Thread #2 sans samefagging shitposter>Privileging style over content in prose writingTake a really shitty, boring story that only the most boring losers would enjoy. Like, a story about some guy who sits in his basement for 20 years and nothing happens to him. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is an awesome premise for a story. Now, take that very same story and suppose that it was "well written", that is to say, that it employs a number of stylistic techniques to good effect. Is it any better a story? No, of course not. It's still just a boring story about some loser who sits in his basement. Why, then, enjoy it? You could only enjoy it if you liked those stylistic techniques.But here's the thing, those techniques are only meaningful in the context of making the story more interesting to read, outside of that context they have little meaning. It's absurd, for example, to try to appreciate a rodeo rider's skills at riding a bull outside that rodeo. If you saw that passing by on the road on a normal piece of farmland you'd think he was insane or something. The rodeo rider's skills at riding the bull only have that meaning when you put him in the ring, and it's towards the end of entertainment that those skills have meaning.In the very same way, if you take all these literary techniques outside of the context of enriching a story, they have no meaning; they're just intelligible squiggles. Back to our original story. Taken as it is, no amount of literary techniques would make this into an interesting story. The only thing they would achieve would be to take your attention off the boring story and on to the artful writing. But as we've seen, artful writing on its own is meaningless. So with a shitty story, even the best, most artistic writing still serves only to be a spectacle, a welcome distraction from the boring, shitty content.
A general maxim is now in order: the more striking the content, the less necessary the style. Hence why fantasy and sci-fi writers like PKD and Gene Wolfe do not need to be very skilled writers. Their content does their work for them, and this is good because it means less superfluous distraction. The less striking the content, the more necessary the style. Hence why Dostoevsky has to be a master character writer, the characters he writes about, without his stylistic and philosophical embellishment, are poor, uninteresting and generally despicable sorts from lower society. Dostoevsky is an example of someone who is however truly worthy of praise, because he uses his literary skill to make a generally uninteresting story interesting, something that PKD or GW might not be able to do. Faulkner, in his absolutely pitiful 'benjy' chapter, is an example of someone writing poorly and using literary technique as a distraction from boring, shitty content. Hardly anyone wants to read about the experiences of a simple, mentally ill oaf, sad but true. Benjy is only interesting because the author has used a skewed time literary technique to draw attention to his illness, with the overlying metalinguistic excuse of "perception" being different for different people or something. But isn't this, like, an incredibly perverse thing to do? To try and valorise a cripple's ugly existence with a couple of narrative squiggles? I'm inclined to think it is, putting aside the modern illusion that last gem in the pile (to assume already that there isn't a fair share of pebbles) has to have its own in-itself unique sparkle.So that's it, content over form in saecula saeculorum.
first
bumping
>>2668971Now's your opportunity to just let him rot. Please take it, Anonymous.
The Stranger had a very uninteresting story, the style was what made it interesting.What about a movie with a boring plot, but fantastic cinematography, direction, acting, etc. Would it not still be a good movie?The narrative is not the only relevant aspect.>Is it any better a story? No, of course not. It's still just a boring story about some loser who sits in his basement. Yes, it's still a shitty story, but now it has merit in other aspects as well. A books like Harry Potter or GoT might have an interesting story, but the characters are bland, the content is derivative, the writing is amateur, the storytelling is subpar. It works as cheap entertainment, mild escapism, but intellectually it is lacking, you don't get any appreciation of it from reading it.
wait is literary technique the bull or the rodeo rider? or the farmland? please advise op
>>2669013it's the rodeo, the bull is stylistic mastery
>>2669010>The Stranger had a very uninteresting story, the style was what made it interesting.Then it is fundamentally a bad work of fiction, a dull and uninteresting story whose style only serves to distract one from this. That you like style tells us nothing about the quality of the story, it simply tells us that you enjoyed one small feature of an entire aesthetic experience.>What about a movie with a boring plot, but fantastic cinematography, direction, acting, etc. Would it not still be a good movie?No, it would be a bad movie made somewhat more bearable by the good production values. You cannot make a fundamentally bad story any better than it really is, you can only help dress it up to a certain extent depending on how bad the story is.>now it has merit in other aspects as wellSure, maybe it has different merits to people with different niche interests or people who can only find enjoyment in one tiny element of the overall picture.>A books like Harry Potter or GoT might have an interesting story, but the characters are bland, the content is derivative, the writing is amateur, the storytelling is subparAll of these things are mediocre actually, they would have to be so in order to appeal to such a vast audience. This only proves my point further, that not even good writing is needed to produce a good story.>but intellectually it is lackingbut most people don't enjoy aesthetic objects in order to become smarter, they read textbooks and go to college for that. both of which are much more suited to such an end.>you don't get any appreciation of it from reading itwhat do you mean by "appreciation"?
