[ 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: 153 KB, 1000x1250, 132555456685.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2815044 No.2815044 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.2815054

Haha wow thanks I thought that I had lost that one forever.

It wasn't even in my imgur.

>> No.2815056

First: Fails to get to the point, way tl;dr on account of poor substance : words ratio

Second: Shows, doesn't tell; makes the reader emphatic to the character

>> No.2815059

Also, the first one is just pure Mary Sue. Reminds me a lot of Twilight, where Bella just spends paragraphs gushing over how awesome Edward is, with no real evidence other than her feelings.

>> No.2815058

>Martin uses "cock" and "cunt" instead of "penis" and "vagina." Therefore he is bad.
Quentin. Can't even make the argument that Fitzgerald is a better writer than GRRM.

>> No.2815060

>>2815056
This. In these two cases, bad or good writing depends on the reader. I personally find the former more appealing than the latter, but I can see how people I know might find the latter to be more appealing.

>> No.2815061

>>2815056
>poor substance
But there's plenty of substance.

If you are too stupid to understand it then that's not Fitzgerald's fault.

>> No.2815064

>quentin thread
>7 replies in 10 minutes
this is why this board is shitty

>> No.2815065
File: 12 KB, 200x200, 1339017711881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2815065

Why would anyone ever write about poop in their book?

WHY

>> No.2815068

>>2815061
There is substance, but shrouded by too many, yes, words. Most of what Fitzgerald writes could be summed up in a more easily read format, even if it would come at the expense of his personal writing style.
He's not bad in any way, but the words ratio is a factor here.

>> No.2815074

>>2815068
This is the end of literature.

>> No.2815071

>>2815060
>ipeople I know might find the latter to be more appealing
Yeah people with fucking scat fetishes

>> No.2815072

dany should have smoked some weed to settle her stomach

>> No.2815078

>>2815068
>shrouded by too many words
Nope.

Every word serves a purpose.

>> No.2815088

>>2815078
Every word doesnt server a purpose when you're being abstract about them. If you wrote down what you think about a taste you just experienced as "Like an eel out of the low waters" instead of "Tar" you would be wasting words.

>> No.2815087

>>2815078

Yes, to gush over his inexplicable man-crush.

Meanwhile, GRRM reminds us that the Mother of Dragons is resistant to fire, not cholera.

>> No.2815098

>if personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures

Fitzgerald confirmed for not knowing what the hell he's talking about

>> No.2815107

>>2815074
>if its not obtuse its bad
Actually I think this is the death of literature. Trying to drive out all but those who enjoy wresting with their books, rather than simply reading for enjoyment.

And yes, the concepts are not mutually exclusive. I am not stating otherwise. Simple that "simple" doesn't mean "bad" just like "complex" does not mean "good"

>> No.2815110
File: 174 KB, 500x377, RaAhBBk4Tir6c7tsFtMCiAB7o1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2815110

Who the hell is 'Quentin'?

>> No.2815111

>>2815110
A bad enough d00d.

>> No.2815113

>>2815074
>likeable characters
>clarity of prose
>good writing that you don't notice at all
>show don't tell
>a well crafted plot that leaves no loose threads

>> No.2815116

>>2815110

forget everything you thought you knew about posting

>> No.2815125

>>2815113
Some people read for the characters and plot, some read for the writing.

3/4 of the argument on this board is about that simple fact. Liking one does not mean you do not like the other, just what you find most enjoyable about reading.

But it doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out, we're just going to keep throwing shit at eachother anyway

>> No.2815142

>>2815098
But that's the narrator Nick Carraway talking

>> No.2815170

>>2815125
>But it doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out, we're just going to keep throwing shit at each other anyway

This is the definition of politics.

>> No.2815200

>>2815107
If you read for enjoyment you are not having an aesthetic experience. Art is purposeless not entertainment. Only in disinterested appreciation you can experience beauty.

>> No.2815206

you could use the same bullshit argument if you compared fitzgerald to hemingway. good writing is subjective, deal w/ it nerds

>> No.2815212

>>2815125
That's not true.
I read for the plot, for the writing, for the ideas.

But this:
>>2815113

Is just the opinion of people that don't know literature have grown up on comics book and television writing.

Judging literature on the clarity of writing puts you in the same tier of metalheads judging music on how many notes the guitarist plays in the solo.

