a dictionary and look for definitions

>>641717
That is a matter of preference, though. Some people like the victorian style.

>>641724

You've never read anything by Mann, have you? Idiot.

>>641727
>complains about Lovecraft
>calls someone an idiot

>>641727
lol.

Mann picked up various dictionaries himself while writing his stuff.

>>641726

That might be the case, but considering when he was writing it was already an anachronism. And just to prove the law of /lit/, just because people like Ayn Rand does mean she's a good writer. BAM

>>641739

Yes, but his writing is more deliberate and confident.

>>641744
Just because you have shit taste doesn't mean your favorite author is a good one.

>>641747

That's exactly what I'm trying to say about Lovecraft.

>>641744

doesn't

>>641744
The time period in which a book is written has little impact on how good it is.

>>641752
Says the man with terrible taste in literature.

>>641762

Who is your favourite writer?

>>641764
Can't say I have one. Im jumping from one author to another.

I wonder if that thread from yesterday is still up

>>641762

You're telling me that if someone were to write plays in the language of Shakespeare today it would be taken seriously? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

>>641768

What a convenient response. My favourite writer is Flaubert. I must have awful taste, huh?

>>641764
L. Ron Hubbard.

>>641770
It would be like some kind of postmodern experiment

I like both James Joyce AND Stephenie Meyer

>>641770
And why not ? So, if someone just as talented as Shakespeare today would write just as quality a play as Shakespeare originally did, he would not be recognized as a good writer ?

>>641773

Anne Carson's treatment of the Greeks is probably as far as you'd be allowed to go. There comes a point when art goes from being brilliant to just plain silly, and not knowing what era you're writing in is a surefire path for the latter.

>>641771
Sorry, I wasnt trying to find a convenient response, but its true. It just so happens, that I dont obsess myself over one author and just read what is said to be said authors best piece, before moving on to the next one.

>>641779

See what I wrote below.

>>641773
e.g. Mason & Dixon by Pynchon

>>641787
Above you mean ?

Just imagine that Lovecraft lived in the victorian era if it allows you to enjoy his works.

Seriously, a good piece of literature remains good regardless of when it was written. I do not comprehend how the time is in any way even remotely relevant.

>>641787
>see what I wrote
>anonymous poster

>>641806
Haters gonna hate.

>>641808

It's pretty obvious that there's only one person arguing against Lovecraft, and that's me. Just because this is anonymous doesn't mean you can't figure out who that someone's arguments are being continued somewhere else. It's called writing style.

>>641806

Are you honestly telling me that it would be perfectly cool for contemporary poets to write in the style of Pope again? Give me a break. It's very relevant. Style and technique changes with us, it can't remain stuck. Obviously we can admire the classics, but we can't just make carbon copies of them and say we're doing something new.

>>641833
Carbon copies ? If you can enjoy any other old books, this should be no different.

Okay, hypothetically speaking, what if Lovecraft had lived in the victorian era ? Would you aknowledge him as a good writer ?

Well you have not actualy said a single thing about Lovecraft as a writer, the only argument you can muster is that his writing style was not of his age, which is a very weak argument.

>>641850

Compare him to other Victorian writers and it will be extremely obvious that they do it better than him. The only reason why Lovecraft is in any way memorable is because of the mythos he created, that's it.

>>641853
Many may have done better than him, and many did worse than he did. That is my oppinion.

The only people who don't like Lovecraft are cretinous negros.

The Negronomicon.

>>641999

I'm Latin and don't like him.

Poe is leagues better than Lovecraft. Poe was known for his pulpy stuff, but also excelled in poetry. Lovecraft's poetry was... mediocre, to say the least.

Although that poem about hating blacks is most lolsworthy.

>>642023
Everyone knows Poe was superior. But saying Poe is a better author than X is like saying you're taller than Gary Coleman.

>>642032

Baudelaire > Poe

>>642032
they're different
psychological horror vs. mystical horror

you can't deny lovecraft's contribution, just look at hellboy and it's ogru jahad or whatever ripoff

>>642032
Yes, it's just that Lovecraft is always compared to Poe, and wrongly so.

>>642037
Two different languages. Impossible to compare.