Fitzgerald, Hemingway, FaulkerWho is the best author and why?
>>24108396Fitzgerald for prose (clean)Faulkner for prose (verbose)Hemingway for prose (sparse)
Faulkner because he wrote Absalom 2x
Faulkner and it's not particularly close. He's a towering genius compared to both Hemingway and Fitzgerald.
>>24108396Faulkner >racism is le badFitzgerald >rich people are le sadHemingway >war is le bad
Brandon Sanderson would rape all three in prison
Corncobber, boys writer.At least Fitzgerald wrote tender is the night. His work titled Gatsby is simply terrible.
>>24108403Illustrate differences between clean and sparse?
>>24108443Wine vs vodka
>>24108396Theodore Dreiser
>>24108447Nice
>>24108447So verbose is beer?
>>24108407Correct answer
>>24108472Stretching the metaphor but verbose would be a scotch, right? Complex flavours fighting for attention, not very approachable. Not as smooth and palatable as wine and not as direct as vodka.
>>24108427>Dick Diverkek
>>24108396Hemingway for his range, which isn't saying much. Fitzgerald was a suck up to the rich and Faulkner coulnd't escape his southern gothic mee maw mode.
>>24108396From best to least best>NovelsFaulknerFitzgeraldHemingway>Short storiesHemingwayFaulknerFitzgerald
>>24108639No way Fitzgerald beats Hemingway out for novels. A Farewell to Arms alone is better than Gatsby and Tender put together.
>>24108407/lit/ opinion. Doubt you've read much from any of them, but hell, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Maybe you could talk about the stylistic developments between This Side of Paradise and The Great Gatsby. Then talk about Hemingway's influences, be it literary or experiential. Don't forget to mention his short stories. Why don't you finish with the differences in structure between As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury. These are all high school level questions that anyone who's read these authors can discuss at length. If you refuse to engage seriously with these questions, or you fail in your attempt, everyone in this thread can safely disregard your opinion.
>>24108396Hemingway.He was the most American of the three.
>>24109291Hence why he's the worst. Fully investing in the "American Spirit" leaves you incapable of making truly great art. The "American Spirit" is nothing more than materialism, consumerism, and mindless cheap entertainment.
>>24109395>The "American Spirit" is nothing more than materialism, consumerism, and mindless cheap entertainmentI, as an American, will write something satirizing that.
>>24109395>The "American Spirit" is nothing more than materialism, consumerism, and mindless cheap entertainment.Europeans are just mad we beat them at their own game.
>>24109441Super Bowl > World Cup
>>24108396All drooling retards compared to Joyce
>>24109037Remember what has happened here, anons.
>>24110404No. You're in the wrong based purely in your smug tone. That's just disgusting
>>24109291Repressed tranny, checks out.
>>24110404learn to communicate better, i agree with you but I still want to dunk your head in a toilet
>>24110420>>24110443Smugness and elitism is foundational to the efficiency of the board. Lurk more.
>>24110447Nah
>>24110447I can guarantee ive been here longer than you
>>24110448Yes. Without it, this place would completely plummet into r/books-tier circle jerking. Even now, moreso than 10 years ago, this board is circling that drain. Don't listen to the anons saying it's always been like this. It hasn't. Look at how many really empty posts there are in the catalog right now. Not to imply that it's never been great, but there used to be more effort posting. You see, /lit/ depends upon a few impassioned individuals who shit on normie opinions. You might not like that, as I know I didn't when I first checked the board out, but it's the only thing forcing anons to read something off-the-beaten-path. Id also guess it's the main force in driving anons to read more of the accepted canon. People hate being called out for not having completed things others think they should have. There is no voting system to filter out low effort posts. The only way we have of moderating content is by repeatedly pushing down and belittling the same old boring, recycled onanism that often rears its ugly head. That's just the way things are. >>24110451Even if that were true, which I'd doubt, it would be by a figure of maybe 2 years.
>>24110477Aw geez man you're gone.
>>24110477learn to be kind just be nicer. if even people who agree with you can't stand behind you then whats the point
>>24110485I literally just told you the point. I don't give two shits if you stand behind me. You doing so would add nothing to my life. All I cared about in this instance is calling out someone parroting opinions, hopefully in such a way that will either have him leave the board or pick up a book. I'm beginning to hope you do the same
>>24108396is this actually a question? answer's faulkner
>>24110498No. Stop this. You're being immoral. Enough. Stop being such a bully
>>24110520Lol gtfo here and read
>>24110520NTA but you sound like a major retard and a faggot.
