/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22837492]

What the fuck do you faggots mean by good prose. It's almost like you are describing big foot at this point. I come from /tv/ so I at least understand the importance of precedence in setting scenes and motivations as realistic. Whenever I have to ask myself a question then give an excuse for the director because I couldn't find an answer, then I know that the writing was done poorly because some scenes just stick out like a sore thumb. Is this an equivalent of prose? Scene transitions can happen randomly in film. I could be describing a restaurant with two people talking and eating, then transition into a bunch of thugs breaking into a house and that would be fine on tv. Writing that sounds more complicated. How many lines of dialogue do you include, how much do you allocate to describing the surroundings, how do you switch to the dialogue? It sounds so complicated when you have to think like this.

[Anonymous No.22837497]

>>22837492
There are no formal criteria for what makes something good prose. Just read a lot of good lit and lit critique and you will get a sense for it.

[Anonymous No.22837502]

>>22837492
Good prose is like good music. Classical music, that is. Now what makes good music? Impossible to explain. You know it when you hear it. It's the same with prose.

[Anonymous No.22837599]

>>22837492
I'm starting to be convinced good prose is something you have an "ear" for, or don't.
I've known a couple of people who liked Ready Player One, or Snow Crash.
That's a very easy indicator that someone has a bad ear for prose.

In short, learn how to fucking read, and stop being a pleb. More clinically there is a rhythm to language, that people aren't generally taught in school. Prose has its own kind of poetry to it: Sentence length variation, phonetics, voice, etc. all contribute to good writing.

[Anonymous No.22837635]

>>22837599
I am almost convinced good prose is describing how a normie mind works with the least amount of effort. Without making too many logical jumps btn arguments. Which is why people on /tv/ hate the portrayal of geniuses in good will hunting and sherlock holmes because their normie minds can't understand how effortlessly a genius thinks, so you have to dumb down everything for them. You can't go on endless rambles about the beauty of landscape without inserting a normie's perspective of being momentarily distracted by the blue butterfly and how it reminds him of the hair pin he gifted his now lost love, or interrupt that with a backstory about who the lost love is and how the breakup explains the current brooding atmosphere as seen by the protagonist normie. You always have to come back to the normie and his pain and emotions, describing with flowery language how much of a struggle life is while shocking us with intermittent impositions about another normie's interventions make life less flimsy and worth living, and then explaining who that other normie is, etc. It's sad to think that this is what people appreciate as good writing. It is a mechanistic, almost narcissistic, selfish and locally poor perspective of what a complex word looks like.

[Anonymous No.22837644]

>>22837492
That can happen...
I'll give it to you simply. This won't tell you what makes good prose entirely on its own, but it's the best way to condense it.
"Show the audience, don't tell them."
Classic little phrase your English teacher will tell you, and it's generally correct.

[Anonymous No.22837658]

[Anonymous No.22837665]

Language has the purpose of conveying something to the recipient. A good writer will be able to do this most effectively, while a bad writer will fail at it.
That's the only qualifier for good prose. Lyricism comes into it, as does a deep understanding of language. It is a lot like music, because there is rhythm, tone and pace.

A lot of the time, the purpose of the writer is not to bore me to death or confuse me and they do anyway, which is bad prose.

[Anonymous No.22837667]

>>22837492
Proust is a great example of eloquent prose

>long sentences with many similes and metaphors
>every emotion and idea is clearly elucidated. Even things which seem minor at first take on full significance later
>every element of the prose has meaning for something. Not a sentence or word is useless or filler

[Anonymous No.22837671]

>>22837658
I agree with his general point but I'm gonna say it falls apart by the end. McCarthy calling the sun a great red phallus vs a fiery ball of light or whatever the fuck is not fundamentally different at all and falls into the same trap of meaningless, unnecessary description. I think this anon just had a hard on for Blood Meridian, and let this boyhood Fandom gayness step in and undermine what was, a kernel of truth in his point.
Description should be condensed to one sentence if its not directly tied to the either the plots action moving forward of the theme of the plot. I agree with that much. The rest of this is pretty gay though.

[Anonymous No.22837672]

>>22837671
*or the theme of the plot

[Anonymous No.22837677]

>>22837635
jeez dude. you're way off base. good prose can be simply defined through principles of good construction. Some ear for the words as they sound in the mind, some care not to write more than necessary to convey a point. You're hung up on the subject matter but good prose, like meter in poetry, is tangential at most to subject.

[Anonymous No.22837678]

>>22837671
So he should have described the sun as a bloody naked bald head to signify the scalp hunter's desires. I think i'm getting the hang of this.

[Anonymous No.22837694]

>>22837492
Prose is the use of language and all of its trappings to convey meaning. Good prose is prose which effectively conveys what it intended and nothing else, any ambiguities were crafted into the language with a purpose and not accidentally arising out of failings of word choice or syntax. Good prose is largely objective (seethe) and has nothing to do with if you like it or dislike it.

[Anonymous No.22837704]

>>22837492
The only bad prose I have ever known is hemingway, I am absolutely uninterested in his details and characters

[Anonymous No.22837727]

>>22837704
So how is that bad prose?

[Anonymous No.22837743]

>>22837635
The "normie" shit is getting cringe as fuck. It's not good for you to think like that. Some people definitely seem less aware but everyone is amenable to propaganda. I've been manipulated before despite my awareness. And certain boards, I won't name them but, you know, certain boards are such a cesspool of hive mind bullshit while thinking they're really transgressive and different from the norm.
All thinking like that is doing, is building up a narcissist bubble in your mind, and causing you to alienate yourself from your fellow man in a way that will turn you into something between a freak and a monster.
Humanize other people and humble yourself. It's not good for you.

Like look at your post. You missed the point entirely because your perspective is based entirely around looking down on other people and writing them off as blind or conformist or whatever else "normie" means. It's not good and actually makes you progressively dumber and out of touch. Not an insult I say all this out of concern and from experience.

[Anonymous No.22837756]

>>22837743
When you get down to it subjegating a huge amount of the population to being beneath you is about as normie as it gets.

[Anonymous No.22837758]

>>22837756
Pretty much

[Anonymous No.22838658]

>>22837644
Purple prose?

[Anonymous No.22838696]

I like Henry James, I consider his prose good. Compare it to some YA romance run of the mill copy of another copy I guess, to see the differences.

