Who's more right here, /lit/? Does using dictionary words instantly make you a better writer, or is it better if the words make you have feelings in their simplicity?
Communication is key. Both are fine, it's the eyes reading the words that matters most.
I prefer Faulkner, given my trip, but separating my partiality from the matter, I'm still leaning towards Faulkner's side. While you don't need complex words to illustrate most things, there are some ideas or concepts that only a complex word or complex words could address.
Anatole France, a fellow Nobel laureate, also searched for the mot juste, or the right word. He may have sent some of his readers to the French dictionary, but that's a little discomfort to the fluidity of his prose because he sought that right word.
Faulkner, as manifested in TSATF, uses complex words to complement the personality of the person he writes about. Benjy or Jason never used highly complex words, but the genius Quentin used them a lot.
Besides, Hemingway's prose tends to be a little repetitive. This is most manifest in his longer works.
Hemingway won because he consciously set up a dialectic, presumably with a sly smirk, with that reply.
Faulkner's accusation was petty and a shitpost. Hemingway doesn't really care but says the exact opposite of Faulkner just to set up the dialectic and meme the spat. He's in the grave and still is fucking with all of you.
>>7913378
I read that it was Hemingway who looked to create a spat with Faulkner. Faulkner was often gracious and quiet, but he replied to Hemingway's consistent jibes. This is from what I read.
Hemingway had an inferiority complex, because a lot of critics during their time ranked Faulkner as the great American writer with him either next, or below Thomas Wolfe.
>>7913378
Hemingway's response was a non-sequitur. Faulkner never said anything about "big emotions".
>>7913410
This is a discussion for non-autistic people.
>>7913415
Nice try, but OP never specified a discussion criterion on the basis of cognitive orientation.
>>7913415
You are autistic if you actually believe Faulkner thought that big emotions come from big words.
>>7913378
I agree, Hemmingway won the battle, Faulkner the war when wrote canonical works that shit on Hemmingway's men magazine tales.
>>7913434
OP's here, anything's fine, just as long it's about this word exchange or about Faulkner or Hemingway.
they're both shit
american "literature" is a joke
>yfw the best american author of all time was just a whale autist
>yfw the second best american author was a russian expat
>>7913451
Usual fish not biting today m8? No need to be desperate.
>>7913461
>has nothing to say
>HURR DURR B8
>probably hasn't even read more than 2 books by any author discussed here
>>7913451
I think the fact that the body of American literature exceeds that of any other single nation is a difficult one to dispute credibly.
>>7913465
You are 100% correct good sir. The only Hemmingway I've read is the Old Man and the Sea, Moby Dick's my only Melville and Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying's the only Faulkner I've read. Bravo!
>>7913480
t. monoglot american
as a fellow monoglot american: you're retarded
>>7913486
so why are you pretending you know anything about the topic?
at least you're willing to admit it so props to you for that. now get off /lit/ and go read a book faggot.
>>7913488
>t. self-hating muh heritage france/russiaboo
Faulkner was bruised about having to make a living adapting screenplays of Hemingway's work.
They're both great and still not as great as their biggest admirers think.
>>7913488
Is there a nation you're thinking of and can't manage to yank out of your ass?
>>7913480
>>7913498
american literature is read, overwhelmingly, in america. british, german, russian, and to a lesser extent, french and italian literature, is read in a much larger number of countries. france used to be more prominent but took a big dive as its influence waned.
i wouldnt say they're necessarily "greater" than american lit by whatever subjective standard you want to apply, but in terms of volume (absolute number of "canonical" works, as well as number of readers/reach of readership), most old european traditions exceed american lit.
>>7913510
Did it really take almost five whole minutes to think "there's more books in europe, therefore better literature?"
I'd be embarrassed m8
>>7913510
You're kidding yourself. Even with their head start, no European country rivals the United States' body of literature, and certainly no one has kept up in the last century.
>>7913510
This.
Nobody reads "To Kill a Mockingbird" outside Seppoland.
Americans are truly delusional about their literature. They're living in a bubble.
>>7913480
>what is England
>>7913532
Tally 'em up.
>>7913539
England has some great writers and great works. Not as many, though. Although my favorite writer was English.
>>7913540
Looks to me like American literature dominates every line of that graphic, is tied in a couple.
>>7913540
>American based Anglo phone site picks a lot of American and British books
Gee didn't see that coming.
>>7913554
That list was compiled by the retards here on /lit/.
>>7913554
38/100 are American novels. You've got a point, at about 40% of the classics in there, that's a substantial number. I included Nabokov, since he's also American.
>>7913568
/lit/ is also very dissociated of what actually passes for good, or at least influential, literature in the real world. The majority of the books on the chart are respected but the chart is woefully parochial.
