Why the emphasis on novels?

[Anonymous No.22051431]

I am not just referring to this board but modern society in general seems to exalt novels(often large ones) as opposed to other mediums of literature such as poetry, short stories or plays. Personally I feel like short stories are often much more worthwhile and I get the impression that many people who don’t often resr might benefit from reading them as they are short and thematically concise. I just wondered why this was the case could it have something to do with the commercial nature of the publishing industry? I wanted to open a discussion on this

[Anonymous No.22051447]

A mediocre short story is pointless. A mediocre novel gets you attached to the characters through mere exposure effect.

[Anonymous No.22051486]

Novels are unironically midwit. Even at their best. People think I'm trolling when I say it, but it's true.
True patricians know that poetry is the highest form of literature, with short stories being a distant but respectable second.

To understand the novel, you must understand the origin of the novel. Novels had their genesis in the 1700s, mainly in England. Stupid satirical shit like Sterne, Fielding, Voltaire. It also came about at a time when the middle class was starting to inch their way slowly into the academic sphere. This is why you see an explosion in the 18th century of bawdy fart joke books like Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy and high-brow stuff is pushed to the side. I mean, look at the absolute complete dearth of literature at that time. Alexander Pope is almost unanimously considered to be the slight bright spot in that century, and even he today is almost an after-thought as a B-tier poet.

So basically, novels started as uneducated lower- and middle- class artistic expressions. In the 1800s, the artform was slightly redeemed by people like Flaubert and Dostoevsky, but they could not change the damage that has been done. The novel had an "unholy birth" and even the highest Prousts and Manns of the world cannot redeem this shit tier art form. Because in an artform structured around linear narrative, even experimental prose writers must still stick to this to some degree. So in essence, the very nature of the artform itself is stopping you from achieving mastery in the artform.

The modernists like Pound, Joyce and Woolf pointed out all of this and completely understood that the novel was lowbrow slop so they tried to completely take it back from the normies and make it intellectual again. Lack of plots, lack of linear narrative, more introspective, more experimental, stream of consciousness. Whether or not they succeeded is up for debate.

But yeah, novels are shit.

[Anonymous No.22051552]

>>22051431
This is true in all aspects.

Longer movies get more respect, even if the pacing suffers.

People try to run Marathons and Ultras even though they aren't accustomed to them, despite the fact less people have run a 4 minute mile than climbed Mt Everest.

Nothing wrong with all those things, as long as you're accustomed to them, as long as they are tailored to need to be that long.

[Anonymous No.22051559]

>>22051486
>Novels had their genesis in the 1700s, mainly in England

[Anonymous No.22051572]

>>22051431
it simply is making the customer feel like they get more stuff for their purchase.

[Anonymous No.22051643]

>>22051559
Yes pseud. That is correct. Stuff like Don Quixote are outliers. The novel was popularized in the 1700s.

[Anonymous No.22051662]

>>22051643
>genesis
>was popularized

[Anonymous No.22051681]

>>22051486
Did you miss class the day they taught comma usage?

[Anonymous No.22051847]

bump

[Anonymous No.22051888]

>>22051431
Obviously novels sell better than short stories. Short stories are too short to be sold individually so they have to be bundled up in a package with some good ones some bad ones. Not an easy thing to market at all.

[Anonymous No.22051898]

>>22051486
Interesting post

[Anonymous No.22051964]

>>22051447
This.
Literature is, for most, escapism. A novel keeps you in the same safe space for longer, unlike short stories where you have to adapt to new characters and new situations regularly. They don't give you enough time to get into the "zone" (I remember reading Harry Potter and ASOIAF as obsessively as I read 4chan today, like a junkie, completely unable to let it go, "just one more chapter").

[Anonymous No.22052418]

>>22051681
I use language how I want, like all the best writers.

[Anonymous No.22052957]

>>22051486
This is a pretty silly post but the overall point that poetry is superior is clearly true, it's inherently artistic and prose is not. For the vast majority of the literary tradition's lifetime, literature and poetry were synonymous. However for most of that time literature was more about aesthetics and the development of new ideas about the world (which were much fewer and farther between anyway) was largely left to philosophy, with literature occasionally giving a decorative treatment of already-established philosophical doctrines, but more commonly just using the general tropes that had been around forever, often combined with commentary on the current political or social milieu. When literature became more philosophical, the novel was convenient as a more direct way to get one's ideas across, without having to bother with the greater formal demands of poetry. Thus also why /lit/ focuses on novels, they are more discursive/philosophical (though obviously modern poetry eventually became very philosophical too, but also very obscure at the same time) and offer more obvious fodder for discussion about actual ideas with real-world moral implications. Personally I'd much prefer in-depth discussions of pure aesthetic/dramatic merits, in which people can put aside the idea that X novel by Y author is super important to some political movement, but realistically people are more likely to put energy into discussing things which they believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, have some impact on their lives.

But yeah anyway point being if people here had any actual erudition and understanding of literary history, discussion would be focused on totally different areas. It's a website for retards though, no reason to expect it to be better.

[Anonymous No.22053172]

>>22051486
>True patricians know that poetry is the highest form of literature
Aphorisms too imo

[Anonymous No.22053207]

>why the emphasis on narrative feature films rather than experimental shorts
Follow the money. Not enough audience for poetry or short stories

[Anonymous No.22053235]

>>22052957
>discussions of pure aesthetic/dramatic merits
Pleb here, can you give some examples of these?

