Who was in the wrong here?
>>23537370Both of them.
>>23537370Faulkner is a psued who thinks using words like "Nudiustertian" = having good prose.
>>23537375Do elaborate, my good anon
>>23537370Hemingway was a pulp writer. Even this quote by him sounds so hacky and cringe like he's trying to imitate a simple person
>>23537370I love both. I love the richness of Faulkner's novels, but A Farewell to Arms was the first book that made me bawl while reading.
>>23537370Hemingway sounds more sincere . Faulkner quote sounds like pure masturbation
I prefer Faulkner. Purple prose is cool and shouldn't have gone out of fashion.
I haven't read a word of Faulkner. But Hemingways quote sounds like a professional reddit quote-makers. If he was alive today, he'd wanna tell you about his IPAs
Is Faulkner really that hard? I'm an ESL who's 20 pages into 'As I Lay Dying' and I haven't consulted the dictionary a single time thus far.
>>23537513The narrative in sound and the fury is a bit confusing but other than that no
>>23537370Hemingway is right, but it doesn't matter because he sucks.
>>23537513lmao ok
>>23537370One of the richest sentences in literature is two words long and conveys the emotional weight of the moment. 'Jesus wept.' There is a time for fancy words and a time for simpler ones.
>>23537482Hemmmingway trooned out and killed himself.
>>23537691That was his son
>>23537370Faulkner never said big emotions come from big words. Textbook strawman by that fat fraud.
>>23537370Hemingway is in the wrong, economy is a virtue in a shoemaker, not an artistWriters can use long words incorrectly but different words have different specific meanings which you sacrifice with the autism of simplicity, it's something that aspiring literati do to appeal to the smoothbrained redditors who would be reading nothing but fantasy and YA shit if it wasn't for writers as simple as Hemingway.Not that Hemingway is bad, he's good, but very rarely great, unlike falkner. The greatest contrast of this is between Hemingway and Joyce, they knew each other, and in A Moveable Feasy Hemingway seems to consider himself Joyce's equal, which is so totally ridiculous. The difference in writing style could not be more pronounced, and the beauty and depth in Joyce's complexity outstrips hemingway by so far that it makes Hemingway's confidence seem absurd.Hemingway is highschool lit, he's on a level with Conrad or Steinbeck, cannot compare to Faulkner or Joyce
>>23537370both fighting in the shadow of joyce.
>>23537389It is subjective.
When you read Hemingway what you are reading is Stein made safe for a middlebrow audience.
/lit/ is a pro-Faulkner board btw. Only redditfags agree with the tranny.
>>23537376>>23537474Filtered. Go back.
>>23537370Hemingway himself uses that simplified language well, but him having a century of imitators has been terrible for literature. Limiting the scope of the language is throwing out one of the huge advantages of English: its enormous and varied vocabulary, synthesizing multiple linguistic traditions so that you can convey tones, ideas, and atmosphere with specificity and artistry. One painter focusing on a few main colours is fair enough, but to say that all painters should limit themselves similarly is abject stupidity.
>>23537370>big emotionsHemingway showed his ass here. Writers convey ideas, not just emotions.
>>23537370Imagine if these guys had twitter
>>23537370Faulker was actually a good writer while Hemingway was maybe one of the most astroturfed writers from America story. So I'll take Faulker.
>>23537370why cant both?
Hemingway's three "best" books are mediocre. Even Faulker's worst is more original and soulful.
>>23537370Cather mogs both for her using the ten-dollar words sparingly and only when necessary.
>>23540387This, and I don’t even like Faulkner
>>23538536Conrad is a far superior stylist to Faulkner.
>>23539191“Twitter is for Niggers”
>>23538840dumb shit alert
>>23537370Neither. Faulkner's quote was taken out of context, and that was how it reached Hemingway. He was actually praising Hemingway but it of course didn't seem that way. As far as I know they wrote each other a few complimentary letters after all the drama was through.
>>23537494holy based
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT WRITERS CAN'T HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES NOOOOOOOOO
Above: Genius who ascended by his own talentsBelow: Mediocre and spoiled guy who is shilled to this day.
>>23538840Brain dead take. Idk how you can possibly arrive at this conclusion.
>>23537370Depends, mostly I tune out when authors start injecting complex words. Most of the time, there's no real need for it other than to show off. That said, you take Tolkien for example who was able to paint pictures with few words yet those words were vibrant. In that sense, I think that you need a stronger use of language. It really depends.
In regards to my own writing, I’m naturally inclined towards more wordy prose to the point that I have to dial it back to make it flow better. Both styles have their merits, but both need to flow well in order to work. I find that when I write long, wordy intricate sentences off the cuff, it sounds clunky reading it back until I do some editing.