>>7913480
Kekus maximus
>>7913540
Here's a more objective list - Queneau's top 100 based on a survey of dozens of authors and critics:
http://thegreatestbooks.org/lists/165
Not an American author to be found.
>>7913573
Well, France wouldn't even make it into the discussion. I presume the man in your picture is laughing about getting away with ripping off better thinkers while on amphetamines.
>>7913581
Then it's a shitty list to console the butthurt. Enjoy it.
>>7913581
>"In the early 1950s Raymond Queneau asked several dozen French authors and critics to list the hundred books they would choose if they had to limit themselves to that number."
Pfft.
>>7913589
That's mich better methodology
I mentioned this in an earlier thread but it'd be much better to poll people who can somehow demonstrate they've read more than 1000 books or whatever arbitrary cutoff for a.top 50/100 list than asking 100 illiterates for a top 3.
>>7913585
I'm just giving you the facts, dude. Only Americans read American "literature". It's considered trash in the rest of the world.
>>7913583
While you Americans are busy trying to come up with just one "great American novel", Ronsard alone is worth more than the sum of your entire body of literature.
>>7913592
In Philosophy, poetry, prose:
>Nabokov
>Faulkner
>Plath
>Hemingway
>Steinbeck
>Fitzgerald
>Pound
>Ashbery
>DeLillo
>Searle
>Pynchon
>Hass
>Chomsky
>Bloom
>Danielewski
>Kuhn
>Sontag
>DFW
>Church
>Kleene
>Quine
>Carnap
>Gödel (immigrant)
>Eliot (emigrant)
???
>>7913608
Don't bother responding, he's probably just upset about American cultural dominance of his country
>>7913592
Maybe by people like you who care more about nationality and anti-americanist ideology than actual literary merit, but every single legitimate modern critic has recognised American literature and poetry. The few who have been French enough not to have been ruthlessly bagged out by their peers.
>>7913608
Nobody said anything about philosophy, anon. In philosophy, the Americans are among the greatest in the world. In literature, not so much.
>>7913612
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
4/10 bait. Try harder.
>>7913612
Half of those mentioned are purely literary figures.
>>7913611
You're the nationalist here. I'm just a messenger puncturing your self-delusional bubble with some harsh truth.
>>7913619
I'm not an American m8, and you're starting to sound really tryhard here.
>>7913618
No shit, Sherlock. The literary figures you mentioned - Plath, Delillo, et al - are not considered giants outside of the United States. In contrast, the American philosophers you mentioned - Quine, Church, et. al. - are legitimately world-dominating. Do I need to keep repeating myself?
>>7913617
Let me guess - you are clinically retarded, right?
American literature has trailed behind Europe for most of its history, but since WWI it's clearly been at the forefront of every major movement in English literature. Anybody who denies either knows very little about English language literature or is deeply troubled by the political implications of the United States not just being the most powerful nation on earth militarily and economically, but also culturally and intellectually.
Regardless, said denier doesn't have a particularly valuable opinion about art since he judges it based on his personal politics rather than artistic merit, and he should be mocked for his embarrassing and ignorant opinions which would get him laughed out of every reputable university on the planet.
>>7913622
^ Wow, classic case of projection right here.
>>7913631
This is accurate, but you could probably count the number of worthwhile English-language literary movements after WWI on one hand.
>>7913339
>dictionary words
You mean two dollar words? Even simple words are in the dictionary.
>>7913372
>Anatole France, a fellow Nobel laureate
You're not a Nobel laureate.
>>7913651
You know what I mean, my man. Like Faulkner said.
>>7913339
>Does using dictionary words instantly make you a better writer
Using them properly makes you a better writer. There is nuance in words. The difference is wielding them with precision rather than using words like a blunt object.
Big words are out of fashion now and for a good reason. People want voice in their stories, which means not using words popular in the 19th century or that you found in a philosophy textbook. Unless your narrator is John Stuart Mill.
From all the writing in workshops and in amateur stories that I've read one of the biggest problems is using big complex words. Even in non-fiction this is an issue.
It always sounds ridiculous and out of place in just about any narrative. These people kill rhythm, consistency and character so they can sound like clever writers. They say they love words but they have no feel for how our language works.
I never get it. I assume most of them must only read 100-year-old fiction and have just come out of doing a degree or some shit. Embarrassing stuff.
>>7913656
>Big words are out of fashion now and for a good reason
Both made great art and I think that shows writing is a diverse and great medium
>>7913660
He's right to an extent. If you write your sweeping panorama of modern life like you're Victor Hugo then you're going to be laughed out of town.
