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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 480x528, neil-gaiman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674089 No.2674089 [Reply] [Original]

>if one is writing novels today, concentrating on the beauty of the prose is right up there with concentrating on your semi-colons, for wasted effort.

Suck it, nerds.

>> No.2674090

>if one is writing novels today, YA or bust.
fixed.

>> No.2674095

>>2674090
Housewife thrillers sell pretty well too. That's the kind of stuff that gets bought everywhere, not from the library, not lending them out. They get them at birthdays, they buy them because someone on the TV promotes it.

>> No.2674097

He's right. For good authors, excellent prose results incidentally from the main ambition which is writing the story. No one can force it but what's worse is most authors can't even hope to produce it naturally or indirectly.

>> No.2674098

He is right. It's not that it has to be easy and flowing all the time, something that comes from inspiration and not hard work. But it's a good analogy that if you have to concentrate and think and push to take a shit, you're probably not giving good healthy shits.

>> No.2674104

I'm really disturbed by the frequency of this troll thread.

It's like the genre fags have turned it around and become the smug assholes themselves. And /lit/ seems to be supporting it, for the most part.

If this continues, /lit/ will be totally lost. There won't be anywhere to discuss good literature anymore.

>> No.2674121

>be a hack writer
>tell others that being anything else is a waste of time

>> No.2674126

>>2674104
We are not discussing Neil Gaiman, genre literature or anything like that. Just what he said.

>> No.2674128

>>2674121
I like Gaiman, though. Besides, he is correct in the notion that your writing should be a vehicle for a narrative; your narrative shouldn't remain in the periphery simply because you want to flounce around with fancy lexis. This is the case for many English (and particularly Victorian) writers; notably Dickens and Hardy.

>> No.2674142

>implying neil gaiman is an authority on writing novels

>> No.2674143

>>2674089
Wouldn't the ideal book have amazing prose AND content though?

Also:
>implying semi-colons aren't sexy as hell

>> No.2674144

>>2674126

What he said is basically an argument for genre literature. How can you not see that?

He may as well have said "fuck that pretentious shit who the fuck wants to read that boring ass nonsense where's my dragons and explosions".

>> No.2674146

>>2674128

>Besides, he is correct in the notion that your writing should be a vehicle for a narrative; your narrative shouldn't remain in the periphery simply because you want to flounce around with fancy lexis.

Why not? Why are you just assuming narrative should be the ultimate end of a prose work?

>> No.2674158

>>2674089
What exactly are you trying to accomplish by writing in the first place?

>> No.2674165

>write comic books
>have a valid opinion on literature

Pick one.

>> No.2674169

If one is painting paintings today, concentrating on the beauty of the form is right up there with concentrating on which color to use, for wasted effort.

If one is developing videogames today, concentrating on the funness of the gameplay is right up there with concentrating on the menu design, for wasted effort

If one is directing films today, concentrating on the beauty of the cinematography is right up there with concentrating on which color tie your lead should wear, for wasted effort.

and why the hell is that comma after "semi-colons"? Gaiman wouldn't know how to use punctuation if an apostrophe raped his mother.

>> No.2674188

>>2674165
Comic books (good ones) are pretty amazing and shouldn't be taken lightly. Also, he's written books. Neverwhere, Anasi Boys, American Gods...

Still I disagree with him. Focusing (also) on prose is a depth level of writing.

>> No.2674196

The "problem" is that these well written novels, of no more than a 200 pages, actually holds more content than any long series of YA ficiton.

A great example is H's "For sale: Baby shoes, never used". How much content does this single sentence hold?

In other words, the style and prose can expand the substance of the novel far beyond that of the number of pages.

>> No.2674217

>>2674143 This.

Even if you have a good story it is incredibly important to have a high quality in the prose. It breaks the world if you can't get through an awkward sentence. That said, words for the sake of words is a game for academics and people in love with their own intelligence. As a writer the aim should be to create a world; not force it along or get lost in it.

And semi-colons are the shit. I don't care what Vonnegut or Gaiman say.

>> No.2674221

>>2674217
I've never understood this hate of words for the sake of words. There's a joy in that too. Both are very much valid.

>> No.2674224

>>2674089
>quote by neil gaiman
>tells "nerds" to suck it

OH THE IRONING

>> No.2674231

>>2674095
>Housewife thrillers sell pretty well too.
Starting with Twilight, housewives have become the target audience for most YA books anyway.

