Hemingway ruined English prose.Eliot ruined English poetry.Daily reminder.
>>23301527I ruined my life
>>23301528Grim. How?
Hemingway, Joyce, pound, and Williams
>>23301540Joyce saved English prose. It peaked with him.
>>23301527Yes, surely it was Hemingway who ruined English prose and not the retarded hacks who decided to try and copy his style without having actually lived an interesting life to tell stories about.
>>23301552>Yes, surely it was Hemingway who ruined English proseYes
>>23301545
>>23301527Modernism ruined English prose and poetry. >But Joy-ACKJoyce sucked
>>23301527Wyndham Lewis's review of Hemingway in "The Dumb Ox: A Study of Ernest Hemingway" is essential reading.
>>23301580>Joyce suckedImagine being this filtered
>>23301527You are reading the wrong Eliot then, bitch
>>23301527>Hemingway ruined English proseCite exemplars of the English prose Hemingway allegedly ruined.
>>23301527When you read Hemingway what you are reading is Stein made safe for a middlebrow audience.
>>23301540>>23301580>t. filtered by Proteus
The ritual poster can suck a bag of dicks.
>>23301590Only a man with the eyes of an unsuccessful rapist could publish such a brutal, eviscerating and at the same time complementary review
>>23301527Reminder you're an idiot? Oh, we never forgot.
>>23301540Joyce, for all his perversions, is a literal master of prose. It is uncontestable. You are a fucking moron. Probably the same moron running the Pound thread.
>>23301580Go back to your own native language forums, ESLs. I'm tired of reading your shit opinions because you simply cannot into English.
>>23301639Christ, is there a more autistic poster on this board?
>>23301639Lmfao, what a retard. It's clear he's very impressed with himself for having had that thought.
>>23301639Damn, what a chad. Fighting the good fight.
>>23301540>WilliamsWhich one?
>>23301642En effet.
Why do you think Hemmingway was bad for prose? Prior to Hemmingway, who do you think exemplified good English prose?Same question for Eliot and poetry.
>>23301609Virtually all modern globohomo prose comes from him. Dumbed down enough for the consumers to digest and the editor to sell. You can draw a straight line from Ernest Hemingway to Sally Rooney.
>>23301741>Prior to Hemmingway, who do you think exemplified good English prose?Thomas Browne.
>>23301742>>23301518>You can draw a straight line from Ernest Hemingway to Sally Rooney.>No, you can drawn a straight line from Eliot to Kaur.>You can draw a straight line from [x] to [y]Cease.
>>23301751But it's true. Rooney is a descendant of Hemingway, not of Joyce.
>>23301590>"The Dumb Ox: A Study of Ernest Hemingway" is essential readingLink? I'm curious to read it. Several minutes of googling have failed to uncover it.
>>23301793https://www.unz.com/print/AmericanRev-1934jun-00289/
>>23301686William Carlos >>23301645It is very contestable, for one the prose isn’t good rather it’s complex or seemingly/speciously/superficially complex which doesn’t equal good, in fact anyone who liked pre modernist prose would say so, as Ulysses is admittedly according to Joyce rebelling against the Victorian novel. The difference between someone like Twain and Joyce is that Twain can still be enjoyed and doesn’t posit itself as this intellectual curiosity. HG Wells and Arnold Bennett called Ulysses trash and even people who praised it like Sherwood Anderson only liked it conceptually. It wasn’t that widely praised in its time aside from modernists, and it’s also not very good on its own terms.
>>23301863It's not contestable, artistic quality is objective
>>23301895What objective did it meet? That it’s famous on best books list
>>23301863>HG Wells and Arnold Bennett called Ulysses trashAnd tons of others called it a masterpiece. Your point, fag?
>>23301933That it is contestable and people, prominent writers contested it. I thought that was clear
>>23301923What do you think of Raphael and Beethoven?
>>23301951Prominent writers praised it, so what? Using another guy's cock to defend your position is strictly for the birds.
>>23301962I said it failed on its own terms, but again I was using that to show people have contested it against the argument ‘it can’t be contested.’ Not sure what your up in arms about, much less thinking I’m using Wells or Bennett as moral authorities on anything because I enjoy their novels, when if you look at their other views…. >>23301954I prefer Van Dyck and Purcell
>>23302029>I said it failed on its own termswhat does that even mean?