"Olive will come down in about ten minutes; she told me to tell you that. About ten; that is exactly like Olive. Neither five nor fifteen, and yet not ten exactly, but either nine or eleven. She didn't tell me to say she was glad to see you, because she doesn't know whether she is or not, and she wouldn't for the world expose herself to telling a fib. She is very honest, is Olive Chancellor; she is full of rectitude. Nobody tells fibs in Boston; I don't know what to make of them all. Well, I am very glad to see you, at any rate."

These words were spoken with much volubility by a fair, plump, smiling woman who entered a narrow drawing-room in which a visitor, kept waiting for a few moments, was already absorbed in a book. The gentleman had not even needed to sit down to become interested: apparently he had taken up the volume from a table as soon as he came in, and, standing there, after a single glance round the apartment, had lost himself in its pages. He threw it down at the approach of Mrs. Luna, laughed, shook hands with her, and said in answer to her last remark, "You imply that you do tell fibs. Perhaps that is one."

[Anonymous No.22838721]

>>22837492
Good prose is like good art, you know it when you see it. It can be a matter of taste.

For me, good prose is clear and precise, without calling attention to itself. Some of the best writing you won't recognize as good writing until you are finished, and understood everything, and are left with perhaps a few moments of perfect description. It is like pure water.

Another kind of good prose surprises you, or does something else unusual or provocative. This is sometimes called "poetic" prose, and can be very effective. This is also a common defense of bad prose - confused and imprecise prose being excused as "complicated" or otherwise 2deep4you. Could be true, but there's much more bad and pretentious writing than clear and effective prose, so there's a ton of bullshit in here.

I'd say the best writing does both - communicates clearly, doesn't get in its own way, but is capable of stylistic surprises and complexity as well. Prose serves a purpose - it tells a story, it explains, it describes - so good prose absolutely must fall into the first class in my opinion, it must serve the purpose well. But being able to do both is what makes great prose.

[Anonymous No.22838729]

>>22837492
>I come from /tv/
That much was quite obvious considering you’re an ESL.

[Anonymous No.22838735]

>>22837492
>I come from /tv/

Stopped reading there. Go back, faggot

[Anonymous No.22838816]

>>22838729
>>22838735
Are you going to cry now that you have met an esl. Does the idea of an esl on /lit/ violate your prude sensibilities?

[Anonymous No.22838896]

>>22837599
i think there's such a thing as overrating prose. you can tell if someone does this from threir views on speculative fiction

[Anonymous No.22838898]

>>22837492
Good prose is like all good art. It conjures up images, emotions, and connections to something larger. A good word might might be "beauty", but it's more of a "feeling" that one is touching, reading, or seeing something made by the highest collective "aesthetic" level of human experience.

It connects to a moment, or a passage that one feels totally immersed in, because of its relatability to one's innate "humanity". This is more of a philosophical explanation, but, in short, great prose adds depth, insightfulness and relatability to the human experience of its reader/viewer.

[Anonymous No.22838931]

>>22837694
>and has nothing to do with if you like it or dislike it.
such a strange and counterintuitive view. so you can make great art that not one single person, including its creator, likes? ok dude
even most arguments for objective aesthetic value rely on someone liking good aesthetic objects. like hume's relies on the taste of experts/cultivated, otherwise there'd be no way to know what's good
>(seethe)
no u. read bourdieu

[Anonymous No.22838945]

>>22837492
Good prose is the equivalent of beautiful cinematography/lighting, except its more important to writing than either of those things.

[Anonymous No.22838966]

>>22837492
>I come from /tv/
Good prose is like a well-composed shot. There are some common criteria, but mostly you know it when you see it, it depends a lot on context and not everyone agrees.

[Anonymous No.22838977]

>>22837492
>going from a diner scene to a robbery scene being awkward in writing
don delillo does this successfully and impressively in underworld. i love his antics with playing with subject matter in a chapter or even particular part

[Anonymous No.22839335]

>>22837671
Description should be condensed to one sentence if its not directly tied to the either the plots action moving forward of the theme of the plot.
Good prose does not serve a purpose other than achieving beauty in itself and for itself. Your view of art is utilitarian and has nothing to do with the aesthetic experience.

[Anonymous No.22839380]

>>22838931
Prose on its own is not art, moron. If all you have as an author is good prose you will not create anything of worth.

[Anonymous No.22840072]

>>22837492
>I could be describing a restaurant with two people talking and eating, then transition into a bunch of thugs breaking into a house and that would be fine on tv. Writing that sounds more complicated.

No, you could make it as simple as a space break. People do it all the time.

[Anonymous No.22840100]

>>22839380
yes it is

[Anonymous No.22840124]

>I at least understand the importance of precedence in setting scenes and motivations as realistic.
Well you shouldn't

[Anonymous No.22840136]

>>22840100
Name one work which relies completely on prose while ignoring the larger structures such as theme, plot, character or structure itself and has any success as art.

[Anonymous No.22840159]

>>22840136
good prose is when those things are incorporated into the prose

[Anonymous No.22840174]

>>22840159
>waffle
No. Good prose is one aspect of the greater whole which is why we have those works with poor prose that still maintain interest outside of the genre community.

[Anonymous No.22840274]

>>22840136
When someone has the desire to create such a thing, they end up writing poetry.
But regardless, many books have little emphasis on plot and structure.

[Anonymous No.22840282]

>>22840274
>When someone has the desire to create such a thing, they end up writing poetry.
So poetry is just wordplay without meaning? Either way, not prose.
>But regardless, many books have little emphasis on plot and structure.
I said "the larger structures" not just plot and structure. Even the most hardcore of prose stylists still rely heavily on one or more of the larger structures.

[Anonymous No.22840332]

>>22839380
Google Second Sophistic

[Anonymous No.22840346]

>>22840332
>t. retard who thinks he is a genius

[Anonymous No.22840362]

>>22840346
basically, yeah

[Anonymous No.22840364]

>>22840362
You are at least self aware, puts you well ahead of most on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22840365]

>>22837502
It's not impossible to explain what makes good music. Musical Critique and theory are both well established things.
Similarly good prose can be explained.
You just don't know, so you in your ignorance think no one else knows ether.

