Prose musicians

[Anonymous No.22419980]

artists of le mot just - list em off

[Anonymous No.22419985]

[Anonymous No.22419993]

>>22419980
Stendhal and Kerouac

[Anonymous No.22420010]

>>22419980
He is the writing equivalent of Echoes by Pink Floyd

[Anonymous No.22420016]

>>22419993
>Kerouac
“That's not writing, that's typing.”

[Anonymous No.22420589]

Flaubert is an overrated piece of a prosaist. A semi-protestant petit bourgeois, he studied law, frequented brothels and did everything necessary to assert his mediocrity. Nothing is more pitiful than his pretentious, bloated prose, a fin-de-siècle pastiche of a Stendhal he could never match. The literary fortune he had was on the order of Baudelaire's, a fortune of petty scandal made to occupy bourgeois literary salons in their idleness. He deserves no more posterity than a Labiche or a de Koch. A Victor Hugo, a Stendhal, even a Bloy crush him ten times over in prose.

[Anonymous No.22420599]

>>22419980
Joyce
Wilde
Chesterton

[Anonymous No.22420637]

Hawthorne
Melville
Charlotte Bronte
J. Baker
Conrad
Stifter

[Anonymous No.22420642]

>>22419980
Finnegan’s Wake is the obvious answer. Hemingway carefully crafted each sentence, especially his short stories. Pretty much any of the symbolists or derivatives as well

[Anonymous No.22420645]

>>22420642
Not just Finnegan's Wake. His ordinary prose still reads like poetry.

[Anonymous No.22420654]

>>22420645
Yeah, I just used FW as the extreme, obvious answer.

[Anonymous No.22420866]

>>22420589
Ad hominem and an ironically self-unaware/self-descriptive comment.

[Anonymous No.22421104]

Probably the most aurally pleasant writer, besides Joyce.

[Anonymous No.22421130]

>>22421104
>and he was zesty and he was moist and he had sugar in his tank and he was light on his feet and fruity and he played for the other team and he danced at the other end of the ballroom theatrical and good with colors coordinating with curtains and cushions and it was good

[Anonymous No.22421140]

>>22419985
>I compose all my books in my head before I ever even write them :^)
THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ULTIMA THULE OR SOLUS REX YOU SMUG METROSEXUAL DWEEB?

[Anonymous No.22421231]

This question of poetic or musical prose has always seemed of lesser importance to me. I don't disagree that when you can produce verbal sound effects, you make your material much more beautiful. I don't disagree with the fact that there are things like Coleridge's Kubla Khan, which seem to have warm blood, pulse, and breath primarily due to their musicality.

However, when writing prose or poetry, I believe that meaning should never be sacrificed for the sake of the music of language. An example of this is poetry: if you have to choose between a metaphor that becomes perfectly incisive with certain words but might lose its character of perfect phosphorescence if you choose words that make the line more musical, in such cases, I think the musicality should be sacrificed without any hesitation.

Whether you are a poet or a prose writer, what you are going to say is more important than the verbal music. The more your vocabulary can make a scene vivid or vividly true to life, or the bolder, more striking, and unforgettable your metaphors are, the better for you.

Works like Shakespeare's plays, the Book of Job, or Emily Dickinson's poetry maintain their impact even when translated due to the force of imagery and even the rawness and brutality of their choice of words. Meanwhile, poets who rely primarily on sound lose all the fat and nutrients of their work when translated, and reading their verses feels like tasting filtered whey. To me, some examples of this complete death in translation are Robert Burns, Pushkin, and Dante's lyrical poetry.

An example of a poem that loses immensely in translation but still manages to remain impactful is Blake's 'The Tyger.' In translation, it may be a tiger with its skin flayed, but it's still a tiger.

My advice to any aspiring poet would be: focus primarily on metaphor.

For a novelist, my advice would be: focus primarily on human beings, on how people truly are and how they truly act. Don't use too much prose to describe settings or landscapes. Thoughts, gestures, facial expressions, the effects one person has on another, and dialogue: all of this is more important than sound and vast sections of landscape painting. The more precise and brutally honest you can be, the better. And if you want to write poetic prose, again: imagery (similes and metaphors) is more important than sound, far more important.

In the end, these are my two cents of advice.

[Anonymous No.22421694]

>>22419980
its "le mot juste"