/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7021697]

Greatest prose stylists in the English language? Other languages?

pic related

[Anonymous No.7021713]

No, that would be pic related.
>gets the point across to all levels
>doesn't succumb to pretentiousness for originality
>doesn't force his opinion, and when he does, lets the reader know

[Anonymous No.7021733]

>>7021713
>pretentiousness
You know, just because something is complicated doesn't make it pretentious, right? Pretentious literally means pretending at something. So if you read Ulysses, understood nothing about it, yet praised it as the greatest book ever written in English, you'd be being pretentious.

Pic related. It's hands down the most pretentious thing I ever read. Not because it's overly complex (though it's certainly more complex than needed and suffers for it), but because it tries so hard to be "deep" but ultimately lacks depth. It's only pretending to be deep.

[Anonymous No.7021737]

>>7021713

I'm breddy shure dystopic fiction is the definition of a forced opinion

[Anonymous No.7021771]

>>7021737
>Not reading Orwell beyond 1984 and AnFarm

[Anonymous No.7021796]

>>7021771
>ignoring an artist's most famous works because it doesn't fit the narrative you're constructing about them

[Anonymous No.7021815]

>>7021713
But Joyce is top-tier at all levels.

Basic reading comprehension: Dubliners
Entry-level reader: Portrait
Advanced reader: Ulysses
Seasoned patrician: Finnegan Is Awake!

[Anonymous No.7022210]

McElroy is obviously the most virtuoso living prose stylist, but ever since the artistic flop of Women and Men he's lost a lot of his talent

I think it's debatable but Alexander Theroux is a contender, though his prose is often unbearable (not just because it's dense, but largely because the rhythm, words, everything just sound like they're coming out of some giddy little drunk elf who lives in a tree and smokes and drinks and uses outdated human anatomy books in latin as cum tissues and reads exclusively from the early renaissance period and last but not least has an allergy to college professors) -- but he's at least highly original for the post-nabokovian era

Mayyybe Gilbert Sorrentino, and mayyybe with a lot more of the letter Y for DeLillo and Pynchon

Any and all of the novelists who are considered "good stylists" right now are awful in every regard -- especially Franzen, Eugenides, DFW, black lady with a towel because she just got out of a shower but needs to pretend to have some non-anglo culture even though she doesn't, etc.

A couple of up and comings are forcing their way into being considered master stylists when they are absolute frauds and should be held in a lower regard than the very previously mentioned: Ben Lerner, Joshua Cohen, Adam Levin, etc.

[Anonymous No.7022223]

William S Burroughs :v)

[Anonymous No.7022568]

>>7022210
how is Women and Men a flop?

[Anonymous No.7022581]

>>7021713
Huhh.....

[Anonymous No.7023799]

>>7022568
No one has bought it and it has been out of print for decades.

[Anonymous No.7023880]

>>7023799
>"artistic flop"
>commercially unsuccessful

pick better words bruh

[Anonymous No.7023911]

>>7021697
>Other languages?
italian - Leopardi

[The cats No.7023923]

>>7022568
>BUT GUYS I SAW IT ON A LIST HERE ONE AND ITS APPOSED TA BE REAL HARD

[Anonymous No.7023931]

>>7023923
>projecting this hard

step away from the computer

[Anonymous No.7023934]

>>7023923
>BUT GUYS DFW SAID IT STUNK AND HE WAS SO SMART HE TOOK THE EASY WAY OUT

[Anonymous No.7024424]

>Other languages?
For French I would say Pascal, Rousseau, Montaigne, Chateaubriand and La Bruyère

[Anonymous No.7024810]

>>7023799

Yeah buts that's like all of his books

[Anonymous No.7025126]

>>7021697
>Greatest prose stylists in the English language?

Shakespeare and Nabokov.

[Anonymous No.7025397]

>English
>prose
The language is too shit to allow that in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7025398]

>>7023911
Ma manco per il cazzo

[Anonymous No.7025406]

why are prose plebs so pleb they can't read poetry other than trite metered shit?

[Anonymous No.7025410]

>>7021713
Orwell will always have a place in my heart as my spring-board.
His essays are a pleasure to read.

