Solved literature

Ideas/Message > Style > Characters > Plot
Trust me, I'm a cumgenius conoisseur.

Intuition of Life > Characters > Style > Message/Ideas.

>hallucinations

style>messages/ideas>characters>>>plot

How does it work for film? I think

Plot>Characters=Style=Message>Dialogue is the winning combo

But for me:
Style>Plot=Dialogue=Characters>Message

style>characters>messages/ideas>>>>plot

Average plot can work great with great characters
Great plot with average characters can't

newfag

Attached: 75DAF812-9A3E-4451-9B2A-4CA229335AE6.jpg (1352x1817, 359.65K)

Characters > philosophical ideas > style.
Plot is for entertainment genre fiction reading retards. Every great story is about characters and the ideas they represent, because people don't have ideas, ideas have people.

Attached: faggott.gif (600x452, 3.94M)

style>messages/ideas>characters>>>plot
only midwits still like plot in 2022.

Oh look. Another smug frog with a tumor.
Didn’t read
*closes thread*

cover>author name>style>themes>references>author's photograph on the dust jacket>plot>characters>introduction

this

>style>messages/ideas>characters>>>plot
Correct answer
>Ideas/Message > Style > Characters > Plot
Also acceptable

Ideology > Gender > Race > Marketability > Social Media Presence >>>> Writing itself

Attached: 1637303020484.jpg (1800x2400, 2.88M)

If style in a book is beyond tolerable, why would anyone keep reading it? Even if the characters and plot are amazing but the prose is dogshit, I wouldn't pick up a book like that.

Style and characters are one in the same.

Name 5 supreme works, thanks.

That's right but it doesn't negate that there are aspects more important than othes

They doesn't exist, I'm still waiting for the guy who said that to name them. Spoiler: he won't (because he can't because no one can)

I just wanted his idea of it (if he was being serious at all) but yeah I agree. So many fluctuating variables involved.

anyone who includes messages or philosophicating as a component of literature cant into art. the only truly divine aspect of art is appreciating the experience it provides with no other purpose than that appreciation, as god must appreciate the world, with no external purpose like learning life lessons or egoistic mimesis of the oh so important human condition

as if ideas don't underpin all the others

shut the fuck up

reduce art to one aspect and it gets more boring than it should be. grow up, grow a pair, stop posting cringe.

you have a narrow view, one thing is that a book is made for example, as you put it,
>learning life lessons
and another different thing is that a book teach you a life lesson through its narrative, plot, characters, etc
One work can do multiple things, not just one

Plot is not important at all!

In Search of Lost Time, only I have some reservations about the plot
Stoner maybe
The Sorrows of Young Werther
idk

so you could name only one and two halves (and some people would disagree). Two out of five

many people fuck their vacuum cleaners. nothing wrong with that, but youre no more engaging in art when youre reading with the intent of truth-ing than someone who is fucking their vacuum cleaner is engaging in cleaning. and the two purposes dont coexist peacefully. the proof is the dull, cliched, ugly and yet always uppity art produced by didacticism or human condition rumination. plus readers who read with these intents (as can be observed on Yea Forums) are much more prone to reduce the works to those aspects, skimming over intricacies. for many readers who go in with this mindset instead of an artistic one, intricacy only means unimportant detail, instead of where the good chunk of appreciation begins. the more examples of books and readers i see, the less i believe in the swiss army book idea. even if a book could do the best of both worlds, the marriage would be as organic as a vacuum cleaner flesh light. you couldnt travel with it and the neighbours would know what youre up to every time.

>when youre reading with the intent of truth-ing
why would you do it? cant you read a book for the joy of reading it and suddenly run into a gold nugget of knowledge? yes you can and if a book does it, it has more depth which is usually a good thing

I bet your favourite author is Nabokov

Swap race and gender. I'd rather read a book written by white woman like Mary Shelly than a book written by a black man.