[Anonymous No.22840380]

>>22840174
yes. formal analysis looks at how a work uses its form (prose in this case) to enable and reinforce themes presented by its content

[Anonymous No.22840387]

>>22840380
So you can not offer an example of prose in isolation that has any real worth?

[Anonymous No.22840395]

>>22840365
>It's not impossible to explain what makes good music. Musical Critique and theory are both well established things.
Wrong. Musical critique usually doesn't break down the technicalities, and ultimately boils down to "I'm just feeling this". Theory is equally worthless, as it wouldn't even discriminate between a midi track and a song with lyrics played live.

[Anonymous No.22840397]

>>22840387
prose is inseperable from the other elements you mentioned. read lolita for a demonstration

[Anonymous No.22840407]

>>22840365
>>22840395
Also I'd like to add that theory changes with culture. What used to be "wrong" is now "fancy and adventurous". It boils down to taste anyway.

[Anonymous No.22840422]

>>22840397
Lolita is not a demonstration and you have completely veered off course in an attempt to be "right." We can analyze prose in isolation of the greater structures, if we could not we would have to write a novel just to convey the most simple of ideas.

[Anonymous No.22840427]

>>22840422
it is. you are asserting an embarrasingly antiquated seperation between form and content

[Anonymous No.22840443]

>>22840427
nta but in order for the prose to be good the story also has to be good?

[Anonymous No.22840444]

>>22838658
Purple prose is flowery, using complex language or lavish descriptions.

Good prose uses words appropriate to the subject. What's important is that the language used matches the intended impression.
Sometimes the most powerful word you can use is "sad."
Prose can be simple or complex but ether way it uses the medium of writing itself to leave an impression. Novel with good prose an be opened to any page and the words written there will evoke something.

[Anonymous No.22840458]

>>22840427
I never said there was a separation and strongly implied there was not one with my pointing out that you could not provide an example which does not rely on the larger structures. We can still analyze prose or thelarger structures in isolation, criticism would not exist if we could not. You are waffling, plain and simple.
>>22840443
It needs to offer something more than prose but the story could still be crap. If the structure or theme or characterization are the equal of the prose (assuming great prose) than it will be remembered despite suffering from poor story and this is what must under the umbrella of prose stylist is. Prose is nothing without an external context.

[Anonymous No.22840468]

Sneed

[Anonymous No.22841203]

>>22839335
I disagree. I find no beauty in meaninglessness.

[Anonymous No.22841335]

>>22840072
Or include those gay asterisks *** at the end of a paragraph. I would love to hear more ways to do this.

[Anonymous No.22841338]

>>22837492
>I come from /tv/
Good prose is like good cinematography. It's the way a story is filtered through the technique. There can be good books with bad prose and good movies with bad cinematography but if the prose is good and the cinematography is good then the work of art can be much more effective.

[Anonymous No.22841341]

>>22840124
Have you ever watched a David Lynch film and asked yourself how certain scenes connect to the rest of the film? In one of his films, a character is walking along a street, then the scene transitions into a house full of rabbits dressed like humans then it goes back to a scene with some actresses screaming their lungs out for no reason.

[Anonymous No.22841725]

>>22837492
Just write like Him.

[Anonymous No.22843342]

>>22840365
Go ahead

[Anonymous No.22843348]

>>22837492
Try reading a Japanese Light Novel, you'll know what bad prose is straight away.

[Anonymous No.22843351]

>>22837492
Writing is all fake, prose does not matter. The awards and promotion are given away to non-whites and queers.

All of our music, TV, movies and books are all propaganda, That's even leaking into sports.

[Anonymous No.22843359]

>>22840365
I can explain why something is good in terms of what's good about it but if I try to use a formulaic approach it would never be good as it would be insincere and manufactured

[Anonymous No.22843369]

>>22837658
you could teach a college course on this one post tbqh

[Anonymous No.22843375]

>>22841203
its not meaninglessness; the beauty is the meaning

[Anonymous No.22843386]

>>22843359
Criticism either musical or literary is not formulaic, they primarily provide an agreed upon set of definitions and conventions so discussion does not derail into off topic autism.

[Anonymous No.22843411]

>>22843386
I should clarify. You are correct and I agree with you.
What I mean is that if I adopt a formulaic approach to writing it will come out as prose manufactured and insincere

[Anonymous No.22843437]

>>22843411
So you were just sharing a random fact about yourself which has nothing to do with the thread?

[Anonymous No.22843455]

>>22837671
>falls into the same trap of meaningless, unnecessary description.
>Description should be condensed to one sentence if its not directly tied to the either the plots action moving forward of the theme of the plot.
television and commercial fiction has rotted your fucking brain

[Anonymous No.22843466]

>>22843437
It had something to do with whatever it was replying to, surely. Let's see >>22840365 in the context of the OP. It makes sense to me

[Anonymous No.22843506]

>>22843455
He is half right, descriptions should serve a purpose greater than just being a description and that purpose could advance plot but it could also tell us about how a character relates to their world or control rhythm/flow, etc. Outside of a few niche areas most readers are not going to sit through 20 pages of description for the sake of description. Even McCarthy's long descriptions in BM tell us about more than the scenery, they establish rhythms and indirectly tell us about what the characters are experiencing.

[Anonymous No.22843521]