[Anonymous No.7025413]

>>7025397
Borges would disagree with you there

[Anonymous No.7025422]

>>7025406
You dare to call us prose plebs
Whilst the prose that you scrawl
Would be better suited upon
A public toilet's piss-stained wall.

[Anonymous No.7025447]

>>7025422
The piss-stained wall contains a fat discourse
That many a stumbling man
Does scrawl and scratch with honest intent;
We read about the lettered past,
Quite forgetting the piss-stained present,
A shit-filled treasure box.
A cum-stained world.

Spitting fire tbht fam.

[Anonymous No.7025494]

>>7021737
>dystopic
Yes, but its marketed as such. The reader knows from the get-go. If he were forcing his opinion, he's mask it under pretense of unbiased, developed literature, like most writers do. Then he'd secretly think of everyone that didn't extrapolate this opinion from the work as an absolute pleb, whilst simultaneously also denying any such opinion exists in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7025497]

>>7023799
Apparently, assuming the internet isn't lying to me again, Women and Men is going back into print.

[Anonymous No.7026971]

>>7022568

I'm poster from: >>7022210 -- back here again

It was composed in far too much of a heterogeneous fashion. The book consists of four different chapter taxons: lowercase chapters, angel chapters, Jim's chapters, and Kimball's chapters.

The Angel chapters are complete genius if not just very creative and daring mysticisms, and can be reread endlessly. They are utterly original in every sense and are by far the most important part of the book. They are unfortunately well-skeined to the other types of chapters to work as a standalone.

The Jim chapters, in a nutshell, largely revolve around the past of Jim and his relation to others based on their pasts (it's hard to put this in words; I know this sounds like a cop-out, but most of Women and Men is not paraphrasable -- much like other dense novels like Ulysses or poems like Burnt Norton, the book IS the statement); the Grace chapters are more focused on the sexual aspects separating Women and Men (yes, the title is used in the text probably once every 10 or 15 pages), feminism, the history of sexuality, etc. really really REALLY hard to paraphrase, and if you read it you'd understand why.

The lowercase chapters are far too unrelated to the other chapters to really make sense as part of the book. They are where the novel falls apart. McElroy was TOO ambitious to encompass everything regarding, well, Women, and their opposite (or equals or etc.) Men, and these chapters generally focus on various aspects of the relations between them (not in a platitudinous way, don't worry, they are rather elegant -- and just as the wikipedia page admits, they are by far the most readable part of the book. Most of the rest requires 5 rereads per chapter, or more, before you can understand what McElroy is getting at.)

It's a book that few can really take on, and I'm not intoning that that to raise myself aloft like an ungirdled pyx-napkin in the wind over the "plebian masses." This is coming from a reader who averages and fully absorbs 500-600 pages of dense literary fiction a day with heavy annotations -- I was able to read about a chapter a day, and it was a 3 hour job for each. The chapters are about 20 pages long each, give or take.

While I still believe it's a flop for being too maximalist in scope, it's certainly worth reading and I highly suggest it; McElroy's prose alone is incredible -- few else can achieve what he can in a single sentence.

[Anonymous No.7026989]

>>7025126

Nabokov only write in one mode, and if you've read more than his biggest two english novels you'd understand quickly why he's not a very exceptional prose stylist. He reuses his style, his syntax, his metaphors, even his uncommon words so often that it becomes plastic and trite. I firmly believe as well that he was incapable of understanding English-language poetry at the level of say, most other 20th century English-language heavyweights (I love how he calls Pound a fraud and Eliot "ToiletS" when he himself was completely incapable of writing an even mediocre English poem), and it shows in his prose. I think the first time one reads him they believe he's a master of language, and when one reads his entire english-language ouvre (like I have done multiple times and annotated heavily) one realizes that he should have probably stuck to Russian. Still great, but hardly inimitable. The structure of his novels is probably his greatest strength, and he rarely gets any acclaim for that.

>>7025497

Whatever it costs, I again will suggest that you buy it and read a chapter a day. It's probably the oddest book you'll run across anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.7027005]

>>7021697
My lit history said the sound and the fury is best understood after reading Ulysses, is this true and is the sound and the fury a response to Ulysses?