I feel like everything comes together to convey a central feeling or message. Therefore you can't say that one part is more important, because it all depends on the sort of message or emotion the writer wants to convey.

So I'd say the central message or feeling is the end product of different parts coming together. In a horror story a heavy focus on style and less on character can culminate in a feeling of the insignificance of our personal stories in the grand scheme of things ; think about Lovecraft for example.

Those are the priorities in publishing business

depth of truth and depth of beauty are different things, and the intents that aim for them in reading and writing conflict. if you were really reading for the joy of it, then you might miss a truth for example. at best they are irrelevant.
this
nabokov can confuse whats beautiful with whats clever sometimes. we also disagree on things like immersion vs detachment or first readings. i agree more with edgar allen poe but hes definitely not my favorite writer or anything

The Bible (whether you count it 1, 2 or 66.) is far and away the most superior work.
The prophetic works of Blake are perfect unities of character, plot, theology and verse style. (Let’s just pretend they’re one work.)
Same goes to Dante,
Add Shakespeare’s king Lear, (arguably you can put his greatest or all his pieces here depending on how much you like him.)
Milton’s paradise Lost is yet again this.

You can add homer if you want,I also have personal favorites which I consider to be perfect usages of all of the above, such as dunsany’s work, his mythology is perfectly mythological, having a perfect combination of control of their personalities, of his prose style with them, of the most aesthetic and appropriate ideals to the work etc.

I would also add Swinburne’s hymn to man and hymn to proserpine, for though I despise the ideal behind them both, i cannot say his force of personality that radiates and is crafted doesn’t come through, that the aesthetic produced isn’t a titan, that the sound isn’t perfectly suited and that the style doesn’t fit ntr subject matter.

I could go on.

If you want my elaborations on the specifics of what I consider aesthetic perfection I’ve written an autistic amount on the topic and I’ll gladly spam it at you if you desire, though I’ll post in pastebin as it’s too much.

Yeah, share it please

Okay I'll read those and tell you what I think of them

All I know is that Henry James sucks at all of them kek

This one is concerning my theories of aesthetics (written as an intro to a book of poetry.)

pastebin.com/nD9ffnDg

This is already long, I’ve further written on the specifics of character, but this is already too much most likely.

If you’re not opposed to Shakespeare due to language, King Lear is the easiest of the bunch with the least time investment required, not really requiring anything of you.

you wouldn't pick up a book if ANY of those elements were beyond tolerable, because BY DEFINITION, it's BEYOND tolerable

Embarassing post

Yeah, how about no.

Style>all

Do you rate any modern fiction?

Blessed sir you inspire me

Style>style>style>plot>style. All art wants to be just form as music. If you dont know that you was taking bobary as a "telenovela".

Tautology is a good thing. Is the ultimate goal of every form of language. So... The never was about the destiny but the friends we found in the travel.

What?
Pater’s argument isn’t sound

>The Bible
I don't know about that one. The plot is pretty thin, and if we consider it to be philosophical literature, it has some merit, sure; but it often gets bogged down in its own self-reverence, to the point where it becomes just a litany of fragmented aphorisms without rigorous justification. To boot, I don't know how you can be so sure that its style alone is all that impressive. After all, it is a translation. We're reading the words of a translator rather than the original author. Some characters are compelling (looking at you, Jesus) but I found God to be pretty unrealistic. The author tries very hard to impress upon the reader how great he is, but he's great in ways that begin to contradict themselves the further you read. The God referenced in latter chapters bears very little semblance whatsoever to the character we're introduced to at the beginning, and we are given no real reason for the change.

I'm sure the Bible has some historical significance to it, but beyond that, I would really struggle to call it great, much less sublime. I'd suggest the Bhagavad Gita if we need a replacement text. It's a much more rigorously-argued document, and couches its points in what is actually a compelling narrative in its own right. It's been said there are only five basic stories that have been told since the dawn of human history. The Bible isn't one of those structures, while the Gita is.