>>22837492
Good prose just is. You know it when you see it. Same thing with bad prose.
>... they fell upon each other, like young bulls, in all the glory of youth, with
>naked fists, with hatred, with desire to hurt, to maim, to destroy. All the painful,
>thousand years’ gains of man in his upward climb through creation were lost. Only
>the electric light remained, a milestone on the path of the great human adventure.
>Martin and Cheese-Face were two savages, of the stone age, of the squatting place
>and the tree refuge. They sank lower and lower into the muddy abyss, back into the
>dregs of the raw beginnings of life, striving blindly and chemically, as atoms strive,
>as the star-dust of the heavens strives, colliding, recoiling, and colliding again and
>eternally again.
>“God! We are animals! Brute-beasts!” Martin muttered aloud, as he watched the
>progress of the fight. It was to him, with his splendid power of vision, like gazing
>into a kinetoscope. He was both onlooker and participant. His long months of
>culture and refinement shuddered at the sight; then the present was blotted out of
>his consciousness and the ghosts of the past possessed him, and he was Martin
>Eden, just returned from sea and fighting Cheese-Face on the Eighth Street Bridge.
>He suffered and toiled and sweated and bled, and exulted when his naked knuckles
>smashed home.
>They were twin whirlwinds of hatred, revolving about each other monstrously.
>The time passed, and the two hostile gangs became very quiet. They had never
>witnessed such intensity of ferocity, and they were awed by it. The two fighters
>were greater brutes than they. The first splendid velvet edge of youth and condition
>wore off, and they fought more cautiously and deliberately. There had been no
>advantage gained either way. “It’s anybody’s fight,” Martin heard some one saying.
>Then he followed up a feint, right and left, was fiercely countered, and felt his
>cheek laid open to the bone. No bare knuckle had done that. He heard mutters of
>amazement at the ghastly damage wrought, and was drenched with his own blood.
>But he gave no sign. He became immensely wary, for he was wise with knowledge
>of the low cunning and foul vileness of his kind. He watched and waited, until he
>feigned a wild rush, which he stopped midway, for he had seen the glint of metal.
>“Hold up yer hand!” he screamed. “Them’s brass knuckles, an’ you hit me with
’em!”
>Both gangs surged forward, growling and snarling. In a second there would be a
>free-for-all fight, and he would be robbed of his vengeance. He was beside himself.

[Anonymous No.22843549]

>>22837671
Haven't read Blood Meridian, but I'm vaguely aware of the plot and themes, and I think calling the sun a phallus makes sense. It makes me think of primitive tribes who worship the penis, comparing it to the regression of the scalpers back into savages.
It also gives a sort of "masculine" spirit to the landscape. Compare a "great red phallus" to a "virgin land". The latter invokes a feminine spirit, it's waiting to be settled, and it also wants to nurture you. The "great red phallus" invokes the opposite feel, this desert and the people in it want to fuck you and assert itself over you.
Or maybe McCarthy is a hack and I'm just over-interpreting. But then again, if I can make a coherent theory on one tiny little line in a book that the author never put too much thought into then it's probably a sign that the prose is good.

[Anonymous No.22843563]

>>22837492
Saying good prose is like saying good cinematography. It is a generic word to describe the craft. People who say it don’t seem to understand that it is not very meaningful.

[Anonymous No.22843564]

>>22843506
>Outside of a few niche areas most readers are not going to sit through 20 pages of description for the sake of description.
you're also retarded. what, you pick this up from some "How To Write Damn Shit Fucking Good Fiction" book at barnes and noble?
>picrel
>inb4 but but but all that has a purpose
it does, but not the vulgar, quotidian purpose of plot or revealing character. some of it, sure. all of it, no.
>inb4 but but but that's niche
it's the greatest novel of the 20th century if you think it's a niche you're a retard

[Anonymous No.22843638]

>>22843564
>if you think it's a niche you're a retard
Proust is absolutely a niche even among readers of classics and the vast majority of people who attempt to read it drop it, his descriptions being a common reason. Being a niche does not say anything about quality or greatness.

[Anonymous No.22843673]

>>22843638
>Proust is absolutely a niche
so you're retarded, got it

[Anonymous No.22843675]

>>22843638
>>22843673
owned.

[Anonymous No.22843732]

>>22843673
So you think Proust is widely read by the average reader?

[Anonymous No.22843745]

>>22843732
I don't give a fuck what the "average reader" reads. the average reader reads five books or fewer per year and they're all dimestore porn or thriller or mystery slop, maybe with some bullshit self-help thrown in. every single fucking thing we talk about on /lit/ is "niche" to the "average reader." if that's your fucking yardstick then shakespeare is niche, joyce is niche, mccarthy is niche, eliot is niche. jesus what a retarded way to look at literature.

[Anonymous No.22843751]

>>22843563
I'll try to add to this it's like saying anything crafted is good in that a thing can be fit for purpose without being necessarily beautiful.
A haircut for instance can be a good haircut or cricket bat but it's not a good haircut or cricket bat until you get to see what it's like in 4 weeks once it grows back a bit or once it's been used a few times respectively.
What even is a good haircut, or cricket bat.

[Anonymous No.22843788]

>>22843745
McCarthy would not be niche by that standard and most everyone has read Shakespeare. But as I already said, even most who are into the classics never read Proust and most that try drop it.

[Anonymous No.22843806]

>>22843745
Proust is "proust scholar" niche. When you're a living punchline in a quaint hipster movie, you're niche. I won't deny that his work is good, but it's Heian literature territory as far as who has any interest in it at all.

[Anonymous No.22843863]

Writing is dead, we are in the skibidi toilet era of arts and culture.

All of the awards in Canada go to blacks writing about blacks.

[Anonymous No.22843906]

nobody is going to give you good answers becaise everyone on here is retarded and complaining and angry all the time. try reading Lydia Davis' essays (found in books called Essays 1 and Essays 2, there's essays on various topics as well mixed in, flip through) where she describes her revision/editing process. look at what kinds of changes she makes, how they improve the overall sound/feel of the writing. I'm sure there are other people who have done similar things but she's good and clear and entertaining

[Anonymous No.22844030]

>>22837671
>McCarthy calling the sun a great red phallus vs a fiery ball of light or whatever the fuck is not fundamentally different at all and falls into the same trap of meaningless, unnecessary description
They are not they same, nor is it meaningless. It's a well structured sentence that flows nicely, is unique, and flows perfectly into the setting McCarthy set in BM.
>Description should be condensed to one sentence if its not directly tied to the either the plots action moving forward of the theme of the plot.
If you unironically believe this books are not for you. Just watch the latest Marvel movie.

[Anonymous No.22844574]

>>22843863
What is the skibidi toilet of literature?

[Anonymous No.22844638]

>>22844574

[Anonymous No.22845057]

>>22843455
>>22839335
>>22844030
>t. bad writers who yammer on with descriptive sentences and wonder why no one likes their work
It's a basic rule of writing fiction

[Anonymous No.22846297]

>>22837492
Can someone please take the time to post examples of what they view as great, okay, and poor prose with brief explanations as to why. It would help greatly.

[Anonymous No.22846306]

>>22838898
sure, but then why do i often hear shit like e.g. "Dostoyevsky has bad prose, but his writing still makes me feel so much." aren't they literally describing good prose, then?

