/lit/ - Literature

taking the words of a critic seriously, someone who can't write, is bad enough
critiquing the words of a critic is

complete the sentence

>>21269275
>>21269270
this is a very gay thing to waste mental energy on

>>21269284
stuffing an ass filled with shit with more shit

>>21269284
wiping your ass until it bleeds and then
proceeding to wipe some more

>>21269284
jamming yourself with a hot poker because all your friends think its a good idea

>>21269298
Look, I understand you're annoyed with the irony of this person, who clearly likes to hear themselves talk, calling some very normal prose "overwritten", but I'm sure what we're expected to do with this information.

>>21269284
Based

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269293
>>21269298


this is absolutely the critique writer of all time

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269284
>>21269289
>>21269293
>>21269296
>>21269298
>>21269299
>>21269308
>>21269313
>>21269320
>>21269344
t. woman

>OP tapped the penis against the edge of his lips to dislodge the pat of rich white semen. It slid across the warm rose lips with a moan, slicking the flesh as it went, and disappeared into the bottomless gullet of a ravenous homosexual cockslurper

she is right, you know

>>21269408
This.
It's an empty sentence dressed in fancy clothing. A polished turd.

>>21269452
>Empty sentence
It's giving you more context about what's important to the character.

>>21269270
Does this reviewer at least breakdown why it's terrible instead of just doing the reddit thing of never explaining their reasoning?

>>21269270
This is actually fine writing. I like having a wordy book, sometimes. The critic must be a fucking whore that cannot even cook macaroni; and the noodles all stick to each other and to the bottom of the pan when she does it; and her dog is busy trying to stuff his face into her bleeding snatch, which she has barely covered with the thinnest, most sheer yoga pants that she could find in her closet, while she cries over the onions; and is, in general, a big time cunt. Raggedy, with a series of small holes where the Labrador's hot breath flutters as a light finger the folds of her labia, the pants did her no favors. She was the type of woman whose mashed potato body somehow looked worse under fabric that left nothing to the imagination, for it was, in reality, a nightmare kind of flesh.


I wonder if that was good?

>>21269408
>>21269408
No, she is not right. It is literally just somebody's subjective opinion. I thought it was fine writing. If that is all you get from the book, then I could see the reader getting tired of it. But if it is a good book, then the reader will be happy to have more expose on teh subsequent rereads, for the reader wants to spend time with his beloved characters, even if trashy female critics don't like what the author has done. Also, niggers fucking stink.

>>21269298

Absolutely based. All (((food critics))) “foodies,” and Instagram/ Pinterest foodfaggots need to be shot. I already eat with my mouth, I need not also eat with my mind and my eyes. Death to all fatties.

>>21269270
Semi illiterate person discovering that not everything is a simple language page turner #1341341

>>21269408
>>21269452
using as few words as possible is not an accomplishment and touting it as some sort of objective correct analysis is flat out braindead

>>21269270
Why do I care about opinions of people I don't know nor care about?

>>21270106
That's not what I said. Purple prose is bad prose because the words serve no purpose. It's the very definition of pretentious:
>attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
Big word don't make more gooder. That's not how it works.

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269293
>>21269298
didn't read

>>21270120
That entire sentence about purple prose is bad prose is fucking pretentious as shit. You should kys.

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269293
>>21269298
Wow, this guy is a moron.
What's the book, incidentally?

>>21270134
>y-you're a poopy head!

>>21270120
On purple prose:
According to Paul West, "It takes a certain amount of sass to speak up for prose that's rich, succulent and full of novelty. Purple is immoral, undemocratic and insincere; at best artsy, at worst the exterminating angel of depravity."

That has got to be the gayest, most pretentious bullshit that I have ever read. What a fucking clown. Immoral and undemocratic. wtf. These words do not apply to writing. When you have gotten to the point that you critique prose with words like undemocratic, or call it the exterminating angel of depravity, then it is time to leap off a bridge.

>>21270160
>critiques the concept of purple prose by saying someone's description of what it is was purple
Anon... I...

>>21270166
Yes, exactly. THe guy literally critiqued purple prose with the most purple fucking prose ever written. It is a circle loop of purple prose.

