Which is your favorite and least favorite of the old immortal

>faerie queene
>bad

hello plebo.

>>8531554
I've tried so many times to enjoy Pride & Prejudice and I just can't. I see the value in it, I understand the themes and concepts, it's just unimaginably dull and is longer than it ever needed to be.

>>8531554
>Pic related is the objectively worst
Fuck off.

Eftsoons they heard a most melodious sound,
Of all that mote delight a dantie eare,
Such as attonce might not on liuing ground,
Saue in this Paradise, be heard elsewhere:
Right hard it was, for wight, which did it heare,
To read, what manner musicke that mote bee:
For all that pleasing is to liuing eare,
Was there consorted in one harmonee,
Birdes, voyces, instruments, windes, waters, all agree.

The joyous birdes, shrouded in chearefull shade
Their notes unto the voice attempred sweet;
Th’ Angelicall soft trembling voyces made
To th’ instruments divine respondence meet;
The silver sounding instruments did meet
With the base murmure of the waters fall;
The waters fall with difference discreet,
Now soft, now loud, unto the wind did call;
The gentle warbling wind low answerèd to all.

>>8531577
Unfortunately I feel the same way about Austen. Her writing is horrifically cold and mechanical, her characters don't feel like real people to me.

>>8531587
What makes prose good? Isn't it all entirely subjective, unless you're some Bloom-like autist who has encyclopedic knowledge of writing tropes and can identify influence and novelty? This is not an attack on your opinion; I've never read any Austen. I just don't understand what the standard for good literature is.

>>8531614
Well it's ultimately subjective. Some people might say Hemingway is cold due to his blunt, sparse style, but I find his characters to be very endearing and I think his style matches their emotions well. With an author like Austen it isn't just her style as she's obviously gifted in terms of technicality, but something about her writing just feels too technical for my tastes. She seems too concerned with her prose being as stable as possible with no flourishing blemishes or rule-breaking and on top of that her characters feel the same way and they just come off as incredibly bland.

Honestly, I feel this way about the majority of British authors. As far as poetry goes I think the British are excellent, but all the novels I've read by them come off as extremely adherent to the rules and their characters are always boring aristocrats. Maybe it's just the culture of Britain that throws me off because I like the Russians even though the majority of their protagonists are aristocratic in some way or another it feels like they act that way for appearance while never being able to keep their passions separated, whereas the British have no passion and their aristocracy is their personality which isn't appealing to me.

>>8531661
Thank you, this made things very clear for me. I'm fairly well read but have no literary merit so /lit/ throws me off a lot of the time. I really like the Russians too, especially Tolstoy.

>>8531577
Post Milton Anglo literature is objectively shit

>>8531661
What country are you from?

>>8531761
US

>>8531825
hmmm

Sorry you feel that way about British novels

>>8531661
British novels are all about aristocrats?! Are you sure youre not thinking of TV period dramas? More proof that /lil/ doesn't read.

>>8531661

Have you tried reading something like Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory?

>>8531582
terrible

>>8531577
5 years ago i hated austen as well-- but these days pride & prejudice is one of my favorite guilty pleasures.

>I am the happiest creature in the world. Perhaps other people have said so before, but not one with such justice. I am happier even than Jane; she only smiles, I laugh.

>>8531661
Read George Eliot