[ 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: 20 KB, 460x276, reading-a-book-001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5980856 No.5980856 [Reply] [Original]

Do you read for plot or for style?

Extending that, do you listen to music for melody or for arrangement? Do you watch films/TV for plot or for directing?

>> No.5980864

>>5980856
>Do you read for plot or for style?
I read for the characters, and how the author lets them react to whatever the conflict of the book is, then style second to that.

>> No.5980880
File: 51 KB, 530x530, 1412766900983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5980880

>I read for the underlying concepts

>> No.5980890

>>5980880
is there something inherently wrong with that?

>> No.5980895

>>5980890
Yes, fat people who wear hats do it.

>> No.5980898

>>5980890
The concepts are invariably pasted on by you and not extracted from the text.

>> No.5980912

>>5980856
Style.

The music comparison isn't really fair as the 'content' of that medium is far more intertwined with the 'form' than with others. Better would be lyrics vs. instrumentals/music, in which case the answer is obvious.

And for film definitely the 'form' once again. Even 'dialogue' ranks above 'plot.'

>> No.5980920

Books, primarily style
Music, primarily melody
Movies, primarily directing

Pretty limiting to put things in a binary like that, though

>> No.5980939

wait so we're just accepting op's absurd dialectic?

how and/or why would anyone read for plot and not for style or vice versa?

how fucking stupid are you cripples?

>> No.5980953

>>5980939
This must be your first time on /lit/.

>> No.5980958

A little of both. I could read Nabokov write about anything, and the progression of some of Shakespeare's plots is downright silly. But Chekhov would be a lesser writer without a good plot. As would Flannery O'Connor.

>> No.5980962

>>5980898
Yes, and?

Saying that analysis tells more about the analyst than the object is a basic principle of modern literature.

>> No.5980967

>>5980958
> Chekhov
> Good plot
I.. uh.. what?

granted, I have only read his plays

>> No.5980971

>>5980967
Yeah, Chekhov's plotting is nothing exceptional. He's the undisputed master of characterisation.

>> No.5980978

Read for plot, not a musicfag, plot for tv/direction for film.

>> No.5980989

>>5980967
>only read his plays

You've only read the plays of the man known for his short stories and you think you have anything worth saying about him?

>>5980971

Good characters can only exist in good plots. Otherwise your definition of "character" is hilariously naive.

>> No.5980999

>>5980989
>Good characters can only exist in good plots.

Well that's just not true. Certainly they are very related, seeing as they both belong under the same category of 'Content,' but one can most definitely be talented in only one or the other, also that one can exist without the other.

>> No.5981003

>>5980856
I read for fun.

>> No.5981006

>>5980989
> Man known for his short stories
m8, chekhov's primary field is drama which was pretty much re-invented by him and Ibsen in late 19th century

>> No.5981008

>>5980999
>one can exist without the other.

Good plot can exist without good characters, but what makes a character good has a lot to do with how the character is embedded in the plot. Similar to how our character is dependent upon our actions in the world, in our "plot" and how those actions relate to the rest of the people around us.

There can certainly be very alluring characters which remain interesting despite their actions making little sense in the plot, but I would hesitate to cite them as examples of good characterization.

>> No.5981013

I start any medium for the storyline/characters/melody and enjoy the chosen art due to the style/arrangement/directing.

>> No.5981022

>>5981006
And despite this, when his name comes up it is almost always in relation to his short stories.

>> No.5981023

>>5981008
>but what makes a character good has a lot to do with how the character is embedded in the plot.

I can agree with that. I guess the main issue I have is it requiring a 'good' plot, maybe a "complimentary" plot or something similar would be more precise, thus allowing, for the main post that started this chain, for an author to be talented in characterization but not necessarily plot.

Lord knows the characters in, say, Tropic of Cancer, Pnin, ISoLT, etc, do fuckall but those 'plots' are definitely 'complementary' to the characters.

>> No.5981024

>>5981022
Well yeah, who the hell goes to the theater?

>> No.5981050

>>5981024
I mean, if people were putting on Chekhov's plays near me I'd be there in a heartbeat.

>> No.5981055

watching a movie for its 'directing' is literally the stupidest thing i can think of. auteurism is such hackery it's not even funny.

>> No.5981063

>>5981050
Me too, but no-one does and I couldn't afford it anyway. And if someone did, I'd probably not know since I don't pay attention to the theater since they usually don't put on good plays, and when they do I can't afford it.

>> No.5981158

>Are you autistic

No

>> No.5981200

Depends on what I'm reading.

I'm reading The Iliad and then The Odyssey because I like to see where it all began. Sort of like films and music. I like seeing where my favourite bands and directors drew inspiration.

>> No.5981245

>>5980856
This is not the way anyone experience these mediums. You can enjoy both aspects of each while consuming the media. Most people do.

>> No.5981249

i read for fuck you

>> No.5981377

Here's the breakdown of my usual reading schedule:
1st read I read once for plot.
2nd I read it again for style.
On the third reading I look for themes and reoccuring events that may have been easy to miss the first two times.
Then I wait and read nothing for 2 weeks and just think about the past 3 readings.
After two weeks I write a short analytical essay about what I just read.
Then I let the essay sit for another two weeks, still reading nothing.
After a month of pondering the book I then check to see if my thoughts on the book have changed so I do a forth reading.
If I enjoy the book I'll put it on my bookshelf. If the book does not pass my quality control I simply throw it into the street

>> No.5981413

>>5981377
Same here.

>> No.5981424

Why not both?

>> No.5981569

>>5980920
>Movies, primarily directing
do you have an instance of crisp bad/good directing with the same actor(s) ?