If the entirety of philosophy were to suddenly disappear the world would be no worse off.

>>24835148
>Shakespeare sucks.
This is the opinion of almost every non white person in the current year
How is that against the grain?

>>24835278
this is just a misinformed twitter tier take

>>24835148
The modernists (Eliot, Joyce, Beckett, etc.) are an interesting experiment, and there is merit to their work, but literary culture treating them as brilliant innovators which should be emulated and responded to was a mistake. The weird fiction movement of Lovecraft, Howard, and their predecessors was a better and more genuine response to the Romantic movement, and I would even go so far as to say that Tolkien should be included with them, since they shared the same influences and general project, though Tolkien himself never wrote weird fiction.

>>24835370
"literary culture" doesn't give a shit about Finnegans Wake

>>24835462
>FW is the only thing that Joyce ever wrote

Reading is for the mentally ill.

>>24835148
Verboten is probably too strongly put to describe my opinion, but I absolutely fucking detest the heap of shit that is Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children.
The fact that this utter garbage won a Booker plus the Booker of Bookers is a bigger miracle than any goddamn magical realist anecdote in the story.
Fatwa completely justified.

Dostoevsky is a good writer because of the substance. His actual writing often sucks.

Plot is at least as important as prose, if not more. But character matters more than both.

>>24835338
>opinion of almost every non white person
I'm not counting modern opinions. They are subversions.

>>24835548
I despise Nabokov (that's my entry for you, op) but he was wright about Dosto being better as a playwright. What that means is that he is good at narrative not language.

>>24835558
Plot and prose are inextricable. How you tell a story is inseparable from the story itself. Otherwise all you would need to “read” is a bugman synopsis on Wikipedia.
The only people who have trouble grasping this are genrefoamers who treat books like video games in which to live vicariously through the characters/plot/setting. If your prose is shit, you just suck at telling a story and no amount of plotfagging is going to change that.

>>24835148
1. Melville is a great writer, but he literally forgot about Bulkington in MD. Critics like to write that Bulkington represents this or that. But how about, he just forgot about him as the story changed in his head?

2. It's not that Hemingway or Wolfe, or Fitzgerald were good. It's more about how much they were commercialized. They were chosen by their editors and publishers to be marketed to the reading public and the reading public bought their works. Marketing and commercialization are the most important characteristics in determining perceived quality.

>>24835548
>>24835892
Dosto’s characters are definitely more like soap opera cutouts than actual people at times. All the fainting, exclamations, etc etc….And that’s fine since their purpose is investigating problems that Dosto wanted to bring to bring to their most extreme conclusions. More tools instead of being simulacrums of real people

>>24836016
This is dumb and makes no sense. You can write "good prose" and not even tell a story or hardly tell one which is common with lit darlings like Joyce and Melville and Burton

>>24835338
>almost every person in the current year
ftfy

plays aren't literature

>>24835468
>implying FW isn't Joyce's defining work

>>24836030
Of course it makes no sense to you, you’re a complete retard who tries to refute what I said with the most obvious examples of how prose and plot are inextricable.
Joyce and Melville are not interested in telling one dimensional “this happened because this happened” stories. To say that neither of them are storytellers is probably the most obvious self-tell of being filtered. You should kill yourself to save further embarrassment.

>>24836063
>joyceteens when someone doesn't care for their obscurantism

>>24836063
You're very sad and very dumb

>>24836070
>>24836078
>No rebuttal
Prose is the language you use to tell a story. There is no story without prose, and vice versa.
>obscurantism
The purpose of literary allusion is the exact opposite of obscuring, you’re deliberately calling attention to other works, cultures, and art to invoke their meaning. There is no technique in literature that could be clearer. The title of Ulysses itself is an allusion, literal advertisement of the kind of book it’s going to be. Why is an Irish autofiction writer alluding to the odyssey? Duh.

The book isn’t obscure anymore than a pond is deep, you’re just midgets who can’t even be left around puddles without drowning yourselves. Which you should do.

>>24836171
>Prose is the language you use to tell a story
Lolwut?
Odyssey is written in verse, Burton and Browne wrote in prose, Melville wrote cetology (nonfiction) in prose; a small fraction of prose tells a story. Diaries are prose. It's an odd point to try to claim prose and storytelling are necessary for one another

>>24836265
>It’s an odd point to try to claim prose and storytelling are necessary for one another
The original post in that chain referred to how “prose is as important as plot”. Obviously talking about prose, in the context of writing a novel. You cannot write a novel with a story without using prose.

