Thread 24668923

Why is /lit/ so vehemently against plot and narrative structure in their books? /lit/ is so idolatrous towards prose to the point that they might want all the words to be broken down in phonemes than anything meaningful and at the same time, plot and story is seen as something wretched, as if the chaff to a wheat.

I believe the current state of reading, and books and literature, has something to do with this kind of attitude where aesthetics is championed above the substance. It’s like hating the pillar while admiring the embroidery. /lit/ feels like a microcosm of the rot and stagnation that has slowly captured literature starting from modernism to whatever we have now.

prose = plot
plot = prose
In other words if you're shit at one you're shit at the other

>>24668923 (OP)
Big Lebowski voice...
"That's, like, your opinion and stuff, man."
Part of the overall issue is that with good characters and good dialog, a standard tried and true trope plot works as a good framework. Too big and complicated of a plot can get in the way of those two essential ingredients. I guess genre slop becomes the next step up, when big complicated plot is properly married to characters and dialog. Decent prose is the third plus, to good characters and dialog.

>>24668923 (OP)
>Why is /lit/ so vehemently against plot and narrative structure in their books?
Because they're insecure about how smart they are, and one way to feel smart without any effort is to divide the world into false binaries and rigorously defend the Good side against the Bad.

>I believe the current state of reading, and books and literature, has something to do with this kind of attitude where aesthetics is championed above the substance. It’s like hating the pillar while admiring the embroidery. /lit/ feels like a microcosm of the rot and stagnation that has slowly captured literature starting from modernism to whatever we have now.
Are you sure you're not doing the thing I described above? Have you read much modernist literature? Good modernism is about exploring the relationships between plot and prose, form and content, style and substance, not picking one over the other. Beckett's Malone Dies isn't about ignoring story, it's about a man who feels the world slipping away into meaninglessness and who therefore desperately tries to piece together a meaningful story out of the disjointed scraps of his memory and experience. Virginia Woolf's prose isn't intended to draw her attention to her fancy style, it's the only way she knew to tap into the deep levels of emotional life that previous styles couldn't access because they reduced it to tidy cliches, thereby imposing their own kind of formal stylistic standards onto the substance of people's experience.

Basically I think these rigid dichotomies are only good if you want a cheap-n-quick way to sound smart in a /lit/ thread and they're dismally useless if you want to think about how books actually work.

>>24668923 (OP)
I get what you mean and I feel it too. This might be overly cynical but I suspect many read to look smart and to some degree don't actually enjoy reading, and dry tomes of language and ideas that are difficult to parse can be used to signal some sort of status while privately enjoying a compelling story cannot be bragged about, plus it doesn't contain the markers of high literature (tm) so there are no indicators of how you should feel about a book; you're on your own.
Also plot is often conflated with world building and genre stuff which is often cheap trope assembling, but an original, airtight plot that flows organically from characters and premise requires a strong grasp of character psychology and dramatic instinct and genuine emotional inspiration - you have something to say that feels like it needs to come out - all of which is rare, and it's ironically easier to default to allegory or writing about ideas.

prose is such a nebulous word that /lit/ itself doesn't know how to define it, if someone uses it to define a book, consider them a pseud

>>24668991
Prose is the art of writing in an aesthetically-pleasing way, so that a text does more than just convey information.

>>24668959
>Also plot is often conflated with world building and genre stuff which is often cheap trope assembling, but an original, airtight plot that flows organically from characters and premise requires a strong grasp of character psychology and dramatic instinct and genuine emotional inspiration - you have something to say that feels like it needs to come out - all of which is rare, and it's ironically easier to default to allegory or writing about ideas.
Exactly! Creating a plot where all the prices fit perfectly is just sublime. Every motivation, every dialogue, every action which goes into telling a riveting yarn requires a high level of skill and thought.

>>24668991
Wut. Prose is style, nothing more. I dont think you know what prose means. Go read a few chapters from The Naked Lunch and a few from Middlemarch; it will be immediately apparent.

>>24669001
>more than just convey information
I think this definition is what is hurting literature. While it is true that prose can give something “more” than information, if prose is just for that then it is quite narrow.

Prose can enhance information. It does not have to be an aside alwyas. Rhetoric deals in that. I think because prose has been separated as its own thing, things have went downhill.

Acknowledging "plot" and "prose" as distinct or exclusive subjects is retarded. The greatest authors are universally masters of style and narrative structure. Just look at the /lit/ hottest 100. Nabokov, Joyce, Melville, Condrad, Shakespeare etc. etc.

>>24669010
Style of what lmao, character perspective, dialogue, exposition, theme? You can't even say anything about it without applying subjective blanket terms that aren't repeatable throughout a narrative.

>>24669017
>Nabokov, Joyce
You will have to make a case for them. I can understand Melville and Conrad, but for the first two, I don’t believe it.

>>24669018
Diction, you twat. I'll be gracious and expand it to include grammar as well. You've lost the plot completely at this point.

