/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17482788]

Are his stories and poems really even that scary anymore in this age ruled by Lovecraft and Stephen King?

[Anonymous No.17482839]

lovecraft is derivative of poe. so the opposition doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.17483974]

>>17482788
I don't know that he's "scary"; darn few writers and books are literally scary once you hit, say, 20 yo.

But he can conjure an intense mood. I just read Cask of Amontillado the other day. Of course I know the story, but re-reading it, it's still a good and effective piece, that pulls you in, and A's fate was indeed rather disturbing.

He makes it work with the ironic banter and the careful choice of narrative detail. It's a very good example of Poe's aesthetic principle of having every word and sentence contribute to the final effect in a short story.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17484087]

Poe and lovecraft and the whole weird fiction and ghost story aesthetic in general are better consumed as unique aesthetics and not as experiences of terror.

[Anonymous No.17484150]

>>17484087
This. There are very few writers who are able to conjure as clear of an aesthetic and mood as Poe. He should be appreciated for that reason alone.

[Anonymous No.17484194]

>>17482839
He was better then poe though.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17484209]

>>17484194
Ehh, lovecraft’s what happens when you throw Dunsany, poe, mr James and Blackwood and so forth into a blender. Hes Fun because he pastiches all of those characters but he himself when the question is that particular element or genre? Weight for weight Hes inferior. Still very enjoyable. Check out his essay on horror/supernatural fiction.

[Anonymous No.17484406]

>>17484194
they're both bad genre fic you pleb

[Anonymous No.17484711]

>>17484406
Dear Anon, perhaps it is you who are the pleb? Being unable to appreciate the aesthetics of Poe and Lovecraft suggests as much.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYSEULU. No.17484981]

IF YOU READ TO EXPERIENCE EMOTIONS LITERATURE IS NOT FOR YOU.

[Anonymous No.17484999]

>>17484981
That's a lie from some artificial aesthetic wasteland made of aluminum Christmas trees

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYSEULU. No.17485009]

>>17484999


?

[Anonymous No.17485033]

>>17484981
>IF YOU READ TO EXPERIENCE EMOTIONS LITERATURE IS NOT FOR YOU.
could you expand on that?

[Anonymous No.17485045]

>>17485009
It's quite simply not true ; much great literature is designed to conjure an emotional reaction. Literature can't be reduced to that, but nor can that aspect of the literary aesthetic/experience be denied.

[Anonymous No.17485071]

>>17482788
>Lovecraft and Stephen King?
Pulp horror is not and cannot ever be more unsettling and terrifying than actually well written horror such as Edgar Allen Poe.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYSEULU. No.17485108]

>>17485033


LITERATURE IS AN ART; THE PURPOSE OF ANY ARTFORM IS TO REALIZE AN IDEA IN THAT FORM'S FORMAT, NOT TO STIMULATE THE SUBJECT'S EMOTIONALITY; IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE EMOTIONS WATCH A BAD «MOVIE», A BAD TELEVISION PROGRAM, READ A COMIC, OR GO OUTSIDE.

AN OPTIMAL ARTIFACT HAS THREE ONTOLOGICAL ASPECTS: (I) THE AFFECTIBLE ASPECT, (II) THE INTELLIGIBLE ASPECT, (III) THE SENSIBLE ASPECT; TO REDUCE ART TO THE LATTER CONSTITUTES AN ANTIARTISTIC ABERRATION, AND REGARDING LITERATURE IN PARTICULAR: AN ANTILITERARY ONE.


>>17485045
>much great literature is designed to conjure an emotional reaction.


KITSCHY, TRASHY PSEUDOLITERATURE.

[Anonymous No.17485114]

>>17485108
Everything you type is blather of the most obvious and trite kind. You contribute nothing.

[Anonymous No.17485122]

>>17485108
Romanticism btfo

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYSEULU. No.17485144]

>>17485114


JUST GO BACK TO «REDDIT».

[Anonymous No.17485198]

>>17485108
Sounds like you've misread Adorno m8. Stop posting

[Anonymous No.17485217]

>>17485108
>KITSCHY, TRASHY PSEUDOLITERATURE.

Like Shakespeare? Like Jane Austen? Like Dickens and Eliot and Melville? And Joyce and Faulkner and Hemingway?

>LITERATURE IS AN ART; THE PURPOSE OF ANY ARTFORM IS TO REALIZE AN IDEA IN THAT FORM'S FORMAT,

Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a true idea. But it ALSO entails "the arousing of emotion, with the plot and the reactions of the characters inside the tragedy '… arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.' ”

[Anonymous No.17485227]

>>17485108
Based

[Anonymous No.17485236]

>>17485217
sounds like Aristotle would be a big fan of romantic comedies

[Anonymous No.17485249]

>>17485236
Catharsis for plebs, why not?

[Anonymous No.17485260]

>>17482788
To be fair he is partly to thank for Lovecraft's and King's works, he is one of the main people that inspired Howard
and Howard inspired Stephen.

[Anonymous No.17485265]

How Charlie Brown killed the aluminum Christmas tree
>https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/life/2017/12/08/charlie-brown-aluminum-christmas-tree/927643001/

[Anonymous No.17485406]

>>17485217
>Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a true idea. But it ALSO entails "the arousing of emotion, with the plot and the reactions of the characters inside the tragedy '… arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.' ”

And? That's his point, retard. He's saying that art isn't about emotions, but the emotional is only an aspect of it, that literature isn't about feeling emotions.

[Anonymous No.17485415]

Idk about scary but they're much better than anything King has ever done

[Anonymous No.17485479]

>>17485406
>He's saying that art isn't about emotions, but the emotional is only an aspect of it, that literature isn't about feeling emotions.

How can you misread him when I quoted his very words. The purpose of tragedy is to arouse "pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions."

I didn't say it's ONLY about emotions, but clearly, in the view of Aristotle, arousing emotions IS one of the KEY PURPOSES of tragedy, at least. And thus >>17484981 is misconceived -- at least, it's flatly contrary to Aristotle.