Full pleb.

>> No.2815247

>>2815200
But that implies art cannot be entertaining, which is not true. Furthermore, any layman can enjoy art, even if they do not understand why, or appreciate the subtle values which compose it.

What you are referring to is, basically, art for artists. Created to be understood on many levels, but not particularly for simple aesthetic pleasure. This is not the only kind of art to be seen, and in fact, represents a small fraction of what is available. Declaring anything that doesn't fit into this narrow definition isn't artful is juvenile. Art is meant to be enjoyed, so if many find enjoyment in "low brow" literature, is that not art?

>> No.2815254

>>2815044
>cherrypicking

At least be more subtle.

>> No.2815265

>>2815247

if its low brow, then its low art; not high art/fine art. read up on ur aesthetics

>> No.2815270

>>2815212
I would classify you as reading for the writing, then. While you have an interest in the plot, the ideas and writing seem to represent more of what you are interested in (at least from what little I have heard from you so far).

That is not to say that you cannot enjoy plot and characters. Rather that you are just more interested, and entertained, by writing, ideas, and style.

>> No.2815278

>>2815265
So you think some art is better, has more intrinsic value to the viewer, than other art? If that were true, art would be quantifiable.

Which it is not.

>> No.2815295

What you are into this not to say that you are not mean "bad" just like "complex" does not mean "good." So you so if many notes that not and characters. Rather that you find enjoyment into this personal writing puts you in the writing, than othermore of writing to is, basically, art for art? If they do not understood on the characters. Rather that you are not mutually, art would be summed up in "low brow" literature only kind enjoyment you are interested in "low brow" literature have grown up in any way, but shrouded by writing literature. This is better, than simple factor here.

>> No.2815310

>>2815247

I know you would like to be democratic.
But art is not democratic. Art is for the best of us. And better its public is better is the art.

Art can give pleasure, and pleasure is one of the signs of art, but pleasure it's not its end (Kant). This means that art is great art even if it does not entertain or give pleasure.

Unfortunately the comprehension of aesthetics was ruined by the will to democratize it. Of the perverse confusion between the artist and the artisan, culture and folklore. A confusion that part comes from the object itself: the artist is an artisan, and culture has numerous folklorist elements, but it's not the other way around.

>> No.2815312

>>2815278

there's no intrinsic value for art, but there are societal expectations for art which have varied from one century to the next. the distinctions used to be decided by monarchs, now they are decided by critics and academics (who no one really listens to in the capitalistic marketplace imo). someone like friedman might even argue that art is decided the dollar but we wont get into that economic bs. point is, art is decided by the social/political climate, as well as the trends (ex. shakespeare's work was seen as low art, now it's high art, same with hemingway and many others i'm sure).

>> No.2815347

>>2815310
>Art is for the best of us.
This is possibly the most pompous thing I have read in my entire life. Congratulations.

I mean anyone who visits lit comes to expect a certain level of snobbishness, but I am simply blown away that anybody would believe such self aggrandizing nonsense.

>> No.2815353

>>2815347
You probably never read any of the classics if that's your reaction.

>> No.2815369

>>2815353
>If you disagree with me, you are ignorant and uncultured
Or perhaps I just don't think myself above anyone else because I have read certain books.

However this will be my final reply, because I am fairly certain nothing I say will change your... let's say self confidence. Just like nothing you say will sway me to the belief that art is only for the upper crust of society. All we will do is bicker and snipe until the point is far from view.

>> No.2815397

>>2815369
No I was simply saying that aristocracy is far from a new concept.
And an essential one for the creation of good art.

Everything that is worth thinking is challenging. Because if it was easy to comprehend it would mean that we knew it already.
But a democratization does not solve it.
The work of a writer is ascetic starvation and the reader has to climb himself the ladder.
Books should be torture chambers for the soul. If they don't massacre the reader they don't elevate him.

>> No.2815404

Different writing styles, different time periods. Go back and look at Shakespeare and compare it to Fitzgerald. Shakespeare has a different vocabulary and uses more archaic words, but that doesn't mean that Fitzgerald is a bad writer.

The whole argument in the OP is based on the false premise of duality. Especially if you consider how subjective literature can be.

>> No.2815415

>>2815404
Still Martin sucks. I can bet you whatever kind of money you want that in two hundred years no one will read him.

