>the character narrating is a child/retard/female, the prose

>>8820599
Ya, I agree.

>>8820610

Finally, I thought all of /lit/ were apologetic idiots, glad to see a fellow.

or, you know, you suck dick

>>8820599
Sure. Most of the time is as you say.

Not The Sound and the Fury though.

>>8820626

Was thinking more along the lines of the early parts of Young Artist

dont talk shit about faulkner pussy

>>8820649

Who the fuck reads Faulkner anymore

>>8820677
Corncob fetishits.

File: 9374FDCE-EC48-4B46-990F-B2034D6A8AF1-35646-00002A327F2C10F1_tmp.jpg (443KB, 678x966px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 678x966px

>the character narrating is a pretentious faggot, the writing is supposed to be purple and poorly wirtten!

Or, you know, it's just bad writing.

>>8820616
I mean, I could see it being done on purpose if the author had a certain goal in mind and could pull it off right, but that's just like every other thing that tries to go against the grain. You have to be able to pull it off, otherwise, yes, it's shit writing.

Simply ebin thread

>>8820698

Fucking exactly

>>8820632
That's pretty fucking retarded because Joyce shows how well he can write later in the book.

>>8820677
who the fuck reads the greeks anymore?

>>8820896
Are you actually trying to put Faulkner near the level of Homer?

>>8821023
So your saying people don't read falukner anymore because he is of a substandard quality?

>>8821187

Are you saying people read Faulkner because of his "quality"?

>>8820632
The early parts of Young Artist have the best prose in the book you fucking mong

Maybe you should stick to Dickens

>>8821257
yes
If he was bad at what he did, i don't see why people would read him.

>>8821023
>Homer was a writer
LOL