/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2716286]

>ITT: Acclaimed writers who you can't stand and why.

Edgar Allen Poe and H.P. Lovercraft. They both have the most bloated, excessive prose I have ever had the misfortune of reading. I did enjoy "The Raven" however.

Picture is unrelated.

[Anonymous No.2716287]

>>2716286
holla

[Anonymous No.2716337]

Joyce

amirite

[Anonymous No.2716389]

Charlotte Bronte and Jane Eyre.

I honestly think it's because I'm only 19 and the first kind of 'real' literature I read was Tess otD. I just kind of get sick of whingey female protagonists.

That said, I think I'll probably be able to enjoy it when I get older. All of the girls I know absolutely fangirling over it does not help either.

[Anonymous No.2716398]

Descartes

All he ever did was talk about dicks and asses.

[The Bunk !aUuOckdYz6 No.2716402]

>>2716389

I read Jane Eyre last November I think; I liked it, but I had read Hardy's Tess a few months before and I also preferred it.

[Anonymous No.2716404]

Milan Kundera. I didn't make through the second chapter of Unbearable Lightness of Being. I just can't give a shit about a jaded doctor who fucks a bunch.
I don't much care for Poe either.

[Anonymous No.2716408]

>>2716286

But the Raven has some of the most overblown and insane style & sentence structure of anything written.

[Anonymous No.2716430]

>>2716286
>the most bloated, excessive prose I have ever had the misfortune of reading
>I did enjoy "The Raven" however

Eh, which one is it then?

[Anonymous No.2716447]

Joyce, T.S. Elliot, Lovecraft, and in modern times GRRM.

Nearly unreadable to me for drastically different reasons - though I managed to slog through At the Mountains of Madness and found it enjoyable, just not the process of reading it.

[Anonymous No.2716465]

>>2716286
Oh what.

[Anonymous No.2716759]

Anything about the boring problems of boring people. i.e. Infinite Jest

[Anonymous No.2716839]

Kerouac.

And while I like Hemingway, he isn't worth of half of the praise he gets.

[Scours Doyle !f5pAtRIOts No.2717119]

>Virginia Woolf
She basically wrote a junior version of Ulysses right after it came out; her writing is an example of a particular style other authors did better; her literary criticism and theory essays and ideas were unoriginal, impractical and senselessly contrarian.

>F. Scott Fitzgerald
His technical proficiency often overshadows the fact that his writing is boring and uninspired both in terms of story and style. I have a difficult time becoming invested in or connecting with his narratives and characters and, writing at a time when exciting innovation was occurring in the field of fiction writing, his prose seems stale and mundane.

[Anonymous No.2717364]

Lovecraft's prose is the main reason I read his work. He constructs some great descriptions that I feel I haven't quite seen anywhere else before.

[Anonymous No.2717497]

>>2716404
Unbearable Lightness isn't that good, but don't dismiss kundera based on that one book. try The Joke, that was really good imo.

[Anonymous No.2717516]

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, I read Memories of My Melancholy Whores and half of 100 years of solitude, and I simply don't get it, I may be stupid, or and asshole, I honestly don't care, he sucks many many dicks on many many different levels.

[Anonymous No.2717517]

>>2716430

The Raven isn't prose, fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.2717527]

Twain. The stories he writes are fun, but he somehow writes fun so boringly.

[Anonymous No.2717530]

Hemingway. Joyce. Elliot. Fucking Melville.

[Anonymous No.2717536]

Nobody likes Lovecraft for his prose. Nerds just like him for his worldbuilding, which has been quite influential.

[Anonymous No.2717597]

>>2717119
>She basically wrote a junior version of Ulysses right after it came out

I haven't read Ulysses yet but I do know she didn't copy Ulysses if that is what you are implying. There are letters going between her and Katherine Mansfield talking about the idea.
I believe she is an excellent writer that deserves her praise for her prose are true and concise and the motives of each of her characters are probable and constantly relevant portraits.

