Why does /lit/ care more about the quality of the prose, than the actual content itself?
Prose is content you red rocket addict
>>8236801
For the same reason that I know you read Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfus.
>>8236810
I mean why more about the prose than the plot, character development etc.
>>8236814
Do we? What's your evidence?
I imagine if that is the case it's because you can easily share and discuss prose but things like plot and character development are ephemeral and very hard to show examples of in short format or discuss beyond "I thought it was good/bad".
Drawing a distinction between prose and other "content" is the first sign of a pleb. Prose is everything.
>>8236838
This is so fundamental I don't know how one can read enough to be interested in this board but not realize this
>>8236801
LET THEM IN LET THEM ALL IN OH THE HUMANITY
Prose fetishists come from the poetry end, while those that like some content or meaning, however glib or complex, come from the literary end. They're fine with flowery language, maybe even prefer it, just not that the expense of the story. Just what lit prefers more isn't really knowable. Too many trolls
>>8236801
It makes for good memes
>>8236838
Are you the man who officially understands the codified doctrine of Patriciandom?
>>8236838
This is not true. You can imagine the story being presented without prose at all, for example using cinema as a medium.
because sound > imagery
>>8237002
So you would rather be blind than deaf? Bullshit.
>>8236980
*This* is not true. Just the other day right here on /lit/ someone made a comparison that prose in novels is like cinematography in movies, and it's a perfect comparison.
Plot is history
Prose is day-to-day life
OP why do you think /lit/ cares more about prose? I care about both equally.
In the best books, the content and the writing are seamless.
>>8237028
Prose, or cinematography, is a medium, a material of which the work consists. In this way they are similar. But can you comprehend a higher level of abstraction than the material? Ideas and meanings that remain when you adapt a book or completely rewrite it.
>>8237007
I never implied that
I mean that I enjoy books more for their prose then the images/stories it provokes in your mind's eye
>>8237070
>Ideas and meanings
I bet none of your fav novels present any "ideas" or "meanings" which are specially complicated or intriguing, or require more than a page to be developed and properly displayed.
>>8236836
>but things like plot and character development are ephemeral and very hard to show examples of in short format or discuss beyond "I thought it was good/bad".
Of course you can talk about these things in detail. It's just that /lit/ is stupid and illiterate, so they have to grasp onto talking about "muh prose" in an effort to appear patrician.
>>8236980
that would be a fundamentally different work though, so prose is everything FOR LITERATURE.
basically you don't read literature to be told a story, or rather, you do read literature to be told a story and the words used are an integral part of the story.
>>8237120
Was Literature born because people wanted to hear nice words or hear stories that sounded nice?
>>8237070
>Prose, or cinematography, is a medium, a material of which the work consists.
"no" (For the sake of discussion I'll ignore the obviously layman terminology and reply the above.) They're both one of the elements in their respective mediums.
>But can you comprehend a higher level of abstraction than the material? Ideas and meanings that remain when you adapt a book or completely rewrite it.
"yes", but from a consumer (and not a creator) approach, only reading books for philosophical ideas or only watching movies for philosophical ideas is not really the proper way to exploit the works in those two MEDIUMS.
Nor any in other storytelling medium. Story-telling. Story. Telling. The "telling" is just as important as the "story".
You can shoot your own amateur film with any idea you like, but you can't just say that "I don't care about cinematography so you should just ignore that in my movies" because people will just BTFO you. The cinematography is always there. If you don't pay attention to it, you'll just simply make a film with shitty purely functional cinematography.
Same goes with prose. If it's bad, you might get a niche following from some edgelords who like your ""ideas"" (although arguably much easier than if you were making films with shitty cinematography), but don't expect yourself to be considered as a great novelist. If you don't have a personal prose style, it's only because you're not even aware of prose and how to manipulate it in order to tell your story, which just upfront means, per your objective unskilledness, that you're a bad novelist.
/lit/mu/ here. My fellow patricians are correct, you're a fucking embarrasing pleb if you think prose isn't fucking everything.
It's like how the sound is the most important in music, if you read for the fucking plot, you're a pathetic dilletantey pleb.
>>8237120
>>8237102
Ah, so you make a distinction between literature and philosophy. Sometimes that does not work, see, for example, Dostoevsky. And even "regular" literature can, and often does, contain insights into the nature of humans and the workings of human mind, if the author took effort to construct his characters in a realistic way..
>>8237090
I think you have no fucking idea what the word prose means, what you're saying sounds to me like "I don't like films for the story or images, I just like the pixels"
>>8237129
who cares "why" literature was born, we live in a different world with different aesthetic values than Homer did.
when literature was "invented" there wasn't even a printing press.
>>8237102
That's not an argument
>>8237139
So everyone here reads aloud?
They don't.
That being said, prose is an important element of a work of literature.
Each element mingles with other elements. For example, the pacing of the prose can effect the tension of the scene.