Lit doesn't read and especially doesn't buy indie or new stuff so their opinion on what you want to write doesn't really matter since they will never be your intended audience.
Hell, I am pretty sure the vast majority of lit doesn't buy books at all and barely actually reads.

>>24669019
Is that because you haven't read them?

>>24669017
They are manifestly distinct subjects. A plot can be employed by any writer; prose style is unique to individual writers.
And Joyce once boasted he'd never invented a plot in his life.

>>24669032
Here's diction for you. Hast thou not been back to your house since you left my dwelling? Mixed diction with perfect grammar.

>>24669036
Alright, I’ll play. I haven’t read them. What’s your defense of them? I don’t see them as masters of plot

>>24669040
And together that is your prose; the style you choose to write in.

>>24669057
So why is prose good or bad if you can come up with your own grammar?

>>24669038
Joyce is excellent precisely because his books are not contrived "into a plot", but this doesn't preclude narrative or meaning, which is rather more important.

>>24669017
Lol what a deluded post

For the same reason that obsessing over plot in film is retarded.

>>24669034
I bet you're pretty sure of lots of retarded things.

>>24669061
That's a subjective question. Depends who's reading it. Prose that is mechanically sound and figuratively evocative tends to be in higher regard, but it depends on both the medium and message. A gritty noir story has a certain "chandler" quality to it, where it leans into genre conventions of strong figurative language, first person narration, yadda yadda. If you wrote it in the style of, oh I dont know, The Lord of the Rings there would be a mismatch regardless of technical ability, though that depends on your skill.

To address your question, it depends on the story you're telling. For example some derped hicks in the woods speaking in vernacular can be quality prose, if executed well, even if you arent following genre conventions. A lot of modernist lit is like this where they play with the structure of intentionally to produce additional flavour. Whether it's good or bad depends on the effectiveness and the skill of the writer.

>>24669082
Plebeian post. A well-constructed plot works like a fine Swiss watch. It's a thing of beauty in itself.

>>24669018
word choice and arrangement ie diction you literal retard

>>24669082
>feels matter more than craft or story telling
>novelty over logic

That take is utterly unworthy of any sort of respect.

>>24668923 (OP)
Because they're filtered by Aristotle and have never been able to deboonk him

>>24669103
humanitiestards be like

>>24668923 (OP)
Is it? Shakespeare, Montaigne, and Goethe are at least mentioned here, and usually tor their way with words when it comes to reflecting the human condition.in stories told well enough to be immersive on reading. Sometimes I think the standard for amnesia and idiocy is absolutely parallel.

>>24669177
>Is it?
Yes. Whenever you say a story is boring or doesn't make sense you're called a plotfag, as if valuing plot is invalid

>>24669082
this is stupid. It's like saying "fuck syntax". Okay, I get the spirit, but eventually you'll rely on some modicum of syntax. Ditto for plot. I rewatched Conan and was delighted by the plot structure that bundled like 3 movies in one. Refreshing! We need to be able to point at stuff like this, there's a middleground between hollywood slop and high art.

Why do plotfags get triggered and strawman? Can recall maybe 3 times I have seen some anon rage against plot itself. Never seen anyone against narrative structure and you would have very little to read if you were against it, guessing you are reducing narrative structure to plot but that seems weird since you already said plot.

What many anons have issue with is people reducing a book to the plot at cost of everything else which makes up the novel, plotfagging. Nothing wrong with being a plotfag but have some self awareness about it and realize that it is not really an insult, it is just a way of saying you missed some stuff because you were overly fixated on plot. And ignore people who don't offer anything beyond calling you a plotfag, they are probably trolling.

You are anonymous, there are no consequences to admitting and acknowledging this stuff here, embrace it. Oh no! an anonymous person anonymously insulted me while I was anonymous!

>>24669868
if a books is readable at all, nothing essential can be ‘missed’ by just taking the book as it presents itself. on the other hand, it’s very easy to miss things in a book by over-reading.

>>24669889
This is probably the biggest problem with /lit/ these days, there is no discussion to be had when everyone has all the answers, so we get circle jerks and petty bickering instead. Personally, I discuss literature so I can learn more about what I read; even if someone did "over-read" they probably have some useful insights but I will never get those insights if I had that mentality. I will never understand why people can't put aside their egos when anonymous, no one will know that you are not perfect or that you made a fool of yourself or that won the argument, there is nothing to gain or lose here.

>>24669868
>Ideasfags desperately jumping ship as the pendulum starts to swing back
Oh no no no

>>24669923
horrible praise is more lethal than any abuse

>>24669034
I know you think you sound all authoritative and cool and all that jazz? But really you just sound like self important blowhard with a paper asshole

>>24670501
you resurrected a thread for this zinger?
someone come collect their dad

>>24668991
>prose: ordinary non-metrical form of written or spoken language

>>24670523
dictionaries record usage. it’s fine if the question is ‘what do people mean when they say prose?’ but they’re not used for deeper inquiry.

