[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 136 KB, 1280x853, sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2173932 [Reply] [Original]

You can't post the same name twice (or three times).

Plot - Isaac Asimov
Characters - Margaret Atwood
Prose - Salinger

>> No.2173933

Uh, topic title should say prose. Oh God, I can't even do that right.

>> No.2173940

Plot: Asimov or Lovecraft
Characters: Hemingway, but props to Stephen King for somehow keeping all his characters distinct and from melding into one another even after tonnes of novels.
Prose: I'm gonna be boring and say Nabokov.

>> No.2173944

>>2173940

Nabokov rocked. I've only read Lolita, but the word plays were great, and the language was generally good. Can you recommend me something else to read by him, OTHER than Pale Fire?

>> No.2173945

Plot: Scarlett Thomas
Characters: Terry Pratchett
Prose: Hunter Thompson

>> No.2173950

>>2173944
I actually prefer Ada to Pale Fire and Lolita. The wordplay was less obvious but just as poetic. It's the one you should 'work up to' after Lolita.

>> No.2173971

>Margaret Atwood
>good at anything

fuck off

>> No.2173984

>>2173971

Why do you hate Atwood? Have you even read her?

>> No.2173998

Plot: Forster
Characters: Forster
Prose: Nabokov

>> No.2173999

>>2173940
i've heard nabokov described as a liberace of prose. i thought it was the best description ever.

EH. this list is forever tentative.

plot: kafka
characters: flannery o'connor
prose: raymond carver

>> No.2174005

>>2173999

Lily Sabbath Hawkins was good, and Hazel Motes was great. I liked her characters, even if they were weird.

>> No.2174011

>>2174005
hazel motes rules. have you seen the film "wise blood" by john huston? i watched it the other day. it was cool.

i think her characters are weird too. for me, no more weird than most people once you really get to know them. that's what i like about o'connor. or maybe i know weird people. i don't know so.

>> No.2174023

>>2173940
I gotta say, it's always impressed me that nearly all of his protagonists have had the same job, yet different personalities. He's far from the best for any of these things though. Plot in particular.

>> No.2174063

You can't beat Nabokov for prose, it's not that it is 'boring' to suggest him but that he is the natural choice for genius in that area.

>> No.2174077

>caring about characters or plot
>2011
ISHYGDDT

>> No.2174079

>You can't post the same name twice. (or three times).
Just lean back in your chair and watch me do it.

Plot - Terry Pratchett
Characters - Terry Pratchett
Prose - Terry Pratchett

>> No.2174083

>>2174077

Why wouldn't you care about characters or plot?

>> No.2174088

>>2174079

Please tell me you're 12 years old.

>> No.2174089

Naw dis da best.

Plot: Pynchon
Characters: Flannery O'Connor
Prose: Joyce

>> No.2174093

Regardless of Atwood's proficiency, she is a two-faced harlot who is damaging the fantasy genre more than any other author. She is always insisting that any new book of hers of critical acclaim doesn't belong in the genre but then retrospectively playing it off as if it was always of the genre.

>> No.2174096

Plot- Tom Clancy
Characters- Jack London
Prose- HP Lovecraft

>> No.2174097

Plot - Ursula K. Le Guin
Characters - George R.R. Martin
Prose - Marquis de Sade

>> No.2174099

PLOT: Ernest Hemingway
CHARACTERS: Dashiell Hammett
PROSE: Gustave Flaubert

>> No.2174101

>>2174063

This is what 17 year olds have been told to believe.

>> No.2174102

Plot - Playboy
Characters - Hustler
Prose - Razzle

>> No.2174106

>>2174063
i think nabokov's prose is really superfluous. sometimes it's clever. more often than not it's a burden for me. i prefer minimalism or atleast something in between minimalism and nabokov's heavy sentences.

>> No.2174107

Plot - Philip K. Dick
Characters - Virginia Woolf
Prose - Samuel Beckett

>> No.2174113

>>2174101
I was never taught Nabokov in my life, I'm afraid. It's completely true that he is one of the greatest modern geniuses of prose.

>>2174106
In many, many cases it is cleverness for cleverness' sake and I can see why that would be a drag, but it is never pointless.

>> No.2174114
File: 587 KB, 763x573, Globetrotters.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2174063

Reading Nabokov is like watching the Harlem Globetrotters - it's superficially entertaining, but ultimately there's no challenge, it's just showing off and cheating.

>> No.2174126

minimalism is like making a virtue of your own low tolerance for greatness. It's not even as wise or as helpful a concept as moderation.

>> No.2174143

>>2174126

I agree, minimalism is often bad. I like flourish and detail in my writing.

>> No.2174140

>>2174126

what about that r-carv story you analyzed

>> No.2174148

Plot: Tao Lin
Characters: Tao Lin
Prose: Tao Lin

>> No.2174151

>>2174126
can we discuss this? i like minimalism because it has the least room for pretentiousness.

>just so we don't have to argue about it:
pre·ten·tious/priˈtenCHəs/Adjective: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

and i find it annoying when i see two or three words that could've been described with just one. finding the right word so that shit doesn't feel over-written is an art in itself. i don't think shit should be totally minimal so it reads like a news article. but perhaps there is a balancing act in the two extremes. raymond carver being on one side and nabokov being the other. me personally, i still prefer carver. minimalism leaves out room for inflection in the narrative voice, keeping it in line with reality. however, i realize that good literature doesn't have to be about reality. the narrative voice seems to be more credible to me though. if i wanted poetics and theatrics i'd read a poem. again, i believe in poetics in a story but it has to be controlled or you look like a young kid who is over-eager.