>>21270174
I would disagree that it's purple, because his word-choice served a purpose. He isn't using flowery language to describe a chair for no reason.
>undemocratic
Meaning its intent is to obscure and impress, rather than communicate.
It's like when some asshole uses jargon but what he's communicating is complete horseshit. People who don't understand the jargon are tricked into believing he's a genius, when really he's just an asshole con man.
>exterminating angel of depravity
This is a metaphor to communicate that it is decadent, depraved, self-serving and destroys art.
>at best artsy
The unartistic may confuse the empty metaphor for 'good prose' and this empty poetry will come to replace poetry with meat/substance, thus destroying it, like an "exterminating angel of depravity".
Metaphor is not purple, but metaphor for the sake of metaphor with the intent to impress is.

>>21270120
Then what's the purpose of writing with any technique or prose? May as well be reading a technical manual.

>>21270205
You're thinking in a false binary.
Just because
>big word don't make more gooder
That doesn't mean
>small word do make more gooder
It's about intent. WHY are you using the words that you use? To impress with flowery language and verbosity? Then you're a shit writer.
There has to be an underlying meaning that you wish to express with your word-choice. If there is no meaning they are just empty words for the sake of words. You might as well write
>HFgdshk HDFJK LBFDBBSDfd FdHJLdsfjhdHdfs
for 1000 pages and it would mean the same damn thing.

>>21270203
You would disagree that his prose is purple, and that is fine. I would say that this just adds weight to the idea that understanding what is purple is only subjective. I thought it was too much - especially so when you consider what the man is trying to say and then look at how he is actually saying it.

>>21270232
What's your threshold for this? How do you define it? How do you know if it's purple prose or not? The reality just seems like this is a cope for writers who can't bear to write beyond a sixth grade reading level. It's a banal and trite criticism. My writings are usually wordy like this because I want something to breathe and feel. Not write a boring marvel movie of a book.

>>21270241
No, it isn't.
Purple prose is when the underlying meaning is shit/non-existent.
>she was cooking
That's what the sentence means. No amount of flowery language changes this. No deeper meaning was communicated. It's a waste of words to dress it up and a waste of the readers' time. It's a painted pig. The only purpose it serves is to trick people into thinking it is good prose.
>>21270250
When your word choice serves a purpose. When the word choice enhances the meaning rather than obscures the fact that there is no deeper meaning.

>>21270120
Something not being straight to the point minimalism does not mean its purple prose.

Purple prose is highly subjective, a critical term meant to apply to inept descriptions often using words they dont fully understand. If descriptive, ornate and/or poetic prose by defintion is purple prose then most of the classic cannon is purple prose bullshit while bestseller thrillers and ya are the pinnacle of literature

>>21270271
Already been over this >>21270232

>>21270265
Okay, and I think that Paul West's prose about purple prose was non-existent and shit. It did not convey anything that you then brought up in your post. It is completely subjective, and I wish you a good day.

She was cooking, is not what the sentence means. That is very simplistic. It was a good explanation of what was happening while she cooked. IT was absolutely fine. I have never even heard of purple prose before now, and I certainly know why. It is pretentious douche shit. The worst of the worst. The atomizing badger of my asshole, linking up with spottengottem and Paul West.
Anyways, I just disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

>>21270284
Enjoy your painted pigs.

>>21270287
Yes, I do.
Enjoy technical manuals and stories about teen vampires.

>>21270241
Not that anon, but I disagree with you even after your arguments and it's now very clear that there are tiers to "purple prose", and that the more nuanced and subtle you are at deceiving the "experienced" with "good" writing, the more pretentious you often are. If all reading beyond the technical is for the validity of reading comfort, then it's relative to who the audience is, what the context is about, and how the author attempts to manipulate his reader to believe him. Purple prose is just a tier system for haughtiness and conceited behavior veiled through the mask of writers authenticity. Pathetic.

It really is bad writing, though. This just seems like it's padding the page count. It doesn't even have a tone nor is it evocative of anything.

It's very easy to be descriptive. I'm sure any moron on /lit/ can write two full pages of cooking visuals. But can you actually say something thematically relevant to the story and hold the reader's attention for those pages?

>>21270265
>That is what this sentence means
Holy shit. No. It shows HOW she cooks, why she's doing it and the juxtaposition of the more homey feeling with the apocalyptic setting throughout the rest of the book. That's good writing.

>>21270300
I can agree with all of that. Yes, there are tiers to purple prose. But, holy shit, anon, all the rest of that stuff is too deep. Others might call what you wrote haughty, egotistical.
I actually think I get it. I try to write, and I have written two books so far, but I am always trying to explain something to the reader, or further the story, or give a description of some person of thing, and I can see teh issue with diving into language that does not help with those goals.
I agree that it is a tiered system. That is what I mean by subjective. I mean, some people don't like certain writing styles. Apparently, people shit on JK Rowling for her use of so many adverbs. But other people just wanted to read about gay wizards, so maybe the use of too many words ending with LY didn't really matter to those people.
I dont know. HOnestly, I don't know. I have read a lot of stuff, and I think that a lot of it might have been filled with bad prose. At the very least, it makes me look at my own writing with a more introspective eye.

