>10 pages in and its the best prose I've ever read
Well fuck.
>>8156763
>woman
>good prose
fuck off roastie pleb
>>8156768
What do you mean when you say prose is good?
>>8156763
>when he reads for the prose
B-bit shes a guuuurl!
>>8156833
retard frogfaggot go die
>>8156763
I just finished To the Lighthouse and it came off as all style over substance. Is the Waves any better?
>>8156833
If you don't read at least partly for prose, it's because you don't know what good prose is.
>>8156846
>style over substance
aka
>idk what i'm talking about so i'm gonna use a trite platitude
try a new hobby, literature is obviously not for you senpai.
>>8156843
This
>>8156798
read it and see, fambam
>>8156763
the first 10 - 15 pages, and specially the beginning it´s so fucking good that (for me) can´t mantain that literarian spasm in the long term. im ended a little dissapointed. (just a little, still a superior book)
>>8156763
Can you elaborate a little about the prose? I'm really interested but I don't know if I should read this or In The Lighthouse first
>>8157324
Not the same person you were talking to but I already read Mrs Dalloway a while ago, would you recommend The Lighthouse next or can I just skip to The Waves?
>>8156768
sorry bby, but the order is dykes>>>faggots into weird fetishes>>>>>>>faggots>>>hetero normies for literature. you've outed yourself as destined to shit prose and blue balls.
>>8157330
There's no reading order as far as thematic understanding goes and no sort of formal progression that would lead to the Waves, nothing to keep you from reading it unless you want to "keep the most experimental (and arguably best) for last"
It's great.
i dropped mrs dalloway after 10 pages, found it too boring. should i try again?
>>8157364
>reading for enjoyment
>>8157369
>>8157377
>>8157379
Reading 4,000 pages of Harry Potter is definitely a waste of time, but on occasion one can learn a lot from reading bad writing. Or at least I can, so I suppose I'm smarter than Shoppy.
I mean how could he even formulate the maxim to never read bad writing if he himself had never read bad writing? Fucking tard.
>>8157393
Had he never encountered bad writing, he would indeed not have come up with that maxim and the stupidity therein contained. Proves his point, then, doesn't it.
>>8157396
Not necessarily.
>>8157379
>reading 4000 pages of Harry Potter takes the same amount of time as reading 4000 pages of classics
>>8156890
2 pages in and I'm already breaking through the sound barrier
>>8156768
Who is Alice Munro?
>>8156798
Prose can be defined in two ways, the format that isn't poetry, and the language/diction/sentence composition of the narrator (aka, style).
"Good" prose is just for aesthetic purposes, it contributes very little to the narrative or theme. And "aesthetic" just means it looks/sounds pretty.
>>8157396
How can I know something is bad writing without reading it myself and without pleading to authority?
>>8158023
Munro is a short story writer, so any place is a good start. She's only written one "novel," but even that is a story collection about the same characters.
I recommend "Dance of the Happy Shades" and "Something I've Been Meaning to Tell You" to read first. Both short, both good.
>>8156833
dumb frogposter
