Cliches in the "literature" genre.

[Anonymous No.11249403]

>paper thin plot
>purple prose
>the protagonist is apathetic, melancholic and self-centered, a verbose manchild
>conclusion is intentionally vague and unsatisfying

[Anonymous No.11249413]

lmao books btfo

[Anonymous No.11249420]

>>11249413
poor reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.11249438]

>>11249403
>>the protagonist is apathetic, melancholic and self-centered, a verbose manchild
Is this a bad thing if they suffer/learn from it though?

[Anonymous No.11249477]

I constantly find myself writing reactive protagonists. I think this is because I don't take a lot of initiative in my life, so it's hard to imagine what it would be like to actively initiate conflict and pursue imaginative goals.

Are there any tricks to writing characters that aren't like the description in the OP?

[Anonymous No.11249490]

>somebody does something
>somehting happens
>something changes
>mystery is unravelled

[Anonymous No.11249500]

>>11249403
>paper thin plot
not bad if the book is written well enough
>purple prose
not bad if the writer uses flowery prose purposefully
>the protagonist is apathetic, melancholic and self-centered, a verbose manchild
not a bad thing if the protagonist has reasons to be like that
>conclusion is intentionally vague and unsatisfying
yeah, ok, I agree with you on this, 99% of writers who do this are a waste of space.

[Anonymous No.11249502]

>>11249477
expand your imagination by reading books with more proactive characters
get more life experiences
think more positively, less reactively

[Anonymous No.11249512]

>>11249403
>>purple prose


I always find this definition problematic. How do you decide what is purple prose and what is poetic?

>I ask you, OP, if you consider, for example, Moby Dick to be an example of purple prose. And what about Lolita?

I say this because Shakespeare is considered – and in my view rightly considered – one of the greatest writers of all time, and probably one of the supreme poets of humanity (if we consider his plays as poetry). And I am 100% sure that, if he wrote the same group of works, with the same messages and characters, but used a more watered-down style of poetry, he would not be as highly estimated as he is now.

Critics are always praising the texture of his plays, the beauty of such and such excerpt and speech, and it is a fair attitude: Shakespeare’s language is indeed one of the great beauties of the world.

But here is the question: why so many critics and reviewers attack writers that are trying to do with their prose what Shakespeare did with the language of his dramatic characters? Why was Shakespeare allowed to do it and celebrated for doing it, but when contemporary writers go for the same kind of aesthetics they are called “pretentious” and “artificial” and “writers of pastiche”?

But to contribute to the thread, one of the clichés that bother me the most in contemporary and XXth century literature is this one:

>Protagonist is a writer

[Anonymous No.11249514]

>>11249438
no, but it is a cliche

[Anonymous No.11249724]

>>11249514
>Catharsis is cliche
Welp, better the presses people.

[Anonymous No.11250173]

>>11249512
>I always find this definition problematic. How do you decide what is purple prose and what is poetic?
Easy. There is no such thing as 'poetic prose'

[Anonymous No.11250601]

>>11249403
>exposition
>rising action
>climax
>falling action

[Anonymous No.11250672]

>>11250601
>catastrophe
>falling action
>epilogue

[Anonymous No.11250681]

>>11250601
>climax
>X days earlier
>plotline development
>climax again
>falling action
>conclusion

[Anonymous No.11250992]

>>11249403
why not just post a link to the turkey city lexicon?

[Anonymous No.11251314]

>>11250173

Don’t you think that Moby Dick’s prose is poetic?

[Anonymous No.11251321]

>>11250601
The best books do this, but in reverse order