[Anonymous No.22846317]

>>22840362
Based.

[Anonymous No.22846323]

>>22846297
>good
The sun had not yet risen. The sea was indistinguishable from the sky, except that the sea was slightly creased as if a cloth had wrinkles in it. Gradually as the sky whitened a dark line lay on the horizon dividing the sea from the sky and the grey cloth became barred with thick strokes moving, one after another, beneath the surface, following each other, pursuing each other, perpetually.

>bad
Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up, she was shitting brown water. The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew.

[Anonymous No.22846488]

>>22846306
Because prose isn't everything. Typically television shows will have bad "cinematography" especially if they are filmed on a set or something; but that doesn't stop the show from having well-written characters or dialogue.

[Anonymous No.22846673]

>>22837492
Unironically just force yourself to read crappy fanfiction, it will make you appreciate well written classics

[Anonymous No.22847087]

>>22846323
Is this not more of an issue regarding content than prose?

[Anonymous No.22847105]

>>22846488
it has failed as a TV show then, might as well have been a play/dialogue

[Anonymous No.22847120]

>>22837671
>Description should be condensed to one sentence if its not directly tied to the either the plots action moving forward of the theme of the plot.
If you actually think this then you fundamentally don't understand literature and probably art in a more general sense.

[Anonymous No.22847129]

>>22837694
You literally could not be more wrong. Holy fuck nigger stop watching capeshit, stop reading genreshit, and start understanding what art is.

[Anonymous No.22847136]

>>22838816
It doesn't violate my prude sensibilities but it does violate my racist sensibilities (which I hold dear). Go shit in another street

[Anonymous No.22847142]

>>22839380
You are so wrong it's genuinely embarrassing, man.

[Anonymous No.22847153]

>>22840365
>le music theory
Oh yes Jacob Collier truly is the best artist of all time. He's totally not a soulless tryhard. Nashville Noises is also a great album. It totally doesn't suck fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.22847434]

>>22837492
If you understand what is meant by "prose," then all you need to do is read more poetry, plays, and novels and you will inevitably recognize good prose on your own. Don't fret.

[Anonymous No.22847441]

>>22843788
>mccarthy would not be niche
do you seriously think that the average reader has read cormac mccarthy? are you that out of touch?
>most everyone has read shakespeare
if by "read shakespeare" you mean "sparknoted hamlet in highschool" then sure
>>22843806
>proust is proust scholar niche... it's heian literature territory as far as who has any interest in it at all
if you actually think, no bullshit, that the greatest writer of the twentieth century is a niche writer, then go to the library and don't come back until you've aged out of your parents' health insurance
>>22843906
>lydia davis
kino.

[Anonymous No.22847446]

Since you like film, the easiest way to describe it is good prose is similar to good editing.
It's comfortable, it doesn't insist on itself it serves the purpose of bringing you from place to place in the story and sometimes it can even enhance the story.
It's not a particular style... good prose can be sparse or avant garde and interesting, just like good editing. For the latter to work though the avant garden elements have to be backed by mastery of the technical basics.

[Anonymous No.22847521]

>>22847441
>t. zoomer
The Road was absolutely massive and one of those books that even a good many non-readers read. Fairly rare I meet someone who has not read at least one or two of his books and if they haven't they are almost always the sort of person who autistically stays in their corner.

[Anonymous No.22847576]

>>22847129
>NUH UHH UR WRONG
nice one

[Anonymous No.22847614]

>>22840365
>>22837502
while you cannot establish strict rules for what makes objectively good music, there are some individual elements that can be either good or bad.
For instance, there are (subjectively) good songs (but with some objectively good aspects to it) with very simple lyrics, or a repetitive riff, or simple instrumental, or a very simple chord progression. BUT, if you have a song with all those things it is objectively shit.
It's similar with prose. It's harder to say what prose is objectively good than it is to say what prose is objectively shit.

[Anonymous No.22847625]

>>22837502
>Now what makes good music? Impossible to explain
You really can't understand classical harmony lil bro?

[Anonymous No.22847633]

>>22847625
drop da jewels on em' big unk

[Anonymous No.22847662]

>>22847614
>subjective + subjective = objective!
Also, your prose is objectively shit. For example;
>It's harder to say what prose is objectively good than it is to say what prose is objectively shit.
It is really easy to say either of those and both are said with regularity. You obviously were not talking about literal utterance but you do not provide us what you were talking about, just a failed and poorly thought out analogy. You rely heavily on the assumption that the reader will get what you fail to put into words and what little you concretely say is completely wrong because of it.

[Anonymous No.22847672]

>>22847142
>>22839380
He is 100% right... I'd rather read a poorly written brilliant insight on life than something eloquently written that is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22847734]

>>22837492
I think it's broadly about clean (the flow) and beautiful arrangement of words. But it's not like there's one set correct way to write, and people may not be able to isolate it from what they like and don't like for other reasons.

[Anonymous No.22847753]

>>22847662
damn you really destroyed me
feels bad being a brainlet

[Anonymous No.22847781]

>>22847753
But I also told you how to remedy the problem and it is not terribly difficult to do, just takes putting in the time.

[Anonymous No.22847792]

>>22847781
any book you would recommend for me to remedy it and express myself better?

[Anonymous No.22847802]

I don't think the prose I write is any good, but it's very easy to see good from bad prose. One thing I noticed reading excerpts from AVGN's autobiography for example was the lack of sentence variety. Nearly every sentence was structured the same way: "I did... I am ... I was..." etc. It's really boring to read.

[Anonymous No.22847866]

>>22837492
It's all just pseuds jerking themselves off bro. Most of them don't even understand what they're reading, or worse, the author doesn't even know what he's saying, rather content with shitting out flowery garbage.

[Anonymous No.22847960]

>>22847792
You probably don't need a book and like most people you just need to practice those simple skills everyone learns in school but the vast majority never learn to apply outside of literal essay writing assignments. Go back to those basic exercises for constructing paragraphs and essays and start applying them to your posts. Identify what you want to say, outline it, confirm that the points not only support the idea but that you can show how they support it, flesh it out. All those lessons/exercises on sentence/paragraph/essay construction were really about learning how to structure and express thought, not about learning to write essays so you can graduate and forget how to write essays.