>>24670530
>t. has been using prose wrong

>>24670535
>has been using dictionaries wrong

plotfags are a direct conclusion of the broader crisis in media literacy. I reject plot (as the primary driver of narrative momentum) because it makes the work hostile to superficial interpretation. I write with a strong emotional core in mind and justify everything on its basis.

>>24669016
>have went

>>24670530
Dictionaries provide a definition of the word; pronunciation; etymology; usage in context

>>24670543
There is nothing more vulgar than works that set out to prove something. Shakespeare, for instance, avoids even the appearance of trying to prove anything.

>>24670558
You're projecting. I merely said that I want to filter out retards from my audience (such as yourself).

>>24670557
sorry does that address something i said?

>>24670562
>I merely said
hedging fallacy

>>24670543
If you wrote with a strong emotional core in mind then a good plot would necessarily result. Something is wrong is here.

>>24670563
Indeed

>>24670562
Imagining a select audience for your book that doesn't even exist in a publishable state definitely shows you really want to prove something

>>24670605
>writing for a specific audience is an exercise in egotism
lol

>>24670562
Think you actually just misunderstood what I said

People who value plot think the coolest most awesome thing you can pull in a story is a plot twist. Their favorite stories always have an epic twist that they totally didn't see coming. This sort of story telling that values shock and surprise over actual story telling is the corner stone of trash entertainment: soap operas, Game of Thrones, M Night Shymalan films, Christopher Nolan films, people who like to clasp their hands over the ears and shout "don't spoil it for me!" It really is pathetic. When these type of people who value plot try to write a story, they don't care about characters or setting or themes or conflict, they only care about the epic plot twist. They actually have no story a all. These types of people think that they can "understand a story" by reading only the summary. Like they can have chatGPT summarize War and Peace as "aristocracy bad. Forgiveness good." After all, what else is there to a story?

Prose fags take the scenic route. They enjoy the story not for what it is, but how it's told. The plot summary on wikipedia doesn't interest them. It's the brush strokes on the canvas that they enjoy. Prose fags are the careful readers. They see the beauty of the story. They see the subtext. They're the opposite of the "curtains are fucking blue" retards. Prose fags can predict the ending to a story before they finish the first chapter, and that's okay, because the ending isn't the end all be all of a story. It's just a piece of the story. A small, insignificant piece.

If you're a plot fag know that you are dumb, and I hate you.

Have you ever read a shittily written fantasy/scifi novel that left you wondering how it even got published? If not, you're not allowed to say "prose doesn't matter."

>>24670653
The main English language tradition - trying to tell interesting stories about understandable characters in a reasonably straightforward style, no tricks, no experimental silliness.

>>24670697
Prose wasn't the problem with the shitty fantasy books I read.
It had fundamental issues, including with plot, charters, and premises.

>>24670755
what you just described does not exist. Old English literature, such as Beowulf, was primarily written in alliterative verse. That's "the main English language tradition." The modern novel was we know it did not even exist until after the 1600s. And the first modern novel, Don Quixote was largely plotless and nothing but experimental silliness.

If you enjoy books with intricate plots written at a 5th grade reading level, with nothing else to them below the surface, completely devoid of style, then that's fine. We all have our preferences. But you are talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.

>>24670543
>media literacy
I can never take someone who say this, especially when most of the time they somehow also believe in death of the author

>>24670653
Enjoying prose for its own sake is no different than enjoying plot for its own sake. Detached from any further substance it's hollow. It's just a flourish that might produce an artistic impression.

>>24671099
Are you stupid? I clearly didn't mean Beowulf by that, I mean the line that runs from Defoe through Austen and Trollope to Waugh.

Since you mention it though, the novel has changed remarkably little since it's earliest ancestor, the Odyssey (with its combination of travel adventures and marital reunion validated as a correct narrative destination, it is the principal foundation-text of romance). Which showed that story is about human experience and adventure, not gimmicks. To greater or lesser degree, all novels are descendants of the second Homeric epic. The first 'proper modern novel', Quixote, is a close brother to the Odyssey.

As for Don Quixote being ‘plotless experimental silliness,’ that’s the kind of remark that makes me suspect you haven’t read it.

>>24671002
Well, that's where we differ. I picked up what I thought was some pulp science fiction full of pew pew lasers and alien damsels. What I got was an extended torture montage of a dude masturbating in a white featureless room and put it down without further thought. Conceptually? Sure whatever, the fuck do I care I'm sure someone could do it well. This author did not. The prose was abominable and depressing; hyper subjective and obviously fixated on the concept. Yuck.

>>24669096
>The Lord of the Rings there would be a mismatch regardless of technical ability, though that depends on your skill.
Twelve pages explaining how the detective got lost in the Elven ghetto would be great to read.