From most patrician to least: Reading for:
themes > prose/form > plot > characters
>>7784650
Wrong
Prose > plot = characters = themes
Though if you make such distinctions you are surely a pleb
If by "patrician" you mean "desire to represent superiority", then yes, you're correct.
For people who actually understand art, it goes plot = character > themes > everything else.
>>7784659
/thread
>>7784650
The ideas the prose--the words--invoke are all that matter. Reading for prose is like only eating the apple's skin, the oranges rind.
No.
Themes > characters > prose > plot
>>7784707
It astounds me how someone who reads can be so ignorant.
You're like a food critic that wants to rate the spoon.
Themes are so elementary.
>>7784650
Shakespeare's themes aren't particularly profound mate, with just a couple of exceptions. It's the mastery of language that makes him GOAT.
>>7784650
Reading > "Reading for" something you've made up to make literature digestible for your mongoloid brain
>>7784764
Language is a vessel for meaning.
>>7784650
Reading for...
...the elements that are important > ...everything else, including so-called "themes" when the "themes" aren't what's important
>>7784777
Uh-huh. What exactly is your point, could you elaborate? But sure, language signifies meaning/themes, but it can be employed masterfully and with nearly divine grace, as is the case of Shakespeare, and then become sublime art in its own right.
Honestly I think ranking these things is pointless and pretty dumb. And that anyone who uses patrician unironically is an insufferable middlebrow tryhard, and that those who use it ironically are trite.
It is most patrician to read for knowledge
>>7784838
U hav 2 gulp books for max knowledge u can read 25 books a day if u gulp leaving more time 2 day trade makin mad $$$ for lambos n hoes.
>>7784819
The words (language) tell you something meaningful (or not).
>>7784898
No shit?
>>7784742
To use your analogy prose is to literature as flavour to food. A great meal can be artfully prepared and arranged to represent all sorts of things, ingredients chosen for historical or cultural significant, but ultimately the flavour (as the prose) is the first port of call in eating (as in reading) and if it's unsavoury the rest falls totally flat.
>>7784898
Literature as an art should foremost be artful, representing nothing but itself. Reading to broaden your mind is fine but meanings or morals are secondary in literature.
You don't listen to Mozart for some deep meaningful message, you listen for the sublime style.
>>7784742
>implying a bad spoon doesn't completely ruin a meal
>implying cutlery doesn't fall under presentation
>implying food critics shouldn't broaden their criticisms to include the quality of the spoons they use
>>7784933
I think it's the opposite, prose is presentation, how the food looks. And themes are flavor, all of its different tastes coming together. And plot/characters are...texture? Because a beautiful and delicious steak won't be bad at all, but might just be less enjoyable if it turns out to be some sculpted steak-paste.
themes = characters = prose = plot
A true patrician understands and appreciates the relationship of these elements.
>>7784650
It's
Vision>Prose/Form>everything else
Also since /lit/ is full of workshop and creative writing class meme-addled children, you all need to be reminded that prose and form don't have to adhere to conventional standards to work or be great. The whole "learn the rules before you break them" thing you're taught is a one-way ticket to plebtown.
>>7785020
is this you