[Anonymous No.2717612]

T. S. Eliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald

I gotta say, I really hate word masturbation

I'm someone who appreciates emotions, characters and stories over fanciful writing styles and poetry, especially from high school level poets who are overly treasured and cherished by professors and teenage girls

These are writers who in my opinion have nothing to say, nothing, and have no real life experiences other than the "struggle to write" and other first world problems and because of it all of their stories are extremely short, but because they wrote in fancy whimsical stylings, they are praised as the greatest authors of all time, ever, forever

I'm already someone who thinks the praise for writing is too much, but the praise for poets is simply ridiculous, they write down one or two ideas or thoughts about absolutely nothing, and get statues erected of themselves

I know I know some will say they are too deep for me or I have no taste because I don't eat their shit, but every time I read some of this poetry acclaimed as the most beautiful writing ever, I feel nothing,

At the same time though it's so fucking pretentious it hurts, it reeks of some guy snickering at home in a fancy shirt, looking at things around his room to describe in romantic ways, biting his thumb and giggling like a schoolgirl

It's all a fucking joke, fuck the Great Gatsby

[Anonymous No.2717622]

>>2717536
Disagree, I like his prose.

>"Only the grim brooding desert gods know what really took place--what indescribable struggles and scrambles in the dark I endured or what Abaddon guided me back to life, where I must always remember and shiver in the night wind till oblivion"

I just like it.

[Anonymous No.2717643]

Kafka.

I had to force myself through The Trial. Everything is just so dull and bleak and uninteresting that it becomes a chore to read.

[Anonymous No.2717662]

>>2717612

Fuck you. The Great Gatsby is full of emotion, characters, and story.

[Anonymous No.2717909]

>>2717612

You feel nothing from poetry. How does that justify your claim that poets "have nothing to say?" Do you listen to music and feel nothing? Do you recognize the rhythm and musicality of language? Have you tried reading poems out loud?

[Anonymous No.2717912]

dickens can climb a wall of dick...ens

[Anonymous No.2717932]

> hates Poe
> hates flowery prose
> posting on a board where Bradbury is being honored with a sticky

[Anonymous No.2717933]

>>2717119

Odd. I absolutely love Fitzgerald's prose.

[Anonymous No.2717934]

Dickens.

Fuck Dickens.

[Anonymous No.2717938]

If only all authors you might care to read wrote exactly like your favorite author. You'd never have to accommodate another's tastes again!

[Anonymous No.2717939]

>>2717643
His short stories are considerably better than his novels. Metamorphosis; In The Penal Colony; the one about the man trying to get access to 'the law' that I can't remember the title of.

[Anonymous No.2717941]

>>2717938
>If only all authors you might care to read wrote exactly like your favorite author.
oh god no

i love pynchon, but man, sometimes i need something a little easier to read

[Anonymous No.2717942]

>>2717939

I could never "get" The Metamorphosis. When I read it I could clearly tell he was trying to communicate something significant, possibly profound, but I was always utterly unable to discern what in heavens it might have been.

[Anonymous No.2717944]

>>2717941
>>2717938

Humanity is not ready for that much Melvillian prose

[Anonymous No.2717951]

Speaking of Lovecraft, does this look legit to you guys?
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-H-P-Lovecraft-ebook/dp/B0057JQ8C8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=13
39601207&sr=8-1&keywords=Lovecraft

It seems like a steal to get that many stories for so little, especially considering good paperback collections of his can run upwards of $20

[Anonymous No.2717957]

>>2717951
all his works are public domain, so 99 cents for an ebook of them is kind of a ripoff

[Anonymous No.2717960]

>>2717957

Why do print editions run so high, then?

[Anonymous No.2717962]

>>2717960
because it costs money to print a book

[Anonymous No.2717966]

>>2717941
> Pynchon
> hard to read

[Anonymous No.2717974]

>>2717951
The person who made that ebook offers it for free on their website (http://cthulhuchick.com), so I'm not sure how amazon can charge for it...

[Anonymous No.2717981]

>>2717939
> the one about the man trying to get access to 'the law' that I can't remember the title of.

The Trial?

Or maybe you mean something else, because The Trial is in fact a novel.

I liked it though.

[Anonymous No.2717982]

Musil

[Anonymous No.2717985]

>>2717942
I don't think it's meant to be any specific, but there are a lot of themes explored, mostly based around exploring what is the value of a person. Like, when Gregor is unable to work he is seen by his family as being repulsive and hates himself. His family don't value him as a person, just as a way to get money, that sort of thing. It just explores stuff like that. I think a lot of people over-complicate Kafka and confuse themselves by searching for some profound 'deeper meaning' that just isn't there.

[Anonymous No.2717995]

D.H. Lawrence. His prose is just so dry and lumbering and it only grows more obvious whenever he dials up the sex. His repetition is so bad its like reading a moebius strip. I got through Sons and Lovers but can't make it with Lady Chatterly, The Rainbow, or Women in Love.