>>24110522Fuck off dude. I don't like your posts.
>>24108396Fitzgerald. Great Gatsby clears.
>>24109037you sound like that one know-it-all jackass at the bar in good will hunting... sorry, but no one is obliged to answer your quasi-litmus-test questions. That last sentence... how far up your own ass are you?
>>24109037>If you refuse to engage seriously with these questions, or you fail in your attempt, everyone in this thread can safely disregard your opinion.This is a dishonest argument. No one HAS to answer these questions. Your post can be dismissed as irrelevant.There are objective and subjective considerations to make about authors.Who is the “best” among them is subjective.
>>24110537>>24110538>avoided answering questions>opinions safely disregarded I'm not kidding anons, it actually works. It draws the roaches from the posts like a hearty shadow>bonus points, one of these normies, of course, references a movie instead of a book
>>24109037Pseudointellectual dunning kruger victim. Your ideas are corpses.
>>24110542Your entire post is centered on someone liking a different author than you. Get over yourself already.
>>24110544>>24110547Look at them seethe after being called out for the illiterate plague they are
>>24110553How is he illiterate if he just prefers Faulkner to Fitzgerald and Hemingway? What is wrong with you
>>24110542>continues dishonest argumentation>introduces even more dishonest tacticsPost disregarded again.
>>24109037>no you're not allowed to like FaulknerUh. Ok.
>>24110567I like Faulkner, and get this, I've actually read him AND the other two authors. Hard to believe on this board, I know
>>24110564This post is trolling outside of /b/
>>24110564Read a book on critical thinking and honest debate. Not subjects you appear to be informed about.
>>24110569So why did you choose to go on this nonsequitur antagonizing tirade. You're just lowering the quality of discussion. It just sounds like you don't like his opinion on Faulkner.
>>24110579I don't think anyone who uses the word seethe has any right to talk about board quality.
>>24110584not who you're responding to, but it's funny to watch you be retarded. he's not saying that he's offended, he's saying that he's embarrassed on your behalf. I have to explain this to you, which makes you retarded. If I had to guess now you're going to pretend like you already knew this and then call me a faggot
>>24110576His opinion is frequently parroted on this board. As someone who's read Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner, you'd have to be delusional to compare the quality of one to the other. All had different goals and different means of achieving them. Recognizing this parroted opinion, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and lobbed him some softballs to prove his foundation. He couldn't. There is no dishonesty. I just called into question the integrity of the debater. >>24110583Seethe has been a staple of 4chan language for more than half your life.
>>24110599Seethe is on the same level as "tk u 2 da bar". Its just something kids say >we actually can't even like begin to compare these authors because they're like so differentJesus christ.
>>24110605Faulkner wrote corncobby stream of consciousness rooted in a discontentment with time and a fascination with death. Fitzgerald wrote Keatsian prose to call into question the hedonism of the twenties and the struggles of the youthful academics. Hemingway wrote about masculinity (or the lack thereof) in war and post war settings. >Did Fitzgerald write a little about masculinity? Sure. >Did Hemingway care a little about time? Sure. But beyond being Americans in the same broad stroke of time, they didn't have similar goals or paths of achieving them. There are a list of more fascinating questions that could have been asked. Hell, even a comparison between Salinger and Fitzgerald would make more sense, but this thread wasn't created to generate any real discussion. This thread was born to further fellate the same, tired opinion that Faulkner is our goat because half the board skimmed the first third of TSatF and connected with Quentin's suicidal strolls in the second third. It's a wasted thread. You guys are lucky I was here to bring any life to it.
>>24109037Most masterful "Do my homework" baiter
>>24110626All authors can and should be directly compared to each other
>>24110631There's a great story about Kerouac sitting in on a conversation between college students discussing literature, and the conversation goes:>Have you read X>No but I've read Y by the same author>What about Z>I read Z when I was younger. Did you read A? And the conversation goes on. Eventually Kerouac spergs out and tells them that they're not discussing literature, they're just making lists. Talk about an actual book. Something that happened in the book. The way a tool was used. The way it made you feel. All that listing is not discussing. I felt the same as you when I was younger. I thought comparison always meant a broadening of scope, but anon, a wide scope is worth didily if it's too fogged to see through. Actually discuss a book. Any book. I promise I will engage.