Who are we kidding though. From gallant novel to gothic novel to romance novel, housewives have always had the tastes of 13 year old girls. I.e., it should be about women who everyone adores and/or wants to have passionate sex with

>> No.2674234

>>2674143
>Wouldn't the ideal book have amazing prose AND content though?
Not necessarily. It can be amazing and have sub-par writing, or it can have perfect writing and still be a bad book. I don't think a book with good storytelling can be bad, no matter the quality of prose.

On the other hand, most genre literature has storytelling even worse than it's prose. And by "most" I understand the lieks of Asimov, Clarke, Lovecraft, Martin etc..

>> No.2674239

>>2674221

Not so much hate, but more of a stylistic choice. If an author wants to spend an entire paragraph describing a flower or the food on the table, I'm not going to hate on them. Though I will probably sigh and mutter something because I don't see the use for it. If it's a metaphor I'm totally ok with it, but extraneous detail weighs a book down.

I'd be a much bigger fan of Martin if he would get to the point a little faster (Game of Thrones critique, I absolutely LOVE his short stories/work on Wild Cards)

>> No.2674243

I think you are all discussing shit.

I don't think he means beautiful prose is not important, I just think he means it's something that can't be forced, that it's a waste of effort to try and try to do it, because the prose, whether it's beautiful, ugly or in between, will show itself naturally.

>> No.2674245

>>2674234
>I don't think a book with good storytelling can be bad

you can't have good "storytelling" without good writing.

>> No.2674248

>>2674234
Well, no. A book, as incredibly well written as to be "perfect", will never be bad. A painting can be technically impressive, and "good", without having any content worth speaking of.

>> No.2674250

>>2674243
someone thinks inspiration is the key to writing!

point at him and laugh

>> No.2674252

>>2674221
>I've never understood this hate of words for the sake of words.
When it's advertices as a story, but isn't, it makes people angry. What's so hard to understand about that? If I wanted a book, spent money on it and then tens of hours reading it, and only THEN I found out it was actually a word game and not a novel, I get irate.

>> No.2674253

>>2674252
has this ever happened to you?

can we get some examples of what people think is "words for the sake of words?"

>> No.2674256

>>2674245
What I meant is, technical prose. You can have commonplace prose and stellar storytelling. You really can't have it the other way - but tell that to those 18 year old great novelists (or 70 year old great novelists, for that matter).

>> No.2674260

>>2674253
People who wanted a thriller but got something more.

>> No.2674262

>>2674253
Actually, to think of it, I can't provide a clear example. I wonder what that means, but I can't.

Poster >>2674252 here (my only post on the subject ITT).

Hmmmm.

>> No.2674263

>implying sandman isn't fucking terrible.

>> No.2674264

>>2674260
Thriller is the epitome of art. Too bad there aren't many good thrillers besides Hamlet, The Idiot et al.

>> No.2674266

Neil, GTFO. You know damn well you're only readable when you're writing short fiction.

>> No.2674267

>>2674263
Never read it. But the Neverwhatever thing was pretty good. Read a bit amateurish, but good. Also, it's so rare to have a really well-written ending. Almost nobody, even among the great, can end a novel properly - but Gaiman could.

>> No.2674268

>>2674264
A great story with thrilling elements is a wonderful thing. A story about nothing but the cheap thrill is good as plain entertainment (like most TV shows, for example) but not as art.

Genre fiction can be art, and have literary merit. Anyone who has both read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and is not an idiot can tell you as much.

>> No.2674285

In terms of priority, prose should be the last thing you worry about.

(Characters > Plot > Prose)

However, good prose is the most impressive thing you can have.

This is just my humble opinion.

>> No.2674292

>>2674285
I'd probably have to agree. Aristotle was actively opposed to complex characterisation in the Poetics, though. Of course, that notion went out the window with Euripides.

>> No.2674294

Is Gaiman done with novels or what?

>> No.2674296

>>2674285
>Characters > Plot > Prose
True. Don't you end with good prose automatically after all the revisions anyway? When it finally starts to convey the meaning well enough, it's already good prose most of the time without any forethought or planning.

>> No.2674302

On a related note, gentlemen.

Would you rather have - if you had to choose - INTERESTING persons or WELL-WRITTEN characters?

What I mean is, could a well-written character be interesting by the very merit of it? And could an interesting character - as in, a bare-bones, deadpan description of an interesting person, - be usable even without the necessary literary devices?

>> No.2674312

>>2674302
Depends what happens with that character. A WELL-WRITTEN charcter, can become very interesting if he is set under the right light.

Satirical writers are often good at this.

>> No.2674320

>>2674312
Right, but what do you suppose would be better: a well-written boring character or a badly written fascinating one (i.e., with an imressive life story)?