Clearly, it seems as if people have disagreements about what good writing looks like.

>>21270232
>WHY are you using the words that you use? To impress with flowery language and verbosity?
Maybe because I actually want to write something beyond a sixth grade level? I want to write something that lives and breathes. Simplifying it down is boring and uninteresting. You're simply assuming the worst of the author.

>>21270329
>juxtaposition of the more homey feeling with the apocalyptic setting throughout the rest of the book. That's good writing.
Fair enough, then. This is the trouble with dealing with an excerpt of this length. With added context there might be a meaning behind the word-choice.
But the very fact that you say that it's good writing because it actually means something is my whole point.

>>21270378
Again, just because
>big word don't make more gooder
That doesn't mean
>small word do make more gooder
This is similar to the quote
>"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
Yes. Use big words when they're necessary, be poetic, use metaphor, don't be simple, but don't do it because you're afraid of looking dumb or childish. That's childish.
>Maybe because I actually want to write something beyond a sixth grade level?

>>21270332
I don't browse /lit/, this thread appeared on the front page. Though I think writing is for middling people who aren't very capable cognitively in other skill fields, so they often use literature as a way to navigate societal perspective for their own beliefs on personal "success", wherein they already have very little otherwise for themselves, and are usually hollow personalities if they do not hold capabilities in said other skillsets. A physicist writing about physics, to expand his hypothesis, or explain sacred mathematical foundations - that is okay because he is creating actual idea, and translating them from mind to paper for a true reason, not this excessive masturbation framed within what is good writing, or bad. Hollow, insincere writing agitates many authors to the point that they develop insecurity, persecution complexes, and egotistical standards by which they filter competition and the "subpar" within their self-serving, self-defined human hierarchies, which subsist rent free in their small minds, lest they would crumple like paper upon any slight aggression, perceived or otherwise. Writing hierarchy holds similar shallowness to most other hierarchies found in normative human thinking, and real genuine input and output of something is usually very insular communally, not commoditized like this bastardization of thought we see now.

My post may seem like mean spirited arrogance, and we are just shitposting, but it is this personal observation about writing that is the foundation of my contempt - that all writers who engage in masturbatory publishing, outside the scope of furthering tangential fields, are solely writing for the purpose of external commendation, not personal self fulfillment. They are mutually exclusive ideals, and they always will be.

>>21270454
redditor faggot
you're a bugman with no soul

>>21270454
You said a lot, friend. I agree with the end, that writing solely for the purpose of external commendation is not good. I wrote because I have always wanted to, but was never sure if I could actually do it - as in, write a full story and not just give up somewhere in the middle. It was a very fun experience, and I will continue to do it. As you say, it was self fulfillment.

>>21270454
/lit/ absolutely BTFO
You deserve this image more than me >>21270146

>>21269298
>retard thinks a pan has to be 5000 degrees to make butter melt
>retard doesn't know cast iron pans are nonstick
>retard speaks for the entire population and assumes they all imagine butter the exact same way
>retard thinks a "tangle" of onions would make sense visually without the qualifier of being thinly sliced

>retarded thread attracts retards who make retarded arguments about how many words a writer can use
i honestly hate all of u

>>21270300
>>21270454
So you dont read books but you enjoy writing paragraphs about what you think literature is and how authors think.

>Though I think writing is for middling people who aren't very capable cognitively in other skill fields, so they often use literature as a way to navigate societal perspective for their own beliefs on personal "success", wherein they already have very little otherwise for themselves, and are usually hollow personalities if they do not hold capabilities in said other skillsets.
You dont like writing so you feel threatened by writing being a skill and you think thats justified solely because its not a stem subject? As if your insinuation that writing is for people with no other options because theyre so woefully inept in every other aspect of life wasnt idiotic enough on its own youre telling me youve never heard of any the countless writers who excelled in other fields? How do you manage to even think something as stupid as that?

Your "point" about how writing fiction with no particular goal is solely something people do to be praised is mindblowingly retarded. Many authors spend their entire lives writing, only publishing a handful of books. Its a very lonely and praiseless excercise for the vast majority of writers. And if you really think all art exists because the artist wanted approval calling you a midwit would be undue praise.