Once you develop the habit it becomes automatic, the above paragraph was first an inlined outline:
>You don't need a book. Identify what you want to say before your say it, outline it and then expand into a complete thought. Repeat.
Which I then expanded to what you see above. The most difficult part of it all is learning to spot your own assumptions when you proof read and that was part of the point of those notes in red pen that your teacher scribbled all over your essays, you were supposed to read and learn from them. Paying attention to how people respond to your posts can help, how does their response actually support or disprove what you said? Does it directly address things stated or things implied? Did you mean to imply what they addressed? Mainly stop seeing responses as agreement or disagreement and start learning from them.

[Anonymous No.22848127]

>>22837492
good prose is prose that I enjoy reading
there really isn't any more to it than that

[Anonymous No.22848163]

>>22847521
>The Road was absolutely massive
it was massive for a literary novel, meaning that the vast, vast majority of the country never read it. because the vast, vast majority of the country does not read.
>Fairly rare I meet someone who has not read at least one or two of his books
right, right, because the country mirrors your social circles

[Anonymous No.22848180]

>>22847672
alright, here's some poorly written brilliant insights on life.
>Shit in one hand, wish in the other, see what fills up first.
>Life is short. Make the most of it.
>God might be real but also he might not be. It's hard to say.
>People, things, and events are often different than they first appear.
these are brilliant insights into life but they don't register with you because they're poorly written. execution is everything in writing

[Anonymous No.22848595]

>>22847960
why are you being so faggy about writing 4chan posts

[Anonymous No.22848599]

>>22848180
this. people who refuse to see beauty because its meaningless have been poisoned by hyper consumption

[Anonymous No.22848618]

>>22848163
>it was massive for a literary novel, meaning that the vast, vast majority of the country never read it. because the vast, vast majority of the country does not read
You don’t seem to know what is meant by something being niche and are just trying desperately to be right in anyway you can. Are you now making the case that everything is niche?
>right, right, because the country mirrors your social circles
Well, I spent a decade tending bar at an airport which was 90% talking with people from most every walk of life often having quite lengthy discussions.

[Anonymous No.22848631]

>>22848618
>you don't seem to know what is meant by something being niche
I'll grant you that oprah interviewed mccarthy, it was a book club pick iirc, but once again, most of america does not fucking read you absolute tard. it was massive for what it was, not massive period. I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend this distinction doesn't exist or doesn't matter
>tending bar at an airport
self-selecting for those that can afford to fly and can afford the airport bar drinks, seems like you don't understand the term "representative sample"

[Anonymous No.22848639]

>>22847136
Wow. It only took 3 days to think of that prude? Are you going to call the KKK on me, say, in a week?

[Anonymous No.22848641]

>>22846297
here's an example of something i found to be kinda poor, from Fourth Wing, which I just started today because im sick with covid and need something to pass the time. Context: The main character has to walk across a long skinny path 200 feet in the air, a task that the later mentioned "Dylan" failed at:

>"I've always loved the nights where storms beat against the fortress window, both illuminating and throwing shadows over the books I curled up with, though this downpour might just cost me my life. With a quick glance I see Dylan's name already blurring at the end where water has met ink. It's the last time Dylan's name will be written anywhere but his stone. There will be another roll at the end of the parapet so the scribes have their beloved statistics for casualties. In another life, it would be me reading and recording the data for historical analysis."

I find this bad because:
1) It tells but doesn't show. The protaginst grew in a library so naturally likes books. She flat out tells us that she found thunderstorms comforting, ironic considering this one might kill her. Ok? This doesn't particularly tell us anything about her character or at, it's just a nonsense description about nonsense. Does she use the memories of reading during thunderstorms to help her accomplish this task?
2) Dylan's name won't be written anywhere else? How would she know this? The character has a family and his engaged, as we learned a few paragraphs ago. No one will write about him in a letter perhaps? A journal?
3) This paragraph is doing too much yet doing so little. It starts with the protaginst musing over her thoughts on thunderstorms, to talking about Dylan, to talking about how the scribes collect data. Yet, none of this gives us any new or interesting information. We know the protagonist is already scared. We know Dylan is already dead. We know scribes do, well, scribe stuff.

Each sentence feels disjointed from the one before it.

[Anonymous No.22848668]

>>22837492
Not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.22848698]

>>22848631
nta but have you ever even been in an airport? Poor people fly all the time, not that expensive as long as you plan ahead. Half the people in the bar are just watching TV or the like and not buying, they will kick you out for doing that if seating gets low but otherwise they don't really care.

[Anonymous No.22848765]

>>22848180
>>22848599
You're both fags, meaningful statements don't need to be beautiful.

This is why "I love you" is sufficient while when you tell someone to fuck off, you generally spew as much hate, slurs, and insults as possible because more is better when it comes to ugly, and less is more when it comes to meaning and beauty.

[Anonymous No.22848826]

>>22848765
>I would recognize you in total darkness, were you mute and I deaf. I would recognize you in another lifetime entirely, in different bodies, different times. And I would love you in all of this, until the very last star in the sky burnt out to oblivion.

You're totally right though anon, just "I love you" is so much better...

[Anonymous No.22848850]

>>22848826
If a woman is head over heels for you, saying "I love you" will curl her toes.

If you're some nerd trying to woo her with your fancy city words, she's not going to be convinced. She'll probably check her phone halfway through your spiel and be checking if Chad texted her.

[Anonymous No.22848864]

>>22848826
>I would recognize you in total darkness, were you mute and I deaf. I would recognize you in another lifetime entirely, in different bodies, different times. And I would love you in all of this, until the very last star in the sky burnt out to oblivion.
All the dipshits and faggots that read this type of drivel at their wedding just to get cheated on and divorce raped, meanwhile Chad fires a baby inside a fertile womb and never has to pay a dime of child support

[Anonymous No.22848868]

>>22848641
>It tells but doesn't show.
Anon, it seems to be first person, puts a serious limit on the amount of showing the narrator can do without being a schizo. Even in the third person there are limits, how do you show that someone has always loved something? You would need to commit a fair amount of the book to just the character in thunderstorms to show that she has always loved thunderstorms.

Your second and third critiques don't really work since you just started the book, at this point they are just questions which may be answered later on.