>Like, a story about some guy who sits in his basement for 20 years and nothing happens to him. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is an awesome premise for a story. Fuck you, Notes from the Underground is a very engaging story.>Now, take that very same story and suppose that it was "well written", that is to say, that it employs a number of stylistic techniques to good effect. Is it any better a story? No, of course not.So let me get this straight: a story that is "well-written" doesn't make it good because it doesn't have "exciting" stuff like dragons or explosions or Optimus Prime cutting a building in half with a giant metal worm? I'm done here. Nothing I can say will make you change your mind, but personally I like my reads to have literary substance. I can't stand shit that's written poorly, no matter how many decapitations or debauchery it contains.
bump
>>2669085>Fuck you, Notes from the Underground is a very engaging story.It isn't really, it's one of my least favourite works. It is essentially a well-written condensed, version of the mentality of bitter and self-aware late teenagers or young adults, with some relatively superficial engagement of philosophical issues.>a story that is "well-written" doesn't make it good because it doesn't have "exciting" stuffPretty much, if the content of the story is boring shit you essentially have well-written, boring shit on your hands. That's not to say an average work of fiction can't be improved to be a good work of fiction by good writing, it's just that the shittiest and most mundane stuff is never going to be able to be rescued to such an extent that would make it worthwhile for anyone looking for a good aesthetic experience and not just an enjoyable (for them) exercise in scribbling.>Nothing I can say will make you change your mindProbably not, unless you have a very good counter-argument waiting.
At this point I want to shove your balls in your anus and make you gurgle them in your bowels filled with blood.The first thread was bad.This thread is bad.You are an idiot.Go and die.Sincerely,Everyone
>>2669108>such obvious butthurtI guest OP struck a little too close to home.
>>2669108Why don't you go and do something else instead of getting angry at a thread you don't even have to post in?
Welp, I never want to hear your opinion ever again. If anyone else feels the same way there's this.
>>2669122You can't block a tripfag, you can only block the tripcode a tripfag chooses to use at the time you block him. You're not blocking the person who's using that tripcode though. At best all you make me do is double-post as tripfag and anonymous.
>>2669122if you're one of those people who just can't resist replying to tripfags, please consider installing this. You'll be doing an admirable deed by making /lit/ a better place.
>>2669122You can't block a tripfag, you can only block the tripcode a tripfag chooses to use at the time you block him. You're not blocking the person who's using that tripcode though. At best all you make me do is double-post as tripfag and anonymous, thanks.
>>2669133so you're saying you often post as an anon?
>>2669140Only in response to people who tell me they are blocking me, so it varies
I don't understand how you decided that story is the only important thing and nothing else matters.You could've just as easily picked style instead.>Take a really shitty, boring style that only the most boring losers would write. Like, a style that completely follows all the traditional rules he's told and doesn't have any experimentation at all Apologies to anyone who thinks this is an awesome way to write. Now, take that very same style and suppose that it had a "good story", that is to say, that the story is interesting to read. Is it any better a style? No, of course not. It's still just a boring style that completely follows all the traditional rules he's told and doesn't have any experimentation at all. Why, then, enjoy it? You could only enjoy it if you liked the story.
>>2669196>you decided that story is the only important thing and nothing else matters.I didn't say that, I said that content is superior to form.>You could've just as easily picked style instead.Because style isn't as important as content, and your even your poor attempt at an inversion demonstrates it:>You could only enjoy it if you liked the storyThere would be no other reason to enjoy a traditional style, or any other style for that matter, unless you were autistic.
>>2669213forgot my trip
>>2669213But -why- is content more important than style? Put it succinctly.
