Thread 24570516

The four greatest prose writers in the English language.

>>24570516 (OP)
>Not distinguishable by picture alone
In the trash they stay

>>24570615
Dean Lennox Kelly, Peter Stormare, James McAvoy, Bella Ramsey

>>24570516 (OP)
>Adam Sandler
really nigga?
>Descartes
didn't he speak French or something?

>>24570615
Lord Bacon, idk, Thomas Browne and idk

>>24570516 (OP)
Never seen these niggas in my life

>>24570615
Francis Bacon, Robert Burton, Thomas Browne, Jeremy Taylor.
>>24570516 (OP)
Burton is an overrated hack, should be substituted or dropped entirely. I would replace him with Thomas Burnet or Milton. I might even replace him with William Drummond, who also only has one work of note, albeit much shorter, in A Cypress Grove.

>>24571317
Nah, the literary reception of Burton has been established for centuries and he's full of beautiful prose like this:

>A man alone, is either a saint or a devil, woe be to him that is so alone. These wretches do frequently degenerate from men, and of sociable creatures become beasts, monsters, inhumane, ugly to behold, they do even loathe themselves, and hate the company of men. Nature may justly complain of thee, that whereas she gave thee a good wholesome temperature, a sound body, and God hath given thee so divine and excellent a soul, so many good parts, and profitable gifts, thou hast not only contemned and rejected, but hast corrupted them, polluted them, overthrown their temperature, and perverted those gifts with riot, idleness, solitariness, and many other ways, thou art a traitor to God and nature, an enemy to thyself and to the world. Thou hast lost thyself wilfully, cast away thyself; thou thyself art the efficient cause of thine own misery, by not resisting such vain cogitations, but giving way unto them.

>>24570516 (OP)
They look like his dysgenic cousins from the swamp lands

>>24571395
Except Browne

>>24571362
No offense but this is just self-help, graced with thees and thys, and flavored with brimstone. I don't see the big whoop.

>>24571399
Post a prose excerpt you consider great

>>24571399
Try not to reduce prose to its simplest interpretation, instead learn to appreciate the emotions it conjures and what is unique in its imagery, structure and ideas. For example, that excerpt is clearly distinct from 21st century self-help, in that it is lengthy Baroque prose and is expressive of a grave religious outlook, very far from the light-hearted and easily consumable pop lit that is self-help. There is a whole world of Latin and scholarly erudition that haunts every sentence.

>>24571399
thees, thys and brimstone are my thing

>>24571399
this discussion is about style, not substance.

I only know thomas browne and his writing style is 95% indistinguishable from the modern reddit style even though he's 500 years old

>>24571456
>Try not to reduce prose to its simplest interpretation
what bull..and why not?
don't waste my time with your fanshy shounding shit
if the ideas are good enough they don't need to be hidden behind muh prose

>>24572071
>RELIGIO MEDICI.

>SECT. 1.—For my religion, though there be several circumstances that might persuade the world I have none at all,—as the general scandal of my profession,[1]—the natural course of my studies,—the indifferency of my behaviour and discourse in matters of religion (neither violently defending one, nor with that common ardour and contention opposing another),—yet, in despite hereof, I dare without usurpation assume the honourable style of a Christian. Not that I merely owe this title to the font, my education, or the clime wherein I was born, as being bred up either to confirm those principles my parents instilled into my understanding, or by a general consent proceed in the religion of my country; but having, in my riper years and confirmed judgment, seen and examined all, I find myself obliged, by the principles of grace, and the law of mine own reason, to embrace no other name but this. Neither doth herein my zeal so far make me forget the general charity I owe unto humanity, as rather to hate than pity Turks, Infidels, and (what is worse) Jews; rather contenting myself to enjoy that happy style, than maligning those who refuse so glorious a title.

>>24571317
>I would replace him with Thomas Burnet or Milton
Thomas Nashe deserves the place most, I would say. In fact he's the greatest writer of English prose prior to Joyce. And if we could include Milton, then we might as well add Shakespeare.

>>24571395
I'm EFL, yet even I can confirm he's better than all of them.

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

>>24571281
we know

>>24572128
Johnson before all others would willingly concede that the Op four writers are the greatest in the language.

>>24572082
>what bull..and why not?
Because 'style' and 'substance' can only be separated in very mediocre writers. You're doing the literary equivalent of saying 'I don't care how the Sistine Chapel is painted, I care what it's about'. Emotions and ideas are conveyed in the details of language. If you fail to understand this I don't know what you're doing on a literature board. It's like you're not even familiar with the basic conventions of Baroque literature either. If you want slop prose for retards then just continue to read 4chan posts all day.

