|
Is Ernest Hemmingway's writing style typically "stream of thought" and just kinda not filling in blanks when there are some? I'm not sure if I've read anything by him. Maybe something back in high school.. Anyways, I'm reading A Moveable Feast which is an autobiography of sorts and it is very disjointed. He will write about a conversation without even mentioning who he's having it with. Things like that. Seems strange.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
I've only read some of Islands in the Stream but I found Hemingway's writing very difficult to work through. There's a battle with a Marlin in that book that goes on for forty pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Normal People was pretty good and pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Rooney's? funny how?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Lex Neville posted:Rooney's? funny how? the prose and dialog. the story was not funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Is Ernest Hemmingway's writing style typically "stream of thought" and just kinda not filling in blanks when there are some? I'm not sure if I've read anything by him. Maybe something back in high school.. Anyways, I'm reading A Moveable Feast which is an autobiography of sorts and it is very disjointed. He will write about a conversation without even mentioning who he's having it with. Things like that. Seems strange. Never read A Moveable Feast but A Farewell to Arms and Snows of Kilimanjaro were both fairly straight forward. At least I don't recall them being disjointed. Very male of a particular time, yes, but not super stream of consciousness Stephen Dedalus bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:super stream of consciousness Stephen Dedalus bullshit. huh, haven't heard this literary term before
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
A human heart posted:huh, haven't heard this literary term before We Americanists refer to it as "Quentin Compson nonsense".
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
ricardo reis hijinks
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
A human heart posted:huh, haven't heard this literary term before i do believe he mean "joycean" but I am a simple farmer of terms
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
A human heart posted:huh, haven't heard this literary term before Its not wrong though See, say, page 37 of Ulysses. Ineluctable modality of my rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
re Hemingway, I really like his short stories. Check out A Way You'll Never Be
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
cda posted:My apologies to Eugene V Dubstep who did mention a few women. i forgot about the lonely londoners that book is really good, five past (i think that was his name) was a great character. related, earl lovelace’s the dragon can’t dance is also fantastic and pretty funny until the climax and then it’s not funny anymore but still good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Its not wrong though it’s actually extremely wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Charlatans Wake 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
The Dedalus parts of Ulysses aren't difficult because they're in a stream of consciousness style, and to say that Hemingway is easier because he does not write long semi-parodical monologues about Hamlet or Aristotlean metaphysics seems trivial
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The Dedalus parts of Ulysses aren't difficult because they're in a stream of consciousness style, and to say that Hemingway is easier because he does not write long semi-parodical monologues about Hamlet or Aristotlean metaphysics seems trivial I'm nothing if not trivial. See my av. Serious posting a second, I'm not sure I will ever have the background knowledge to deal with Ulysses. Glancing over the marginalia I scribbled throughout the book from a class I took, its far too dense with obscure references to ever pick up on, and without that it reads like a lot of meaningless words to me. This is what I mean by the stream of consciousness: Stephan is thinking through things that are clear to himself but since I'm not as literate as he its mumble jumble. Apparently he is testing specific philosophical stances on epistemology in that passage? Perhaps I'm just mentally blocked, but I'm comfortable with just being too dumb to read this, even if other Joyce is completely accessible. How would you characterize the source of the difficulty of the Dedalus parts of Ulysses?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I'm nothing if not trivial. See my av. ugh
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I'm nothing if not trivial. See my av. You explained it yourself - you don't understand the references. I don't either, so I didn't pay too much attention. It's not a crime
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Read Robert Walser for the first time today (Jakob von Gunten) and am respectfully nominating him for inclusion in the canon of funny authors
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:You explained it yourself - you don't understand the references. I don't either, so I didn't pay too much attention. It's not a crime Makes me wonder how generally accessible the book ever was then or if our general education has declined that much over the years. Goons being awful, shocking
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Lmao Joyce did not give even a fraction of a gently caress about accessibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