Again, theoretically. In a hypothetical situation where you have a clear choice and must make it.

>> No.2674322

>>2674302
I think anyone can be interesting if written a certain way. For example, in The Man In The High Castle, Phillip K. Dick makes me care about an antique dealer. Normally i wouldn't give a shit, but he presented the character with the right writing.

Well written characters all day, sir.

>> No.2674343

>>2674243 here

I still think you are all going on a useless cycle over this issue, which in the end is just a debate on who likes apples and who likes oranges and why one is superior to the other. I expect genre fiction to have a good plot and prose focused writers to have good prose. I don't feel a sense of hierarchy between all those aspects of writing, because this analysis only makes sense after it's already written.

Inspiration over hard work is far from how I see the process of writing, but I do believe that this entire debate creates some contrived force of "trying to", instead of doing it, too much method and little flow. So you have genre fiction writers pushing on a prose that wants to be beautiful but fails, which in my opinion is worse than a decent prose that makes it clear for the great plot to show itself. The good prose writers, on the other hand, don't need much to push themselves into great plots, as the narrative itself can drive you to the next page and even a simple setting can be marvelous under his pen.

cont

>> No.2674345

>>2674343 cont

I don't think writers are destined to be one thing or the other, or that they can't combine these aspects in good and bad ways all the way through their lives. But I do believe that certain things speak to the writers as something they need to say, whether it's a way to see the world, or an idea for a story, or a recurrent character to the writer's imagination that need a story to unfold onto words. And that initial drive should be respected, regardless of one's reasonable arguments to say one is more important than the other. In the middle of the process, things will change, new ideas will come up and you may end up with a good combination of all those things. What is dangerous, to me, is to get stuck and to "keep trying" instead of flowing.

You may draw and erase the same thing hundreds of times, but I think is better to just move on to the next drawing and, even more, to use what you once thought to be "mistakes" as evidence of your own most intimate trait, and by accepting it, getting over said "mistakes".

>> No.2674352

>style vs. substance false dichotomy

style is substance and substance is style; if you're a good writer, that is (gratuitous semicolons, woo!)

>> No.2674357

>>2674089

Fuck semicolons.

>> No.2674400
File: 4 KB, 500x500, cobalt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674400

>valuing plot/narrative
>2012
tvtropes.org
The above link is evidence that every story is regurgitated shit. No plot should ever surprise and no narrative should ever sweep the reader away. What we get lost in is the storytelling. How the artist communicates his story which, in the case of writing, includes prose mastery.

Of course, if you're just writing pleb worthy Wal-Mart fiction like Gaiman does, you can still surprise people by making that apparently evil character turn out to be a good guy. I read Harry Potter as an adult and figured out the basic course of the entire series after the first book but what made them interesting was Rowling's voice and writing.

Also, Gaiman fanbois all up in this thread.

>> No.2674418

>>2674400
>what made them interesting was Rowling's voice and writing.

>miserablelookingharoldbloom.png

>> No.2674429
File: 135 KB, 480x359, don't.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674429

>>2674400
>tvtropes.org

>> No.2674440

>>2674429
>dismissing Gaiman's primary story database
Come on!

>> No.2674449

>>2674440
Seriously, don't. Spout a /b/ meme, do a randum xDDD thing, post with a smiley face, but at least don't mention tvtropes.

I know it's summer. I know you don't go to school anymore. But we're on /lit/. Kids are different here, aren't they.

>> No.2674450

- Gaiman, shut up you jew faggot nigger

Gustave Flaubert, on the importance of prose.

>> No.2674484

>>2674450

I never knew that Flaubert had such a colourful vocabulary.

>> No.2674513
File: 276 KB, 472x671, 1335501305160.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2674513

>>2674484

>> No.2674534

>>2674484
well, it could have been a bit different in the original french.

>> No.2674552

>>2674097
Yeah that's why Nabokov was so amazingly prolific compared with, say, Agatha Christie and Joyce took six months to write /Ulysses/.

Gaiman may have a point, but your shit's all retarded.

>> No.2674585

Where the fuck do you get the idea that Gaiman is speaking in favor of genre fiction?
He's simply saying that in today's society, beautiful prose is not valued. He's not saying that's good or bad, he's just saying most people don't give a fuck.

>> No.2674596

>>2674552
>Ags
>Ten Little Niggers

Lol.

>> No.2674601

>>2674400
>anything about tvtropes
Christ, just...stop.

>> No.2674616

>>2674585
Because genre-fiction writers write a book in a fortnight. It's often a quality of "literary" books that their writers took time, a lot of time, to write them.