/lit/ - Literature

>>19724789
You are not obliged to read YA fiction, mediocre nonfiction books, and self-helping grifting. The fact that the general, common readership reads trash doesn't affect your ability to read the classics.

>>19724789
Other people's failure to enjoy good literature has no bearing on your ability to enjoy good literature.

>>19724847
>>19724819
Name good modern literature

>>19725860
Call of the Crocodile by F. Gardner

>>19724847
This is true.

>>19724789
>>19725860
The sort of person who browses a board like lit isn't very adventurous at all and therefore doesn't want to read anything new or exciting. As a result, they never read new books that are good and every thread gets turned into a circlejerk for the classics, which have been discussed already to oblivion. Even threads that criticise new literature don't actually display any knowledge of anything new. It's all just shitting on YA, even though OP has probably never even read YA anyway and is just blindly insulting it because God forbid they read any new books. Lit is a museum for dead books, with users who spout bromide take after bromide take.
There are some beautifully written new books out there, I'm positive, you just have to read (ugh, I know) to find out.

>>19724789
>implying literature will ever be obsolete
>implying classics were or should ever be mass entertainment
>implying the novel is about to or can ever be replaced
>implying our anonymous taste is not absolute objectivity
you tell me how much truth can you swallow in one thread, and I will drop some bombs

>>19726210
>implying the novel is about to or can ever be replaced

Try to argue that it isn't. Seriously. Name a single novel in the 21st century that is at the center of our culture. Books like The Brothers Karamazov influenced the most important people of the 20th century. Does the novel format remotely have that kind of power today?

the classics were often only discovered late because very few people read and communication technology was primitive, but classics (at the time) still existed
in the current era with more people reading than ever and communication technology being as sophisticated as it has ever been, there are no new great works being discovered, just african queen LGBT+ garbage

make of that what you will

nothing can ever replace the book because the book is all-absorbing and there isn't any other learning medium like that (to my knowledge)
therefore the book will always be the item of an intellectual

>>19726241
>Name a single novel in the 21st century that is at the center of our culture.
Again, my answer remains: Call of the Crocodile, by F. Gardner.

>>19726241
If you had been in Paris for the past few days, you would have seen people celebrating a new Houellebecq. Novels are printed like mad. No other form even compares. The best movies, the ones that aren't forgotten next year, are novel adaptions. The novel has not yet even peaked.
>Books like The Brothers Karamazov influenced the most important people of the 20th century.
The book was written in 1880. In 1950 that was 70 years ago. All /lit/ ever does is wanking on about books that are at least 70 years of age or pre-1952.

>>19726247
Is it true that Gardner posted on /lit/?

>>19724789
>barely read
they're read more than ever due to the sheer amount of literate people that are alive today

>>19724847
It has bearing on discussion ability which is a big part of the enjoyment for some people who frequent discussion boards for books.
>>19724789
Everything can be improved upon, luckily for us the best writers learn to release their work in a "good enough" state without wasting their whole life on perfecting it, unlike The Peregrine in which you can taste the dishonesty and effort of a life misspent.

>>19724789
Wow you’re a midwit and you probably smoke weed. Popularity /= aesthetic merit duh.
>obsolescence
Purple prose purple prose purple prose purple prose there should be a 3 day ban on lit for purple prose

>>19724847
incorrect, other peoples' garbage taste makes my life materially worse and makes the context of literature suffer

>elaborate

no

>>19724847
Wrong

>>19725860
Is it too late to write something good?

>>19726167
I think you have a point here.

>>19726167
>lit
Tranny.

>>19726167
>new or exciting
stopped right there

>>19728434
>you're a midwit
>u-uh is that le heckin OBSOLENSCENSES!!!????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>PURPEL PURRPEL prosoe PUrpsrle prosse

>>19724789
No. What happened was that tech prevented mother nature from weeding out sickly children, so more and more of our population has become maladaptive (crazy, ugly, dumb etc) each year.

>>19731503
what? le heckin based TECHNOLOGY????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>19724789
A few things:

In the broader sweep of history, high culture and classics have always been the preserve of an elite. It is true that there was a period in the 1800s when the nascent middle classes of Europe were a literary class with strong literary interests, but I would argue that this happened because the middle classes of that time were attempting to imitate the aristocrats. This literary middle class culture peaked in the early 20 century, and has been in decline ever since.

Nevertheless, there are and always will be readers of books and lovers of literature, especially among the elite and the upper middle class.