The attempts at observation in your dumpsterfire of a paragraph end up being even more inane and useless than the guy who said every word without the express purpose of being as concise as possible commits the crime of being Purple Prose and that really is saying something.

Your writing style makes you come off as an esl stemfag with a chip on his shoulder, desperate to come off as mature and well reflected but hopelessly shallow and out of his depth. Or maybe you just have the reasoning ability of an austic teenager.

Dont bother blabbering any further just go be retarded somewhere else.

>>21270097
Some of my favorite restaurant review books are written by a Jew, or at least edited by one. The talent to make an excellent restaurant sound like heaven on earth and a terrible one to sound like inedible, horrible-tasting food is not something everyone can do. Go to any Yelp page and you'll find someone bitching about the lack of gluten free options or not accepting an expired coupon.

>>21269293
THE PAN WAS MAKING HIM STUPID

>>21269270
His critique is shit but he is right about it being terrible writing.

>>21270454
>https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Rede-lecture-2-cultures.pdf

pls

melvillebros...we got too cocky

>>21269452
Writing it like that places you in the experience of the thing which is a great tactic for building a scene. If Every sentence is like that then you have a problem, but it sounds like guy got filtered

>>21269270
There's this book database site, kinda like goodreads, that people use in the country I live in. Reviews are always there at the bottom of the page, just like on goodreads. The most popular reviewer of this site, the top reviewer of practically every major book about history and belles-lettres that comes out in my language is this guy who is like the living caricature of the smug, bourgeois shitlib, imagine the smarmiest fucking guy you can think of with the most sanctimonious tone in the universe with the absolute most basic bitch views an upper-middle class urbanite could possibly have. Like I can handle basic bitch bougie shitlibs, I can handle smarminess, and I can handle sanctimoniousness, but this guy somehow mixes all three together and it's like the most irritating combination I've ever seen online. The worst thing is that I can't even block this guy because that requires a premium subscription and usually I like to read the more interesting reviews so I can't even avoid this retard.

>>21269270
>People are so infantilized
>Gets angry at a book review

>>21271031
/thread

>>21271030
Smarmy isn't the right word now that I looked up what it exactly means, but it's like, this tone that pingpongs between extremely self-confident smugness and the gravest, most serious tone of righteous indignation? People probably know what I mean.

>>21269395
kek

>>21270894
You clearly did not understand his point because you are arguing things that the poster was alluding. Impulsive misreading is the death of /lit/ lmao.

>>21269270
I totally agree with him. That passage is a bore and is completely pointless. Why do so many of you defend it?

>>21269270
If I see the following

1. Boring
2. Too wordy
3. Nobody is likeable

I know they got filtered

>>21271151
i cant really say for sure without the context of the passage, but passages like that are great when used correctly. it can be used to establish a scene by fully immersing the reader in a specific moment/setting,which would then be used as a foundation for the rest of the scene. the problem would be if all of the following text is equally wordy, then it becomes too much

>>21271145
i dont think you understood either post

>>21271191
I understood your post just fine bub, you were just beating up an imaginary argument lol.

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269293
>>21269298

STOP shilling this shit. You are a NONCE.

>>21270040
Took me on a ride there was fr immersed, good character establishment

>>21269275
If you cut out every superfluous element from storytelling, you'd be left with a list of bullet points. Everyone knows the enjoyment of a story is in its telling. I bet that reviewer thinks highly of abstract modern art.

>>21271820
well, NOW we open up a can of worms by asking what LANGUAGE actually is — at what point does a word become superfluous? how much information needs to be lexically encoded for a phrase to make sense? and where in the gaps between this 'content' and that 'form' does meaning / merit / beauty lie? but idk; & idm! i'll keep reading anyway. have fun with your thread.

>>21271236
you straight up failed to understand the exchange and inserted yourself with nothing to add to anything

>>21271151
Because it's higher level reading than a sixth grade.

>>21271001
>99% of modern readers would not bother finishing it
>wouldn't get published today
>wouldn't get a movie adaptation
>is not fit to be taught to 15 year old nitwits
All of these are good things.
This guy is a total spacker and the basis on which he evaluates a book is moronic

>>21269270
Why do recognise this? whats it from?

>>21271151
It brings a nice mental image and even adds some character, not through words but movement. It sets a scene. It flows really well, also.
Thinking prose should skimp out on details because you can't follow big words, have aphantasia and hate being challenged isn't parading for good writing. It's merely bringing your ego out there in an attempt to ruin everything else.

>>21270454
Pseud who got a B in high school english

>>21271151
Why do you think it's a bore?

