Prose

Okay sure, but Faulkner is more talented, by far, as a writer, and who, in my opinion, carries deeper themes with him. Themes of family and society that run deep through America's veins.

>

>I'd also add that this type of writing (simple language, short sentences) has been promoted since that time with the intention of lowering the quality of fiction.

"Isn't there anything we can do about it?"

She was sitting up now. My arm was around her and she was leaning back against me, and we were quite calm. She was looking into my eyes with that way she had of looking that made you wonder whether she really saw out of her own eyes. They would look on and on after every one else's eyes in the world would have stopped looking. She looked as though there were nothing on earth she would not look at like that, and really she was afraid of so many things.

"And there's not a damn thing we could do," I said.

---

Come on, that's not so bad. You would be really bored about how he could have gone on and on about his relationship with Brett, but that sums it up in what I think is a very smart use of space. It gives you everything you need to know about the speaker and his love interest without having to read some bullshit flashback or something.

No, Hemingway wasn't a perfect writer but length and description do not necessarily equal writing skill, and the ability to describe complex situations or interactions using common language is a skill.

"Read" it when I was 13 and pretentious af. Literally did not have a clue what was happening until Jason started talking lol

If you read as much as you're implying, you'd understand that great writers can do both and do it well. The argument that complex language is art for art's sake is a completely brainlet cop-out. Complex ideas call for complex language, and i doubt Hemingway could write even one paragraph as beautiful, thematically deep, or dense as every single one in Gravity's Rainbow or The Recognitions. He's not a bad writer, but you can't defend simplicity just because you can't understand books otherwise.

I used to like Hemingway quite a bit. Reading that passage reaffirmed my initial statement though. It's not that I think it's "bad" writing, it's just that it's basic, immune to complex thought, and appeals to a feminine mindset (despite this notion of Hemingway as a man's man) -- which, I'm arguing, is why it was so heavily promoted.

I didn't defend Hemingway I defended simple, precise language.
>Complex ideas call for complex language
no complex ideas call for complex writing (which is not the same thing)

That's what we're talking about and you know it. I'm not talking about big words, reddit, I'm talking about the language itself (in every way), there's a reason people like Hemingway who can't get even through a single Pynchon. It's easier to understand, and requires less work from the reader. That doesn't mean it's bad, or doesn't have a place in literature, but like I said, the best writers can do both. Hemingway can't.

I disagree. IMO, the worst parts of The Sun Also Rises are the parts where the speaker is transparently and at long sentence describing Hemingway's drunken off-days with some character that has no importance to the story.

I am not going to tell you how to think about literature, but what I previously posted has plenty of opportunities for complex thought before the payoff, which is:

"really she was afraid of so many things"

which I think has so many little angles to explore, as Brett to this point has never been shown to be a fearful person. Why is she afraid? etc. I mean that takes a little imagination.

Again, I am not here to tell you what great literature is or is not, but I will continue to oppose your position that short sentences and common language somehow lowers the bar for the quality of fiction.

I am the You here but I think you may be arguing with someone else on this matter because your post implies more than I said.

It's true that I'm not a fan of basic, short sentence structure writing though, at least not extensively, but I don't really care to argue about that specifically because the larger point I'm trying to get across here regards why that style became a movement that was taught almost universally afterward. I don't really care if you or anyone else thinks it's good or bad. I care that publishing companies and the academic writing establishment promoted it, and discouraged the opposite, to dumb down language and restrict the literary process by telling people to write short sentences and use simple vocabulary, and using Hemingway as the archetype of how to do that properly.

That's the beauty of Hemingway, son.

I get that he's a good writer but Sound and the Fury is boring

>immediately describes the most relevant things about a female character
What's the problem, exactly?

They're too different. Why compare?

based

Faulkner, but look at the pseuds in this thread jerking off to purple prose because muh complexity

>Purple prose
>Complexity

that's the joke

the pleb filter is working, then

For Hemingway, perhaps. Read Raymond Carver. He does it excellently.