>>24110599>there is no dishonestyA dishonest claim in itself. There is dishonesty.>If you refuse to engage seriously with these questions, or you fail in your attempt, everyone in this thread can safely disregard your opinion.A childish dismissal. Not only that, a False Choice. No one has to answer your questions to validate an opinion. It's subjective, not objective.>calls anons roaches, trannies, says they seetheAd hominem attacks. Mockery. Changing the subject. Assuming facts not in evidence. Irrelevant to the subject of "which author is better".What other dishonest tactics have you used?Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Shouting down, jamming, or intimidating the opponent.Badgering.Passive-aggressive behavior.Accusing you of being thin-skinned.Cult of personality.Citing over-valued credentials ("As someone who's read Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner...")You've engaged in a lot of dishonest tactics.https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics?_pos=1&_sid=ebee98880&_ss=r
>>24110640But that's not what I said. It sounds like Kerouac would agree with me. And I'm 40.
>>24110647Anon, I'll be honest. No one cares about you pointing out all my ad hominems. No one. It's clear that you're just doing this because you can't confront the accusations I made that you haven't read these three authors in depth. And please, never link me to a blog about argumentative tactics again. >>24110660Why will you not make a single statement about a book? Do you not read?
>>24110647>it's "over-valued credentials" if you mention that you've actually read the subjects of the thread you're posting inDamn are there a lot of stupid fucks on here today.
>>24110670You're clearly not talking about books anymore and have zero intention of any discussion. You took a bad thread and made it worse.
I think that guy is just a demon or possessed in some way. He does nothing but demoralize and argue with people. I've noticed this entire board adopt a bitter tone ever since he posted >>24109037 earlier today. Even across threads. You can't reason with evil. He's just a coward. Dont take his malicious whispering to heart friends.
>>24110679Anon, I just made several longer posts talking specifically about these three authors and a couple others. What are you talking about? Just talk about a book. I'll engage. Any piece of literature you've read.
>>24110670>No one cares about you pointing out all my ad hominemsYou care. I care. Others have pointed out the ad hominem attacks---they care.>It's clear that you're just doing this because you can't confront the accusations I made that you haven't read these three authors in depth.You never made those accusations against me. You made them against someone else.Additionally, whether one has read the authors in depth or not, has no bearing upon whether they can have an opinion on them or not. The appellation of "best author" is subjective. That you are being dishonest is objective.>>24110675The credentials are over-valued because his having read the authors doesn't prove that his opinion is more True than the other anon's.To assume otherwise is illogical. Both anons have read the authors. If such credentials prove what they say, then it is simultaneously true that Faulkner is better than Hemingway and Fitzgerald, and yet they cannot be compared. The fact of the matter is: the credentials don't matter. Which author is "best" is subjective. Hence the credentials being over-valued...I don't even like Faulkner.
>>24110692I'm a normal dude who reads a lot. The quality of the board is shit, and you should feel ashamed that you're trying to maintain the status quo. >Is this what you're trying to protect from change??
>>24110701>You never made those accusations against me. You made them against someone else.As long as we're doing this, half the things you accused me of weren't me, and were instead other anons responses.
>>24108414*eat
>>24110701So basically you're just gurgling out paragraphs of sophistry and contributing nothing substantial to the thread, because you haven't read the authors that the thread is about. Why are you here, exactly?
>>24110647>>24110701I want to say I appreciate your posts. Ignore that pricks rhetoric and appeals to the masses. Back to lurking.
>>24108676A Farewell to Arms is a dreadful slog, an incredible bore even for Hemingway, and almost as bad as For Whom the Bell Tolls. The Sun Also Rises was far better than both of them, but not better than Tender Is the Night.
>>24110701>Hippie shaman says, "It's my opinion that the matter of your health is the cause of bad spirits sent through the earth by uncontacted native tribes.">Doctor says, "I think you have cancer"Thank God the credentials of an individual actually DO matter when it comes to opinions, isn't that right anon?