>>21270131
yeah, we're on /lit/. that's a superfluous statement.

>>21270300
why the fuck are you on a literature board, dick breath?

>>21270454
you're indian. your opinion isn't valid anywhere

>>21270052
>I thought it was fine writing.
That's because you haven't cultivated any taste

>>21269275
>It doesn't need to be in the book
A book doesn't need to exist. A writer decides what he's going for and what he likes. The reader may or may not appreciate what the writer is trying to do. There is room for all sorts.

>furthering anything resembling a story
Ah yes, ticking off plot points is the totality of a story and literature is only plot points. In reality it is an aesthetic experience. The writer is guiding the reader's imagination to create it. And the writer decides what is furthering the story and not, because it is theirs. There are feelings and realisations and recollections that are beyond what simply understanding written information conventionally will give. Little things like that are most important because it is a different mode to simply conveying information in a narrow, low imagination way.

And I say all this while preferring minimalism. Because wading through bloat and pedantry stunts this process. And is often the other side of the coin of this failure of imagination. I dislike the writing in this but as I said, there is room for all sorts.

>>21270131
No, shit. You’re on /lit/ no one in this board reads.

>>21270454
>My post may seem like mean spirited arrogance
you fucking wish you had the ability to come off as arrogant
btw you write like a dead dog and you dont impress anybody by using more advanced language than youre actually comfortable with

>>21271030
Are you talking about babelio?

>>21270300
Unless you have a categorical ranking of how prose can be purple, and why. I'm being pedantic, but to say there are "tiers" is more definitive than saying there are "degrees." It's all a verbal metaphor, though abstract, but degrees is more nuanced. No one talks about 180 tiers of something. They frequently reference degrees when they talk about things in miniscule amounts.

I.e. this fulfills my criteria of purple prose because it is X Y Z. But, a nuanced reading and critique of prose itself I think requires more than one example, and a steadied explanation WHY. Let's not pretend it's self-evident to the reader. If their sense of prose is cultivated to your criticism you're only writing to explain their opinion back to them, which people largely tend to like.

>>21270300
>verbosity
>prolixity
Communication involving more than one standard deviation of IQ becomes incommensurable. There are many for whom all erudition regardless of quality will be purple/word salad inane (for them). Then there are the truly middling recapitulating the same, but worshiping 'challenging' material without having the discernment to judge its quality one way or the other, totally uncritical. Then you have conflicting taste and sensibility added to the mix. It's all contested and a hodgepodge of types. One can possess a facsimile of good style and composition, but those guide rails are limited by the quality of the thinking and wealth of imagination of the author.
>>21270454
>I think writing is for middling people who aren't very capable cognitively in other skill fields
'Literacy' we're speaking of is holistic, philosophical, and bores down to individual character and the capacity for self-reflection. The inadequate writer is at least exploring where your Physicist - and STEMcels of his ilk - will always be tempted to opine from ignorance beyond his specialization for psychological maintenance/economy.

>>21275456
McCarthy is a standard bearer for defective purple prosody, if only for the high contrast his otherwise laconic and passable passages provide. The Purple is as invasive and intrusive as television/radio advertisements interrupting the flow of a drama being broadcast or worse, a conversation -- a word and turn of phrase out to suggest itself from out of the Muse, not the author's logorrhoeic peccadilloes and syntactic sleights of hand full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

>>21269270
>People are so infantilized
Then why are you mad at books reviews that don't affect you?

>>21269270
>>21269275
>>21269293
>>21269298
Fucking BTFOd! Based Critic.
>>21270621
>>retard thinks a "tangle" of onions would make sense visually without the qualifier of being thinly sliced
So why not omit the qualifier? Just admit it's bad writing.

>>21276168
This doesn't even make any sense. Logically there's no way that a tangle of onions makes any sense without it being thinly sliced.

>>21276610
Again: So why not omit that it is thinly sliced?

>>21269298
I hope this fellow is shot dead

>>21276876
Why?

>>21277515
Because his criticisms make him sound like he's a Robot, who cares if a description is wordy? The implication with that is normally that it's too long and repeats itself, his proposed "fixed" sentence is noticeably different, and worse, and he has a smug attitude that, even when i read points that i would agree with, still makes me think of the author as a self-righteous dickhead.

>>21276855
…ESL?

>>21276855
Because then the passage makes no sense.

>>21270040
holy kek

>>21269284
Criticism is inherently Jewish anyways so who cares. There is one, unique transcendent moral standard that's a universal law