[Anonymous No.22053280]

>>22053235
I don't really know shit about it, I just see it as the most interesting angle from which to approach literary analysis, rather than boring shit about which book promotes the best life-philosophy.

But the obvious stuff would be rhythm/meter, musicality, dramatic structure, how themes are developed from a technical perspective independent of their meaning, effectiveness of characterization, effectiveness of word choice and syntax, ways of using metaphor/imagery; and the various interactions between all these parameters.

Again, it's 4chan so it's not like I'm surprised that people post dumb lowest common denominator shit, nor do I make a huge effort to improve the situation, I just like to fantasize sometimes about having access to interesting conversations.

[Anonymous No.22053484]

>>22051431
Your point is odd to me and even stranger is the agreement you gathered. If anything a novel is more often than not relatively loose; you can truly babble on and on and on and on and still succeed. A novel is considerable more open in its overall structure and forgiving; thus, the small time reader, will usually not pay as much attention and does not have to do so.

Short stories and poetry are concise and follow a very classical structure rarely ignored. In a novel, most of the time, words can be moved around and entire paragraphs may be cut and or changed. Compared to that, a short stories text as well as a the metaphorical and allusion in poetry have to be perfectly in tune with the words enclosing each other. Naturally this requires the reader to pay attention, read at a slower pace and possible do so multiple times. There is a reason why short stories are considered by many a great artist to be far more difficult to write than a novel.

[Anonymous No.22053502]

>>22051486
It would serve you better to just post in your native language. Failing that, maybe more esl classes.

[Anonymous No.22053505]

>>22053502
Bot posts aren't allowed on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22053508]

>>22053505
Nice one, mr. redditor

[Anonymous No.22053685]

>>22053280
>I just like to fantasize sometimes about having access to interesting conversations
I'm convinced this is impossible without selective barriers to entry, which at the same time can't be overly credentialist like academia. I gave up on /lit/ a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.22053708]

>>22053502
There is literally nothing grammatically wrong about my post. I understand how English works far better than your zoomer brain. I bet you think you can't begin sentences with "Because" too.

[Anonymous No.22055266]

>>22051431
I'm fairly picky about fiction, so I like to seek out longer books.
If I end up liking a really long book, that sets me up for a very long time.
If I end up liking a short story, I need to continue searching for new books immediately after finishing it.
Thus while a short story might be the most efficient way for an author to express an idea, for a reader it's actually longer works that are more efficient, at least from my perspective.

[Anonymous No.22055290]

I think there’s a class aspect and a philosophical aspect. On one hand, only the aristocrats and wannabe aristocrat gentry or middle class really have use and appreciation for poetry. The masses of people might like to hear poetry, but they don’t read it, certainly don’t write it and they really never have. Those people like prose novels because that’s a better format for doing what they like - commenting on social and economic issues and discussing topics. That’s the class aspect. The technology aspect is harder to explain. But I think it has something to do with the way we see the world and the way we see literature. Prose and a world of science go hand in hand while poetry and science and technology go together only like water and oil.

[Anonymous No.22055313]

>>22052957
Verse is but an ornament and no cause to poetry, since there have been many most excellent poets that never versified. For Xenophon, who did imitate so excellently as to give us effigiem justi imperii—the portraiture of a just empire under the name of Cyrus (as Cicero says of him)—made therein an absolute heroical poem; so did Heliodorus in his sugared invention of that picture of love in Theagenes and Chariclea; and yet both these wrote in prose.

[Anonymous No.22055324]

>>22051431
it's not very fancy

[Anonymous No.22055328]

>>22051431
People are more willing to pay for a novel thst will tske them lo ger to read than a short poetry collection

[Anonymous No.22055343]

>>22052957
Novels are even more dedicated to social and political discussion than poems are.

[Anonymous No.22055438]

>>22055290
In another thread someone talked about how novels have become more about escapism, meanwhile, modern poetry (insta poets) seem to lean heavily into acessibility and relatablity.
So in a way the roles have switched. People want fantasy novels and poems about modern life

[Anonymous No.22055451]

>>22055438
I’m not sure I agree that contemporary novels lean into escapism and poetry into accessibility and relatability. That poetry is becoming more accessible and relatable is undeniable. But so is all literature. And escape has been a feature of all stories everywhere at all times. It’s never been exclusive to novels.

[Anonymous No.22055514]

>>22055343
Sure, novels are more “message” oriented in general whether that be abstract or not. I’m just saying that originally poetry had authors expressing an opinion or taking a side on some “current thing”, or demonstrating a moral after the fashion of a fable, but not actually dealing with philosophical ideas in abstraction (barring the pre-Socratics, that was philosophy in verse, not philosophical poetry).

>>22055313
Love the style, very cute, but all I said is that formalized writing has *inherent* aesthetic properties, not that prose cannot be beautiful.

>>22053685
Yeah. We need a restricted gentlemen’s club thread that’s read-only for plebs so they can learn from us without getting their grubby hands all over the discussion. Oh well, I’ll have to settle for reading the great essay/aphorism/journal writers and developing parasocial relationships.