It's more than acceptable in non-fiction though, unless its mass-market journalism or the like. There's a reason people invent complex terms, to express complex ideas.
>>7913665
Because the average American has the reading level of a 9th grader.
>>7913625
I'm not really interested in how the artists are "considered", I'm interested in their actual performance. The fact of the matter is that most of the world has tanked for the past ~50 years (during the postmodern era) with extremely few notable exceptions, namely Bolaño, Eco, and with a stretch Calvino. For this reason, The UK and continental europe's taste in literature past 1950 means very little to me. Meanwhile America has enjoyed a wealth of postmodern authors and two generations of New York School poets, so it's really just sour grapes on their part if they choose to ignore us.
I'd like to add that it's myopic to not list Eliot, Pound, Whitman, Nabokov or Faulkner, let alone Ashbery, as not ranking among the so-called "giants" of modern literature. Give me a break.
>>7913670
Only a tiny amount of literature outside the US actually gets translated. What are you basing your judgment that "the rest of the world has tanked" on?
>>7913667
Because it's appropriate to write in the dialect of your reader.
Shakespeare's plays weren't highfaluting mind-bending dissertations at the time of their composure. He wrote them with the peasantry's dialect in mind and even indulged in crude humor.
By your standards the Greeks and Romans were fucking retards. Get a grip.
>>7913682
>What are you basing your judgment that "the rest of the world has tanked" on?
What are you basing your judgement that "America has tanked" on?
>Only a tiny amount of literature outside(from?) the US actually gets translated.
Because pretty much everyone speaks basic English now, dingus. Absolutely nothing gets translated of contemporary British literature because there's nothing to read. As if anyone wanted to read a translation of Gravity's Rainbow anyway.
>>7913689
I'm not the anon saying the US had tanked, I just thought you were too hasty in trashing the rest of the world. I meant that very little literature from other languages gets translated and published in the US, so it's harder to know what is being done elsewhere.
>>7913705
So what *is* being done elsewhere? Enlighten us.
American literature is well known to be inferior - ask anyone.
>>7913730
[citation needed]
>>7913581
>http://thegreatestbooks.org/lists/165
The problem with french is that they're so god damn proud of their culture, even today, this list is a sham, i've seen a few other french lists and they place their authors WAAY up at the top and leave everyone else in the dust.
It honestly upsets me a bit, how biased they are
>>7913339
To get back on topic: I think that they're both right to an extent. A big word is not inherently more valuable simply because it is larger or more specific, but when used correctly, that extra specificity that it provides can be all the difference.
In short, it doesn't matter whether the word is big or small - it matters if it's the "right" word.
>>7913766
The list includes authors from a wide range of countries. Just no Americans, since no American author met the standards of inclusion in the top 100.
>>7913778
Because of France's overweening insecurity over America's cultural impact on their country, their squealing about which is well-documented, plus the fact that without us they'd all be speaking German.
>>7913778
As someone with no stance in your conversation - that list is laughable.
>>7913766
>>http://thegreatestbooks.org/lists/165
Shakespeare, Plato, Tolstoy, Rousseau, Aeschylus
>It honestly upsets me a bit, how biased they are
Are you just upset not to see the authors you like, or upset of not knowing great authors such as Montaigne, Racine, and Pascal?
>>7913792
Yeah, way too many mcdonalds in France, plus the French are getting fat too.
>>7913802
I will never understand what the French see in Racine, or Moliere, or Voltaire's plays.
>>7913795
Let me see: Raymond Queneau versus a random teenager posting on 4chan... uh yeah, I'm going to stick with Queneau.
>>7913828
Trusting what you're told to trust isn't very patrician desu senpai.
Also, you can read thousands of other lists by people equally-qualified to comment and disregard Queneau's selected opinion.
>>7913838
>Trusting what you're told to trust isn't very patrician desu senpai.
It's not a matter of "trust". The question is empirical. American literature is not taken seriously in the rest of the world. The list is proof of that.
>Queneau's selected opinion
It wasn't his 'selected opinion'. This list was compiled from the top 100 lists of dozens of the most prominent authors and critics of the time.
>>7913838
Considering the opinions of other well-educated and intelligent men completely invalid is as arrogant as it is dumb. It's a balance. But honestly, the whole idea of having to think and judge everything for yourself is ridiculous when expressed on /lit/, where 99.9% of the users are middlebrow.
>>7913844
Well, it is. American literature has plenty of greatness, though it may not be the best in the world of all time, as some seem to think.
Kek at all these butmad europoors.
Mad we have more books than your shitty nation?
Mad our books are more popular?
Face it, America is the KING of literature.