Ah yes, the prose. The prooooooose. the PROOOOOOOSE. There's a reason why the pseuds on this website are always so willing to talk about "the prose" of a book when discussing its merits or flaws. Why attempt to analyze the merits and effects of the literary devices used to add to the development of characters, why attempt to understand the interplay of the perspectives of different characters and the emphasis this places on different themes, the spectrum of ironies used throughout the novel, the historical significance of the novel and the influence it has spawned in literary tradition or the influences seen throughout the work, the specific structure and literary underpinnings of the novel and the way it influences the tone, the author's relationship to the characters and the theme, the presentation of the novel itself to the audience and thus the relationship between reader and text --- why do any of this, when you could talk about "the prose?" You know that you have such a deep understanding of the book, don't you, when you talk about "the prose," the "musicality of it," the "sparseness." What a great artistic touch you have, don't you! Such a highly refined poetic sense! And you feel like such a true reader of literature when you are able to compare these styles: "I am partial to the lyricism of Joyce's prose, as well as the clean and scientific prose of Borges," you might say. What a deep understanding you show! Because the "prose" of a work is such an accessible topic, something that is felt immediately in the body and senses, a nice little sensation and flutter of the heart. Art obviously has nothing else to it, nothing other than the little sensations that I experience, because why should i attempt to understand it on a deeper level than this, when I have such a "refined" sense of the "prose?" Why even attempt to analyze the prose and the poetic and rhythmical underpinnings of it, when I could use a pretty little metaphor for it? It matters little that virtually every reader of literature has access to the music of the words and so my understanding is not quite to advanced as I would think, that form is something that goes hand in hand with theme, that I missed all the deep relationships between characters and between text and reader that existed in the work and that comprise a large part of the literary merit of the text, for my understanding of "the prose" shows such a mastery of language, a fine-tuned sense of the magical flow of the words! Having understood this work, I may as well move onto the next, the next bundle of pretty sensations to experience, the next bagfull of linguistic treats!

>and appeals to a feminine mindset
The "feminine mindset" as far as I understand is usually associated with purple prose.
The simple prose reflects a certain "I'm a tough guy, I have no feelings" attitude.

>I'm not talking about big words
Neither did the post suggest that.
> there's a reason people like Hemingway who can't get even through a single Pynchon
Where is your source of such insightful statistical knowledge?

>publishing companies and the academic writing establishment promoted it, and discouraged the opposite, to dumb down language and restrict the literary process
So we conspiracy theories now? Why would publishing companies want to "restrict literary process"?

>tfw Veeky Forums is once again confusing beautiful, lyrical prose that makes heavy use of assonance and consonance with "purple prose"

M8...

>conspiracy theories
There's no conspiracy here. You can look this information up and see for yourself who controls the publishing industry -- jews.

>Why would publishing companies want to "restrict literary process"?
I know you would like to believe that jews think just like you do and want what you want, but they don't. They want to dumb the public down because they view non-jews as potentially threatening cattle -- "goyim." Promoting dumbed down writing is one way they accomplish this goal.

Cormac and Hemingway shit on Faulkner, Proust, Joyce, and any other long winded fag who needs a lot of big words strung together to make no real point. Fuck poetic prose. When you kids get out of your community college creative writing course , and realize it was a waste of time, you will realize the beauty in compression and clarity of prose that cuts like a fucking diamond.

I like how everyone pretends they didnt get btfo by this post.

Also your flowery musical prose is cute and all until you realize you can just read actual poetry and get more out of it in 1/4th of the time.

tl;dr

saved

>There's no conspiracy here. You can look this information up and see for yourself who controls the publishing industry -- jews.

Aka, a conspiracy theorist. Get your head out of your arse crackpot.

>hears fact
>calls it conspiracy because fact involves jews
You've been taught well, shabbos goy.

this is pretty good prose