[Anonymous No.2717996]

>>2717981
Nah, not The Trial.
I found it; it's 'Before the Law'.

[Anonymous No.2718012]

>>2717942
I also felt that The Metamorphosis was some kind of sustained symbol that I wasn't quite grasping.

But in retrospect, and after reading a bit more Kafka, I see it as a short and whimsical exploration of "what would happen if an everyday 'respectable man' was suddenly trapped in a repulsive and grotesque body?". And the answer is that he would be cut off from the social world of humankind, even though the "essence" of the individual remains the same, and only the exterior form has been altered.

[Anonymous No.2718016]

It's only one work but I absolutely cannot remake myself reread "In the Penal Colony", the description of the torture device is just too visceral.

[Anonymous No.2718021]

>>2716839
I completely agree with both your choices. Kerouac is just shallow, insipid trash with no redeeming features, as far as I'm concerned, and Hemingway's work thematically just doesn't interest me in the slightest.

I also thought Burroughs was total bollocks.

[Anonymous No.2718023]

>People discrediting Fitzgerald.
How does it feel to be a sour, un-american ass?

[Anonymous No.2718024]

>>2717996
>Before the Law
Oh yeah, that short parable thing.

It's actually included in The Trial, (iirc, as a story that someone tells the protagonist) - but of course The Trial wasn't published in Kafka's lifetime, whereas Before The Law itself was.

[Anonymous No.2718027]

>>2718021
>I also thought Burroughs was total bollocks.
Have you only read Naked Lunch? A lot of people who dislike that still find Junky to be quite good at least

[Anonymous No.2718029]

Lovecraft is pretty bloated but his stories are fantastic. I don't know how you could hate him.

[Anonymous No.2718030]

>>2718027
Naked Lunch and about half of The Soft Machine (before I threw it against the wall and never picked it up again). I have been told that Junky is more readable, but I'm still not sure that I can bring myself to care about Burrough's perspective and concerns.

[Anonymous No.2718031]

>>2718023
>my and my bitch.jpg

[Anonymous No.2718038]

Everyone attempting to lodge some kind of argument against Fitzgerald is so, so wrong.

I like Hemingway but as has been stated, he doesn't deserve half the admiration he gets.

And then, of course, there's Franzen.

[Anonymous No.2718045]

>>2718023
>How does it feel to be a sour, un-american ass?

I'm British, so... it feels normal good I guess.

[Anonymous No.2718046]

>>2718038
Hemingway is absolutely brilliant if you understand Symbolism

[Anonymous No.2718047]

>>2718023
>How does it feel to be a sour, un-american ass?

I'm British, so... it feels normal I guess.

[Anonymous No.2718065]

>>2717612
Usually I think the word "plebeian" is misused, or at least used so reflexively that it loses its meaning, but you, sir, are a philistine to the highest (or lowest) degree. You are incapable of appreciating beauty, and, when it becomes too hard for you to consume, rather than spend time with it and utilize your intellect and emotion (with perhaps even a few years of study), you dismiss it offhand as "pretentious."

You are the death of art incarnate (don't think that's some kind of edgy title I'm bestowing upon you, it's not, you're legitimately a bad human being), and I really don't think you should bother coming back to a literature board.

6/10, yes I'm mad.

[Anonymous No.2718093]

I have to say, for a 150 page book i found The Crying of Lot 49 very tedious and I couldn't wait till it was over. I realize that's only one book, though. Perhaps it's Pynchon's worst?

[Anonymous No.2718105]

>>2718093
I felt the same, but I absolutely loved V.

[Anonymous No.2718129]

>>2718093
yeah, that one wasn't too great

try v or mason & dixon, maybe

[Anonymous No.2718706]

>>2717909

Alright let me take it back and let's talk over some of Eliot's poetry

"Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent"

How is this not pretentious rambling, and how is "one-night cheap hotels" elegant and articulate poetry in any way?

"The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes"

Okay I have to stop. He is rhyming yellow with yellow and window-panes with window-panes at the same time saying absolutely nothing at all.

I'm sorry but I won't read this shit. It's just shit playing itself off as art.

[Anonymous No.2718713]

>>2718065

i agree with him though

explain to us how their misogynistic bawww poor me rambling about being rich but a girl doesnt like them is art in any way shape or form

quote some passages that are deemed as beautiful because to me its just trash

[Anonymous No.2718721]

>>2718706

He is creating imagery, fuckin idiot.

