/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4820811]

Question for /lit/, in almost every anon submission thread, I see people getting called out on "flowery," ornate, or complicated language. Yet /lit/ clearly has a hard-on for writers like Faulkner and McCarthy. So, what's the difference between someone that is trying too hard and writing from a thesarus and an author with a strong command of the language who puts it to good use? Is there a way to quantify it? Are we all inexplicably drawn to minimalist writers but can't bring ourselves to speak against guys kike McCarthy? Do you just know it when you see it? Or, are we just full of shit and only enjoy writers we have been told are good?

[Anonymous No.4820868]

>>4820811
Most Anon submissions are shit, they try too hard to TELL the reader what's going on rather than showing. They relate "flowery" or complicated language to being "good" and intelligent, though writing ornately and having that distinct voice of say Joyce/Faulkner, takes years of practice and a firm knowledge and grasp on grammar. Most anons don't have this, with a few exceptions, so as a rule of thumb, we tell people to use less complicated language, don't use double adjectives, and for fucks sake break up your sentences.

In terms of quantifying prose, it comes down to whether it works or doesn't work. If you can use very complicated sentence structures in a style which befits them, and make it work, then fine, do it. You know prose which doesn't work when you see it, you are less likely to see prose which works. Sometimes jarring prose is used stylistically, but those works are rare.

The thing with a minimalist prose, is that it's harder to fuck up than a thicker, heavier prose, BUT it can also be just as aesthetically pleasing as its more ornate counterpart, though it's less likely to be so. I think that /lit has a sense of who's good and who's bad, i think that one can read something others call good and then one can also think it's good without peer pressure.

[Anonymous No.4820878]

This is depressing, if I start a thread saying "which writer has the biggest nipples and why is it Maya Angelou?" I get 50 responses in like an hour. Ask a real literary question and get dead fucking silence.

[Anonymous No.4820888]

>>4820868
Great answer, thnx. So basically, for yourself, most of the time you can just tell, probably as a result of the talent of the writer in question.

[Anonymous No.4820890]

It really comes down to something called tact. Writers like Faulkner and McCarthy can get away with doing whatever they want because they are/were established authors with many novels under their belts. The advice given to new writers to "write what you know" and "show don't tell" and "don't use words you wouldn't use in conversation" are just that--advice for novice writers so that they don't get in over their heads because no one has time for that.

As they say You gotta learn the rules before you bend them or break them.

[Anonymous No.4820900]

>>4820888
>So basically, for yourself, most of the time you can just tell, probably as a result of the talent of the writer in question.
Now try for yourself; rework this (^) sentence.

It was awfully shitty

[Anonymous No.4820903]

>>4820811
>kike

[Anonymous No.4820907]

Joyce, Faulkner etc. don't write in order to be "complicated." What they want to express can only be expressed in the manner in which they write.

The writing /lit/ derides as being too "flowery" (in general, it differs case by case) could easily be rewritten to convey ideas much more effectively by eliminating unnecessary adverbs and adjectives, using active verbs, and choosing words deliberately for their effect in context of the text instead of pulling synonyms out of a hat.

This is a very general answer for a general question, but the key is a realized content within the draperies of what may appear to be only "ornate" writing

>>4820878
the same reason we've had to invent the word "listicles".

[Anonymous No.4820923]

>>4820888
"talent" is an overdetermined word, "ability" is probably a better pick.

[Anonymous No.4820933]

>>4820900
>it was awfully shitty

not knowing the difference between someone writing correctly and someone trying to be easy going and conversational

[Anonymous No.4820939]

>>4820903
I saw that after it went up too. I'm on a phone, and I suck with the little keyboard. It wasn't an accusation of Judaism.

[Anonymous No.4820952]

>>4820907
Couldn't the same argument be made for someone like McCarthy? Why say "vermiculate patterns" when you could just say wavy or striped?

[Anonymous No.4820953]

>>4820811
Your post confuses me. Are you considering McCarthy an example of flowery prose? Or Faulkner for that matter? Even in Faulkner's longest book (Absalom, Absalom) he really didn't ever waste much space on descriptive flourishes or other indulgences of the writer.

And McCarthy? He's about as minimalist as they get, as far as I know (I've only read The McCarthy Big Three).

I guess the true talent to writing lies in knowing exactly how much space a passage needs. If it can be told in 5 words, tell it in 5. If it must be told in 600 pages, let it be so.

Sure Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom was long and repetitious, but it certainly wasn't gratuitous. I couldn't imagine it being any shorter than it was.