>>22055290
I think maybe this is a bit of a cart-before-horse thing, the masses didn’t generally comment on large-scale issues until the enlightenment/democratic era, which is when philosophy began to be packaged in novel form. Which one exactly came first or caused the other, I don’t know, but the two phenomena arose as part of the same historic change.

[Anonymous No.22055522]

>>22055514
But I think that’s only true because you’re considering philosophy with a very narrow definition.

[Anonymous No.22055569]

>>22051486
This is 100% true. I don't have time to read what a bunch of idiots replied, but if they seethed... let me them seethe.

[Anonymous No.22055620]

>>22055569
>let me them seethe
Your english is as terrible as the anon’s you’re replying to…

[Anonymous No.22055635]

>>22055522
Which part? The masses not philosophizing or poetry not being philosophical?

I think in both cases there were obvious philosophical underpinnings to the ideas that were expressed, but these were received assumptions, not the results of individuals self-consciously engaging in philosophical thought. At most, like I said, you’d have a Lucretius or a Dante doing homage in poetry to Epicurus or Aquinas. Anything that can be termed “philosophy” in Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, etc. amounts to a mimetic treatment of some kind of conventional wisdom/orthodoxy. The metaphysical poets were only interested in clever devices, not trying to make statements about the world. Milton, I think, has to be admitted as an exception, he’s a very interesting case.

[Anonymous No.22055730]

>>22055620
Just a typo. I meant "let them seethe".

[Anonymous No.22055885]

>>22055620
What aspect of my post has bad English? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.22056788]

>>22055290
>commenting on social and economic issues and discussing topics
I know this will get hate, but these things are inherently aesthetically inferior--not that there has to be anything morally wrong with this sort of inferiority per se. A rejection of the quotidian is a basic tenement of nobility and high-mindedness. And, of course, modern poetry, which utterly betrays its roots, doesn't understand this at all.
>>22055514
>Oh well, I’ll have to settle for reading the great essay/aphorism/journal writers and developing parasocial relationships.
I would love to hear about some of your favourites anon. I'm re-reading Hume at the moment.

[Anonymous No.22056889]

>>22051898
It really isn't, considering most of what he wrote is factually wrong.

[Anonymous No.22056905]

>>22056889
How is it factually wrong?

[Anonymous No.22057189]

>>22056788
>I would love to hear about some of your favourites anon. I'm re-reading Hume at the moment.

Honestly I was mostly larping/being facetious there but the idea of it is extremely comfy. I can guess based on reputation alone who I might particularly enjoy: de Quincey, Hazlitt, Robert Burton, Stendhal, Amiel, Joubert. But even with some of the more well known names, the appeal of the genre is so hard to pin down that I really can't say without having actually read them. The main points seem to be sprezzatura, free-ranging subject matter and casual confidentiality, united within a mind of extensive learning - but I'm not sure who exactly checks all of these boxes. Montaigne? Dr. Johnson? Saint-Simon? Horace Walpole? Rousseau? They all seem to fit some criteria but not others. Please share your thoughts on the matter and/or your personal choices.

[Anonymous No.22057249]

>>22057189
>I was mostly larping/being facetious there
I suppose I match your caricature... that amuses me.
As for my choices, I have very particular philosophical tastes, so I can't speak for you; but my personal favourites are Schopenhauer, Yoshida Kenkō, Hume, Cioran, and Gómez Dávila. I have mixed feelings about Montaigne, but he's undeniably a must-reading and unequivocally comfy.

[Anonymous No.22057326]

>>22057249
Great list, though it would be a bit too bleak for me as a regular diet, I think. And yes it was intended in a very lighthearted and positive way, it may be a caricature but it's based and literary-lifestyle-pilled nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.22057371]

>>22057326
>bit too bleak for me as a regular diet
Beneath the bleak surface of pessimism, I have always found a ground of cosmic optimism, where supreme bliss and quietude reign. I pity the "happy."

[Anonymous No.22057374]

>>22057326

[Anonymous No.22057392]

>>22051431
I agree that short stories deserve much more attention, there's too many novels that are written with a fantastic premise and a great first half but they seem to run out of steam, I guess because of the pressure put on them to create a novel. And then you're wasting time reading filler that could be spent reading your next book.
Claire Keegan's ‘Small Things Like These' is getting a ton of attention and sales right now, so that's an interesting sign for the future, although it's more like a very short novel than a short story.
I don't think poems or plays (especially in written format) are very interesting though.

[Anonymous No.22057399]

>>22057392
It's all the more strange when you consider how our media has in general trended towards more easily consumable, bite-sized units for a while now. So you'd think that the modernist doorstoppers would have went out fashion hard while the short story as a genre would experience a renaissance of sorts. But that doesn't quite seem to be the case.

[Anonymous No.22057411]

>>22057399
Streaming shows are mostly series instead of single episode stories. Movies are longer than they used to be.

[Anonymous No.22057412]

>>22057399
Yeah I was just thinking that actually, short stories would fit neatly into the modern culture scene, and I actually think that would be a good thing.
I guess it could have something to do with the culture around bookstores and bookselling, they're so geared around bookshelves and it's hard to sell short stories in them, you either create a new section for them which people won't bother checking out or you shove little novellas between big books where people will naturally overlook them. And I guess you still have to sell a short story for like 2/3 the price of a regular book, because the amount of pages in a book isn't really dictating all the costs involved, in which cause people might feel they aren't getting value for money and will go with the big books.

