Is the use of smut, gore, and foul language a surefire sign the author is a hack?
>>23820749It's a sign of basedness
Define "Hack," in this context.
>>23820749It’s extremely dependant on context.Is the use of reductive arguments and seeking of superficial markers of quality or lack of quality a sure fire sign that OP is a faggot who doesn’t read?
>>23820749The world we live in is full of smut, gore, and foul language whatever your personal opinion is of those things
>>23820749It means the book in question is probably intended for manchildren. I'd unironically consider a fairy tale to be more mature.
>>23820749Depends. If the gore is gratuitous and constant without any weight outside of "wow, isn't this a gross thing to read", then probably.
>>23820749Yes, it's called Poshlost. A common affliction of unserious writers. See Bataille and Houllebecq for examples
>>23820749Not necessarily. The use of smut, gore, and foul language can serve various purposes in literature and can be effective tools for storytelling, character development, or thematic exploration. Some authors use these elements to provoke thought, evoke emotions, or create a certain atmosphere. That said, an overreliance on such elements without depth, nuance, or skillful writing can be a sign of a lack of creativity or substance. It's important to consider the context in which these elements are used and whether they contribute meaningfully to the narrative or if they feel gratuitous. Ultimately, the quality of an author's work is determined by a combination of their intent, execution, and the depth of their storytelling, rather than any specific stylistic choices alone.
>>23820831Tilted in favor of spectacle over substance.
>>23820867But Houellebecq uses gore and sex in a disinterested way, I wouldn’t say he’s unserious.
>>23820749I don’t think it’s a surefire sign but more of a red flag. I won’t discount smut, baselessness, raunchiness, or gore because those things exist and people may have interesting observations about them. But if you insert those elements, I will need something more to sink my teeth into.
>>23820749This fucking chudette needs to be cancelled!
>>23820867>both frenchheh
>>23820749Joyce, Zola and Hemingway are not generally considered hacks.
>>23820749
>>23820890Smut is more substantive than 99% of philosophical ratholeing
>>23822710I can see how one who struggles to get laid would view it that way.
>>23820749The Classics (TM) or pre-60s High Literature (C) may be understood as Censor Literature or literature that passed the filter of state, church, schools... That's the main reason we hardly associate foul language or gore or smut together with literary art, but easily with low-brow pulp.
>>23824079Then why would I, a modern person raised without an abundance of 'censored' literature, still find it utterly cringe and retarded?
>>23824280did you fall out of a coconut tree?
>>23820869>That said, an overreliance on such elements without depth, nuance, or skillful writing can be a sign of a lack of creativity or substance.Yeah, that reminds me of this piece of shit book that I have read. Complete waste of money
>>23820749>foul languagemaybe>goremaybe>smutdefinintely
>>23824342What is it about smut that separates it from the others?
>>23824363Women like it
>>23824374Are you implying having a female audience makes someone a hack?
>>23824389>Are you implying having a female audience makes someone a hack? That is also true but no, I'm implying that things that mainly interest women have no substance.
>>23824396I see how that follows, but how do you square that with the current demographics of the market? If something with substance were to be released today the consumer base would still be comprised of large amount of women.
>>23824423>If something with substance were to be released today the consumer base would still be comprised of large amount of women.I don't think that's how that works..
>>23824455Is it at least not more likely than if there were more men than women in the market? What I'm trying to get at here is that (although I generally agree) I don't think this observation has a sufficient amount of explanatory power to accurately slap the label of 'hack' onto something. It could work in a conversation, sure, but on a debate stage I imagine you'd need something better than that.
>>23824508Lucky I'm not a debate pervert and just say things how I see em.
>>23824512You can want to better understand how to defend your perspective without becoming that, but fair enough.
>>23820749If not juvenile, that probably means the author is just a shit person. That kind of thing in all arts - especially visual - is the simple path. It's typically very easy to create edgy schlock.>>23820826t. child
>>23822673Though it's been decades, he has written a lot of good stuff that is also gory. Not a hack, just very overrated.