a comic book dweeb wanking himself off about not reading joyce it’s like i’m an undergrad again
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lmao Joyce did not give even a fraction of a gently caress about accessibility. Felt like a fair question given Dubliners and Portrait WatermelonGun posted:a comic book dweeb wanking himself off about not reading joyce it’s like i’m an undergrad again I am sorry for your trauma
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lmao Joyce did not give even a fraction of a gently caress about accessibility. He didn't care if everyone enjoyce his works
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:He didn't care if everyone enjoyce his works His attitude was like a fart in the wind, you might say
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I'm nothing if not trivial. See my av. you've got the brain disease typical of this forum where you think that you have to understand every single thing in a book before reading the words on the page
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
There were lots of bits of Moby Dick I didn't understand so I Googled them sometimes or just reqd on and am excited to reread it over years. Sure there's way too much in there to understand it in a single read
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
A human heart posted:you've got the brain disease typical of this forum where you think that you have to understand every single thing in a book before reading the words on the page Probably so! I also have the problem of not always landing attempted jokes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:I also have the problem of not always landing attempted jokes. this is called being “unfunny.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
A human heart posted:brain disease typical of this forum WatermelonGun posted:called being “unfunny.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
The point of Ulysses is in part its difficulty, though his technique of directly depicting the interior monologue is the major step-up from Portrait and Dubliners, but it's also not far removed from what lots of books do nowadays. As Ras Het said, its references in specific are difficult to keep up with, but I'd say the major gist is always 'accessible' even from it (usually it's about a character being confused about something, or it's contemporary cultural detail or something their thoughts tend to circle around anyway: in Stephen, his mother's death and his feelings about his father, in Leopold, his wife's adultery and his dead son). It definitely would have been easier to read back then because 'ordinary' people knew more about stuff like Hamlet, Don Giovanni and the Latin Mass. It stands to reason that Irish people knew about Irish politics from around them. I reckon a lot of internet discourse is going to be borderline incomprehensible to people 100 years from now if it still exists in some form for the exact same reason, it's the cultural minutiae that get obscured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
is Gogol, Krzhizhanovsky or Pelevin the funniest Russian author?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
I love Pelevin, but Gogol is much funnier. Of the contemporary authors, Sorokin is pretty much hit and miss, but his The Blizzard is a very funny parody of classic Russian lit. That guy really hates Turgenev and it shows in the book. Another good and very funny book by Sorokin is Blue Salo aka Blue Blubber, a satire aimed at the Russian national mythos and Orthodoxy. There is a Russian Orthodox sect dedicated to loving the holy Russian ground, future Russia has fallen under complete Chinese cultural domination so dialogues are conducted in a sort of nadsat, but it’s Russian with Chinese loan words, writers such as Akhmatova are cloned and resurrected and their new, bizarre yet stylistically true, works are pasted into the narrative. Khruschev’s and Stalin’s clones gently caress. poo poo, now I gotta reread that e:Daniil Kharms is funny, brilliant and not very well known in the West. His short stories are few because, siege of Leningrad, but well worth tracking down. Take the plunge! Okay! fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
gogol pelevin is too loving bitter and krzhizhanovsky has four consonants at the start of his name
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
of course the real answer is bulgakov
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Wow I was all ready to say Pelevin but I guess we got a debate goin here. Sorokin isn't so much funny as he is playful, I would say. His prose has a child-like glee and it makes you feel good. Hot take: Dostoyevsky is funnier than either one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
I found Crime and Punishment very funny
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
just read books because you enjoy the words. you don't need to Catch The Reference, they're not family guy episodes
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Shibawanko posted:just read books because you enjoy the words. you don't need to Catch The Reference, they're not family guy episodes I can understand the fear of missing out, though. It can make you feel inadequate (even though there's no reason to worry about being lit-inferior to James Fartin' Joyce). Pynchon trained me out of that need to understand each reference and connection. If you go into GR trying to do that, for example, well....good luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:50
|
|