Who are some writers who embody the phrase "style over

>>7575003
Not Nabokov, faggot.

>>7575003
Style is substance

>>7575003
Edgar Allan Poe

Herman Melville

>>7575012
back to the coffin, mr. wilde

that's the definition of Ulysses, OP

>>7575032
?

All of them. Substance is subjective, therefore vague.

Danielewski, but I still love House of Leaves.

Words are clothing, like fashion; How good does the author look in these and how do I look (and feel) wearing them.

Cormac "Fetch me my Thesaurus, woman!" McCarthy

>>7575088

>Words are clothing, like fashion; How good does the author look in these and how do I look (and feel) wearing them.

Found the faggot...

...but you're right...

>>7575006
Nabokov's detractors fault him for being an aesthete and for his over-attention to language and detail rather than character development. In his essay "Nabokov, or Nostalgia", Danilo Kiš wrote that Nabokov's is "a magnificent, complex, and sterile art."

File: 1449444755124.jpg (188KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 600x600px

>>7575012

James Joyce in a nutshell

>>7575003

In all seriousness, what does this mean? What constitutes "substance" in a work of literature? Weighty themes? Philosophical insights? I really don't know.

What about revolutionizing the way literature is written? That sounds like style.

What if a book doesn't even have a unique style and is just focused on delivering plot? Does it have neither style nor substance then?

I used to think reading fiction was valuable because it provided some insight into the human condition or some such shit. I don't even know if that's true any more; read philosophy if you want effective knowledge. Now I just read books because they're interesting.

File: bee.jpg (16KB, 220x267px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x267px

>>7575003

>>7575153
Philosophical depth. Hamlet is a great example of the height of both style and substance.

>>7575153

>I used to think reading fiction was valuable because it provided some insight into the human condition or some such shit. I don't even know if that's true any more; read philosophy if you want effective knowledge.

In all seriousness, what does this mean? What constitutes "insight" into the human condition or some such shit. Philosophical insights? I don't even know if that's true anymore. Effective knowledge? I really don't know.

>>7575170

"Insight into the human condition" doesn't mean anything, that's why I stopped caring about it. By effective knowledge I just meant knowledge you can use, ideas about how to live your life, but that was poor phrasing,

What does any of it even meme though?

>>7575161
>Philosophical depth.
>Hamlet
lol
Hamlet seems deep only because of Shakespeare's poetics, otherwise it would be juvenile.

>>7575116
Art doesn't have to be heavily hermeneutical tho. I gotta go with Sontag on this one. A beautifully written text has as much value and substance as one with a heavy philosophical or thematic corpus.

That's why music is so awesome.

ITT "muh prose" vs. "muh plot"

>>7575195
Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour’s at the stake.

Though inclination be as sharp as will:
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent;
And, like a man to double business bound,
I stand in pause where I shall first begin,
And both neglect.

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin?

>>7575227
No one is talking about plot here.