Why do you faggots have this autistic Redditor compulsion of trying to find exceptions? Did you think that you were coming across as intelligent by saying “oh erm you forgot plays?” So fucking stupid

>>24836282
Well you're a retard who claimed there's no prose without plot which is demonstrably untrue, even in the context of novels. Your commentarysloppers rambling endlessly in flowery language with no attempt to progress a story isn't automatically storytelling just because it's crammed into a novel.

>>24836305
>endless flowery language
That is a type of prose. The same way short clipped sentences are another type of prose. What do you think prose is?

So fucking hilarious how dumb you are, truly.

>>24836324
>changes the subject entirely opting to strawman instead
The final stand of the prosefag

>>24836337
>Bro your strawmanning for pointing out I don’t know what prose is
Your example of how plot can exist without prose was….mentioning that bad novels have flowery prose.

You don’t know what prose is. Go back to /tv/ retard

>>24836352
Prose doesnt automatically make for plot in a novel, this is obvious for anyone not trying to autistically win an internet argument. Cope and seethe pseud

>>24836384
>Prose doesn’t make for plot
No one argued they are the same, are you hallucinating?

Inextricable (I’ll help you here) means inseparable. You cannot tell a story in a novel without using language. Focusing on language over story is retarded when one is necessary for the other.

Repeating yourself like a trained tard isn’t really helping your case, by the way. Turns out you knew nothing at all. Lmfao

>>24835278
Thats incorrect and you know it.

>>24835148
This boards uncritical fetish towards French culture and French language is unbecoming.

>>24835148
yall are not “reading” shakespeare correctly, you dont just straight up read shakespeare in and of itself, atleast not his plays, you read his plays so you understand the dialogue better and then you go and see the plays so you better appreciate certain scenes.

>>24836403
>You cannot tell a story in a novel without using language.
Profound lmao

>Focusing on language over story is retarded when one is necessary for the other.
How shameless can you be? Earlier you were trying to argue that the quality of story and the quality of prose were directly proportional, which is untrue. Unless you're truly just gonna resort to "hurr durr plots are made of words you thought I was saying something else?"

>>24836458
>Earlier you were trying to argue that the quality of story and the quality of prose were directly proportional
I said “prose is inextricable from plot”. Nothing to do with “quality,” you keep rephrasing my very simple statement because you either don’t understand it, or you know it’s true and opposition to it is untenable.

>you're truly just gonna resort to "hurr durr plots are made of words you thought I was saying something else?"
What do you think prose is? You are genuinely so pozzed with this plot-prose binary that I’ve broken your mind with this.

>>24836482
>If your prose is shit, you just suck at telling a story
Okay then what did you mean be this if now you're claiming the whole time you simply meant books are made of words?

And then why take issue with the original post that clearly was referring to people that prioritize the beauty or appeal of language over storytelling?

>>24836509
That sentence is outlining how prose and plot are connected. If you have shit prose (clunky grammar, out of place style, tedious sentences), then you suck at storytelling. You are objectively failing at using language to lay out the story.

That has nothing to do with “quality of story = quality of prose”, the point is there is no story without the prose. The prose IS the storytelling.

I was not taking issue with that original post, where do you see a disagreement? You are just profoundly illiterate.

>>24835148
tolkien is pure reddit

As long as they're not woke stemlords write better books than litfags.

>>24836594
Dishonest

>>24836662
t. Illiterate

I accept your concession. By the way, you ever figure out what prose means?

>>24835148
Why the fuck does everyone recommend Emily Willis' translation of Homer? Why is this a thing? Academics I understand, but tiktok whores have the same opinion. How do they seriously enjoy that over the rest?

Literature written after WW2 is almost uniformly cowardly, derivative of better and more original prewar authors (just try to count all the ersatz Célines and Eliots, if you can) and practically the cultural equivalent of chronic erectile dysfunction.

>>24836667
>I accept your concession
this petty hindu shit is tiresome

The last novelist of any talent whatsoever to come out of England is Mary Shelley

>>24835148
English poetry is weak sauce. Which sucks because it is a beautiful language, with better translations of other poems than it's own originals.

>>24836878
Kind of true, but I enjoy a little bit of Mccarthy's nihilism, rest throw it in the trash.

>>24836899
Checked

>>24835370
Tolkien is a romantic, the last one, ushering forth the weird fic era.

>>24835148
Shelly's Frankenstein was emo garbage.

>>24837226
We don't do that retard shit here.