[Anonymous No.7027012]

Obvious, but good choice OP.
>Hawthorne
>Melville
>HG Wells
>Nabokov
>PG Wodehouse (fuck you I like his prose)
>Hemingway (fuck you I like his prose)
>HL Mencken
>Malcolm Lowry
>F. Scott Fitzgerald
>Shaw

These are my favourites, as far as prose style alone.

[Anonymous No.7027035]

>>7027012

Women and Men guy here, this is a list I mostly agree with. Not a fan of Wells, Wodehouse, or Hemingway, and I'm certainly not a big fan of Fitzgerald (and Nabokov, see above), but I think Lowry is among the top 5 prose stylists of the 20th century, Mencken is fun for his banter, Shaw is by far my favorite essayist, Hawthorne is by far my favorite overall novelist, and Melville is an obvious pick.

What is your opinion on William Gass? Precluding "The Tunnel", since I really don't have enough time for that type of undertaking right now. Heart of the Heart of the Country places him near the top of my list.

[Anonymous No.7027047]

Thomas Browne tbh lads

[Anonymous No.7027049]

>>7026971
Wao how I reed as fast as you you so fast how I do that Mr fast?

[Anonymous No.7027055]

>>7027035
>Not a fan of Wells
I have to ask, have you read any of his non-scifi works? Anne Veronica, or The Passionate Friends, for example? He has a rare control of syntax, and is absolutely a master of description, pace, and word precision, when he's at his best.
> Fitzgerald
Why, may I ask?
>Hemingway
Again, why? Honestly interested in hearing your take on him.

Unfortunately, I haven't read any Gass yet. I've bought a copy of Omensetter's Luck and I plan on starting it next week.


Fuck it, I've already asked you so much, since I'm a huge Hawthorne fan, I have to ask which of his novels you prefer? My favorites are TSL, The Marble Faun, and The Blithedale Romance

[Anonymous No.7027118]

Some parts in Moby Dick are fucking insane

[Anonymous No.7028132]

>>7022210
Curious what you think of Barth. Also you're way too harsh on Lerner, but I would like to know if there are any younger writers you actually like.

[Anonymous No.7028243]

>>7028132

> Barth

I'm generally fond of him, only his early stuff though (sotweed, Giles gb)

As for younger authors, I think the youngest I can go is authors in their 40s, and kraznahorkai is derivative as hell but highly talented. I liked Forrest gander for a little bit.

>>7027055

I'm on a phone and can't answer why I don't like them in depth until I get home, but for Hawthorne TSL is by far my favorite (I use the Pearl in the forest scene as my touchstone for other 19th century prose) and Marble Faun is up there. Hot7G is pretty ignious too, he knowingly breaks all the rules of novel structure, and the dead lawyer in the house at night chapter is fantastic

[Anonymous No.7029365]

I know who the best prose stylist under/around 40 is but he ain't published

[Anonymous No.7029514]

>>7021697
My personal favorite, easy, is Cormac McCarthy. Even his first novel is fucking nice.

[Anonymous No.7029524]

>>7023911
More like Leoparshit

[Anonymous No.7029806]

>>7022210
>"good stylists" right now
>DFW

I have some bad news, anon.

[Anonymous No.7029819]

>>7029806
probably just talking about the people in this pic

[Anonymous No.7030572]

>>7027055

> wells

Okay, I'll admit the last time I read him was years ago in middle school and high school, and I'm due for a reread. No, I have only read his sci-fi.

> Fitzgerald

Very precise prose, but it quickly laps back into the fact that his novels are rarely structured well, and the right pieces of writing show up at the worst times. I think the only writing I really enjoyed from him was from This Side of Paradise, especially when his (roommate? I forget) pulls out the pictures of Tolstoi, Thoreau, and Emerson

> Hemingway

I think it's fair to say there's accomplished Hemingway and there's completely garbage Hemingway. I always find myself agreeing with Nabokov even though I despise him as a person and hate his prose, but Old Man and the Sea really was a beautiful novel; best control he had ever shown in his writing, probably his only dip into being an actual aesthete

> Gass

he's an important one to read, whether you like it or not. He's not that fun to read, but since you're clearly a smart person I'm sure you'll enjoy it nonetheless. The Pederson Kid is written in such a way that almost nothing perpetually happens, and it works surprisingly well. Icicles is the other great one from the collection. Again, I haven't read The Tunnel, and I only read Omensetters once and didn't do much thinking over it, so I'd need a reread to talk about it in depth.