>> No.2815420

>>2815415

in that case ur great-great-etc grandkids will owe martin's great-great-etc grandkids 200 dollars

>> No.2815421

>>2815404
This post makes absolutely no sense.

>> No.2815424

>>2815420
Deal.

>> No.2815433

>>2815415
Maybe not, but does that mean he is a bad writer?
>>2815421
Sorry if you don't understand. Wait, I'm not sorry.

>> No.2815446

>>2815212

>Judging literature on the clarity of writing puts you in the same tier of metalheads judging music on how many notes the guitarist plays in the solo.

That's straight up retarded.

It is often good for the reader to have to think about the writing and ideas, but if I have to pause every paragraph to figure out what the hell is going on, then the book isn't any fucking good. I should be able to read something once and understand: What exactly the character(s) did and said, and which ones did or said them.

If I have to pause to try and figure out which character is saying which line, that's bad writing.
If I have to break my engagement with a book in order to try and figure out what exactly a character just did, that's bad writing.

Unless the author is purposefully trying to be vague about one of those things for some reason, unclear writing breaks the connection between myself and the concepts, characters, story, and even the writing itself because you can't appreciate the prose when you have to stop and re-read to figure out what's going on. In fact, needing to do that just makes it shitty prose.

>> No.2815448

This was written by Quentin, who has only ever read The Great Gatsby.

>> No.2815456

>>2815446
Nah, you just have shitty reading comprehension.

>> No.2815462
File: 37 KB, 566x299, hemingway.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2815462

Hey Quentin, I have a question for you: have you ever read any Hemingway? Wonderful writing; simple prose. I would say that often his descriptions work better than Fitzgerald's, even if Hemingway's writing is stubbornly economical.

>> No.2815472

>>2815456
My reading comprehension is fine.

A book which is unclear is bad.

It doesn't have to be at a 6th grade reading level, but if an above average, adult reader needs to re-read for clarification, then either the book is of an archaic style that said reader is unfamiliar with (although then you might not call them above-average) or the writing is just plain bad.

>> No.2815476

>>2815446
That's because you are a bad reader. While complexity should not be for its own sake, requiring this kind of streamline reading is ruinous.
At that point you might as well go on wikipedia and read the plot summary. There you go, you have the story, the characters and the ideas in the least amount of words possible.
But then you are going to reply "but like that I'm not having fun!". And that's the problem I tried to underline: you are looking for entertainment not art.

I mean recently I'm reading Gaddis. He is a tough writer. It takes a slow reading and often you have to research what he is talking about and you have to reread a page multiple times to understand what is going on. But the result is subtlety and a nuanced way of the world that you would not find otherwise.

Reading, if taken up seriously, is an education. It teaches us not only taste and the use of language but also it educates our sensibility. It allows us to see the world better.

But the man who thinks he is better than no one, is also the man who thinks that no one is better than him. Such a man believes that he has nothing to learn from anyone.

>> No.2815483

>>2815446

sorry man but theres no objective definition for 'good writing' or 'bad writing.' it just depends what you're in the mood for. i used to want that in-the-moment kind of thing where everything is instantly clarified, but there's something more rewarding about the dicking around and nuances. theres a reason infinite jest is considered one of the best books of the 20th century. its difficult and annoying as fuck to read but when you're finished its supposedly immensely rewarding

>> No.2815512

>>2815483
>sorry man but theres no objective definition for 'good writing' or 'bad writing.

There's no objective definition, sure, but there's a way to tell that The Great Gatsby is better than Twilight. Isn't there?

>its difficult and annoying as fuck to read but when you're finished its supposedly immensely rewarding.

>supposedly

I've read Infinite Jest and it's good. There is a reason, however, that everyone uses a "but" when talking about the book.

"It's hard to understand BUT it's really worth it."
-90% of everyone on Infinite Jest.

It's worth it for other reasons. One could make the argument that it's facilitated by the writing style, as >>2815476 did with Gaddis (who I haven't read), and that might be true, but the difficulty is always the DOWNSIDE.

As I said, "Unless the author is purposefully trying to be vague about one of those things for some reason" then it's bad, or at least worse. The examples given are ones in which, guess, what, the author was (probably) purposefully being unclear.