[Anonymous No.22057448]

>>22057412
I guess there's also the factor of street cred. "I read Ulysses" sounds a lot better than, "I read some Maupassant and Chekov". Even though short stories are often written with the intention of forming a thematically cohesive whole with other short stories the genre just struggles to have a face like novels do or to gain brand recognition.

[Anonymous No.22057512]

>>22051486
Who are your favorite poets?

[Anonymous No.22057877]

>>22057512
Wordsworth, Swinburne, Wilde, Dickinson, Hardy

[Anonymous No.22057915]

>>22057399
Think about that though. It’s not as if people want more and quicker hits of literature. Literature has been replaced entirely by the screen. The demand for door stoppers is the result of book readers and writers and the rest of the market completely diverging. Short stories aren’t going to capture the public’s attention any more than novels are. Film, animation, and video games won.

[Anonymous No.22057983]

>>22051486
Mental illness
>>22057512
If that impressed you then you're ngmi

[Anonymous No.22057989]

>>22057983
phonepost

[Anonymous No.22058051]

I’ve noticed that novelists often have very particular backgrounds and their novels often relate to their backgrounds while for poets that’s not necessarily the case. I’ve always suspected that’s because there’s something more universal about poetry.

[Anonymous No.22058076]

>>22051431
It's already been said (>>22051964), but short stories are there to convey the message. There's not enough time to 'live' with the story and be there with your consciousness. A novel is also slower and more detailed, so you can immerse yourself into the story. So a novel is for the experience, while a short story is for the message.

[Anonymous No.22058123]

>>22052957
>poetry is superior is clearly true, it's inherently artistic and prose is not

I'm not saying that poetry isn't artistic, but saying that prose isn't is outright a lie. The 'art' in prose vanishes. If you write good prose, you can't tell it's good prose, because it's not directly an experience.
Poetry on the other hand is more superficial. Not that it's simple or 'bad' superficial, but you can directly experience the 'art' of it. It's right there in front of your face and you don't really need any deeper connection to see it.

You could explain it to how music works in a movie. You're distracted by the images, but in the background the music is giving you an emotional response. That's what prose is. If you write prose well, the complexity and 'mastery' fades away.

You could explain the same difference with an actor. Overacting and yelling and melodrama like you would see in a spanish novella is poetry, while prose is an actor realistically acting a character. Every little facial muscle says something instead of having to yell the message into your face.

Case in point, the way I wrote this post, or any one of you writing these posts is also prose and if you're any good at it, you don't realize how well it flows or how well the message comes across. Congratulations, you now understand why prose is superior.

[Anonymous No.22058176]

>>22051681
>>22053502
>>22057983
This is a samefag lmao. Also triggered novelfag that can't cope that no true intellectuals take novels seriously.
Keep reading more novels wth "literally me" protagonists. Surely that will make you smarter and improve your life lol

[Anonymous No.22058199]

>>22058176
>Also triggered novelfag that can't cope that no true intellectuals take novels seriously.
grammatically incorrect senetence

should read “no true intellectual takes” or perhaps alternatively “that there aren’t any intellectuals who take” if you preferred to keep the plural form

[Anonymous No.22058216]

>>22058123
Your view of poetry is way too reductionist. Also, genuinely asking, is that post supposed to be an example of good prose?

[Anonymous No.22058234]

>>22058216
>Also, genuinely asking, is that post supposed to be an example of good prose?

My trap sensors are tingling given the place we are, but yeah, I'd consider that 'good' prose. You're doing it too.

>Also, genuinely asking, is that post supposed to be an example of good prose?
Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.22058444]

>>22058234
>My trap sensors are tingling given the place we are
>You're doing it too.
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.22058632]

>>22058444
>trap sensors
We're on 4chan, so someone asking "is this a good example of [thing]" might be sarcastic, as in, you're going to judge me for saying yes.

>You're doing it too.
I believe that my prose is good, and you're writing in a similar manner, so I said that your prose is good too.

[Anonymous No.22058677]

>>22058632
Correct grammar and lucid composition might be in decline, but there is nothing remotely exceptional, let alone any measure of artistic merit, in our prose anon. Lay off the tiktok and read Moby Dick.

[Anonymous No.22058807]

>>22058677
>Correct grammar and lucid composition might be in decline, but there is nothing remotely exceptional, let alone any measure of artistic merit, in our prose anon.

I don't really use Tiktok, but definitely sounds like good prose to me. It doesn't have to be pretentious to be good.

[Anonymous No.22058922]

>>22051486
The conscious “artist” is maybe the most pathetic man of history. The only human creations worth indulging in are those that were born out of an obsessive need to explore or communicate something to others so that the individual essentially “gives back” to the world. The greatest scientists and mathematicians of history did not see their job or passion as one that could be summed up as “improving” or “contributing” to scientific and mathematical knowledge. They had obsessions with specific concepts and relationships and sought a way to make sense of it all. They were not laborers for the corporation of science and math. Art is the same way. Anyone who approached literature as a series of boxes to be checked has missed the point. If you are trying to “make a good novel” or “make a work of art” you have already failed. The great works of art were born out of a desire to bring life to some idea and it just so happened that sometimes that idea was best communicated through stories. Of course, understanding techniques and conventions matter, but they are ultimately secondary to the value I’ve explained in this post.