>>7913818
Racine's mastery of French language is unrivaled. Can't say much for Molière, other than he is always read and played, but Voltaire has nothing to do with the two other masters.
To quote Horace Engdahl, the permanent secretary of the Nobel prize jury:
"There is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the centre of the literary world ... not the United States. The US is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature ...That ignorance is restraining."
He pissed a lot of Americans off by talking about the "elephant in the room", but there you have it.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/oct/02/nobelprize.usa
There's objective proof that the French are culturally superior to the rest of the world, yet you still argue that Anglo countries are greeter?
Wow.
I actually can't tell if Americans just think that their opinions are more important than everyone else's, or they genuinely think that anyone who isn't American thinks their literature is world class
>>7913872
what objective proof would that be?
>>7913868
He's a Swedish critic who happens to hand out the Nobel Prize. That doesn't make him right when he spews bullshit like this.
>>7913863
>than your shitty nation
Q.E.D.
>>7913875
Are you actually asking me this?
Wow! I'm actually laughing! I can't believe you're asking me this.
>>7913877
Good job proving him right.
>>7913880
Yes I'm actually asking you this, do you have a source?
>>7913877
It doesn't matter if you agree with him, son. I'm just informing you how things are perceived outside the borders of USA. Your unbridled jingoism has blinded you to the mediocre reputation your literature enjoys in the world at large.
>>7913844
>It wasn't his 'selected opinion'. This list was compiled from the top 100 lists of dozens of the most prominent authors and critics of the time.
You keep misrepresenting this list, which makes me wonder if you don't grasp the actual fact, or if you're just dishonest and want to obscure it, but it was 'dozens of the most prominent FRENCH authors and FRENCH critics of the time in FRANCE.' Surprise, they like the local food. Oh, but they're "right" when they do it, when another country does it, they're "living in a bubble."
America has more writers, so it may have more inferior writers, but it also has more superior ones, as anyone not retreating deep into history would be deluded to deny. In the last 200 years, maybe the Russians made it close but they haven't added much to their literary reputation in over 100 years. I wouldn't have bothered if someone thought the Canary Islands produced the world's greatest body of Literature but the original post had something shitty to say about the US. It's obvious why that is--it's because they resent the obvious truth their post was a complaint about. It's not like the poster was talking shit about US Literature because they weren't resentful of it.
Try writing a story with no words from the dictionary and see how far you get.
>>7913339
Faulkner is right. And for what it's worth, he was able to evoke a far wider range of emotions and complex characters than Hemingway.
>>7913885
I can't believe you need to ask. wow.
>>7914677
You're not a big 'answers questions' guy, am I right? Or do you realize too late that you're referring to a subjective list as 'objective truth'?
>>7913526
>Implying To Kill a Mockingbird is part of the American Patrician Canon
>>7914727
TKAM is about 100x more influential and noteworthy than infinite meme and corncobs tortillas yecarthy or whatever else second half 20th century garbage you think is good
>>7914694
>being baited by the village idiot
Anon, por favor.
>>7914737
Something being more 'influential' isn't indicative of it's artistic merit. If you honestly believe that TKAM is anywhere near the same literary level of Infinite Jest or Blood Meridian you're delusional.
Also, the reason TKAM is 'more influential' is because it's read in probably 90% of American high schools, is very easy to read and understand, and uses simple literary techniques to get across a theme that's been done about a million times before (MUH RACISM). Books like IJ, BM, etc. use complex techniques and deal with multiple themes while painting relatively complex characters in a unique way.
TKAM is a pretty straightforward Campbellian "heroic arc" where Atticus assumes the role of hero fighting the evil racism. The book is used in schools for exactly this reason. It's almost impossible to miss the point of the book and is taught for it's relatively elementary use of literary techniques.
Note I'm not saying TKAM is a bad book, but to assume it has more artistic or literary merit than something like IJ, BM or even Moby-Dick is absurd.
>>7914767
moby dick >>> tkam >>> ij > bm in terms of artistic merit.
>>7913451
Who's the russian expat?
>>7915211
Oh right, nabokov.
>>7913581
>15. Memoirs of Cardinal De Retz by Cardinal de Retz
oh yeah this one is definitely up there (huge jerk off motion)
>>7916134
you've never even heard of it have you
>>7913612
A subtle and multi-layered ruse. Good one, you'll successfully anger the butthurt continentals for praising American philosophy and the American lit crowd for shitting on its greats.
>>7916168
Hypocrisy from Seuss. Better arrangement:
Only use needed words.
>>7916190
You may need more words when you write rhymed poetry.
>>7913581
>Arthur FUCKING Rimbaud that high up, above Don Quixote
>Stéphane Mallarmé on the fucking list at all
Absolutely fucking dropped