>>8237133
Nobody tells that the telling is not important. My point is just that the story is also important, so prose isn't "everything". Or, rather, you can imagine - and enjoy - a work of pure great prose. But most of the best literary works have something beyond it.
>>8237162
Because in philosophical works the prose is, obviously, secondary. To the point where a good part of essential philosophy is nearly unreadable.
>>8237179
>a good part of essential philosophy is nearly unreadable.
>who is Nietzsche
>who is Plato
>who is late Heidegger
>who is Schopenhauer
>who is Spinoza
>>8237174
It's not a dichotomous thing though in my opinion.
If you don't have sufficient mastery over the prose there will be ideas that are too complex for you to know how to convey properly. To someone who's attuned to getting the ideas from good prose, at least. I guess you can always just write "methinks X is A and not B", but that's not literature, that's philosophy.
>actual content
>>8237211
Everything written down can be Literature, it's all relative.
>>8236838
If prose were everything it would be verse.
>>8237206
are you implying these guys are readable or unreadable? i don't get it
>>8237250
these writers have a prose style that is enjoyable and adds to the ideas being explained.
also late Wittgenstein.
>>8237179
I'd argue it's their main tool since they use it to obscure their bullshit.
>>8237259
Spinoza purposefully avoids anything like that.
>>8237267
True enough.
>>8237129
who gives a shit
and
"literature" was never "born"
>>8236956
That is I.
>>8237168
Prose is the only element.
>>8237227
yes I can always come up with cop outs too, but why tho
isn't it more fun to work at becoming a great novelist
>>8237360
Why is relativism applied to sculpture, paintings, etc but not books?
>>8237374
it's not
>>8236801
prose is -long story short- (or at least his main golas) the ability to condense many contents possible in few lines possible.
better is the prose, more are the contents
more are the contents, deeper will be reading
>>8237378
Nabokov has god tier prose and next to no contents.
>>8236801
I do care about content. It is the meat. Prose is just the dressing, seasoning and is secondary.
>>8237382
but that's entirely wrong
>>8236814
Again, you make the mistake of separating prose from everything else. Compelling characters cannot be formed from bad prose. You might come up with an interesting plot, but if it isn't revealed well it won't seem interesting. A good prose style can make any subject interesting.
To better illustrate this point, look at film. Films with grand ideas and impressive special effects sometimes fail because of how the story unfolds, what the director decides to direct the audiences attention towards. And many of the most memorable films are about ordinary, sometimes boring, people going about their lives; this is because the director knows what to pay attention to, and for how long. So it's not what the story is about that makes a film or novel good; it's how the story is told.
>>8236801
By 'content' I assume you mean storytelling, plot, characterization etc.
If I wanted this I would go watch tv or just think something up in my head. The point of reading fiction is the mode of expression.
>>8236801
Because /lit/ is full of fedora tipping autistic dudes who value 'perfection' and 'taste' over everything. Tbh senpai it's a meme, don't take it too seriously
>>8237386
so, using your analogy, if the way meat is prepared is secondary, then it doesn't matter if a steak is properly seasoned and grilled or if it's boiled in piss?
>>8237688
*pats head*
Just because something is secondary doesn't mean it is entirely negligible.
>>8237120
You do read literature to be told a story. Otherwise everyone would just read poetry, you probably don't understand that because your brain can't comprehend deep and rooted characters
>>8237775
Poetry is literature,too, lol.
>>8237139
Music isn't the same as literature retard and prose isn't everything....
Plot is what makes literature , literature and not poetry
>>8237784
Still doesn't mean prose is everything
>>8237791
Thanks for conceding.
>>8237775
i literally already said you read literature (i.e. fiction) for the story, so maybe you should check your own comprehension skills.
>>8237841
If you want someone to follow all of your specific posts, use a trip. Learn how to use 4chan, buddy. *gives supportive pat on the back*
Plot is not important because you can reduce plots and see how they're all the same. Prose, characters, themes, etc are the only things that make a work distinguishable from another.
>>8236801
Why would there even have to be a competition between the two? Both are absolutely necessary to become an accomplished reader
Aristotle knew this, why can't you?
>>8237775
> Otherwise everyone would just read poetry
Am I to assume that according to you poetry doesn't tell stories or that the plot in a poem is irrelevant?
Have you read poetry at any point in your life?
>>8237873
>umberto eco is a lazy fool who cannot think and discern
oh you.
>>8237907
plot is a minor, rather unimportant element to modern poetry.
today, it's more rhythmical.
>>8237914
>blind authority
no thank you.
>>8237907
>Am I to assume that the plot in a poem is irrelevant?
Hwaet! unfrozen Spear-Dane friend,
Yes, you are to assume that.
>>8236814
Fuck plot, it's gay. It's how you get shit like Grrm
![Girls[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/s80S6sl.png "Girls[1].png")
>>8236810