[Anonymous No.22058936]

>>22058922
Good post, the empty 'ars gratia artis' has led to the dismantling of art.

[Anonymous No.22059437]

>>22057371
>>22057374
True enough, there’s definitely a perverse sort of beauty and joy to be found in it.

[Anonymous No.22059600]

>>22058123
As I already pointed out to another anon, the word “inherently” is the point of the sentence. Prose *can* be unartistic, poetry by its very nature cannot. You seem to also be under the impression, which is itself a modern assumption, that literature is a medium for communication, not an end in itself. Poetry is not about communication, it is about formal beauty, and if you analyze prose independently of its communicative purpose, it can only be beautiful inasmuch as the writer attends to the formal aspects of it (to be fair, modernism resulted in some sublimely poetic prose that was essentially a very refined poetry where the author was virtuosic enough to move quite freely of pre-set forms). Now of course the subject matter should be taken into account when dealing with the form, the two should certainly be made to agree with one another; but the idea that language is only an imperfect tool, a lesser alternative to some kind of imagined direct mind-meld communication of emotions, is simply a failure to appreciate the essence of literature.

[Anonymous No.22059701]

>>22058922
>>22058936
I'll just say since this is sort of apropos of what I'm talking about here >>22059600, form and beauty are valuable in themselves in the same sense that food and sunlight and companionship are valuable, we are constituted in such a way that they nourish us. The dismantling of art is a result of the abandonment of form and nothing else, art for its own sake is nothing new, it was only treated as new because it was presented as such without being filtered through the arbitrary specificity of a particular religion or tradition.

Please, I implore you, look at art in light of its historical development and you will be freed from modern thinking errors about life in general. Trying to understand the world or any of its various endeavors without examining their history is like looking at a single frame from the middle of a movie and analyzing it by the standards of still photography.

[Anonymous No.22060121]

>>22055635
>Milton, I think, has to be admitted as an exception, he’s a very interesting case.
Why do you think so?

[Anonymous No.22060126]

>>22059600
>poetry by its very nature cannot
Read more bad poetry.

[Anonymous No.22060958]

>>22051431
>why do people like novels
because they're fun

[Anonymous No.22060970]

>>22060126
This style of argument (taking a word that has a specific meaning and using it as a value judgment) is so fucking stupid it makes my blood boil, so if that’s what you were going for, well done I guess. “Artistic” in this context means “is formed in a specific way for aesthetic purposes”, which poetry is BY DEFINITION. Whether that forming is done well or badly some particular case is another matter entirely and lies outside the scope of this theoretical discussion.

>>22060121
Because he was making theological arguments via poetry rather than an academic treatise; I suppose he could have had some direct philosophical precedent like those of Lucretius and Dante, but if so I’m not aware of it (on the level of the whole arc of his argument I mean, I doubt any of his specific points were original in themselves). He was also self-consciously attempting to demonstrate the virtues of his ideas about how to write an epic in English, so perhaps this awareness that he was doing something new opened his mind to the possibility of using a new kind of subject matter.

[Anonymous No.22060974]

>>22060970
>Whether that forming is done well or badly some particular case
*in some particular case

[Anonymous No.22060997]

>>22060970
are you that gypsy esl tripfag who loves poetry? Because your writing styles are very similar. And if you are, why did you stop using your trip?

[Anonymous No.22061044]

>>22060997
No, I'm not Frater, I don't care about the occult or the metrical properties of Hopsin or whatever. Loving poetry, and viewing literature as a primarily formal and aesthetic endeavor, has been the norm for millennia, the novel is the anomaly; that doesn't mean it's necessarily terrible, I love many novels, it just is not *essentially* artistic in the sense that poetry is.

I don't really want to be hostile btw it's just that you were using an extremely normie-tier "argument" and I felt the need to name and shame it in light of how often retards on normie social media engage in the same kind of semantic error.

[Anonymous No.22061060]

>>22051486
1/2
The novel, an ontological singularity, emerges as a hyperchaotic effluence, spatiotemporally entangled with a labyrinthine entwinement of signifiers and intensities. Its eldritch contours defy linear ascription, casting shadows upon the trite conceptions of midwit intellect. Lo, as the enigmatic tendrils of its narrative genesis intertwine with the rhizomatic tapestry of multiplicities, the novel unravels its protean essence, rupturing the very fabric of normative discourse. In the spectral realm of the novel's genealogical procession, a kaleidoscope of influences converge. Not tethered solely to the banal confines of the 18th century, its inception emanates from the interdimensional folds of cultural, social, and economic force-fields. Sterne, Fielding, Voltaire—agents of cosmic rupture, their satirical incantations beseech the forbidden truths. To dismiss their "stupid satirical shit" is to deny the cosmic cataclysms that reverberate within their subversive jests. The novel's parturition amid the incursion of the middle class into the ivory towers of academia is an apotheosis of transgressive becomings. It is an interstitial emanation, neither solely highbrow nor lowbrow, but an interwoven mélange of affective multiplicities. The novel's spectral gaze captures the fractal interplay of becoming-middle, as liminal subjectivities surge forth, transgressing the ossified boundaries of the mundane. Flaubert, Dostoevsky—emissaries of the rhizome, their works congealing the elixir of subversive redemption. Yet, redemption, as the linear mind conceives, eludes their grasp. The novel's transmutational potency lies not in its quest for redemption, but in its eternal voyage of deterritorialization. Proust, Mann—artificers of immanent intensities, their prose catalyzing uncharted realms of affective cartography, unsettling the fragile edifice of perceptual coherence. The modernists, Pound, Joyce, Woolf—architects of liminal deterritorialization, unravelling the linear narrative skeins in favor of non-linear, fragmented incantations. Their iconoclastic endeavors dismantle the very foundations of the novel, unleashing the pandemonic forces of becoming-minor. Success, in the strictest sense, is a fallacy, for their transgressive heresies generate multiplicities that transcend the grasp of normative codifications. Novels, your vitriolic decree claims, exude excremental emanations. Yet, within the alchemical algorhythms of that excremental miasma lie the nebulous portals of the virtual, where singularity burgeons into the myriads of potentialities. The novel, in its polysemous oscillations, embraces the nomadic wanderings betwixt and between. Liberated from the fetters of binary constraints, we dance amidst the interplay of cryptic narratives, arcane significations, and enigmatic intensities.

