Do you believe that simpler prose is inherently worse, or that - if done well - simplicity can be as powerful as intricacy?
>>7988402
I'd say that simpler prose is not inherently worse and has the capability of matching and even surpassing complex prose in certain instances, but that it tends to be limited, that the greatest novels are the most ambitious in pushing the limits of prose and able to, in incredible ways, resolve immense prosal complexity.
>>7988402
Also, for beginner to intermediate writers, "simple prose" or "Hemmingway-esque" prose is usually just a nice way of describing stupid, boring, unimaginative prose.
>>7988402
The latter. They are both equally valid ways to communicate.
>>7988477
I'd say that purple prose or any prose that attempts to come off as complex is an overcompensation for stupid, boring, and unimaginative story writing.
>>7988549
This tbqh. Most complex prose is complex only for the sake of being complex. It doesn't add anything.
>>7988402
Many of the great prose stylists wrote simply. It is neither inherently better nor worse than a more complex style. What matters is the beauty of the language.
Simpler prose is good for technical books but not art. When it comes to art I find simpler prose to be boring. Joyce, Pynchon, and Vonnegut are a lot more interesting than Asimov, Rowling, and Hemingway.
>>7988549
George Meredith, fuck.
>>7988549
Prose is the most important part of a book
>>7988630
Asimov and Rowling are just awful writers. It has nothing to do with the simplicity of their prose.
Vonnegut also wrote simply, by the way.
>>7988674
I meant Nabokov not Vonnegut.
>>7988649
>Prose is the most important part of a book not the substance in it
Oh boy, /lit/ at it again.
>>7988702
Prose is the substance of the book. Do you read poetry for the stories of the speaker and his subject? Because you should be reading for the attempted expression of mastery at the language being used.
>tfw you read only the first 15 pages of Finnegans Wake just to check it out and you were so giddy reading the thing that the idea of prose on the opposite end of the spectrum of complexity just frightens you with how boring it may be
Hemingway and Carver are pretty nice, and I do actually enjoyTao Lin, but I much prefer shit like John Hawkes, Gaddis, Gass, and the first two-thirds of the meme trilogy (Wallace is fine, especially in Oblivion and his essays, but I simply have yet to read IJ)
>>7988702
>substance
>in an artistic medium
lol
>>7988549
I disagree with this. I think an important part of storytelling - and this goes back as far as Homer - is prose that is evocative, that doesn't just describe the things that are happening, but makes the reader truly feel what is happening, instilling a sort of 'poetic faith' in the story. This is because a narrative can't just be felt and reasoned by the cerebral parts of the brain, but really needs to be felt by the more subjective, feels-ier parts.
Of course, not all evocative, beautiful language needs to be complex. Hemingway is pretty powerful, but I think he's an exception to the rule, almost. Tolstoy tends towards simple and direct language and is also a great author.
I believe that complex prose is incredibly hedonistic in nature, while simple prose is ascetic. Complex prose attempts to touch our sense of musicality, every connection of words has to bring aesthetic pleasure to the reader; opposed to this we have simple prose, whose sole purpose is being a serf to a certain narrative. Simple prose postpones pleasure and seems more fit for intelectuals, rather than artists. The beauty is in concepts and plot rather than sound , symmetry or elusive imagery.
>>7989137
That is a beautiful post.
Simple prose can be great: Hemingway, Schopenhauer, etc
Or simple poetry in Homer or Robert Frost
>>7988755
This, good prose always serves its function in evoking the emotion of the scene, be it complex or simple.
>>7988402
The latter, but I think /lit/ is seriously overrating the menace of 'purple prose.' I don't know if they're traumatized from a teacher calling their work pretentious or just insecure about using dictionaries, but when recommendation threads are full of definitively purple stuff and critique threads shout 'PURRRRRRPLE' at anything that isn't 'See Spot run," I really wonder what the heck is going on here.
>>7989251
The difference between complex prose which is 'beautiful' and that which is 'purple', has all to do with the mastery and understanding of language displayed.
With all due respect, most of that which is submitted for critique on /lit/ doesn't bear the hallmarks of this understanding. Though you're right in suggesting that 'purple' is now bandied about with a certain amount of reckless abandon, I think it's a useful criticism against writing with a mediocre understanding of the language it uses.
You don't run before you can walk.
I would consider Clarice Lispector to be the ultimate example of "simpler prose." She speaks in short sentences, generally without patrician vocabulary, but every single sentence of hers is a monument to itself. An oasis in a desert... that tiny space between the end of one sentence and the beginning of another seems infinite and almost terrifying.
Hebraic prose is both simple and powerful. Simple prose can be enormously effective, but writing effective simple prose is not any easier than writing effective baroque prose.