[Anonymous No.2718725]

>>2718713
>why is this painting pretty it's just a fucking tree what's the big deal about the tree please point to a specific branch which is considered beautiful

You agree with him because you're a moron too. I hate what the summers do to /lit/

[Anonymous No.2718731]

Melville and Faulkner.
Although I've only read Moby Dick and The Sound and the Fury, I remain unimpressed.
Fuck, American literature in general, I guess.

[soedgy No.2718738]

THE BELLS, BELLS, BELLS!

[Anonymous No.2718752]

>>2718713
>explain to us how their misogynistic bawww poor me rambling about being rich but a girl doesnt like them is art in any way shape or form

>quote some passages that are deemed as beautiful because to me its just trash

From what work? What poet? What era? What tradition? Your idea that all poetry is generally the same thing only proves to me that you're completely ignorant of it and that you are indeed so stubborn in your aversion to beauty and art that you can only make vague and sweeping criticisms of something you don't understand at all.

>explain to us how their misogynistic bawww poor me rambling about being rich but a girl doesnt like them is art in any way shape or form

I really can't even fathom how stupid you are. Do you mean to say that love and rejection are purely luxuries of the rich and not universal? Do you only read things for the content with no concern at all toward the form? Are you retarded?

>>2718706
And you, I'll get to you in a minute.

[Anonymous No.2718749]

Joyce.

Fuck Finnegans Wake with a burning hot ten-foot pole.

[Anonymous No.2718754]

>>2718713
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ON LIT WHEN YOU DON'T APPRECIATE LITERATURE

[Anonymous No.2718767]

This may be the plebiest thread yet

[Anonymous No.2718897]

>>2718721
some beautiful imagery
>YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW

[Anonymous No.2718899]

>>2718706
Now, being that you are, all things considered, a dolt, it really isn't worth my time going into a lengthy analysis of the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, its inherent brilliance and its bold re-imagining of the function of literature, suffice it that I will derive some small pleasure from demonstrating to you that you actually are an uncultured Hun without even the slightest capacity to appreciate art. So this is going to be brief.

Firstly, it's odd that you skipped the opening lines since they're probably the most well known (even among philistines like yourself):
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky,
Like a patient etherised upon a table;

Now I'm not sure how babby's first poem I have to be in this examination, since you've clearly never studied poetry once in your life, but I'm going to take this slowly. In the first line, the poet is giving us a setting. He, the narrator, exists in the physical world and he is inviting you, the reader (although you can argue that this is ambiguous), to travel with him. When does he want you to go? Why, when the evening is spread out against the sky! My, what a pretty image. Almost pastoral isn't it? A quaint little phra... but wait, what's this third line: "Like a patient etherised upon a table." Oh-hoh-hoh, T.S., you sly dog. Do you see what he did there? What at first you may have thought as a pretty description typical of most Romantic poetry turns out to be far more sinister. This simile comes as a surprise, the night, we discover, is stagnant, drugged and waiting to be torn into. We can see from the very start that we are not in store for a "typical" poem.

cont.

[Anonymous No.2718903]

>>2718725
>comparing a painting that takes actual skill and talent, as well as time to a sentence somebody wrote in 10 seconds

No, You are the moron.

[Anonymous No.2718909]

>>2718903
5/10 if you're the same guy, i actually thought you were for real.

[Anonymous No.2718911]

Before we move on to the next few lines which you yourself have quoted, I'm going to give you a brief overview of the poem since I'm positive you'd never figure it out or bother to research it on your own. This poem is arguably the first truly "modern" poem (modern not in the sense of contemporary but as the era in Literature), and we see the tell tale signs of stream-of-consciousness narration. The poem isn't an A-to-be-B story of the narrator's day, but instead we see the events unfold through the narrator's thoughts and ephemeral observations. This is perhaps the greatest achievement of the Modernist novel (see Joyce, Woolf, et al.) and Eliot is the first man to bring it to poetry.

