Leo Tolstoy would like a word with you.

Or several.

Funnily enough, it kind of applies to this article too.

I agree. Scarlet Letter is an example on how not to write. It is steam of consciousness without a modicum of merit. I don't think I learned anything from it. I read half of the book and was completely lost on what the author was trying to say. Maybe that was the author's point. But the writing is god awful. Below is a passage where the dude who got Hester pregnant confessed? Or is it her husband who felt cheated? Uggh. Who cares.

“Hester,” said he, “I ask not wherefore, nor how, thou hast fallen into the pit, or say rather, thou hast ascended to the pedestal of infamy, on which I found thee. The reason is not far to seek. It was my folly, and thy weakness. I,—a man of thought,—the book-worm of great libraries,—a man already in decay, having given my best years to feed the hungry dream of knowledge,— what had I to do with youth and beauty like thine own! Misshapen from my birth-hour, how could I delude myself with the idea that intellectual gifts might veil physical deformity in a young girl’s fantasy! Men call me wise. If sages were ever wise in their own behoof, I might have foreseen all this. I might have known that, as I came out of the vast and dismal forest, and entered this settlement of Christian men, the very first object to meet my eyes would be thyself, Hester Prynne, standing up, a statue of ignominy, before the people. Nay, from the moment when we came down the old church-steps together, a married pair, I might have beheld the bale-fire of that scarlet letter blazing at the end of our path!”

> steam of consciousness

I've got bad news about the 20th century- James Joyce, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Jack Kerouac, the hits don't stop coming

Eh, I'm enjoying the excerpts in this thread. It would be annoying in a newspaper, but the imagery and metaphors are beautiful. If there ever's a place for poetic prose, surely it's in a novel.

I know, I'm enjoying the excerpts too. This whole thread seems to be split between readers of literature, and those who want to most-fully embody Sam Bankman-Fried's philosophy that every book ought to have been a "6 paragraph blog post."

"What's the one-liner on The Scarlet Letter? It's 'adultery is bad,' right? I'll just assume it is and stick it in my Second Brain on Notion, and it'll be like I've read it."

I mean this is a monologue though, and it’s specifically self indulgent self deprecating content, this poor guy is whining about how he’s so smart and so old and ugly and how could he have ever thought that someone as young and got as Hester would be satisfied with him. It’s character voice, and it’s illustrative - “without a modicum of merit?” Really? This passage tells a whole story in itself, and it’s a familiar, human story, that bitter men have always told and will always tell anyone with will listen. “I wasn’t good enough.”

My point is that Scarlet Letter is taught to students. Usually it is taught as an example of good writing. I would argue it is an example of what not to do. If you want to convince people. If you want to get your point across. It is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The reader is drowning is on the author's verbosity.

If it is an example of poetic literature. Ok sure.

The husband is complaining that he should have foreseen that adultery was the logical outcome of marrying someone who is much more physically attractive than him.

I don't know if I can say it has no merit, but I also find this type of writing annoying. You can be verbose and interesting without so much padding and flowery speech. When you have this much to say about something, you have this much to say about everything, and I don't care to read long-winded analogies that the writer thinks are cute or wait for them to paint the picture in much more words than necessary.

Maybe people who enjoy this get some sort of energy thinking about well-developed, stylish prose, and it's easy for them to see the scene or this character's anguish but for me it's distracting and takes me out of the moment to focus on the writers "poetry".

* * *

This is MUCH better!

>authors seemingly in love with the sound of their own voice.

They should be. And if you’re not in love with the sound of the author’s voice too, you shouldn’t be reading their works.

Literature is a luxury. It’s not constrained by utilitarian purposes. Save the short and concise sentences for the newspapers. (Not to say that simple and clear sentences can’t ALSO be beautiful, of course; it’s just that that’s not the ONLY type of beauty to be found in literature.)

> They should be. And if you’re not in love with the sound of the author’s voice too, you shouldn’t be reading their works.

Please, tell that to my high-school English literature program directors

I think the literati of any age are a major source of bad writing, or at least, fluff. Many authors dedicate their efforts to writing stylishly, encumbering the reader to wade through excessive windy sentences and irrelevant minutia, or worse, obnoxious proselytizing. I have no love for any American writing before 1800, and little before 1900, especially the New England romanticists (e.g. Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, etc) or public men like America's Founding Fathers.

That said, the most brilliant writing I know came from the 1800s, especially the American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Sullivan Ballou, and popular novelists like Charles Dickens. Perhaps their extraordinary expressiveness arose because, for the first time in history, writing could be appreciated by many. Certainly authors of those times more often wrote from the heart, not just to entertain.