Why can't lit handle minimalism

why can't lit handle minimalism

honest question

because it involves a shred of self awareness that 99% of Veeky Forums doesn't even understand

Hemingway and "self awareness" do not belong in the same sentence, unless "had no" is between them

>one of the most revered authors of the past 100 years
>no let's shit on him because his prose weren't pretentious enough for me
>no i'm totally a better writer than him and have a better understanding of literature and the craft of writing than him
>yeah no yeah Hemingway totally sucks lol

ok. ok. wow. just... ok.

I like minimalism.

Memingway is trash though.

Hemmingway is just at his best in his short stories. His minimalist prose doesn't translate well into novels, for me. They're great books, but when even hardcore Veeky Forumss find them bland and boring there's a problem.

Quite a bit of supposition going on in your post friend

>“…American society, literary or lay, tends to be humorless. What other culture could have produced someone like Hemingway and not seen the joke?”

>ok. ok. wow. just... ok

user, can you LITERALLY NOT EVEN?

>prose weren't pretentious

>Joyce, writes Hemingway biographer James R. Mellow, “was an admirer of Hemingway’s adventurous lifestyle” and worried aloud that his books were too “suburban” next to those of his friend, of whom he said in a Danish interview, “he’s a good writer, Hemingway. He writes as he is… there is much more behind Hemingway’s form than people know.”

>Hemingway returned Joyce’s compliments, writing to Sherwood Anderson in 1923, “Joyce has a most god-damn wonderful book” and pronouncing Joyce “the greatest writer in the world.” He was “unquestionably… staggered,” writes Lynn, “by the multilayered richness” of Ulysses.

>James Joyce once remarked: "He [Hemingway] has reduced the veil between literature and life, which is what every writer strives to do. Have you read 'A Clean Well-Lighted Place'?...It is masterly. Indeed, it is one of the best short stories ever written..."

Hemingway and Joyce can see that both of their writing styles are worthwhile. So why can't Veeky Forums?

They were lovers, you can't take their appraisal of each other's work seriously.

The sexy kind or the literary kind?

How is that even remotely a justifiable critique

What a pseud

Because what infuriates bad, no talent writers more than anything is somebody who can do it simply.

I appreciate Hemingway's terseness, but I don't like how bland and lifeless his prose can feel. I could give a shit how much is between the lines if the lines themselves don't feel worth reading.

Take Salinger, for example. He left much between the lines, but his prose heavily adapts to whatever character is speaking or writing. It jumps off the page, while Hemingway's prose flops like a lifeless fish.

Lmfao pseud

Because minimalists are not interested in writing. They write about alcoholics getting divorces in small, dark rooms, and any work the piece is supposed to do comes not from its sentences but from this imagined human-interest piece about people whose lives suck who can't communicate.

>flops like a lifeless fish

Which is coincidentally a prominent image in his work

>his prose weren't pretentious enough

Salinger is an overly sentimental, daytime drama tv hack

>Le insecure no-dick manly man lumberjack fisherman beard guy.

Dropped.

Because it equates dense prose with literary athleticism and a sign Patrician-hood.
The overarching elitist ideology of /lit struggles to find value in clear direct writing.
Tl;dr: bunch of psudoes

I read Farewell to Arms and I thought it was terrible.

Ad hominem

Hands for best story

Because it lacks effervescence.

If I wanted to hear the heartfelt stories of people who take offense to multisyllabic words I'd go outside and actually make an effort at interacting with people.

But I want to experience the clever wordplay of an artist who can turn his phrases.

I don't speak Spanish

>admitting you're a brainlet
Well, at least that's a step in the right direction.

It takes time tbqh.

I read part of The Old Man and The Sea during school, thought it was garbage. I powered through The Sun Also Rises, thought most of it was garbage except for a couple sections, then I read For Whom the Bell Tolls later, thought it was incredible. At that point I started to understand and went through most of his major stuff and reread the stuff I disliked before.

Hemingway is patrician but it takes time to see the iceberg below the surface.

They drank together often right? At some bar or party didn't Joyce instigate fights before jumping behind Ernest's back, comanding -Deal with him Hemmingway!
Didn't that happen?
This looks like it was two lads shitposting in newspapers back in the day.
They equally distinguished authors though my dudes gnome sayin

>The old man was dreaming about the lions.

This is not a Literature board. It's a Linguistic Aesthetics board.

>Iceberg.

M'nigga.

I don't want to hear about the fucking iceberg. If I take a for sake of argument shitty photo of the tip of an iceberg, and you and I both know it's an iceberg and there's got to be more iceberg somewhere, the photo isn't suddenly not shitty because of something that isn't in it.

I think Hemmingway, in this analogy, takes very good photos, but I still don't want to look at a bunch of floating ice all day.

>ok. ok. wow. just... ok.
are you the "Holy... I want more..." guy?

it's outdated

You're outdated.

Veeky Forums, do you even Indian Camp?

I felt like Hemingway abandoned his own "iceberg" principles when he needed to. There are large swathes of For Whom the Bell Tolls that completely reject the iceberg theory. I don't think his whole shtick works unless the protagonist is le apathetic wanderer amid horrific surroundings.