Now, moving on:
"Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells,"

Here we begin with the continuation of the narrator's first thought before he became sidetracked, "Let us go," he is still inviting you. And now we see that we are walking through streets (which Eliot will go on to describe beautifully, but we'll hold off on that for now) to get to our destination. As you go along this route you will notice the "muttering retreats" of a cast of characters. By describing them as retreats, Eliot is implying that these are escapes, from what, we cannot yet say. Perhaps from the same drugged ennui which afflicts the sky. But Eliot explains that these are the retreats of restless nights in "one night cheap hotels" (fleeting sex with strangers, probably prostitutes) and "sawdust restaurants with oyster shells" (dilapidated eateries with sawdust on the floor where relatively cheap food is served).

[Anonymous No.2718912]

>>2718903
are you fucking kidding me? writing is SO FUCKING DIFFICULT. to do it beautifully for any length of time is an extremely noteworthy task. any writer who is well-known enough to be discussed on /lit/ doesn't just sit down go "derpdy herpdy whoopsie woo ill call it The Sound and the Fury"

[Anonymous No.2718913]

>>2718752
>I'VE WASTED LARGE AMOUNTS OF TIME STUDYING SIMPLE POETRY PLEASE RECOGNIZE MY ABILITIES TO PERCEIVE BEAUTY WHICH ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR TO YOURS

also we're talking about the poets in question you fuckwit, eliot and fitzgerald

[Anonymous No.2718927]

>>2718752
>Do you mean to say that love and rejection are purely luxuries of the rich and not universal?

No he's saying he doesn't care about the imagined problems of the rich, because they are not real problems.

[Fuck You No.2718932]

Now you had a particularly retarded comment about the whole of this passage: how is "one-night cheap hotels" elegant and articulate poetry in any way?

First of all, does it occur to you that using what you have conceived in your scant-exercised mind would not make sense in this context? These are supposed to be the narrator's thoughts, and one-night cheap hotel seems to be the best possible way to lament the overwhelming alienation of the world, where sex becomes a lonely and meaningless act. If the narrator started whipping out flowery verse it would be nonsensical.

Continuing:
"Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question...
Oh, do not ask, "What is it?"
Let us go and make our visit."

Here we see Eliot's poignant description of the streets. They are meandering as far as the narrator can tell, like a tedious argument. Again we see the theme of boredom. And, creating tension via line break, we see another surprise awaits: the tedious argument has "insidious intent". The boredom and ennui the narrator experiences is more than that, it's vicious, it's detrimental to him, and it's leading him to an overwhelming question. But here he anticipates the natural curiosity of his companion (you). "Oh, do not ask, "What is it?"", he casually chastises you, "Let us go make our visit."

cont.

[Anonymous No.2718933]

>>2718909
1/10 for you.

Writing about yellow window-panes isn't a great achievement. It may have been a hundred years ago when everyone was illiterate, but today everyone can ready and nobody gives a fuck.

Their simple jests about life and love aren't impressing anyone anymore.

[Fuck You No.2718937]

We the see the psyche of the narrator at work. His thoughts become sidetracked by the tedium of the world around him and it begins to lead him to some sort of question with grave implications (perhaps on the apparent meaningless of human existence in a world where experience itself has been devalued by wistfulness, or perhaps the meaninglessness of a Godless universe) but for now we are left only to ponder, because we still have to visit the as of yet unspecified location, and we should not tarry on such depressing subject matter. Try as he might, the narrator can't shake his growing concerns.

Now, I'm actually not going to go much further. The next "stanza" if you will, is a rather humorous condemnation of the pretentiousness you so loathe, "In the room where the women come and go/ Speaking of Michaelangelo." And your destination is described as a place full of dilettantes (we'll forgive the slight misogyny since it's still funny and rings true) who only yammer on about art and beauty and meaning without actually understanding it or making an effort to (sort of like you).

Finally, as per his description of the yellow fog, you say: " He is rhyming yellow with yellow and window-panes with window-panes at the same time saying absolutely nothing at all."

That's actually not what he's doing, you swine. He's not trying to rhyme here, the device is called repetition. He seems to be fixated on the smog so he refers to it twice in the same thought.

cont.

[Anonymous No.2718938]

>>2718754
I like stories

Not flamboyant ramblings, if it were up to me all these faggy poetic musings would be torched and forgotten about

[Fuck You No.2718944]

>>2718937
>>2718932
>>2718911
>>2718899

I won't go any further because I didn't come to /lit/ to write an analytic essay on T.S. Eliot. What I will say is this: you are an idiot. A complete and utter threat to art and humanity in your proud ignorance. You throw these masterful verses at us demanding extrapolation without bothering to think about it yourself and instead dismissing it as trash. Why? Because you are not interested in beauty or in art. You are solely focused on living your worthless, mundane life, and the fact that other people are deriving more meaning out of it than you bothers you to no end, so you condemn it all. Worse still, you condemn it as if what you are expressing is a revolutionary view on art, when in fact you are just broadcasting your own stupidity. Until you actually take the time to develop a taste for literature and art in general, you are, and always will be, a "plebeian".

