>primarily concerned with the prose of a novel You guys are

nobody here is concerned with the prose of a novel. it is an abstract and subjective enough thing that they can cite 'good prose' without knowing why and still feel elitist because noone on the board is themselves smart enough to question

its a viscouspseudcycle

>>9321684
Word.

>>9321684
Wwoooahh! Incisive commentary.

>>9321697
Agreed. It's always cool when someone eviscerate s the retards that make up the majority of this board.

>>9321684
wut. a lot of anons question it. shitposting and /pol/ just drown them out.

>>9321716
KYS

>>9321677
I'll be concerned over anything I want, I'm not an elitist who thinks he knows the best way to appreciate something.

>>9321684
fpbp

>>9321684
you're right but shit how do i actually retain the details of stories when they're buried within antiquated and/or over-elaborate writing

>>9322020
Uh...don't read things with antiquated and/or over-elaborate writing then? I've just revolutionized your reading experience. You can think me a few years down the road when you stop and realize how much more you enjoy reading then.

>>9321743
You are never allowed to criticize anyone's interpretation of good grammar ever again.

>>9322028
What did he supposedly do wrong and when did he criticize someone's grammar?

>>9322024
i'd be missing out on a whole lot if i discarded everything with somewhat outdated language. and i actually agree with you re the enjoyment factor but imo it's often worth going through the challenge of difficult reads, cause if you're attentive enough you usually do end up understanding them or at least getting something out of them.