>>23301527yeah fuck these guys
>>23302044That the prose is not good but complex, or superficially complex, it’s an Irishman rebelling against the Victorian novel, like did you not notice the jibes against his mentor Ae Russell, and also quintessential Victorian essayist Matthew Arnold, it’s an effeminate quippy book meant to deconstruct, it fundamentally fails as a satire. But again, all this aside I dislike the prose, I don’t despise the structure but it’s simply ugly and tedious to read.
>>23302062In other words, you got filtered by Ulysses. Many such cases!
>>23301863It isn't. Anyone who thinks it is, like it or not, has been filtered. There are very few who can challenge his ability in actual practice. Wells was not one of them by a long shot. Bennet was not one of them by a long shot. They were filtered.
>>23302062filtered, but its ok
>>23302062His prose is literally uncontestably masterful. You need to read more poetry. The only writers who can compete with Joycian prose are actual poets. Making your argument, "Joycian prose is not good," is a brainlet's argument. You picked a poor hill on which to make a stand.
>>23301527'Maximalist' prosody mastery [Nabokov but not ESL] is lacking, so is poetry that isn't naval-gazing tweets before Twitter and enjambled (bad) prose. That much is right.
>>23302148I’m guessing you’re not very well-read, I mentioned AE Russell and Arnold, both poets that Joyce quips at in Ulysses who I’ve studied in depth, but I have read significantly more verse than you have, and have read Joyce’s entire verse, which I assume you dislike or didn’t know existed.
>>23302200You've guessed wrong and in desperation. As I said, you've picked a poor hill on which to make a stand. Keep going on with your ethological appeals. It won't do you any good.
>>23302234Pathetic desu I wonder if you’d even care if the book wasn’t famous. If I said Dark Laughter sucked (it doesn’t) would you bat an eye. You’re ultimately no better than a roadie
>>23302263No one has appealed to famous names more than you, dumbass. I don't give one flying fuck about authority or popularity, but you just spilled the beans that you had no idea what an "ethological" appeal was, so you probably haven't read Aristotle either. Anyway, fuck off midwit. You've been filtered.
>>23301527Hemingway is king. Brevity trumps verbosity.
>>23302287Getting this angry is a sign of low intelligence unfortunately, I’m sorry you have to name drop Aristotle to feel smart.
>>23301527I'm not sure he's done in English prose but Hemingway had a strong influence on post war German literature and did do some not so insignificant damage to it.
>>23302317More cope. When you have to start pretending to know things about me (and like everyone who does that stupid shit, you're way off), it's clear you have nothing left. Just stop. Mentioning Aristotle is not a name drop. He is the originator of the concept, thus your ignorance of the concept reveals you were full of shit when you claimed to be well-read. Now fuck off, midwit. Joyce filtered you.
>>23301545>a mick saved English Grim
>>23301751It has a lot of potential as a format though
>>23302422The English were writing forgettable bullshit melodramas so he seized the opportunity
>>23301527At least Hemingway was a genuinely good writer. Modernist prose did destroy all novel writing, but in the process in produced a few good novels; contrarily there is no analogous good Modernist poetry. t. read all of Eliot/Auden/Pound and am very frustrated at having done so to no point.
>>23302752Poetry in the last hundred years has been the best it's ever been, as has the novel. Take your wrong generation back to goodreads
>>23301645It's all bullshit.
>>23302767Tennyson is better than Eliot.
>>23302767> Poetry in the last hundred years has been the best it's ever beenLmao you have to be kidding, right?
>>23303816Technically almost everyone is pretty far behind Dante. Tennyson is up there.
>>23301741English prose peaked in the writings of Addison & Steele, Johnson, and Carlyle.
>>23303815Not at all.
>>23303857Toilets is extremely overrated.
>>23303859No more so than Nabokov.
>>23303900Way more and less deservedly so.
>>23301856>https://www.unz.com/print/AmericanRev-1934jun-00289/Thanks!
>>23303959no problem bud :3
>>23303908A jest at best.
>>23303969>Taking credit. Grim.
