I'm new to reading but why is there such an emphasize on good literature = descriptive?
>It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
This seems gay as frick. Everything is some gay little clever way of saying it's cold. Are there any writers that write more about emotion?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>1984
>good literature
L M A O
M
A
O
Houellebecq. No homosexual descriptions, no-bullshit, straight to the point homie
>pages and pages of being mad you're a subhuman of your own doing
That's really the bare minimum for fiction, anon.
The first line is phenomenal, especially the "clocks were striking thirteen." I agree that he goes overboard with the following line, though the dust following him into the building is a good detail.
The last line is forever etched into my mind too.
I like descriptions because they cause images to appear in my head when I read them and it makes the book more immersive
Saying "It's cold" doesn't really paint much of a picture. Antartica is cold, and a dreary English winter is also cold, but they're not the same. A writer is trying to create an image in your mind. Since you're making this thread, I assume you have no ability to picture things in your mind, so you are probably brown or a woman and you should stop reading immediately.
you nailed it
people dont realize how prevalent this disorder is
you have half a population or more assuming they can read and write when they cant even imagine
OP here
I might have this
mine comes in glimpses but I cannot hold onto it
Not every book is for everyone. As far as this book goes, I agree with you. If you are still new, and want something purely emotional, check out Wait until Spring, Bandini.
>It was a bright cold day in April,
Sets the ambient, the date, and the hemisphere.
>and the clocks were striking thirteen.
Clocks cant strike thirteen. This phrase is saying that, from the start, everything is wrong, and that you should doubt all of what comes next.
>Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions
He is escaping from nature and finds comfort in an human made building (autoritarism).
>though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
He cannot escape nature even if he wants.
Also, the streets are so dirty and unprotected that the wind can move dust.
1984 is not a masterpiece but it's good written. There is more to each sentence that the literal of what you are reading, you need to analyze them a little bit.
>Clocks cant strike thirteen
You sure about that? Isn't it just another way of saying 1pm?
At the time 1984 was written digital clocks did not exist, only mechanical ones. Google images how is a mechanical clock. The other guy saying its the militarized way its completely ignoring it says the word "clock" and "strike".
Its better to just search "clock" btw
>At the time 1984 was written digital clocks did not exist
How old are you? Yes, we had digital clocks in 1984. We had frigging digital wristwatches with LED since 1970.
> "clock" and "strike"
These don't have to be interpreted literally. The clock can strike two and I can know that just because the local church bell will toll at that hour. It's not even necessarily a real "bell" and could just be electronicaly produced and emitted.
1984 was not written in 1984, its supposed to be scifi moron. Do you think cyberpunk 2077 came out in 2077?
Well not scifi but a future dystopia.
Wrong. Saying 13 instead of 1 PM already sets a hint Winston is in a militarized society, since using 24 hour time has been commonplace in armed forces the world around for a long time.
It is, 1300 is 1PM.
when tf you ever seen a 24 hour analog clock striking 13? i'd love an exampj7le
>since using 24 hour time has been commonplace in armed forces the world around for a long time.
You're a burger aren't you? 24-hour time is used day-to-day in most of the world
Yeah but clocks strike up to twelve not thirteen
>a hint Winston is in a militarized society
This. But it's also ok if you don't know that like
says, it at least is indicative that something is terribly awry.
The narrator is providing the observation, the inferences are up to the reader and the fact that there are multiple things to be inferred here is indicative of it being well written
read a textbook then homosexual
I don’t want facts
I want emotions
Read poetry, then.
But there is necessary groundwork to be done before you can actually get yourself to feel emotion with a fictional character. You have to have some context in which it matters, and verisimilitude is part of that, hence the importance of description.
See above. This is either a very naive opinion or just actual autism.
its about the atmosphere anon
Google 'prose'
I honestly love this prose so much. I could read a book of it
the reason is that the basic unit of writing is the word. all of writing or even "using words to describe the world" is like a board game, where you place each word one by one. every word has myriad connections to other words, and so every word has enormous impact on a story. part of the difference between good and bad writing is how accurately the word choice describes your vision of the scene, and how effectively it transmits that vision to the reader.
i encourage you to pay more attention to the words in what you read, and also in what you think. i grew up reading a lot of books, but it wasn't until i learned about logic in undergrad that i realized that almost all of the power in writing and thinking comes from word choice.
Good literature is visceral. It uses words to unlock memories in your head, and if you dont have a memory of it, like what the inside of the Kremlin is like, it's meant to plant that same feeling in you. And the way you do that is with description.
I'm of the opinion that no book on the human condition needs to be over 250 pages, many of my favorites are barely 150 pages. anything over that is filled with unnecessary exposition and boy do I hate unnecessary exposition. midwits love reading pointless descriptions of trees and weather which is why so many "great" books are plagued with it. You have to read lesser known "erudite" authors to find works that aren't filled with dozens of pages of this shit.
erudite is usually code for "knows how to use only the necessary words to get across what they want to say". that's also the issue with books filled with pointless exposition it's almost always a sign that the author doesn't have much to say so they end up saying a whole lot of nothing. If you have a point about the human condition you want to convey, writing pointless descriptions of scenery won't even cross your mind.
there are tons of authors like this OP but you need to step outside the most well known works to find it. Half the reason so much popular lit is filled with this sort of thing is because midwits who read to check a box love reading pointless descriptions because they don't have to think too hard about it and still get to claim they read something deep.
Thanks for the idea of including more description of trees as analogy for the myriad aspects yet simultaneous similarities the human condition on an both individual and societal levels
Only pretentious buttholes care about that shit. Just find books that you like and read them.