>> No.2174154

>>2174140
it didn't strike me as a piece of minimalism, more of a rather subtle realism. In some senses realism can be a much greater style of writing than others because it demands that the writer tread a thin line between artistic flourishing and bare re-presentation. I imagine that can be much more difficult and constrained, but also much more profound, than simply pouring out ones creative spirit on a page. The critical theorist Lukacs certainly saw more value in it except for totally deluded reasons of engagement with social concerns and material history rather than the detachedness and alienating focus on the subjectivity of modernist writing

>> No.2174158

What the fuck is with all this Atwood shit on /lit/ recently? Is there an influx of Canadians or something?

>> No.2174163

>>2174154

ah, word

youve been weirdly agreeable and articulate of late, you feeling alright man?

>> No.2174167

>>2174151
There is nothing that I strongly disagree with in what you've said, although I am somewhat concerned for the reason you like minimalist literature, which seems to me to be a negative and reactionary manner, and so not a particularly productive or healthy one. As far as I can tell, you like minimalism because it, more or less, doesn't have this trait thing of pretending to be more than it is. So you like it because it's not this or that, or it doesn't have this or that. Why don't you say anything about affirmative about minimalism, such as the stylistic traits or its history, or whatever, y'know, things you like about it? I mean, it sounds about as bad a reason for liking something as playing basketball because it has the least capacity to make you fat is. You're not really interested in basketball this way, you're not concerned for what it's about, there's nothing in it that you love. This is not an optimal ground on which to construct one's love of any subject or activity.
And we get this again in what you're saying later,
>minimalism leaves out room for inflection in the narrative voice
still no focus and what minimalism leaves IN, which is what we'd love about minimalism. But also, i would contend that at least on the most basic level a narrative voice is always inflected, it's just that it either gets in the way, stays out of the way or enlivens the text. But I mean yeah most of your points are perfectly level-headed, it's just that what you like about minimalism is not really all that self-constituted and rather negative.

>> No.2174173

>>2174158
Sunhawk masturbates to her and posts her shit everywhere.

>> No.2174178

>>2174173

The thing is, I've cooled on her a bit. I read most of her books last year, so I don't havemuch to read now. She's still great, though. Why do you hate her without reading her?

>> No.2174179

I read a bit about atwood and my feminazi alert went off and I shunned her works

I did read oryx and crake though later on and I enjoyed it

I wouldn't say she's so great with characters, not at all, they're pretty standard

>> No.2174185

>>2174178
I don't, I hate you.

>> No.2174188

Plot- Chuck Palahniuk
Characters- Jack London
Prose- Steve Toltz

Come at me.

>> No.2174195

Plot-Philip K. Dick
Characters-Dostoevsky
Prose-Stephen King

>> No.2174200

Plot - Woolf
Characters - Asimov
Prose - Lovecraft

>> No.2174202

Plot - Pynchon
Characters - Dostoevsky
Prose - Woolf

>> No.2174203

>>2174167
i see what you mean. i can't help it though. it's what i feel i best relate to. i prefer plain-spoken language and scoff when i hear a string of needlessly used words (and scoff at myself for this too. a lot.). a friend and i were discussing how language itself is a cause of as many problems as it is a solution. people using the same word with two definitions. people arguing over two words which could have the same definition. keeping things minimal keeps it accessible. clarity and sentimentality seem like two opposing forces. maybe they're not. i like that ummm i think hemingway said it. something like if you write a love story never use the word love. i can't remember exactly. i think there are ways to be sentimental without using the language. maybe through a small gesture by a character. i prefer this type of thing instead of a flowery description because again, i think i relate to it better. when i read the heavy sentences by nabokov i think "oh brother" like hearing a long-winded explanation by someone excitable. in my younger days i was worried about "not enough" in my stories. now as i get older i'm worried about "too much."

opinions.

>> No.2174212

plot: hemingway
characters: foster wallace
prose: garcía márquez (for english prose, dunno)

>> No.2175015

>>2173932
>No Borges, Cortazar or Hesse in this thread.
Hm.

>> No.2175041

Plot- Stephen King
Characters- Hunter S. Thompson
Prose- David Foster Wallace

Come at me bros

>> No.2175043

Plot - JRR Tolkien
Character - Ellison
Prose - Theodore Sturgeon
Setting - Jack Vance

>> No.2175062

Plot: William Gibson
Characters: Orhan Pamuk
Prose: Borges

THIS BOOK WILL NEVER BE READ BY ANYONE AND IT"LL BE GREAT

>> No.2175071

Plot- J.R.R Tolkien

Characters- William Shakespeare

Prose- P.G. Wodehouse (the legend himself)

>> No.2175075

Plot:Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Characters: J.W. von Goethe
Prose: Oscar Wilde

>> No.2175078

Plot, Voltaire
Characters, Alexandre Dumas
Prose, PG Wodehouse

>> No.2175079

Plot: Dick
Characters: Faulkner
Prose: Joyce

>> No.2175090

Plot: Asimov
Characters: Hemingway
Prose: Conrad