>>23304016>Grim.Cease.
>>23303816Have you read much old poetry? It's not as good as you think. Add up all the great poets in the last 100 years and you get more good stuff than any other 100 year period you can mention. Name a better period
Patrician sentiment, but in reality it was Eliot, Pound, and other contemporaries that destroyed but poetry and prose. See, poetry is actually like the soil that prose flowers grow from. Once it goes, prose also goes. But also, I’ve long thought that film has been somewhat devastating for narrative, so narrative prose. You can sometimes detect in modern writers that they literally think about prose stories as if they were films.
>>23303969Now, having read it, I don't find Lewis's case particularly persuasive, or damning.For one thing, we have to remember that behind Hemingway *and* Stein (at least Stein in the relatively straightforward Melanctha mode that Lewis quotes -- which to be sure, is the GS mode that is closest to Hemingway) were writers like Jack London and Ambrose Bierce, who reflected what Edmund Wilson called "the chastening of American prose style":>In the field of prose fiction before the war, the American writers, both North and South, had a verbose untidy model in the novels of Walter Scott... [as reflected in the work of James Fenimore Cooper, Harriet Beecher Stowe, etc.]>But a change in the American style takes place in the middle of the century. The plethora of words is reduced; the pace becomes firmer and quicker; the language becomes what was later called "efficient," more what was still later called "functional."Wilson goes on to develop his point at some length in chapter XV of Patriotic Gore, from which the above quotes are taken.Anyway, it seems to me that the style of both Stein and Hemingway owes a great deal to that change in American prose style that Wilson describes. And the superficial similarity between the two - as seen in the cherry-picked paragraphs that Lewis quotes - does not go very far beyond that: yes, both do share a certain "efficient" style, but that is mostly the product of their shared literary lineage. What Lewis ignores are the vast differences in tone and voice that distinguish the two. To claim a "family resemblance" based on such flimsy evidence is critical malpractice.Now as for Lewis's psychoanalytic musings as to the supposed "relationship" between Stein and Hemingway, I found the analysis forced and unpersuasive; ymmv.But when Lewis writes something like this:>One might even go so far as to say that this brilliant Jewish lady has made a *clown* of him by teaching Ernest Hemingway her baby talk!Well, his crack about Stein making "a clown" of Hemingway is not just an overwrought metaphor, it's dripping with a kind of personal animus that undermines any pretense of serious criticism. Was Lewis jealous of Hemingway's success? Did he simply dislike the man? Who knows, but this is not insightful criticism; it's a playground insult wrapped in pseudo-intellectual jargon.In sum, Lewis's critique is a prime example of how *not* to analyze literature. It's a clumsy attempt to diminish Hemingway through irrelevant comparisons and baseless insult. Hemingway's enduring legacy speaks for itself, leaving Lewis's "The Dumb Ox" a footnote in literary history – a failed attempt at a takedown.>>23301527>Hemingway ruined English prose.The turn toward the kind of "efficient" and "functional" prose that Hemingway's style reflects started long before Hemingway, and continued to evolve long after his influence - substantial though it was - had largely faded from popular and (to a lesser extent) literary culture.
>>23304407>You can sometimes detect in modern writers that they literally think about prose stories as if they were films.Exhibit A: The stock line of "show don't tell" being spat out every single time someone tries to write a slightly more detailed scene than what is prevalent in YA.
>>23304429>I don't find Lewis's case particularly persuasive, or damning [...]Wyndham's study does not attempt to be uniformly damning; it analyzes Hemingway's temper as an artist in the context of Anglo-Saxon letters. You utterly skipped the substance of literary and historical analysis to focus on errata and sensationalism. I am certain that this sentence of paragraph (as well of others) -- >In sum, Lewis's critique is a prime example of how *not* to analyze literature. It's a clumsy attempt to diminish Hemingway through irrelevant comparisons and baseless insult. Hemingway's enduring legacy speaks for itself, leaving Lewis's "The Dumb Ox" a footnote in literary history – a failed attempt at a takedown.-- is a reproduction from a generative AI product, verbatim. It is worth noting for whatever robot you used to craft this bait that when Hemingway read this essay he destroyed the offices of Dorothy Shakespear in a frenzy, so accurate he took Lewis's essential insights to be.