>>24110737Did you think your analogy was cut and dry? Shaman can be right. Doctor just wants your money
>>24110710No, I'm rather convinced I replied to you every single time, based on the context of each post and who was replying to whom, following the thread's development.It's impossible to prove on an anonymous board, but suffice it to say, everyone (I suspect it was just one person) whom I've accused of being dishonest, did so in the exact same way. Dismissal. Badgering, aggressive, unproven, irrelevant accusations. Overvalued credentials.>>24110714You claim I'm being sophistic. Prove it. All I've done is point out dishonest argumentation where it has occurred. Additionally, your snide remark of "paragraphs of sophistry" is itself sophistic, dishonest. It is an attack against the length of my posts, in an attempt to dismiss what the posts were discussing.You also claim I've contributed nothing to the thread. The thread is about "which of x y or z is best". I have defended the right for one to have an opinion about whether any author is better than another, in defense against someone who claimed otherwise. I'd say that contributes to the thread.You claim I haven't read the authors. Prove it.Your post makes only empty claims. What does it contribute to the thread? Nothing. Just accusations of sophistry, to defend sophists.I'll take that other anons advice and go back to lurking.>>24110737False analogy.
>>24110741My analogy points out your misunderstanding of fallacies. It is, in fact, very important that you determine the credibility of one making an argument. That anon questioning the other's knowledge is a fair thing to do.
>>24110748Not a fair thing to do, because depth is not needed to have an opinion on which author is the best. It's an opinion.
>>24110748I didn't misunderstand anything. Who is "you" here? I haven't even talked to you
>>24110747I don't know how else to prove it.
>>24110747You're not talking about the subjects of the thread, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzgerald, you're just spouting sophistic bullshit that is irrelevant to anything. You're typing for the sake of typing and shitting up the thread. Maybe you should take a break from posting or even lurking here and actually read a book.
>>24110754Are you saying that someone who has read 0 works from the 3 authors and someone who has read every work from the 3 authors have the same value of opinion? Furthermore, do you mean to imply that one shouldn't engage with any opinions different from their own?
>>24110747Do you have any idea how many different people you're talking to
>>24110775>You're not talking about the subjects of the thread, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzgerald, you're just spouting sophistic bullshit that is irrelevant to anything. You're typing for the sake of typing and shitting up the thread. Maybe you should take a break from posting or even lurking here and actually read a book.More of the same dishonest tactics I mentioned.
>>24110789>called out for wrongly thinking he's talking to one person>pretends that didn't happen and continues same argumentKek, never seen someone so strongly BTFO themselves
>>24110778You're weighing subjective things like they are objective.We aren't talking theology. That's objective. We're talking about which of these fiction authors is best. That's subjective.That's why the doctor-shaman analogy was a false analogy. Your health treatment plans should be considered objectively. Whereas opinions on a book are subjective.I don't care how much of this author or that you've read. It has no bearing upon whether I like them or not. Just because you have read them more (if you have) doesn't mean I can't have a dissenting opinion.By the way, I've read all three of these authors. I don't care for any of them. That's an Opinion.
>>24110804You have a very poor understanding of the concepts you use. I almost envy it, because it allows you to disregard any thought you don't immediately like.
>>24109395God, you people are repetitive
>>24110816The only one dismissing things is you. Snide, dishonest ad-hominem attacks. You have a poor understanding of honest argumentation.See, what you just did was attack me instead of addressing what I wrote.What is the point of debating with people who just attack you and don't even address what you're saying?
>>24110822You came into a thread of authors you haven't read to point out and hominems like this was a presidential debate lmaoo you got btfo just admit it
>>24110842Shouldn't a literature board be literate? You take yourself seriously?
>>24110849I read the authors posted. You should try it
>>24110705>admits to being a normalfag
>>24111070Compared to the anons that make those threads, I am normal
>>24111059lol you couldn’t read the numbers off a road sign
>>24108396Thomas Wolfe
>>24109291>He was the most American of the three.Yet also the most well-traveled, and the only one who consistently wrote stories and novels set in countries other than America.
>>24110404bro thought we were feeling him
>>24111868This gets worse the less bullies we have
>>24112626not the one who was busy with u in this thread ,but i agree that the quality of board have dropped so low cuz of the extend of people who don't read books and only engage in /lit/ for troll and shitpost.