All these non-fiction guys lack the rhythm and poetics of the true prose GOATs

>>24571362
It’s ornate, eloquent, and flowery, and more poetic or stylistically accomplished than most prose today if you want to put it it like that, but I think you’re exaggerating its greatness from a bias from its oldness. The prose being more old-fashioned and containing archaisms is maybe making you bump it up a lot more than it should be.
I’m not saying this is a very BAD passage or Burton isn’t a good stylist, but it’s not as impressive next to other stylists roughly of that day, like Sir Thomas Browne, or even the prose of Shakespeare and Milton when they’re writing prose.

At minimum there’s better passages of Burton’s. This one is honestly a little clunky and with not so much poetic imagery or turns of phrase that shock you with their beauty, it’s more just an impassioned sermon with 17th-century vocabulary and sentence structure.


Browne’s Hydriotrophia, or Urn Burial:
https://luminarium.org/renascence-editions/browne/hydriotaphia.html

>>24574432
Let me guess, you think Corncob is a 'prose GOAT'?

>>24574455
I think your mom is a throat GOAT.

>>24574455
Nah I can't stand him really. Very phony writer

>>24571395
They're Englishmen.

>>24571317
>I might even replace him with William Drummond, who also only has one work of note, albeit much shorter, in A Cypress Grove.
Whoa, this looks fun and interesting, thanks for the rec, anon.
For those interested, all available online: https://dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/cypressgrove00drumrich/cypressgrove00drumrich.pdf

(Full PDF from archive.org). Starts properly at page 20 of the PDF, marked 18 in the scanned image of book page itself, with an introduction by another author before that. It is pretty short like this anon said, the body of the text ends on page 77 of the PDF. I’m a few pages in and so far it’s a discourse on death. It really is excellently written.

Now tell me the 4 horsemen of poetry.

>>24572082
This is a pragmatic, almost archetypically modern corporate-influenced view, but doesn’t apply so much when we’re talking about the beauty of a prose style itself as a part of enjoying great literature.
Namely, it’s an aesthetic matter, or a matter of art, which is not always just about the conveying the most information in the most efficient, concise, and easily understood way possible. The same way most music is not about that, so this type of literature is not about that.

>>24574524
Milton, Spenser, Donne, Blake.

>>24574450
Burton considered in his context actually appears much greater than he does when taken on his own. Browne and Milton belong to a later generation than Burton, although largely influenced by him. Prose had evolved quite quickly. And Shakespeare's dramatic prose should not really be judged as prose proper. Now compare Burton with any of his contemporary or earlier English prose writers, and I think his originality will be clear. Even Bacon can be comparatively a little sluggish and generic, but for me Burton is always vital and precise, and without abandoning proper structure for that excess which later writers like Browne sometimes turned into a fault. Hooker, Sidney, Nashe, etc. have all written great prose, but I think Burton almost always excels them.

>>24574524
Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton. I'd like to include Donne or Jonson but I think Spenser just narrowly edges them out.

>>24574545
>Blake.
Get outta here.

>>24574455
Pleb

Why? Just... Why?

>>24574613
>Shakespeare as a poet
kek NPC answer

>>24574629
Retarded contrarian argument.
>haha, you think homer is the greatest poet of antiquity? fucken normie npc

>>24574645
>keke refute me hand-me-downs literary opinion
you already lost breh

>>24574645
There are better English poets, that's all.

>>24574524
Milton, Shakespeare, Spenser, Byron

>>24574524
Rupi Kaur, Charles Bukowski, Amanda Gorman, Sylvia Plath.

>>24574689
unironically

>>24574652
>>24574659
If you seriously cannot understand why Shakespeare has the reputation he has, not merely among arbitrary deciders of taste, but among almost all of the great poets since his time, then you're the definition of a midwit meddling in matters above your grade. Sure, retards will swallow up any comments about Shakespeare without understanding him, although in an ideal situation they are at least being true to the strong impression that his genius has made on them, but you reject every positive evaluation of Shakespeare without even attempting to understand them. You haven't arrived at your opinions from intricately measuring your own observations against a traditional standard of expertise in this field, which is the only justifiable grounds for diverging from universally agreed truths, instead you've just rejected that standard as a result of it not suiting your untrained observations from the get-go, or, even worse, you've just rejected it because you do not believe in established standards of quality to begin with. Training and education matter in art, what is observable to the elite is not necessarily observable to the pleb, which is ironic because, in true midwit fashion, you're appealing to elitism while embodying a critical anarchism that can only result in the egalitarian nullifying of all opinions.