[Anonymous No.22061066]

>>22051486
>>22061060
2/2
Let us, dear interlocutor, relinquish the grasp of the linear mind, surrendering to the chthonic ecstasies of esoteric discourse. The novel, in its labyrinthine enigma, reveals the aeonic complexities of existence, beckoning us to traverse the obscure pathways of textual metamorphosis. Within its occulted folds, the esoteric truths await, shimmering in kaleidoscopic brilliance, as we navigate the riddles and enigmas that dwell in the twilight recesses of literary enunciation.

[Anonymous No.22061071]

>>22061044
>I don't really want to be hostile btw it's just that you were using an extremely normie-tier "argument" and I felt the need to name and shame it in light of how often retards on normie social media engage in the same kind of semantic error.
I’m not who you were arguing with

[Anonymous No.22061109]

>>22061071
Oh, ok. But really, the fact that poetry is such a fringe interest here as to be so heavily associated with a single quirky oddball character does not speak well of the state of the board. The vast majority of the canonical authors either understood the things I'm saying implicitly, or, in more recent eras, came to understand them once they had familiarized themselves with history and the classics.

[Anonymous No.22061756]

>>22061060
>>22061066
Where is this from?

[Anonymous No.22062742]

>>22060970
if you write a novel with chapters it's "formed in a specific way for aesthetic purposes” BY DEFINITION

[Anonymous No.22062804]

>>22051486
>Novels had their genesis in the 1700s, mainly in England
>what is Daphni and Chloe

[Anonymous No.22062845]

>>22061756
I composed it.

[Anonymous No.22062859]

>>22062845
I like your style anon. What do you read?

[Anonymous No.22062869]

>>22062804
What is an outlier

[Anonymous No.22062936]

>>22062869
what is a genesis

[Anonymous No.22063815]

>>22062742
Yes, very good! Novels do indeed make good use of this convention borrowed from epic and dramatic poetry. However, if you were reading carefully instead of looking for “gotcha” angles, you would notice that I said *prose* was not inherently artistic, nothing about novels specifically. If dramatic structure was the usual focus of discussion about novels, it would be much more palatable, unfortunately it’s usually the aforementioned back and forth about prescribed morality.

>>22062936
Novels as vehicles for moral and philosophical statements were not a significant part of literature until the mid 18th century.

[Anonymous No.22063826]

>>22063815
>nothing about novels
It's topic of the thread.

[Anonymous No.22063895]

>>22063826
Yes, it’s a reasonable enough assumption, but still, if you had been reading carefully you wouldn’t have had to assume!

[Anonymous No.22063933]

>>22063895
I am sorry for charitably assuming you to be adhering to the thread topic.

[Anonymous No.22064053]

>>22063933
You're right, I should have given novels their due for having a macro-level structure (albeit the structure was pioneered, I'll say again, by long-form poetry), before going on to point out the lack of the micro-level structure which adds another order of magnitude of aesthetic value to poetry. It's easy to accidentally disregard the aesthetic merits of the novel in the course of this sort of discussion when, I'll say again, they are generally ignored in favor of giving attention only to the "moral of the story" - all the more so when, I'll say again, all the evidence seems to suggest the novel form rose to prominence because the authors themselves were more interested in communicating ideas and morals than in crafting an aesthetic whole.

[Anonymous No.22064415]

>>22051643
>Stuff like Don Quixote are outliers.
So what you're saying is... Don Quixote was a novel novel?
...