Anyways, I always love Hawthorne fans, even more than genuine Melville fans

[Anonymous No.7031931]

Jonathan Swift

[Anonymous No.7032027]

>>7024424
Haven't read that many good prose stylists in French, but I find Giono interesting, and Hugo very impressive in this respect. Pascal is kinda obligatory. Have you read La Rochefoucauld or the Cardinal of Retz ? Apparently they have the reputation of being the bests prose stylists of their century alongside Pascal.

[Anonymous No.7032055]

Nabokov in Russian.
Bely, Olesha and Tolstoy recieve a honorable mention.

[Anonymous No.7032194]

>>7021713
lol

[Anonymous No.7032437]

>>7032027
>Have you read La Rochefoucauld or the Cardinal of Retz ?
I've read La Rochefoucauld, he is indeed very very good
Some claim that he's better than Pascal, I personally don't think so
I've not read Retz (even though I've heard a lot about him)
But there's a lot of writers of the XVIIth that I'd like to read (Nicole, Vaugelas, Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin; and obviously Bossuet)

[Anonymous No.7032454]

>>7026989
>writes in one mode
>incapable of writing an even mediocre English poem
>what is Pale Fire

[Anonymous No.7032593]

>>7032454
>>what is Pale Fire

An incredibly mediocre English poem that only people who don't read poetry like

[Anonymous No.7032705]

Portuguese: Machado de Assis

[Anonymous No.7032737]

>>7032593
that is the point. the poem in pale fire is purposefully mediocre

[Anonymous No.7032742]

>>7032737
Purposefully bad is still bad

[Anonymous No.7032761]

>>7032742
purposefully mediocre for the purpose of art is still valid

[Anonymous No.7032782]

>>7032761
It's bad though, whether it's intentionally bad or not is irrelevant because it doesn't say whether or not he's capable of writing well in the medium.

Which, by the way, he was not. He has written poems before and they were still mediocre.

[Anonymous No.7032799]

>>7032782
were arguing different things here

i was addressing "when he himself was completely incapable of writing an even mediocre English poem" from >>7026989

i agree with you that his other poetry is merely mediocre as well

[Anonymous No.7032802]

>>7022210
>all these people with MFAs
Truly the academy is a cancer on everything it touches.

[Anonymous No.7032814]

>>7021697
>prose stylists
Kek. Might as well be asking who can make the best macaroni necklaces. Poets are the real jewelers.

[Anonymous No.7032817]

reiu

[Anonymous No.7033461]

>>7032802

Back, and yeah I agree with you, there has not been even a single decent writer who came out of an MFA program. I can't name one.

>>7030572

also I'll revise my Wells statement, I read Ann Veronica today (got my hand on a first edition too) and it was brilliantly written.

[Anonymous No.7034013]

>>7032593
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.7034096]

>>7032742
>>7032761
>>7032782
>>7034013


Why is it that people think Nabakov is anything other than a hack?

I'll never understand. He is a shit over-motivated shitbag.

[Anonymous No.7034127]

>>7034096

He made fun of some writer that you love, didnt he?

[Anonymous No.7034141]

>>7034096
Nabokov's a very, very good example of modernism transitioning to postmodernism and he was a very intelligent and funny writer. You don't have to like him or all of his work, but the guy certainly penned some good stuff and his thoughts on literature are pretty dead on imo.

[Anonymous No.7034181]

>>7034096
I agree with that guy about him having never written a decent poem, but Nabokov has written several important works of prose.

[Anonymous No.7034573]

>>7021697
Sir Walter Scott

[Anonymous No.7036025]

George Eliot