[Anonymous No.4820971]

>>4820953
It's more an issue of polysyllabic words. In most English, any word with more than 3 syllables is probably rooted in Greek or Latin, not the usual German/old English. McCarthy is minimal in structure but not in language, and Faulkner is known for his stream of consciousness styke herculean sentences. Why when anons use what Hemingway referred to as "the 50 cent words" ate they called out for it, but when it's McCarthy we hail him as a master of the language and a dictionary made corporeal.?

[Anonymous No.4820975]

>>4820952
"vermicular" contains connotations of worms, pests and intestinal rot, all of which dovetail nicely with McCarthy's biblical themes of apocalyptic decay.

But besides word choice, it should be emphasized that McCarthy is a very conservative writer on the level of sentence structure. He rarely (IIRC, it's been several years since I've read him) risks using compound sentence structures, adjective clauses or noun phrases. If he did, that fact coupled with his arcane vocabulary might put him at risk to the criticism of "flowery" writing (as it is, some don't care for him for reasons of his vocabulary alone).

Honestly though, most criticisms of writing style come from a reaction to the style at a gut or emotional level, and then an attempt to articulate why you, the reader, felt the way you did when reading. It's not an exact science, and people disagree on what constitutes "good" writing.

[Anonymous No.4820984]

>>4820971
>>4820975
also, there's the social factor to consider (what's already accepted as a good novel or bad by peers and critics). it plays a stronger role in individual valuation than most would admit.

[Anonymous No.4820994]

>>4820984
I kind of figured the same. A lot of it has to do with the consensus of the literatii.

[Anonymous No.4821007]

>>4820975
So while we can break down and analyze why it works for McCarthy, when we see it on the ground floor it's instinctive and can't really be quantified. I agree, sadly though I think it's because we're at least as open to profesdional opinion as we are to our own intuition.

[Anonymous No.4821010]

>>4820994
it does, but it's important not to chalk everything up to "well people only like it because elitists say they should." there are very good reasons people still enjoy Joyce and Faulkner, and it's rewarding to discover why.

[Anonymous No.4821022]

>>4820811
they see the shittiness of those submissions and feel that their own tryhard, verbose works are equally shitty so they feel the need to criticize the work of others to elevate their own creations in their minds
/lit/ fosters such insecure pedants often

[Anonymous No.4821028]

>>4820890

>As they say You gotta learn the rules before you bend them or break them.

I totally agree with your post, even if I don't like what it represents. I think writerscshould be encouraged to push boundries and explore because I think art is an engine for social commentary and awareness ( think attempting to capture the zeitgeist). Great idiom for quantifying the difference between established writers and anons.

[Anonymous No.4821065]

>>4821010
Do you ever find yourself comparing what you liked about a novel to what professional critics said? If so, does it change your opinion? I'll give you a silly example, it's outside of literature but still an effective anecdote on the subject; I liked the new Star Wars movies as a kid, after watching Mr. Plinkett's reviews I hated them It might be because I was older and cared more about story lines and less about lasers but I still can't help but feel that listening to professional criticism changed my opinion to some degree. Is that valid or should we only focus on our own readings of a novel?

>inb4 "You're weak if you let other people tell you what to think, fag."

There's a reason critics have always existed, they get paid to and are very good at (usually) offering insights into a novel or author. Only listening to yourself doesn't make you confident it makes you insular.

[Anonymous No.4821072]

>>4821022
nailed it

[Anonymous No.4821107]

>>4821022
I never considered that. I've benefitted from the idea of always surrounding yourself with people that are smarter than you so as to create an atmosphere in which you're always challenged and focused on improvement. It's depressing to think that people might be so petty.

[Anonymous No.4821120]

>>4821107
If it's any consolation, I don't think they're doing it consciously. I think that other guy got it sorta backwards. I admit I'm projecting hard, but I think those people wrote that way in the past and are now self-conscious about it and lashing out as a result.

analogs: "dad rock" on /mu/, Vonnegut hate on /lit/

[Anonymous No.4821158]

>>4820878
>which writer has the biggest nipples and why is it Maya Angelou?

[Anonymous No.4821164]

I think I have enough here to start with. I am a features journalist for a publication in New England. I am doing a story on the ability of a new writer to get published and marketed by contemporary firms, with a focus on substance vs prior recognition and why publisheres are increasingly reticent to spend the money necessary to really get a work of literary fiction going by an unknown author. If you guys want your real names/pen names cited in the article as well as your titles i.e. "English student at random university," or "founder of 'pale pimps registry, Colorado Springs chapter', a non profit think tank in support of caucasian pimps in the rural southwest." email me at [e-mail] along with your posts, otherwise I will site you as an anonymous contributor. Thanks for the input guys, if you have anything else you want to say on the matter I will continue to monitor and respond to the thread until 404.

This isn't a solicitation, I'm a long time and active member of /lit/ and I usually value the opinions of its well read users.

