/lit/ - Literature

>>18067500
Stop being such a pretentious pseud.

Yes, it is bad, despicable human being. Fuck you.

>>18067500
checked and no it actually means you’re straight

>>18067500
whoa you're so cool and enlightened, Mr Hipster.

>>18067508
I'm not trying to be pretentious, I really just feel nothing and have no interest in contemporary literature; it all feels fake and disingenuous.

>>18067522
gay*

>>18067533
have you read it all or what?

>>18067549
God, no, I just put it on my shelf and take a picture to share on stack threads.

Have you tried paranormal erotica?

>>18067549
This post >>18067557 is not me. I don't just take photos of books and never touch them, I read all the books I buy; it's just that I don't read contemporary literature, and I feel a little dirty for doing so, but staunchly avoid it at the same time.
>>18067566
No, but you've piqued my interest.

i mean there are classics outside the period you read, but it isnt weird regardless

>>18067500
1920’s is one of the best decades in literature history. Books seemed to steeply decline in quality after WW2

>>18067500
Hello boymoder

>>18067580
how do you know you dislike contemporary literature if you have not read any of it? You don't have to read any contemporary works, you have no obligation to do so and there's nothing wrong with not reading them. Regardless, I'll always tell people they should read some either way, at worst you'll not like any of it and you'll be able to better express what you dislike of contemporary lit (which is more fruitful than just basing your dislike of it in prejudices), at best you'll find new kinds of book you'll enjoy. Only if you're interested in writing do I think it's imperative to read contemporary lit.

>>18068679
beat me to it

>>18067500
You say Justin Bieber, I say Gun & Roses

You say Taylor Swift, I say AC/DC

You say Lady Gaga, I say Bon Jovi

You say Hannah Montana, I say The Rolling Stones

You say Owl City, I say Led Zeppelin

You say Jonas Brothers, I say The Beatles

95% of teens these days listen to the same crappy pop over and over again. If you're one of the 5% who still listens to real music, thumb this up, then copy & paste it to at least 5 videos. don't let rock die

>>18067500
>literary classics
shut the fuck up

>>18068896
\m/>.<\m/
Rock on Dudes

>>18068896
95% of teens listen to bullshit that goes

>ye bruh lit af wit em bitchs ngga pssy ass mutha fucka dem booty ass money aye yo bruh bruh bruh

>>18068913
Hell yeah, rock on \m/>.<\m/

Anon I don't even know what to read
There is so much I want to read I don't even start
Oooooh let's read keirkegaard
Oooh nooo Bible seeems interesting tooo
Neitzche seeems coopl
I don't fucking know man there is too much to read

>>18067500
no that's not bad and its the best way to avoid having your brain rotted out by jewish propoganda

>>18068928
Totally agree man. The 5% of teenagers stoked on ACDC listen to real music that goes

>I've got big balls I've got big balls And they're such big balls And he's got big balls And she's got big balls But we've got the biggest balls of them all

\m/>.<\m/

>>18068937
just read

>>18067500
this you?

>>18067500
It is very bad. You must be fairly new to literature as a hobby because I can't imagine reading only "classics" without eventually getting fed-up with kitchen-sink realism and the realist tradition in general, seeing the same patterns and conventions repeated over and over from one book to another. Everyone who gets into literature eventually gets tired of the gold standard of the 19th century realist novel, and you can only temporary mitigate this by reasing the handful of epics that are considered part if the western canon. Eventually you will want to be surprised by outlandish and unexpected ideas or by its linguistic exuberance. The last 100 years are full of innovative, non-standard, complex works that for all their flaws at least offer an illusion of transcendence, of getting beyond the boundaries of our experience, which is what great literature ought to do. A "classic" text doesn’t leave much space for that kind of transcendence.

>>18068999
>19th century realist novel
Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Ford Madox Ford and even early Salinger were all realists plus plenty more. Modern Realism is much better than gimmick novels.
It’s not really your point of view though but rather the fact that you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about

>>18067500
OH GOOD FOR YOU

>>18068937
this is the main reason (although people like to pretend it's actually their importance -correctly so, don't tell them though-) why "Start With The Greeks" exists

>>18068999
XIX century realism is a minuscule portion of the classics and from what OP said he didn't even seem that interested in it.

