Who was the overall better writer, Melville or Twain?

strawpoll.me/13613424

Both doing two different things

Melville.
yeah, two different things, one is writing better than the other. very easy.

I don't consider Twain to be a good writer at all, he was more like a movie maker. Good stories and characters but not an artist

One was a redpilled realist who wrote cool stories about floating on a river and having adventures.

the other wrote about whales being gay for each other.

>redpilled
>most famous story is about freeing a nigger

>t. Faggot who hasn't read anything other than cuck finn

What should I read then? His sci-fi?

>pleb who continued to read twain
jesus christ, user.

This. My gut impulse is to say Melville, but if we're talkin' pure literary invention, Twain fulfilled Whitman's American Child prophecy. Really it comes down to your axioms of "better," though I cringe at my choice of language.

He's got a lot of stuff written, but I personally recommend his short stories. If you're looking for a novel, try the prince and the pauper, friend.

>muh story about whales and two interracial faggots on a ship

Talk to me once you've read more than Moby dick, faggot.

Whitman's American Child prophecy?

>implying all other books in existence aren't just footnotes to Moby Dick
you just keep at it. you'll make it out of your mental rut some day.

>Melville only wrote Moby Dick

Bloom nuances this, but long story short, Whitman ushered in the first age of what could be called uniquely American literature. However, a lot of Whitman's signing was that he wasn't actually capable of doing so because he was too concious of it yada yada yada. And if you read Whitman yeah it reads like a "Made in America" self-advertisement. Rather, Whitman spoke of their being a spring of American writers (though lbr Uncle Walt really wanted modern day Homeric Bards) who would be rugged/individualistic/capable of tapping into and making high art out of the average laymen's American experience. I think the case could be made that Twain is the fulfillment of this ideal, especially when read against Cooper/Hawthorne/Melville/Poe/other early Americans who were essentially derivative of the English literary temperament. But if I'm being intellectually honest this might just be a post-hoc attribution because Twain was Americas first literary celebrity. But he changed the American literary landscape nonetheless.

shut up fag

Kys retard. Why don't you go do a bunch of whip-its until you suffocate.

Quality posts.

an interesting post, thank you for taking the time to share. i'm not sure i disagree with your assessment that twain fulfilled this prophecy, though, i would still call melville the superior writer, just as a matter of preference, not necessarily by any metric than that.

I'm too busy fucking your mom, m8

Good post.

'splain to me how this is a footnote to Moby D

>t. Dumbass undergrad

>twainlets

Hope you enjoy aids you faggot. Let that bitch take you to the grave.

>this thread

Why must we hurt each other so

Shut the fuck up, faggot

>Twain's literary offspring: Vonnegut Jr., Stephen King
>Melville's literary offspring: Gaddis, Pynchon, Theroux, Barth, Nabokov, Steinbeck, and on and on...
We all know who the winner is here. Twain. Love me dat Dark Tower series.

10/10 shit post.

>Making fun of a Jew
You're a character straight out of Ulysses LOL

thanks bro. i used almost a fourth of my potential.

>Bloom nuances this...
Please don't repeat what you've been told by this jewish fraud pretending to be a figurehead for white literature on here ever again, capiche?

go back to your containment board

Write something semi-original.

Melville. Twain was good but he didn't make a single book as good as Moby Dick.

Melville.

Bartleby is one of the best characters in literature.

>Melville
>derivative of the English literary temperament

What the fuck

>Twain was good but he didn't make a single book as good as Moby Dick.

And? Twain was more consistent. Melville wrote only one decent book, the rest were forgettable.

Faulkner

So you've read them. I'm relieved that you're not talking about a writer's oeuvre without knowing the second thing about it, nor those things following it. Though to be fair, one would have expected you to make mention of this second thing of his that has not been forgotten. Perhaps you really are as indelicate as to flap your ignorant mouth, then.