Hemingway vs. Faulkner

Yes, Faulkner was better.

>>9491242
Yeah this

>>9491237
Hemingway is a meme-author just like David Foster Wallace or Shakespeare.

>>9491260
>Shakespeare
>Meme
Time for bed

>>9491237
Faulkner's "greatness" was a function of white supremacy and Hemingway's latent homosexuality makes him the more relevant writer today

>>9491294
Please stop posting, anon. I feel embarrassed for you.

Faulkner's greatness comes from him being a writing genius, and his ability to capture the decline of the aristocratic south.

>>9491237
Faulkner was better. He was the best American writer of his generation.

hate me and send me to reddit
but Heminghway is better in my opinion, more real and honest, they are both great th
simple =/= bad
be careful with the fedora

Its just a case of apples and oranges, I don't think anyone could possibly say that one is the superior writer. Hemingway probably had more financial success, but that isn't necessarily a reflection of merit regarding the quality of his writing. Tough to say!

>>9491237
They're not really similar. Faulkner wrote about the fantasized bourgeois South while Hemingway wrote about the worker and soldier.

>>9491897
>Southern family dramas aren't real
>Never imagined oneself in the cornfields the morning of Pickett's Charge.

I like Hemmingway but I don't feel the argument of being "real" is a good one.

>>9491237

one was juvenile and for teenagers; the other not so much.

>>9491260
>DFW
>meme
Have you even read IJ, fagpai?

>>9491940
Not who you replied to.

I wouldn't say it's a matter of "real" but more of experience. Going to war, falling in love, fishing, these are things every American can sort of envision. But placing yourself in the decay of the gothic abject south asks the reader for something more, something else.

>>9491237
Faulkner hands down. His writings have more thematic depth and complexity and he is able to express them with a finer level of control and dexterity.
As I Lay Dying might be my favorite book honestly.

>>9493743

Stop pretending. You're not unique.

>>9491260
>Shakespeare
>meme
probably trolling but this is what retarded contrarian redditors actually believe

Faulkner, obviously

>>9493777
Shakespeare kinda is meme tier. I'm not saying that he wasn't a genius, and that his plays are not good--but he's definitely meme tier these days.

Also, anyone that thinks Hemingway is better than Faulkner has an objectively garbage opinion.

>>9493790
"meme" doesn't mean popular in this contetxt, it means popularity without the substance to back it up

>>9493755
What. I'm not trying to be unique. You think I'm being contrarian because I didn't choose The Sound And The Fury? I actually haven't ever read it all the way through, so perhaps that is why.

>>9492070
This senpai

Hemmingway just wrote thinly veiled nonfiction, making it generally more accessible.
It is definitely an apples and oranges thing for literary merit

>>9493790
everything is meme tier these days, that's the problem and that's how the internet works, it's not an argument

>>9491237
Hemingway isn't bad, but Faulkner is on a completely different level IMO. Probably the best American author (at least its between him and Melville).

>>9491237
No.

Faulkner was prodigy but didn't control his talent. This leads to more turgid and uneven parts of his as in The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom!; he also was more prone to trying to create over-the-top, instantaneously hyper-emotional/loaded scenes and situations without really building up to them.

Hemingway didn't have this genius for prose style, and he didn't have this hyper emotional gargantuism. His works are more lucid and restrained and slowly build up to tragic climaxes/catharses. He wrote his books and stories much more subtly than most people think.

They're deceptively simple, IMO, Hemingway's works. Joyce even praised him and said the same thing, that a lot more effort went into his prose than people thought.

I find it hard to say one is superior because they're both doing different things. Faulkner is more consciously literary and seemingly more ambitious, works more with allusions and with creating poetic and challenging prose and scenes. But Hemingway would probably call him "too goddamn literary and romantic" and maybe be right.

>>9495679
>They're deceptively simple, IMO, Hemingway's works.

I don't agree. His style worked for Farewell to Arms and Sun also Rises, but in For Whom the Bell Tolls his "iceberg theory" atrophies.

Old Man and the Sea was a perfect application of his prose, however.

Melville and Conrad, NOT Hemmingway and Faulkner OK. Praise Jesus