[Anonymous No.2718947]

>>2718899
>its inherent brilliance
>IT WAS BRILLIANT BEFORE IT WAS EVEN MADE
>BECAUSE TS ELIOT FUCK YOU I AINT GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT

[Anonymous No.2718957]

>>2718899
>When does he want you to go? Why, when the evening is spread out against the sky! My, what a pretty image

So simple only a pleb could derive pleasure from it

You've demonstrated your simple mind, no need to explore it further with that autistic wall of text

[Anonymous No.2718967]

>>2718899
>Do you see what he did there?

make a shitty description of the night sky?

>What at first you may have thought as a pretty description

that's not what I thought at first, I thought it was out of place and ruined the entire intro

[Anonymous No.2718991]

>>2718903

I am earnestly flummoxed if that is what you think of writing poetry. If you are genuine, I can only think that 4chan has opened up a connection to some other universe where poetry apparently refers to something altogether different from what it means here.

Just from a purely technical perspective we can look at Poe's "The Raven" or Coleridge's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"—even ignoring the potential substance or thematic content of these poems, do you honestly think sentences of that sort are so trivial to assemble?

[Fuck You No.2718993]

>>2718967
>>2718957
>>2718947
And like a dog you continue to snap at the heels of the truth, incapable in your own pitiful way to ascertain it.

Enjoy your position as the lowest common denominator on a board on 4chan, you've really earned the distinction.

[Anonymous No.2719025]

>>2718944
>>2718937
>>2718932
>>2718911
>>2718899
>g-guys I know eliot's every thought only him and i have this special bond, omg u dumb plebs
>the way he describes lamp posts is so beautiful, it took him 3 seconds to write that filler bullshit but I over emphasis the amount of work it took to do so
>muttering streets, guys, GUYS LISTEN
>GUYS
>THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THIE STORY, U FILTHY CASUAL SCUMS
>GUYS FUCKING LISTEN ITS SO FUCKING DEEP AND BEAUTIFUL
>THEY ARE MUTTERING LIKE A BUTTERFLY A BEAUTIFUL BUTTERFLY
>DONT U FUCKING SEE!??!?! U FUCKING PLEEEEEEEBBBBBBBB

Never before have I seen such an autismal over-emphasis of prose in my life

What you've basically said here is "Look motherfucker, this is beautiful because I said so, you fucker"

Great analysis indeed, truly wonderful how you've managed to say nothing at all in so many words, no wonder you're a fan of Eliot

I can only assume you've learned your mastery of bloated filler from the American education system

[Anonymous No.2719039]

>>2719025

>prose

[Anonymous No.2719040]

Orwell. Maybe I've cottoned on to a part of his image--like Trilling said--that he's a somewhat mediocre intellect.

David Foster Wallce, though of course most of /lit/ hates him too. I'd be satisfied if I could understand a little bit of his appeal.

Wallace Stevens stands out for me as being very hard to understand, I can tell he writes good.

Fank Zappa. Not a writer but seriously who enjoys that shit.

>>2717364
>>2717536
Now this may shock you, but you're both right.

[Anonymous No.2719049]

>>2718937
>the device is called repetition

Then he has achieved the device

also you seem more interested in the psychology behind the writing more than the actual quality of the writing

if I wiped my ass with a newspaper I'm sure you could write some 2000 word analysis about it with deep political meanings and emotional context

sorry but you have not impressed anyone

[Anonymous No.2719052]

>>2719039
He admits it himself, it is repetitive prose

[Anonymous No.2719059]

>>2719025

I honestly wonder if you earnestly think anyone here at this point genuinely cares about your opinion?

You've been brutally efficient at utterly discrediting yourself, and to be quite honest have long since rendered any and all of your "contributions" to this discussion—those you have written, those you write now, and all those of yours you've yet to write—quite invalid beyond any and all hope of redemption.

You're not even frustrating or aggravating at this point. At most, after reading one of your messages I am left only wondering how one so ignorant nonetheless manages to string together words that yet still achieve some manner of coherence. I almost find myself mildly concerned for your life, as I feel at almost any moment you may forget how to breathe or eat and soon perish from your ignorance, blindness, and sheer simplicity.

