'Writers go wrong, according to Coelho, when they focus on form, not content. "Today writers want to impress other writers," he told the paper. "One of the books that caused great harm was James Joyce's Ulysses, which is pure style. There is nothing there. Stripped down, Ulysses is a twit."'
What did he mean by this?
Other urls found in this thread:
That's he's a hack, a cretin and a pseud of course.
isnt it extremely embarrassing to be an anti-intellectual writer
I don't agree with him that Ulysses is like that.
But I see his overall point, and it's the same point DFW also had in one of his interviews. Some people are overly educated and are writing to impress other overly educated people, which is fine of course, but they shouldn't whine if most people find their stuff inaccessible or downright shit.
Or be like Gass who has style and content
>content
>actually just ideology
>ideology
>actually just religion
He infuriates the pretentious because he is correct
funny, his books have neither.
and he doesn't even come up with the damn PLOT himself.
I bet Twain, Orwell, and Hemingway are all just sick from this burn
Just today's?
Dickens, for example, is also like this.
his comment isnt anti-intellectual
Coelho´s literature is trash, but writers who think the best way of writing is doing it in the clearest way possible, with the least numbers of words possible, arent anti-intellectuals.
He is just accusing Joyce of being all style no substance.
>caring about anything uttered by this plebeian, worthless facebook quote-tier author
Yo, you mentioned one of my favourite books man :)
What y'all think of my review?
youtube.com
This man, in my country, he is nothing.
I disagree abo Ulysses. It's filled with content and if you fail to see that that's your own fault. Also Coelho has neither form, nor content that is remotely interesting in any way, so he should shut the fuck up.
Holy...I want more...
>There is nothing there. Stripped down, Ulysses is a twit
Well, you can't expect a fly to appreciate the Sistine Chapel either.
See da white man always be usin den big words so that normal people can't be reedin dem.
They don't rite reel shit about people from the community.
And they got all da prizes so us Latin American brothers can't get ahead
huehue hack
both true
>thinking form and content are separable when you're talking about words on a page.
Many Latin americans got the literature Nobel prize. Bolano would have gotten it had he not died of cancer so young in 2003.
Although they were all Spanish speakers, not Brazilians.
Orwell and Hemingway loved Joyce and Ulysses, Twain wasn't anti-intellectual but rather anti-moralist, a cynic.
-1000/10 post, try again.
There's nothing wrong, I don't think, about writing for other writers. Not necessarily to impress them, but for it to be kind of an exchange.
ideology ≠ idealism
I just finished the savage detectives.
It's great. Still most SA's in general are retards.
His books might be trash, but he's not wrong.
Form is IMMENSLY important in alluding to the point of the whole novel. Only stupid people can't figure out why authors experiment. It's essentially syntactic metaphor.
>implying content isn't an extension of form
The novel itself is a form. Why not tell your stories by calling people up on the phone?
The form/content duality is the dumbest argument in literature that only gets worse when big blubbering babies pretend that content is somehow the master category. "Plot" only arises from the arrangement of words in a text, that is, from the form. Come see me, Coelho.
I'd say it's a never ending tug of war between the moralists, who see writing as propaganda for the 'correct' social causes; the aesthetes who see it as an end to itself; and the expressionists, who aim for intensity and clarity of emotion and expression.
These aren't remotely separate categories, but they do tend to track at cross purposes.