>>7989513
>It's not any easier to write like Orwell than it is to write like Joyce
>>7988402
It can be done well, but has less overall potential than intricate writing (which often uses simplistic writing as a device)
>>7988402
>prose
ewwww
>>7989533
can you please attempt that sentiment again but this time using metre?
>>7989522
Orwell isn't the best in simple writing
>>7988402
Less is more. Only use big words if absolutely nothing else will do or if the small words are becoming too repetitive.
>>7989137
Thanks for arousal m8.
>>7989522
Orwell is a very bad stylist with thoughtful (but not too thoughtful) ideas, Joyce is a great stylist with zero substance. Neither of them are suitable examples here.
Blood Meridian (which is very similar to Hebraic style) is a work of exemplary simple prose.
>>7988402
Form and substance are two different aspects of literature that are both equally important imho, although I personally prefer form. So a simple form isn't intrinsically bad, and it can have its own merits.
Overall you can never rely solely on the complexity of your prose for the quality of your work
>>7988732
Prose is your paint for the image: it's the most important part of how you create it, but it will always be the means to an end. Sitting down and writing a passage of prose that flows musically and hits hard is great, definitely: but when the passage shows you a picture, a really clear picture, then you've written something good. That's good writing.
Of course the great poetry is the poetry that pushes language to its absolute limits, but language's function is communication. Great poetry is poetry that tells a human story through perfect language. It says something nuanced and profound. That's what good complex prose is for. Writing good prose purely for the sake of musicality and rhythm, abandoning good story-telling and character is pretentious and pseudo-intellectual: it's just a flashy wank, that's it. It sounds real nice, but it says nothing. A masterful writer brings it all together.
>>7989964
Like you, I prefer form over substance, but 'pure style' is only something I can tolerate in very short pieces. If a piece of literature is failing to grab me with its characters and themes, I'll pretty quickly lose attention. Do you feel the same way?
>>7989968
/thread
>>7989137
>intellectuals =/= artists
Into the trash it goes
>>7989974
I do indeed feel the same way, although it might be because I have never read a truly good long work that was pure style
>>7990025
Yeah even shit like Ulysses which often gets called pure style has a lot of substance and meaning, and the style is actually intertwined with that.
>>7990055
I don't think it does. I think it makes a lot of obscure references, but that doesn't give it substance, since the references have zero deeper meaning, they are just references for references sake. I think if there is a great meaning to be distilled from the work, it is the insanity of modernism, which in fact might just be the intent.
>>7989968
>representation
Go to any art gallery in the world, asshole.
>>7989456
Man, I wish I had schizophrenia.
>>7990063
Do you even know what's the purpose of a reference, moron ? Does the term "intertextuality" ring a bell to you ? El Desdishado, nothing ?
>hurr durr look mom I don't like X
Grow up buddy.
>>7988674
Rowling writes children's books. What about her writing is awful?
>>7989456
>>7990084
First time hearing her. Which book would you recommend m8s?
Thomas Browne is my favorite English prose-stylist (the two first paragraphs of Religio Medici always make me shiver when I read them; others throughout the book too), but simple prose is still interesting to me. When I think about it, non-fiction becomes more interesting with complex prose while fiction doesn't necessarily. That's just my personal opinion. I'd say my favorite prose stylist for fiction is either Joyce or Nabokov (I haven't yet read Ulysses; maybe that'll settle it between the two. I'm gonna read it with Nabokov's commentary too ;^).
For my native language I'd sayEuclides da Cunha. Don't ask me why. Maybe it's the to-the-point language mixed in with emotion and scientific vocabulary that is so peculiar to him. I think the odd, sui generis authors usually have the best prose styles.
jesus just read some Joseph Conrad's opinion on how the literary language should work like
Rap styles vary, carry like Mariah.
>>7990106
>He peered sideways up and gave a long slow whistle of call, then paused awhile in rapt attention, his even white teeth glistening here and there with gold points. Chrysostomos.
This is a reference to Saint John Chrysostom. Chrysostom means "gold mouth", and he was called that because of his sermons. This reference gives nothing deep, it is literally just a reference for a reference's sake, it is like Family Guy for academics.
>>7988402
Simple prose for simple feelings and simple observation, more complicated prose for complicated feeling and complicated observation. Mix them for best results.
>>7989137
This is what /lit/ was made for man
>>7990262
Hello, not the guy you were replying to, I'm a total dilletante who hasn't read Ulysses but I thought the purpose of these references (at least the Homeric ones) was to make the point that modern life is just as heroic, epic and tragic as the Greek myths? Idk I've just read about Ulysses, never read it.
Is the Bible simple prose?
>>7988755
Good post, pal