I wish you the best, friend, but I doubt you shall find it.

[Anonymous No.2719061]

>>2718944
>the fact that other people are deriving more meaning out of it than you bothers you to no end

No, it's the fact that it's so over-praised and overrated that bothers me, and you've done nothing to change my mind other than displaying your own butthurt.

[Anonymous No.2719064]

Orwell. Maybe I've cottoned on to a part of his image--like Trilling said--that he's a somewhat mediocre intellect.

David Foster Wallace, though of course most of /lit/ hates him too. I'd be satisfied if I could understand a little bit of his appeal.

Wallace Stevens stands out for me as being very hard to understand, I can tell he writes good.

Fank Zappa. Not a writer but seriously who enjoys that shit.

Dickens also seems like kind of an ichthyosaur, though Great Expectations is the only book of his I've spent significant time reading.

>>2717364
>>2717536

Now this may shock you, but you're both right.

[Anonymous No.2719065]

>>2718993
>truth

You didn't say anything in those 20 posts

[Anonymous No.2719066]

the amount of successful trolling in this thread is outstanding

[Anonymous No.2719068]

>>2719065

A man speaks regardless of whether his audience is listening.

[Anonymous No.2719070]

>>2719052

It's poetry you moron.

[Anonymous No.2719072]

>>2719059
>If I say things they become true
>This writing is beautiful
>Your post is wrong
>I am always right, look at my flamboyant texts

lol nope

[Fuck You No.2719075]

>>2719052
Nowhere did I say prose.

>>2719025
I didn't say it's beautiful because I said so, I gave you a line-by-line analysis, put it in historical context and briefly explained its function in the Western canon of poetry as the first apparent usage of stream-of-consciousness,

You, on the other hand, have failed to explain to us how it fails at art except to say, "hurr it's pretentious cuz I say so."

>>2719049
Yes, he has "achieved the device". The person I was responding to (perhaps you?) did not believe so, so I demonstrated that he was incorrect and foolishly insisted it was a failure to rhyme.

I'm not interested in the psychology "behind" the piece, I'm interested in the psychology "of" the piece which Eliot achieves via his form.

And no, I couldn't write a word about you wiping your ass with a newspaper. Your trite analogy continues to expose you as someone without any background in poetry or art but as some lowly philistine parroting the sad pejoratives of his time because your too lazy to understand anything that isn't immediately palpable.

Congratulations, the advertising industry is proud of you.

[Anonymous No.2719076]

>>2719072

Wow, those two words really undid me. I don't know how I'm ever going to recover from that.

[Anonymous No.2719078]

I have never been able to finish a page of anything written by Tolstoy, even he was inspired by, or inspired by most of my favorite writers.

[Anonymous No.2719095]

All of language and conceptual poetry is shit.

[Anonymous No.2719096]

>mfw peoples waltz in and create a thread on /lit/, share their awful uneducated opinions, make it sound intelligent, barely mask their trollsome behavior, and all of /lit/ gives the trolls a feast of epic proportions

[Anonymous No.2719114]

>>2719075

You've demonstrated it's historical significance by saying "because I said so"?

Nowhere in your incoherent rambling did you cite any other authors or historical works that were influenced by stream-of-consciousness and nowhere did you prove Eliot invented it as you claim

Also
>>2719076
Nope you undid yourself with these two words
>>2719075
>because your too lazy to understand anything
>your too

Now please, stop talking to me, although you are hilarious you are ridiculously pretentious and have nothing of value to contribute to anything

[Anonymous No.2719120]

>>2719075
>all those pretentious insults
>proceeds to write "your too"

Typical poetry fan scum

I bet you only like Eliot because he's so lolrandumb, you king pleb

[Anonymous No.2719127]

>>2719075
>I gave you a line-by-line analysis
You gave coolbro opinions with no meaning, you just said "how beautiful!" after every stanza

[Anonymous No.2719138]

>>2719114

You need to keep better track of who you're arguing with. You responded to at least two different people there.

[Anonymous No.2719139]

yeah I agree with the mad english major, ts eliot is fucking redundant

good points

[Anonymous No.2719144]

>>2719138
I responded to the eloquent "Fuck You" and to a post that defends "Fuck You" so I'm pretty sure it's all the samefag