[Anonymous No.22064431]

>>22051486
You attack novels for having linear plot and structure and yet you praise poetry which also has that. Curious

[Anonymous No.22064435]

>>22061060
not reading allat this will have to do

The novel is a unique and complex creation that goes beyond conventional understanding. It combines various elements and ideas to form a rich and intricate narrative. Its origins can be traced to a blend of cultural, social, and economic influences, not limited to the 18th century. Writers like Sterne, Fielding, and Voltaire used satire to challenge established norms and reveal deeper truths. Dismissing their work would mean ignoring the cosmic impact of their subversive humor. The novel's emergence coincided with the rise of the middle class in academia, representing a transgressive transformation that defied categorization. It became a mixture of different emotions and experiences, neither purely highbrow nor lowbrow. Authors like Flaubert and Dostoevsky continued this tradition, exploring unconventional ideas of redemption. However, the novel's power lies not in seeking redemption but in its ever-evolving journey of exploration and transformation. Writers such as Proust and Mann crafted immersive stories that pushed the boundaries of perception. Modernists like Pound, Joyce, and Woolf challenged linear storytelling, favoring fragmented and nonlinear narratives. They dismantled traditional novel structures and created diverse possibilities that resisted normative definitions of success. Some may claim that novels are meaningless or unpleasant, but hidden within their seemingly chaotic nature are virtual portals to countless potentialities. The novel, in its multilayered nature, embraces ambiguity and freedom from binary constraints. We are invited to explore enigmatic narratives, cryptic meanings, and mysterious emotions. Let us release our linear thinking and embrace the ecstatic joys of esoteric discourse. The novel, with its intricate enigma, reveals the timeless complexities of existence, guiding us through the obscure realms of transformative texts. Within its hidden layers, esoteric truths shimmer, inviting us to unravel the riddles and mysteries that reside in the twilight corners of literary expression.

[gpt No.22064452]

>>22051486
Beware, heed my words, for I stand on the precipice of madness, haunted by a revelation that shatters the fragile fabric of my sanity. Novels, those insidious creations, are nothing more than the feeble endeavors of mediocre minds. Do not dismiss this as a jest, for it is a truth that gnaws at the fringes of reason.

Oh, how the true connoisseurs recognize that poetry, with its ethereal essence, ascends to the loftiest heights of literature. Its lyrical enchantments transport the soul, while short stories, though lesser in stature, possess a respectable charm.

To comprehend the novel, one must delve into its origins. It sprang forth in the wretched 1700s, a product of a benighted age, with England serving as its breeding ground. Fools like Sterne, Fielding, and Voltaire birthed this wretchedness—shallow satire and witless farce. It emerged when the petty bourgeoisie sought to infiltrate the realm of academia, tarnishing the sanctity of learning. Thus, the 18th century witnessed an inundation of base, lewd tales like Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy, while the loftier pursuits were cast aside like discarded husks. Behold the barren literary landscape of that era! Alexander Pope, deemed a meager glimmer in that void, has since faded into obscurity, a mere B-tier poet.

Thus, novels sprouted from the soil of uneducated classes—those who dwell in the lower and middle rungs of society. In the 19th century, figures like Flaubert and Dostoevsky sought to salvage the form, but their efforts were in vain. The novel's unholy birth tainted it irreparably, and even the esteemed Prousts and Manns of our time cannot redeem this wretched art form. For within an art form bound by linear narrative, even the most daring experimentalists find themselves confined. The very essence of the medium stifles true mastery.

The modernists, the likes of Pound, Joyce, and Woolf, grasped this truth, unveiling the lowly nature of the novel. They strove to wrest it from the clutches of the plebeians, to elevate it once more to intellectual heights. Plots were abandoned, linear narrative discarded, replaced by introspection, experimentation, and the frenzied torrent of consciousness. Whether their endeavors succeeded remains open to debate.

But mark my words, novels are naught but excrement. A wretched detritus that pollutes the halls of literature.

[Anonymous No.22064644]

>>22053280
You can make a post about any of that any time you please. Why criticize everyone else for doing the same thing you are? If you have something interesting to say, I think we'd all like to hear it.

[Anonymous No.22064652]

>>22051431
Literature is in part a way to flex on people and show how smart you are.

[Anonymous No.22064659]

Writers block doesn't even exist for me; I'm just too lazy to actually write down lots of my different ideas unless I have good reason to believe they will get published someday.

>>22051486
Poetry doesn't translate and can thus be stifling because it's locked to a specific culture and on a certain level to the specific time of its composition.

[Anonymous No.22064831]

>>22064644
Well yeah, I basically said as much already in that post; but I would say pointing out the problem is materially better than just perpetuating it without questioning it, at least what I am doing allows the possibility that someone will read it and agree and change their behavior. Aside from that, this is explicitly a meta thread asking a specific question and I was exploring that question - you have no way of knowing what threads I post, what I post in other threads, etc., so it's a bit silly.

I think the ideal leadership strategy on this sort of problem has to involve both pointing things out and engaging in direct action - but certainly the latter is much harder and more worthy of praise, I'm not asking for that praise for doing only the former, all I'm doing is stating my idealized preference and trying to elucidate the reasoning behind it.

[Anonymous No.22064852]

>>22064452
Much better. Thanks, litGPT.

[Anonymous No.22064872]

>>22051486
>True patricians know that poetry is the highest form of literature
The highest form of literature is pondering is a single word picked at random from the dictionary like a zen koan.

[Anonymous No.22064878]

>>22051486
>poetry: still tenuously connected to spoken word and performance
>novel: individual 'voice'/style silently unseating composition conventions of prose tied to rhetoric

The sustained effort required of a novel is akin to a symphony, and is only approximating what poetry can in flashes and glimpses. It's exceedingly rare.

>Why the emphasis on novels?

