I doubt Hemingway would write in anything but assembly language.
I hated Hemingway in high school. His book was like, "The army marched. And fought. And marched again." Or something like that. I think it was the only assigned reading in my AP English class that I didn't finish -- I just couldn't stomach it.
Hemingway is crap. Writing 101: A "story" is an interesting narrative. Hemingway reads more like a boring list of facts. I don't understand why he's considered a great writer. In fact, if it wasn't for the professional typesetting, correct grammar and spelling, and sheer length of his novels, I would have assumed they were the incoherent rantings of some none-too-bright anonymous commenter on the Internet :)
Obviously, you know nothing of the Iceberg Theory and understanding subtext. Dickens is good, but he tells the entire story, leaving nothing out. There's no ambiguity or room to fill in the empty space with your own experience. That's why Old Man and the Sea was so great-- it's not about a man fishing, it's about anyone who has every accomplished something only to have it torn to shreds. Read between the lines. That's what makes Hemingway so great. It isn't the sound of the words, it's the sound of the silence between the words.
To those that lack that ability, I'm sure "Hills like White Elephants" is a story about a train station and "The Sun Also Rises" is a story about drinking.
The best writers know when to shut the heck up and let their stories resonate beyond the words on the page.
>I hated Hemingway in high school. His book was like, "The army marched. And fought. And marched again." Or something like that.
Finally, a very informative and intelligent literally opinion.
/s
>Hemingway is crap. Writing 101: A "story" is an interesting narrative.
You are confusing literature with pulp writing. The above statement is the equivalent to saying "A proper movie is a fast editing film with plenty of explosions and a rocking soundtrack".
Comments
I doubt Hemingway would write in anything but assembly language.
I hated Hemingway in high school. His book was like, "The army marched. And fought. And marched again." Or something like that. I think it was the only assigned reading in my AP English class that I didn't finish -- I just couldn't stomach it.
Hemingway is crap. Writing 101: A "story" is an interesting narrative. Hemingway reads more like a boring list of facts. I don't understand why he's considered a great writer. In fact, if it wasn't for the professional typesetting, correct grammar and spelling, and sheer length of his novels, I would have assumed they were the incoherent rantings of some none-too-bright anonymous commenter on the Internet :)
Dickens, on the other hand, is awesome.
Obviously, you know nothing of the Iceberg Theory and understanding subtext. Dickens is good, but he tells the entire story, leaving nothing out. There's no ambiguity or room to fill in the empty space with your own experience. That's why Old Man and the Sea was so great-- it's not about a man fishing, it's about anyone who has every accomplished something only to have it torn to shreds. Read between the lines. That's what makes Hemingway so great. It isn't the sound of the words, it's the sound of the silence between the words.
To those that lack that ability, I'm sure "Hills like White Elephants" is a story about a train station and "The Sun Also Rises" is a story about drinking.
The best writers know when to shut the heck up and let their stories resonate beyond the words on the page.
>I hated Hemingway in high school. His book was like, "The army marched. And fought. And marched again." Or something like that.
Finally, a very informative and intelligent literally opinion.
/s
>Hemingway is crap. Writing 101: A "story" is an interesting narrative.
You are confusing literature with pulp writing. The above statement is the equivalent to saying "A proper movie is a fast editing film with plenty of explosions and a rocking soundtrack".
Papa would use CoffeeScript. Less ornamentation.