[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 12 KB, 329x329, Ine1AkaF_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8616829 No.8616829 [Reply] [Original]

How can you assuredly distinguish between pretentious writing and "good" writing? The line generally seems to be very blurred

>> No.8616848

>>8616829
Why do you keep making this dumb thread? Look in the archive

>> No.8616889

>>8616829
>How to tell if some writing is pretentious
You just ask if anybody likes it on /lit/

>> No.8616931

Form and content. Is it poetically pleasing or effective? Does it strike you as true or novel? Good writing has a ring, just listen for it.

>> No.8617592

>>8616829
Easy. If you study it in a university English class and full of forced symbolism, it's pretentious.

>> No.8617635

>>8616829
Become intelligent.

>> No.8617645

>>8616931
Great example of pretentious writing.

>> No.8617746

pretentious writing focus on the author, good writing focuses on the content

>do i want to impress others?
>do i have something to say?

>> No.8617997

>>8616829
Starting out you can't. Don't worry about it. Better to have pretentious cringe-worthy (looking back) shit than safe recipe prose that is DOA

>> No.8618044

>>8616829
the line's not blurred at all. Good writing says what you want to say. Pretentious writing says what you want people to think you say. It's literally the definition of pretentious

>> No.8618140

>>8616829
Do you know those cargo cults? The ones who blindly recreate the airports in the hope that a plane will magically land?

That's what pretentious writing is like. People blindly copying legitimately good works in the hopes that they'll look smart and so impressive. They don't write because they want to write -- they write to look cool.

You can have someone who writes pretentiously and well, incidentally.

>> No.8618147

>>8618140

probably why most great writers hate writing. blah blah hemingway typewriter bleeding. bad writers hate writing too because its hard, nevermind.

>> No.8618151
File: 1.46 MB, 4000x4000, george costanza 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8618151

>>8616931
>is it poetically pleasing or effective?
>does it strike you as true or novel?
>god writing has a ring, just listen for it?

>> No.8618427

>>8618044
How are those exclusive? Or how are they not the same thing?

>> No.8618587

>Is their vocabulary effective, i.e. does it sound natural.
>Is the vocabulary appropriate given the time it was published.
>What does the author look like.
>What is the subject matter of the book.
>Would the characters talk like that in real life.
>Does it read like the author used a thesaurus for every descriptive word to find an alternative to replace a commonly used one (that is most appropriate).

>> No.8618591

>>8616829
Whatever experts in this field tell me.

>> No.8618596

>>8618151
If you like it then you oughta hear a ring from it...

>> No.8618602

>>8616829
Good writing is precise and easy to understand. Good writing is uncluttered and to the point.

>> No.8618644

>>8616829
STOP MAKING THIS THREAD

>> No.8618647

>>8618602
If you're writing an annual report, maybe.

>> No.8618667

>>8616829
If we accept that the purpose of writing is to be clear, then the best writing is also the writing that communicates with the greatest clarity. Pretentious writing moves away from clarity in favor of showiness. Another anon said that pretentious writing is the voice of the author intruding upon the voice of the work (or something to that effect). I think this is a concise explanation. If you read something and it feels like it only exists because the author really wanted to use a particular, phrase or metaphor, then you can chalk that writing as pretentious.

This does not mean, as another anon misread, that pretty writing is inherently pretentious, or that clear writing must be blank and workmanlike, as in the writing of an annual report. Clarity can still be achieved with pleasing words; it's the placing of pleasing words above clarity that drags writing down into pretension.

>> No.8618686

self-awareness maybe

>> No.8618687

>>8618667
Great post

>> No.8618696

I'd say this for the most part >>8618667, the clarity of ideas is key. Though of course if you're representing ideas of any depth you'll more than likely need complex words.

There are of course exceptions, especially when a book is written in first person. In that case the very best novels use the writing as a seamless part of the narrative, and again if you use complex characters the writing can be stunning.

The two best examples of this I've read are Lolita and The Remains of the Day. Humbert's in a flowery overwrought way. In many ways the entire point is to be unclear, in the same way that Humbert uses his language in his life to hide his dark side, he's trying to do the same to us and get us on his side. The fact that he almost manages it at times despite obviously being despicable is testament to Nabokov's writing. Stevens' on the other hand is immaculate, perfectly ordered and concise in the way that he explains to the smallest degree how he felt or how things happened. He goes into far more detail than we need but that's who he is, a perfectionist. In both cases the book feels totally organic.

>> No.8618707

>>8618587
>>What does the author look like.
They should stop putting the author's picture at the back cover. They always use the smuggest pictures.

>> No.8618712

>>8618667
Quality post.

>> No.8618723

>>8616829

It doesn't matter. If you as an author worry too much about this then your own writing will be diluted.

No matter what there will be people who look down on your writing as too pretentious. But if you let that affect your writing then in the end you're left with nothing but insecurity.

>> No.8618739

>>8618696

You could argue that the whole point of Humbert Humbert was to hide his infidelities with his pretentiousness.

The most common critique I've seen with Lolita is that Nabakov overuses flowery dialogue and this makes his writing seem pretentious.

Either way pretentiousness is different for each person and your own view of Lolita shows that what others might seem as pretentious writing others will see as beautiful writing.

>> No.8618758

>>8618739

>fuck commas the post

Sorry I didn't bother to proofread this. It hurts to read

>> No.8618774

>>8618739
>You could argue that the whole point of Humbert Humbert was to hide his infidelities with his pretentiousness.

More or less exactly what he said.

>> No.8619599

>>8618140
You're good at explaining things mate

>> No.8619893

>>8618427
One you can recognize as genuine, the other is the opposite? A good writer should be able to tell if their writing is sincerly reflective on their own thoughts

>> No.8619903

a pretentious writer just puts ideas down on paper. the difference is seen in a lack of consistency in textual evidence or style, i.e. no craft or voice. for example, a pretentious writer might imply something is or means something else without any other textual evidence in the writing, or words are stuck together for no reason other than to give the appearance of good writing.