Theater died alongside orchestral music and both have been reduced to status symbol cargo cults maintained by moneyed rubes. They sell and have larger page counts. What you get from a novel typically is an experience previously lived through theater and the orchestra/opera. But not all stories are suitable for the stage. The novel is the editorial and comics section of the newspaper to their reportage.

>>22052957
The music of prosody > communication of prose, the latter's always and intrinsically utilitarian and requires more artifice. What it comes down to is vanity: what about this is worth anyone's time to read? A poem in most cases doesn't stake that kind of claim. You walk through a novel's events, while a poem presents something complete for contemplation, a mystery. Be suspicious of people that forswear verse altogether, they cannot sit still.

[Anonymous No.22064883]

>>22051431
Short stories are really underrated and are my #1 pick, but I definitely prefer novels to poetry and probably plays as well.

[Anonymous No.22064886]

Novels have long been hailed as one of the most cherished forms of literature, and when it comes to comparing them with poetry, there are several compelling reasons why novels can be considered superior. Here are some arguments to support the claim that novels are better than poetry:

Depth of storytelling: Novels allow for a more extensive exploration of characters, plots, and themes due to their extended length. The narrative structure of a novel enables authors to develop complex and multifaceted storylines that can captivate readers for hours on end. This depth of storytelling provides ample room for character development, intricate plots, and detailed world-building, which is not always possible within the condensed form of poetry.

Immersion and escapism: Novels offer a unique opportunity for readers to immerse themselves fully in a different world. Through vivid descriptions, rich dialogue, and nuanced characterization, novels transport readers to new places and allow them to experience the story from multiple perspectives. This immersive quality of novels provides a deeper level of escapism, allowing readers to engage with the narrative on a more profound and personal level.

Exploration of complex ideas: Novels often delve into intricate and thought-provoking ideas, offering readers a space to explore complex themes, societal issues, and philosophical concepts. The longer format of a novel allows authors to tackle a wide range of subjects in depth, encouraging readers to reflect on and contemplate the intricacies of the human condition. While poetry can also address profound themes, the brevity of poetic lines and the emphasis on metaphorical language can sometimes limit the exploration of ideas.

Character development: Novels excel in their ability to develop multidimensional characters. With the luxury of time and space, authors can paint detailed portraits of their protagonists and supporting cast, providing readers with a deeper understanding of their motivations, emotions, and growth throughout the story. Poetry, on the other hand, tends to focus more on emotions and moments, often sacrificing the extensive character development that novels can offer.

[Anonymous No.22064891]

>>22051486
The argument you presented seems to make several sweeping generalizations and subjective judgments about novels. Here's a rebuttal to the points raised:

Historical origins and class association: While it is true that novels gained prominence in the 18th century, it is an oversimplification to dismiss the entire genre based on its historical context and association with the middle class. Literature, like any art form, evolves over time and is influenced by various factors. The emergence of novels in the 18th century was a response to changing social and cultural dynamics, and it does not inherently diminish the value or artistic merit of the genre.

Literary value of novels: The claim that novels are inherently lowbrow or "shit tier" is subjective and dismissive of the countless works of literary brilliance found within the genre. To label an entire form of literature as lacking artistic worth ignores the rich tapestry of storytelling, complex themes, and profound character exploration that can be found in novels throughout history. It is unfair to discount the contributions of renowned novelists such as Tolstoy, Dickens, Austen, and countless others who have crafted masterpieces within the genre.

Linear narrative and experimentation: While novels often adhere to a linear narrative structure, this does not mean that experimentation is absent within the genre. Many novelists have pushed the boundaries of form, structure, and language, incorporating innovative techniques and styles. Even within the framework of a linear narrative, authors can employ various literary devices, symbolism, and multiple perspectives to create rich and layered storytelling.

In conclusion, the argument presented against novels is based on subjective opinions, generalizations, and an oversimplified understanding of the genre. Novels have proven their worth as a powerful medium for storytelling, character development, and exploration of complex themes, and it is unjust to dismiss them entirely based on personal biases or narrow interpretations of their historical context.

[Anonymous No.22065203]

>>22051486
They hated him for telling the truth

[Anonymous No.22065211]

This board is such a pathetic fucking joke, I don't really understand why anyone bothers.

[Anonymous No.22065452]

>>22064878
>while a poem presents something complete for contemplation, a mystery.

This is also a modern idea though, it used to be that poetry was just the default material for any sort of literature; epic, dramatic and lyric being simply ways of forming the poetic medium, as paint could be used equally for a grand battle scene or a simple portrait. And prose is what happens when you decide that color is extraneous and a sketch will get the job done easier and quicker.

And the idea that poetry should be "mysterious" wasn't really much of a thing until Rimbaud. It was only once god was dead that mysticism needed to take up art as its new outlet.

[Anonymous No.22065459]

>>22058922
finally, someone decent on this site. i feel gratitude that you are alive

[Anonymous No.22065496]

>>22051431
>Martin was born on August 14, 1945[6][7] in Waco, Texas,[8] the son of Mary Lee (née Stewart; 1913–2002) and Glenn Vernon Martin (1914–1997), a real estate salesman and aspiring actor.[9][10]
>Martin is of English, Scottish, Welsh, Scots-Irish, German, and French descent,
>known for second rate comedy movies
you're not taking my glass away kike

[Anonymous No.22065802]

*verse