[Anonymous No.4821167]

>>4821164
*cite

[Anonymous No.4821177]

>>4821120
It is a little conciliatory, but I have to wonder if I've ever done it without realizing it.

[Anonymous No.4821185]

>>4821164
serious?

[Anonymous No.4821189]

>>4821164
lel what the fuck

[Anonymous No.4821244]

>>4821185
Seriously, I can interview people in publishing and aspiring authors ( and I will have to) and sit back while they blow smoke up my ass, or I can talk to a divetsr and global group of people that spend their free time reading and discussing a wide range of literature.

[Anonymous No.4821247]

>>4821164
>along with your posts
are you going to publish posts on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4821256]

If someone writes well, they write well. It's like being a funny, cool, well liked person in real life, or being a loser. You can't teach yourself how to do it, really, you just have to be non writing-autistic.

[Anonymous No.4821264]

If someone writes well, they write well. It's similar to being a funny, cool, well liked person in real life. You can't teach yourself how to do it, really. You only have to be non writing-autistic, and work your way up from there

[Anonymous No.4821286]

>>4821247
I will look at the posts and see how they fit into my narrative then I will quote or paraphrase contributors.

[Anonymous No.4821301]

>>4821264
That kind of flies in the face of commercially successful writers like Cassandra Clare or E.L. James who wrote fan fic that resonated with millions. While I admit they suck, they were still able, with no inate talent, to succeed in literature.

[Anonymous No.4821330]

>>4821301
>succeed in literature.
>in literature
Not really

[Anonymous No.4821338]

>>4821164
>>4820868

Hey, if this fits into your article, cite me as "P.Campbell - online entrepreneur, blogger, social media expert"

[Anonymous No.4821349]

>>4821301
no, what they wrote wasn't literature. Don't mistake literature for books in general.

[Anonymous No.4821356]

>>4821349
Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.4821360]

someone that is trying too hard is using complicated words/phrases/sentences that are unnecessary in portraying the story in the way they want it

thats where 'purple prose' comes from - complicated language for the sake of being complicated

a writer like Faulkner uses complicated language not to impress the reader, but portray the story in the way he wants it

[Anonymous No.4821365]

>>4821360
mfw i am incapable of writing in anything other than purple prose
i just dont know how to do it, my mind is just triggerhappy for metaphor
makes my writing fucking ridiculous

[Anonymous No.4821382]

>>4821365
stop trying to show off your vocab/writing skills and just write

[Anonymous No.4821397]

>>4821382
I probably just have nothing to say, so my brain invents random shit to fill the void

[Anonymous No.4821403]

The trick is you want your prose to 'flow': syllabically and rhythmically. Its a kind of music. The way to test whether it flows well is to read it aloud. If you trip up somewhere reading it and have to double back, its bad.

Jonathan Franzen is a good example of using complex words while prose flowage happens.

[Anonymous No.4821431]

>>4821330
>>4821349
It might not be real literature but speaking in the colliquial sense as well as taking into account the court of public opinion, a bestseller/blockbuster movie like Clare's is more read and therefore "better" than Bukowski or Roth. I don't like it but I do live in and write for the real world.

[Anonymous No.4821450]

>>4821365
In my experience a writer that has found his own voice, however provincial, is already way ahead of the game. Don't self depricate your own writing, just work to become the best purple writer there ever was. Shelley, Vonnegut, McCarthy (when he did southern gothic), Carver, and Morrison are all critically acclaimed, if not canonical writers, that wrote in overly saturated, copycat, or
"low" genre styles.

[Anonymous No.4821475]

>>4821403
I hate that though, some literature benifits from colliquial speech or regional vernacular, Stephen Crane, McCarthy again, Twain, as you said Frazen. But I like prose that's written just to illustrate the potential beauty of the English language. Take Marylinne Robinson, her novel "Housekeeping" is horribly boring and has no discernable plot, yet just because of her unique use of the language it stands as one of the best modern pieces of fiction and even though Nobels are awarded for a lifetime contribution to literature that novel alone makes her a constant canidate even if those self righteous fucking Swedes won't admit it.

[Anonymous No.4821652]

>>4821397
That's called creativity. It's essential in a writer. You will here "write what you know" a lot but consider Emily Dickinson; she was an uber hermit that knew nothingvoutside her home and family, yet:

I never saw a moor;
I never saw the sea,
Yet know I how the heather looks
And what a billow be.

I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven.
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.

[Anonymous No.4822147]

>>4821475
Yeah well you don't want your prose to only flow. You want it to do all the other things, good story, themes, be deep, etc.

Novels that are all style can win awards but they feel superficial.

[Anonymous No.4822196]

>>4821365
Start by trying to fit arbtrary word counts without being awkward. Harsh discipline but good training.