I half suspect the author does not understand tense.

[Anonymous No.22848882]

>>22848868
>You would need to commit a fair amount of the book to just the character in thunderstorms to show that she has always loved thunderstorms.
Lightning bolt necklace
Pauses and closes her eyes, smiles when thunder booms in a movie
A dumpster is being pushed in an alley and the booming of the empty bin reminds her of a storm she was in with a lover in the back of a car
Someone pulls out a taser at a party and she immediately wants to borrow it, runs away with it to a dark room where she can focus on the blue arcing until the taser owner bangs on the door.

Come on anon... use your imagination buddy, even a meth head schizo like Jason Bryan can come up with this shit on the fly

[Anonymous No.22848891]

>>22848641
>"I've always loved the nights where storms beat against the fortress window, both illuminating and throwing shadows over the books I curled up with, though this downpour might just cost me my life. With a quick glance I see Dylan's name already blurring at the end where water has met ink. It's the last time Dylan's name will be written anywhere but his stone. There will be another roll at the end of the parapet so the scribes have their beloved statistics for casualties. In another life, it would be me reading and recording the data for historical analysis."
I think a good book has a balance between showing and telling, I know people like to be big fags about this

[Anonymous No.22848924]

>>22848882
Those do not convey a love of thunderstorms, certainly not having always loved thunderstorms. All of those examples require the reader to take an illogical leap and probably require a digression which would make little sense. You can not show everything.

[Anonymous No.22848933]

>>22848924
I mean, you could write it in a way that shows someone pining for a good storm, or recalling moments during a storm that left an impression on them. Clearly it would need more than just 1 sentence.

[Anonymous No.22848938]

For everyone saying 'you know when you see it's, post some examples where you think it's clearly easy to see that it's good

[Anonymous No.22848939]

>>22848933
And to show they always loved them will take considerably more than one sentence. You can do it but you are going to have to into storms and their past a fair amount and will that actually add anything? You can not show everything.

[Anonymous No.22848959]

>>22837492
Not /lit/ here, prose is defined. Look it up. Then imaging that, but good. Good is of course subjective by definition, in other words, get some taste, faggot

[Anonymous No.22848967]

>>22848938
>For a moment she'd wondered if the seal around her sockets were tight enough to allow the tears simply to go on and fill up the entire lens space and never dry. She could carry the sadness of the moment with her that way forever, see the world refracted through those tears, those specific tears, as if indices as yet unfound varied in important ways from cry to cry.

or

>Somewhere beyond the battening, urged sweep of three-bedroom houses rushing by their thousands across all the dark beige hills, somehow implicit in an arrogance or bite to the smog the more inland somnolence of San Narciso did lack, lurked the sea, the unimaginable Pacific, the one to which all surfers, beach pads, sewage disposal schemes, tourist incursions, sunned homosexuality, chartered fishing are irrelevant, the hole left by the moon’s tearing-free and monument to her exile;

or

>Now there grows among all the rooms, replacing the night's old smoke, alcohol and sweat, the fragile, musaceous odor of Breakfast: flowery, permeating, surprising, more than the color of winter sunlight, taking over not so much through any brute pungency or volume as by the high intricacy to the weaving of its molecules, sharing the conjuror's secret by which- though it is not often Death is told so clearly to fuck off- the living genetic chains prove even labyrinthine enough to preserve some human face down ten or twenty generations... so the same assertion-through-structure allows this war morning's banana fragrance to meander, reposses, prevail.

[Anonymous No.22848978]

>>22848938
Large chunks of Nabokov's writing

>Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

[Anonymous No.22848989]

>>22837671

[Anonymous No.22848991]

>>22848967
Seems like this is unnecessarily flowery prose. Like drinking tea with too much sugar. It conveys nothing more than unrealistic connections btn unrelated concepts. The weaving of molecules? I hate this kind of faggy writing. How is the average person who has done some high school chemistry supposed to react to such gay statements without scoffing at the author and thinking of him as just another self-righteous faggot with a dildo up his ass? It's all style with no substance. This is more poetry than prose.

[Anonymous No.22849030]

>>22848939
I think you could do a mix of both, there are no rules of writing. Write how you want to tell your story. Writing is the most fart-sniffing form of art there is. It isn't like a visual art, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.22849035]

>>22848967
>Now there grows among all the rooms, replacing the night's old smoke, alcohol and sweat, the fragile, musaceous odor of Breakfast: flowery, permeating, surprising, more than the color of winter sunlight, taking over not so much through any brute pungency or volume as by the high intricacy to the weaving of its molecules, sharing the conjuror's secret by which- though it is not often Death is told so clearly to fuck off- the living genetic chains prove even labyrinthine enough to preserve some human face down ten or twenty generations... so the same assertion-through-structure allows this war morning's banana fragrance to meander, reposses, prevail.
Jesus what a jumble of shit.

[Anonymous No.22849038]

>>22837492
>What the fuck do you faggots mean by good prose
Imagine you've only eaten slop your entire life, everything is the same and only sparks your basic senses of taste. And then you start trying better food, cook yourself, try different spices or food without spice at all. You develop a taste for subtle notes, learn to judge proper combinations, understand the relation to texture and smell. It works the same way for everything, including proseand film. Most likely you've developed some resemblance of taste for movies when you were young. You can also develop a taste for prose.

[Anonymous No.22849042]

>>22848967
>Now there grows among all the rooms, replacing the night's old smoke, alcohol and sweat, the fragile, musaceous odor of Breakfast: flowery, permeating, surprising, more than the color of winter sunlight, taking over not so much through any brute pungency or volume as by the high intricacy to the weaving of its molecules, sharing the conjuror's secret by which- though it is not often Death is told so clearly to fuck off- the living genetic chains prove even labyrinthine enough to preserve some human face down ten or twenty generations... so the same assertion-through-structure allows this war morning's banana fragrance to meander, reposses, prevail.

In the goddamn aftermath of the night's chaos, where the stink of smoke, booze, and sweat used to dance, there's this fragile, banana-scented shit in the air. It's weaving its way like some crafty son of a bitch, not hitting you hard like a punch in the gut, but more like the winter sunlight filtering through a dirty window. This sneaky aroma, like some magic trick, flips off Death in its own way, exposing the twisted paths of genes that manage to carry a face through ten or twenty damn generations. So, on this messed-up morning of war, the smell of bananas is just wandering around, taking back what's rightfully its own and giving the finger to whatever tries to mess with it.