It boggles the mind that people this incapable of genuine thought dedicate so much effort to experiencing classic literature as a hobby.

anglosphere has a lot to say about sucking its own dick nah mean nigga

>>24574715
>Thread about specifically Anglo writers
>Why are they talking about Anglos?
The inferiority complex of certain posters is something else

>>24574711
Don't care. Blake better.

>If you seriously cannot understand why Shakespeare has the reputation he has, not merely among arbitrary deciders of taste, but among almost all of the great poets since his time, then you're the definition of a midwit meddling in matters above your grade. Sure, retards will swallow up any comments about Shakespeare without understanding him, although in an ideal situation they are at least being true to the strong impression that his genius has made on them, but you reject every positive evaluation of Shakespeare without even attempting to understand them. You haven't arrived at your opinions from intricately measuring your own observations against a traditional standard of expertise in this field, which is the only justifiable grounds for diverging from universally agreed truths, instead you've just rejected that standard as a result of it not suiting your untrained observations from the get-go, or, even worse, you've just rejected it because you do not believe in established standards of quality to begin with. Training and education matter in art, what is observable to the elite is not necessarily observable to the pleb, which is ironic because, in true midwit fashion, you're appealing to elitism while embodying a critical anarchism that can only result in the egalitarian nullifying of all opinions.
>It boggles the mind that people this incapable of genuine thought dedicate so much effort to experiencing classic literature as a hobby.

>>24570516 (OP)
I don't understand how you guys got in the habit of doing this, but did it ever occur to you to possibly NAME the people who you randomly throw up pictures of to provide context?

>>24574734
>not knowing what every writer looks like
Are you serious? Francis Bacon, Robert Burton, Thomas Browne, Jeremy Taylor.

>>24574734
back to r3dd1t short bus nigga. go fight for the cause on some twitch stream

>>24574739
In my particular case, I actually know who they all were. But for anyone not so knowledgeable, it just reflects a dunderheaded lack of courtesy or decorum to the reader. I absolutely loathe when you guys do this. Please stop.

>>24574725
The average Blake fan gets the same pleasure from poetry as a child gets from comic books. It's all like
>the gigantic shelzebarr wailing his despair hurtled in cries through the valley
etc. Vague and bombastic language on epical subject matter that I don't think most people care enough about to understand the mystical allegory behind it so it just ends up being read like pulp stories.

>>24574524
it's widely acknolwedged to be Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and *Wordsworth*

>>24574534
>which is not always just about the conveying the most information in the most efficient, concise, and easily understood way possible
It is actually. The prose stylists in question actually do exactly that, that is precisely from where the sublimity arises, and you're committing the exact same error as anon in reverse, shallow aestheticism being the obverse aspect of crude utilitarianism. Style and substance cannot be separated at any higher level. Most people just don't have the brains to glean anything but the surface of these writers' art.

>>24575274
>Wordsworth
Horrid windbag

>>24575669
...?
Elaborate.

>>24575682
>And Wordsworth, in a rather long “Excursion”
>(I think the quarto holds five hundred pages)
>Has given a sample from the vasty version
>Of his new system to perplex the sages;
>Tis poetry—at least by his assertion,
>And may appear so when the dog-star rages—
>And he who understands it would be able
>To add a story to the Tower of Babel.

He, like his fellow poet laureate Bob Southey and other “Lake Poets” as they were called, were massively popular with plebs and therefore massively overrated. They were basically performatively “great poets” who were capitalizing on Milton’s cultural cache, but with none of the substance. So Wordsworth would drone on in something like The Recluse in Milton’s blank verse for thousands of lines with absolutely nothing to say, but it had the appearance of being just like Milton and more importantly, it was completely asinine and inoffensive (mostly he liked to contemplate things like how pretty bees are), which earned him status and even the position of poet laureate. But there’s nothing in his “poetry” that deserves acclaim, he’s just a windbag.

>>24575710
then why did Joyce rate him and Shelley so highly?

>mostly he liked to contemplate things like how pretty bees are
what else is poetry for?

I prefer the Prelude to Paradise Lost. It’s more immediate, more timeless. He’s writing recognisably modern poetry rather than a fake epic which never quite rings true

>>24575710
You managed to say absolutely nothing in this juvenile criticism and it makes me think you haven't actually even read Wordsworth

>>24575775
Same guy? >>24575749

>>24574689
get me the co-ordinates of this son of bitch mods

>>24575779
No, but I agree with him.