>>23304501>Wyndham's study does not attempt to be uniformly damningHe damns with faint praise, before switching gears. But neither his praise nor his critique has any weight or insight. The only thing notable or memorable in the piece is his very nasty descent into ad hominem. But even that is rather forgettable, and indeed has been forgotten.
>>23304501>It is worth noting for whatever robot you used to craft this bait that when Hemingway read this essay he destroyed the offices of Dorothy Shakespear in a frenzy, so accurate he took Lewis's essential insights to be.kek hemingay moment
>>23304407>You can sometimes detect in modern writers that they literally think about prose stories as if they were films.interesting. could you elaborate on that please?
>>23304501>>23304535>when Hemingway read this essay he destroyed the offices of Dorothy Shakespear in a frenzy, so accurate he took Lewis's essential insights to be.yes, that must be the reason, and not the fact that he was an alcoholic drama queen.
>>23303815No he's not you fucking jew.
>>23304611what's that got to do with jews, fag? eliot is overrated and ruined modern poetryFACTS
>>23304501Nta, but very quickly I got the feeling like I was reading a Harold Bloom polemic. Lines like Hemingway being like Rousseau's noble savage, but white, struck me as totally contentless. For every reference that comes to something, there's reference after reference that doesn't, and he has a bad tendency toward dumb and mystifying accusations/characterizations (He probably doesn't know the Five Year Plan? What?).
>>23304704>Lines like Hemingway being like Rousseau's noble savage, but white, struck me as totally contentlessI am unsure how it struck you as contentless - Lewis invokes Rousseau's Noble Savage to describe the model Hemingway's protagonists aspire to. >He lives, or affects to live, submerged. He is in the multitudinous ranks of those to whom things happen—terrible things of course, and of course stoically borne. He has never heard, or affects never to have heard, that there is another and superior element, inhabited by a type of unnatural men which preys upon that of the submerged type. >[...] Hemingway's books, on the other hand, scarcely contain a figure who is not in some way futile, clown-like, passive, and above all purposeless. His world of men and women (in violent action, certainly) is completely empty of will. His puppets are leaves, very violently blown hither and thither; drugged or at least deeply intoxicated phantoms of a sort of matter-of-fact shell-shock [...]>In the [Hemingway's] case purposeless violence, for the sake of the "kick", is pursued and recorded, and the "thinking subject" is to regard himself as nothing more significant than a ripple beneath the breeze upon a pond. >But there is more than this. The sort of First-person singular that Hemingway invariably invokes is a dullwitted, bovine, monosyllabic simpleton. This lethargic and stuttering dummy he conducts, or pushes from behind, through all the scenes that interest him. This burlesque First-person-singular behaves in them like a moronesque version of his brilliant author. >I do not mean that, as a work of art, a book of his should be approached in this critical and anatomizing spirit. That is another matter. Where the "politics" come in I suppose by this time you will have gathered. This is the voice of the "folk", of the masses, who are the cannon-fodder, the cattle outside the slaughterhouse, serenely chewing the cud—of those to whom things are done, in contrast to those who have executive will and intelligence. It is itself innocent of politics—one might almost add alas! That does not affect its quality as art. The expression of the soul of the dumb ox would have a penetrating beauty of its own, if it were uttered with genius—with bovine genius (and in the case of Hemingway that is what has happened): just as much as would the folk-song of the baboon, or of the "Praying Mantis". But where the politics crop up is that if we take this to be the typical art of a civilization—and there is no serious writer who stands higher in Anglo-Saxony today than does Ernest Hemingway—then we are by the same token saying something very definite about that civilization.The comparisons to the Noble Savage are appropriate for the point Lewis is making. And the same can be said for the 'Five Year Plan' - see particularly the last sentence of the last quote I greentexted. >[...] a Harold Bloom polemicA funny-and decent-comparison.
>>23301627>When you read Hemingway what you are reading is Stein made safe for a middlebrow audience.classic
>>23301527Hating Hemingway won't make you a woman.
>>23305394>you're le tranny!lmao pic rel was his son. Sit this one out, fag.
>>23305394>hemingtranny projecting again