[Anonymous No.22849050]

>>22849038
>You can also develop a taste for prose.
Total faggotry. Enjoy the fart sniffing you absolute asshole.

[Anonymous No.22849101]

>>22849030
Of course you can do both but at that point you are essentially hiding it, generally you do not want to do that for minor character traits, if the reader has to find it and put the pieces together they are going to view it as fairly important information.

Weird you think literature is the most fart-sniffing of the arts, it probably is the most constrained by its form of the arts.

[Anonymous No.22849483]

>>22847441
Shakespeare is the most read western writer, you fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.22850107]

>>22848850
>>22848864
we're not talking about flirting with some dumb bitch or writing your wedding vows. This thread is about good prose in literature you fucking apes.

[Anonymous No.22850130]

>>22848868
>I hear the crack of thunder, and I am brought back to long nights in the library, curled up around piles and piles of tomes. The thunder then was a reminder of my safety, a reminder that I was inside and well, with an endless supply of stories to keep me busy. There was no safety now, no curling up with a book to read. I was going into the storm, meeting it in its own domain.

I cracked that out in 5 minutes. Is it good? Perhaps not really but I do think its better and conveys what the author wanted without flatout saying "I've always loved thunderstorms"

[Anonymous No.22850146]

>>22850107
>we're not talking about flirting with some dumb bitch or writing your wedding vows. This thread is about good prose in literature you fucking apes.
All fart sniffing. Pure fart sniffing. Fucking gay.

[Anonymous No.22850231]

Why are there so many capeshitting plebs in this thread that cannot compute that beauty or art does not have to have meaning?

[Anonymous No.22850272]

>>22850146
why do you even read then at this point

[Anonymous No.22850326]

There is no such thing as 'good prose.' We are now in 2023, no one adheres to rules and and classifications that a bunch of DWEM's came up with.

[Anonymous No.22851198]

>>22847087
The content is not important when comparing the quality of the prose

[Anonymous No.22851275]

>>22837492
I define 'good prose' for myself as prose that I write while I am healthy of body, mind, and soul. This means that I have to eat well, do my mental homework and rest well, not being in a state of anxiety for whatever reason, and engage with the outside world. But I only smoke faggots from time to time, I myself am not a lover of the same sex.

[Anonymous No.22852298]

>>22850130
It does not convey having always loved thunderstorms in the slightest, more a fear and a sense of safety offered by the library from the storm. It is also still telling and not showing. If you really wanted to convey the idea in the first person without telling you will need to dedicate a a fair amount of the text to showing the character in storms and/or in love and draw parallels which could be an interesting structure for a novel but it would end up being a novel about love and/or our relationship to the weather or something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.22852319]

>>22850272
I don't. I stopped reading after I bought "The Glass Hotel" and it was absolute SHITE. I've been back to bookstores and looked for more modern books... ALL SHITE.

I want NEW books. I want NEW culture. I want something INSPIRING. Everything I've read is fucking SHITE. Next step is just collecting /lit/ works once I have some motivation again.

[Anonymous No.22852326]

>>22850231
Function > Form

[Anonymous No.22852331]

>>22852319
You are a bit late to the show to get anything new or cultural from /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22852438]

What I MEAN is read Naked Lunch THEN ask yourself how the HECK is this making sense THEN you begin to understand the madness behind words and the art of arranging that madness into some rhythm or rhyme behind the words themselves
Idk Im going back to watching jason pargin tiktoks i hate my job

[Anonymous No.22852568]

>>22837502
Taste is subjective, complexity and skill aren't. A specific example - it's pretty trivial to take a piece by Haydn or Mozart and point out why they were better technically than the other composers writing in the Austrian style of the time, many of whom were just as well educated. Subjectivity comes in only when comparing Haydn and Mozart between themselves.

[Anonymous No.22853152]

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect."

This is the type of prose that I like. Who else has prose of this quality

[Anonymous No.22854237]

>>22852438
>jason pargin
actually kinda based?

[Anonymous No.22855090]

>>22854237
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.22855124]

>>22840365
music theory to musicians is like philosophy of science to scientists
none use or need it

[Anonymous No.22855525]

Pretty obvious to me that most people on /lit/ are tryhards who don't understand the moment, impute early 20th century literary standards onto 21st century communication, and have very little of interest to say in their writing
Then they write and no one cares and they go ???????????

Nobody cares about the structure of your writing anymore
Good writing speaks to a moment
You poor unfortunate FOOLS

[Anonymous No.22855526]

>>22837671
I wrote dis and then everyone cried
But when you guys write stuff: NO ONE cares. Have you noticed that?
Meanwhile I effortlessly pull shit out of my asshole and it blows ppl minds everytime. Writers and plebs alike
I don't think of "da rules" at all when I write
Know why ppl like my writing
Because I write with my BLOOD and my BALLS
You FOOLS.

[Anonymous No.22855533]

>>22853152
Check out Robert Walser, especially his novel Jakob von Gunten. He was one of Kafka's influences.

[Anonymous No.22855547]

>>22852326
In art, the idea of 'form vs function' is a stupid false dichotomy. Part of the function of literature is precisely to explore what prose can do and how it interacts with the other elements of thought and image and plot.

[Anonymous No.22855556]

>>22855526
>getting this much of an ego boost from 7 or 8 (You)s
ngl, a little jealous

[Anonymous No.22855565]

>>22855556
Fuck (you)s I'm not talking about that
I'm talking about real life

[Anonymous No.22855567]

>>22855565
>his mom still prints out his 4chan posts and puts them on the fridge

[Anonymous No.22855570]

>>22855567
>he still posts advice about how to write online despite having zero readership

[Anonymous No.22855582]

>>22855570
>he still anonymously posts unverifiable claims as 'proof'

[Anonymous No.22855584]

>>22853152
me

[Anonymous No.22856939]

>>22855525
Can you post an excerpt describing this 'moment'.

[Anonymous No.22857186]

>>22850130
>fart sniffers arguing if a character liked big boomies and flashes, wow!
>post nose you disgusting gaza reseidents