>>24575816
I know

>>24570516 (OP)
Give me a work by each please.

>>24575903
Actually dont, I really do not care.

>>24575918
Bacon's Essays are a must-read anon

>>24575710
Lol, Wordsworth was actually quite a political poet, with his sonnets supporting the French Revolution, his blank verse is quite distinct from Milton's, his stylistic originality being universally acknowledged, and as a result his influence is enormous. He actually exerted an influence on Byron through his influence on Shelley, ironic as it is. Yes, Wordsworth can sometimes read like a poet for old men, endless prolixity and bemoaning lost youth, but unless you're an unintelligent teenager that shouldn't stop you from appreciating him.

>>24575274
If you really wanted to encompass the whole of English poetry as much as possible then you would have to say Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth and Yeats. If you're including Romanticism then you have to include Modernism.

>>24574773
You get pleasure from faggot sonnets. Blake remains superior.

>>24576229
Well of course the sonnet tradition in English is far richer than Blake's complete poetry. From Wyatt and Surrey through to Sidney, Spenser, Boyd, Donne, Milton, Wordsworth, Keats, Browning, Hopkins, etc. To say nothing of Italian sonnets.

>>24576843
You need to bring up entire traditions and even foreign shit just to try to match Blake's level. Embarrassing. Still, you derive pleasure from Shakespeare's implicitly and explicitly homosexual sonnets. Blake remains undefeated.

>>24576855
I was actually just saying that individual examples of sonnets from Shakespeare, Donne, Milton and others are better than any single poem from Blake. But that aside, Shakespeare's sonnets are most definitely not homosexual, and are in fact explicitly heterosexual, with both the poet and the Fair Youth being described as having sex with women, the poet wanting the Fair Youth to get married and have children, and many other similar comments. Also, isn't it rather contradictory to post AI slop while championing Blake? Not exactly a great testament to your appreciation of the human imagination.

>>24576872
theyre hit and miss, some of shakespeares sonnets are a little sentimental honestly, every play ive read has been flawless but i havent read enough of them to get to the more obscure ones

>>24576906
>some of shakespeares sonnets are a little sentimental honestly
I think it's more of an intentional playing around with the idea of sentimentality, going back and forth between parody. Because the value of Shakespeare's sonnets is often just in how masterfully he handles the conventions of the form, and then rehandles them, and then establishes new conventions, and continues on subtly shifting and varying them. The devil is really in the detail with his sonnets.

>every play ive read has been flawless but i havent read enough of them to get to the more obscure ones
I hope you enjoy them. Shakespeare is a much more diverse poet than he is usually credited as and some of those more obscure plays can be very unique in his oeuvre.

ENTER

>>24577318
What they best shits?

I honestly believe that of the great prose artists in the English language, those who are enjoyable to read and genuine philosophers -- and so, not insipid sentimentalists, critics, social commentators, and politicians -- are few.

I can only name Nashe, Florio, Browne, Sterne, Melville, James (William, not Henry), and Joyce.

>>24577329
Addison, the essays in the Spectator. Macaulay's essay on him contains a specific selection that's a good introduction.
Hazlitt, Table-Talk
Macaulay, Critical and Historical essays

>>24577345
Why would you include Melville and not Carlyle?

>>24577376
Why Carlyle and not Carlson?

>>24570516 (OP)
Chesterton.

>>24577384
LOL

>>24577376
Because Melville is better imo and wrote actual works of high art (more than just MD). And because Nietzsche, even in translation (Kaufmann, Hollingdale), fills that urge for me (not saying he's necessarily superior).

>>24577386
You hate him because he's fat and Catholic but the man could write.

>>24570516 (OP)
ehem.

>>24577414
>but the man could write.
Which hardly makes him one of the greatest writers ever. Stop mistaking your personal affections for objective evaluations.

>>24577499
Art can't be "objectively evaluated". Fool's errand. And yes, Chesterton is one of the best prose writers in English. Not top 4 but I could see him in a top 100. NTA btw.

>>24577534
>Art can't be "objectively evaluated".
Which doesn't mean it should be subjectively evaluated either. Taking aim with the use of the word 'objective', when it clearly has a greatly varying meaning beyond quantitative measurement and scientific proof, is silly.

Literally who

>>24570516 (OP)
Francis Bacon is so good, especially if you read him in the original typesetting with the long S. Strongly recommend the Essays

>>24574524
yeats, Wordsworth,Shelley and eliot.
The poet's during renaissance period like milton and shakespeare aren't human,they were gods. I'm only gonna include real humans in this category.