>>18068896
I didn't think it could get worse than Justin Beiber, but now it's all nigger rap.

>>18067500
It depends on why you like classic literature. For me, I just like that classic literature is more convenient. There is surely some truly brilliant work being made today, no one is ever going to know about it. Since the advent of propaganda and mass advertising, art has declined in quality. It's all just forced memes at this point. I don't even believe in the value of the $10 note I have in my pocket, not even in the sense that money is an abstract notion, but that the work I did to attain the money is justifiably worth 9 loaves of bread to the hour.

>>18068725
I've tried reading a few, but they never struck me like classics do. I think you're right, that I should at least read some, I'm just very hesitant to do so. Any recs?
>>18068977
Yes, pic is me.
>>18068999
I'm not new to reading as a hobby, and I think there's still plenty of books to read that were written before the 20th. I'm not looking for realism or complexity or innovation specifically, I just want to ask if I should bother to try reading more contemporary lit.
>>18070336
Personally, I simply find classics more earnest and interesting, and less pandering or with an agenda. To me, it feels like modern literature is trying to convey a thinly veiled political or social message of some sort, instead of a more honest expression of one's emotions and thoughts. I agree that mass advertising and propaganda has led to art declining, and much of my hesitation comes from a lack of faith, because I feel that what is considered "good" or "bad" today comes from a hive mentality. While there are certainly such cases in classics and definitely on /lit/, discussion and opinions simply feel more earnest, honest, and without irony on here.

Just read whatever you like

>>18067500
>Is it bad that I only read books that I enjoy?
No.

>>18070336
9 Loaves of bread for $10? Where do you leave I could buy about 20 loaves with that much

>>18068896
Most of the old bands are shit too.

>>18067500
>I only read literary classics and, in general, things published before 1900? I have a hard time reading anything contemporary, because I simply do not feel interested in it. Everything within the last 100 years tends to just feel dry and lacking in beauty. Even more so with anything within the last 20-30 years, which feel especially boring and even more and more pandering by the day. I'm a faggot for Tolstoy, Homer, Aristotle, Tacitus, Moby Dick, et cetera; just classics, really.
This used to be the standard opinion on /lit/ four years ago.

>>18071749
>Any recs?
are you from the US?

>>18072527
>Is it bad that I only read books that I enjoy?
No. You should only read to people who had elements of natural selection in their lifetimes.

>>18073602
meant for OP, btw >>18067500

>>18067500
Wowzers - you're not like the other reindeer.

>>18073566
Yes, yes I am.
>>18073614
Cool painting.

>>18073614
What is the historical context of this painting. I Was looking through the thread and saw it and thought it looked cool.

>>18073656
I'm not that into contemporary American fiction but you could look into L'Hereux or Ben Marcus' anthologies of American short stories to get a glance at the MFA canon. Lincoln in the Bardo and Sing, Unburied, Sing are apparently very good. If you're willing to read Latin American fiction Schweblin's Fever Dream is great and Luiselli's Faces Places seems to be liked by most. If you're looking for something more traditional you can look into Marías' (he's Spanish not Latin American) A heart so white, he's a little bland for my taste but even people on here seem to like him.

>>18073656
>Cool painting.
Thank you, I'm quite fond of paintings.
>>18073700
There really isn't any; it's made by Karl Lessing who, and I quote wikipedia
>his themes he depicted were castle ruins, forgotten cemeteries, rugged rock formations, which he inhabited with figures of monks, knights and thieves.
He liked a bit of everything. Here have the link for the painting if you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_Crusader.jpg

>>18073866
I'd like to add that if I want to bump a thread I'll just post a painting. It's more aesthetic overall

>>18067500
You will never be a woman

>>18071749
I dislike the way most 18-19th lit is written but I definitely notice a difference, yeah. It has so much more depth to it even if, from a literary perspective, it's well-worn (makes you thing that side of things is kinda irrelevant). And the intellectual side is more open-ended (and personalised to the author) instead of banal repetitions of already shallow dogma. It means it has more humanity and easy to enjoy. With contemporary stuff you can almost reduce the author's mind to a set of a dull memes reinforcing and propagating, so the only value to be found is in the other stuff (which is typically amateurish even when good).