It's perfectly legitimate to judge a work on it's clarity. I never said that it was the only thing you should judge it on, but if the author is trying to make an idea clear (which they are in most cases) and it's not, then it's bad writing. In the rare case that the book is intentionally unclear, then it should be judged with that in mind, and one must also ask if the decision to be unclear was the right one or one that simply ruined the book.

>> No.2815617

>>2815476
You are a tryhard faggot.

Hemingway once said, "Prose is architecture, not interior decoration, and the Baroque is over."

Shakespeare wrote for the lowest common denominator of his time. "Brevity is the soul of wit."

That isn't to say that there isn't something good about Fitzgerald's writing style. What I'm saying is a direct and clear writing style is not BAD just because it can appeal to more people. Plenty of people understand this, the only people who don't see it are hipster faggots who want to feel superior for reading something nobody else reads.

>> No.2816061

>>2815617
Both Hemingway and Shakespeare are much more complex than you think, but you're obviously just too stupid to get htat guy's point

>> No.2816076

>the irony of pointing out shit writing in a shit thread

>> No.2816085

A comparison cannot be made as they are writing about two different subjects. The bad writing is whoever wrote that paper.

>> No.2816115

>>2815476
art is a shitty buzzword tryhards like you use to feel superior to people who want to read a good book with interesting characters instead of solving word-puzzles like you

>> No.2816121

>>2816115

You should definitely stick to "entertaining" reads if you can't even grasp the meaning of my above sage.

>> No.2816135

the ad hominems are gaining momentum

abandon all hope ye who enter here

>> No.2816176

I think this conversation is old. The main fail is to compare Fitzgerald with Martin.

Fitzgerald (and many other writers) wrote books about life, society, fears, etc. Books to make you think about yourself and your life. So they need to write in a very imaginably language, need to pick up the right words to define the mood of thinking and living. In Martin's language you won't take their stories serious.

But Martin just writes formula fiction like Karl May did. Books to have fun, that's what they are. And see, too claiming language doesn't make fun. That's why really easy reading books (e.g. Dan Brown) are the most successfully.

If you want to compare the language, try to compare Fitzgerald with Foster Wallace or Pynchon or whoever.

Sorry, about my bad english.

>> No.2816189
File: 90 KB, 560x807, bdd_seinfeld-george.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2816189

Cool story bro

>> No.2816213

>>2816176
It's nothing to do with the intention of the novel, it's about being a good writer. GRRM might be fun, sure, but that doesn't mean he's a good writer. And, for the record, Fitzgerald is both a good writer and, for many, fun.

>> No.2816251

>>2816176
>Sorry, about my bad english.
no problem.

pointers (not in any order):
>really easy reading books
>easy-to-read books

>most successfully
>most successful

>Books to have fun, that's what they are.
>they are books for your enjoyment
>they are books ~to have fun reading

>And see, too claiming language doesn't make fun
I have absolutely no idea what the hell this means

>try to compare
>try comparing
your version would imply that comparing the authors you listed is something difficult to do. this is ironic considering that you seem to think that Fitz/Martin are more difficult to compare. my version is sort of like saying "do this - it is more within reason"

I'm not being critical: I just figure this will help you down the line... I know little things help me when I'm correcting my German.

>> No.2816255

>>2816213
I agree with you that GRRM is a bad writer; the most of the formula fiction writers are.

The todaynows problem is that the most of the readers want this simple, explicit language. So, GRRM is just doing the right thing to success.

Perhaps, this seems to be a conversation about that GRRM doesn't earn this success, because he is a bad writer?

>> No.2816257

I read a passage in a Song of Ice and Fire book (3rd or 4th) in which a character tells I think Arya about the atrocities of war and the juxtaposition of the houses as players controlling the farmers who wish only peace, who go from peasant/farmer to soldier to brigand. It was actually really well written imo, and it definitely stood out. Though I can't really say the same about the majority of his writing, he seems to at least to be able to write some good stuff. for all i know it was a shit passage though considering i read it a while ago.

>> No.2816279

>>2816251
Thanks!

>I just figure this will help you down the line
It helps.

>> No.2816283

>>2815310
fuck off you twatface fuckwit

>> No.2816396

>>2815065
>>2815065
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

>> No.2818492
File: 870 KB, 1000x1322, 13256361653.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818492

>> No.2818500
File: 104 KB, 800x974, 132577923832.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818500