What's the most pretentious crap you've endured? Jesus

>>78289677
Define "pretentious".

>>78289692
Easy, outburst of low quality prose masquerading as a sizzling stream of consciousness type writeup. Can't you see the panel I posted?

>>78289677
Reading the term "purple prose" was the most pretentious crap I've endured today.

>>78289717
Yet it is a proper denomination for Talbot's work, my dear world weary chap.

>>78289728
Maybe, but I'm sure the same meaning could have been achieved with a less flowery description.

>>78289776
Purple prose is a pretty common judgement.

File: 1266955265488.png (334KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 640x480px

>>78289792
Yeah, I'm just trying to start shit, don't mind me.

>>78289815
I started the thread because I was surprised how poor the writing in Luther Arkwright was.

Art direction is pretty great.

>>78289677
Why would you read poetry if you're just going to shit on it?
See, I stopped reading that when I realized I didn't want to continue but you sound like you forced yourself to read the whole thing.

>>78290149
>reading

nigger the art is good, it's a visual medium

>>78290167
Are you retarded? Because I'd have to assume you are based on you calling comic books, which are pretty obviously reliant on both text AND imagery, a purely visual medium.
These are not picture books. They aren't collections of paintings by a specific artist (which would be SUPER weird considering most covers are done by entirely different artists than the interior works).

>>78290200
no one cares about comic book writers. are you one of those graphix novel fags?

>these are not picture books

you seem delusional.

>>78290231
Alright, bye.

>>78290246
go back to your hugbox

Fun fact: I know a guy who made Talbot's website, simply because he's such a huge fan of the guy's work.

I keep meaning to ask him about whether or not Grandeville is meant to be a criticism of post-9/11 politics or just conspiracy theory nonsense.

>>78290358
You should do an interview for the sake of /co/. Don't you love /co/, anon?

Anyway I know nothing about Talbot but he seems to be from the same batch of contrarian britbong magickians like Moore and Morrison. Maybe it's a post punk thing.

>>78289708
So when you find a "sizzling stream of consciousness" as you say, how do you reveal that it was, in fact, in actuality, "low quality prose"?

What gives it away? What is the divide?
How do you determine that prose is "low quality" ? Quality of the thought or of the style?
How do you define the quality of a thought?
How do you define the quality of a style?

In other words: define "pretentious", but this time for real.

I'll be content with "it's a random buzzword that means bad".

>most pretentious?
/co/

>>78290200
>purely visual medium.

But anon didn't say it was purely visual.

>>78290519
Because when you write stream of consciousness you don't just mash up tons of references to religious/sexual imagery expecting those concepts to mask the stylistic breakdown. Are you trying to say that quality of prose cannot be judged objectively? What is the point of literary studies then?

Listen, I had to endure some Talbot's chum comparing him to Joyce, no holds barred, in the afterword.

I'd also say that quality of thought is a very important thing when the piece aims to introduce various philosophical themes and it does it like this:

>narayana...vishnawanda..tantric sex..floating in blackness of space, pining for erosion of consciousness..crowley in aegypt...dark abyss of my soul

etc etc

>>78290538
It's almost as if people love to argue with strawmans.

File: 287891905_4b3e7ef595.jpg (36KB, 274x368px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 274x368px

>>78290200
>which are pretty obviously reliant on both text
Comic books aren't reliant on text

>>78290714
I blame Hugo awards for that notion.

File: Adventures of Luther Arkwright #06.cbr-09.jpg (576KB, 1024x1586px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1024x1586px

It continues