The second point I have for you is that the decline in the broader cultural significance of literature that you are perceiving (correctly) is not unique to books. First with radio, then with TV, and now finally and most dramatically with high speed internet, the sheer volume of culture being produced is drowning the society's ability to process it and to develop a cultus of any one work or author. Again, this is not unique to novels. Think about movies and TV. "I Love Lucy" was familiar to most Americans, and even into the 90s it was still possible for such widespread significance to happen with something like "Seinfeld." But with the advent of streaming and the demise of networks, TV has splintered. Masses of content are produced, allowing each demographic to be catered to in a way that they simply couldn't be in the past. Likewise with film. "Jaws" was a far more significant cultural event for the whole country than anything produced in the last 30 years, and it is hard to imagine anything ever coming close again.

We live in a fractured society, deluged with content. I suspect that until we undergo some sort of great crisis, something that imoverishes and disenfranchises many people, we will probably never again unite around a cultural artifact. There is simply too much out there to suit the tastes of every conceivable type of person.

The big problem with this state of affairs is the isolation it produces. Everyone solves it in their own way. Some unite around sports (one of the last true mass culture phenomena). Others join political tribes, saturating themselves in the propaganda of their chosen ideology. Others are trying to revitalize traditional religion (the original primordial uniting cultural artifact). But many are satisfied with simply being a part of small internet subcultures, be it astrology, fitness, whatever. /lit/ is one such community.

There has always been pulp, and literature has always been appreciate by the few.

>>19724789
>What were once considered some of the finest works of art in history are now barely read
You do realize that most people in, say, XIX century were not reading Moby Dick either?

>>19724789
We are the elite few who are privileged enough to be able to read and experience the finest works of humanity

>>19724789
That reminds me I want to open up an online bookstore with very high brow literature but it's gonna suck if I really wanted profit...

>>19724789
The desire to uncover deeper philosophical understanding is mainly a product of displeasure and misery, save for a small subset of humans with a natural born liking for that kind of thing.
We live in hedonistic times. It is so easy to bury yourself in whatever electronic pleasure you can use to avoid reality - most don't give a shit about "enlightenment" anymore.

Also, I personally believe having to read translations and outdated writing styles is pointlessly difficult (i.e. express your philosophies in clear modern speech, faggots, needless use of big words just makes it harder for me to understand for no reason). Most if not all texts before 1930 are guilty of this - and sure, it was the writing style at the time. But still. Also, they weren't THAT good. Notoriety in the literary canon is more a function of social popularity than quality.

>>19724789
>some of the finest works of art in history are now barely read
Proportional readership has exploded regardless of plebs gobbling down reams of pigswill. They were always material for non-smoothbrains in limited numbers. And a writer is only ever speaking to peers, which will be even more restricted by type.

>>19728670
Faggot

>>19728434
wat

>>19726278
>50 years ago that was 70 years ago

>>19724789
Bro you would be saying this if you lived in any generation. Most great artists and writers were not recognised in their own time. They died poor and unheard-of, their best works receiving bad reviews upon publishing. If you lived in the time of Melville you would say that Moby Dick is a mediocre book, like many of the reviewers did. Or maybe you would never have even heard of Melville because you would only read the "classics" of those days. Give it 100 years and writers today will be considered "great", and idiotic people like you who only follow the crowd will be complaining about how the last century was so much better in terms of artistic output.

>>19732215
>idiotic people like you who only follow the crowd will be complaining about how the last century was so much better in terms of artistic output
This is a fact.

>>19732224
I like how you think every generation outputs the same quality of literature. And then you call OP an idiot. Beautiful.

>>19726242
I disagree. Stoner only gained prominence because NYRB republished it. Works that fell through the cracks are being unearthed year by year.

But I do agree that the novel is dead, in the sense that it's exhausted as an art form and has lost whatever cultural cachet it once had. You cannot do anything new with a novel. Occasionally someone writes a wonderful story. But impactful experimentation is done, the limits of the form have been reached.

Incidentally I think film and television are about where literature was in the second half of the 20th century. There's not much more to be done with it but it has just enough juice to chug along for a few more decades. I assume VR adventures will supplant much as the next "art" with cultural power.

Poetry, of course, is buried.

>>19732215
I meant you

>>19732267
>I like how you think every generation outputs the same quality of literature
They do, generally differing only in quantity, until quantity changes into quality.

>>19732267
>>19732276
Very few great artists and writers were recognised in their own time. People don't want to give their contemporaries credit. Schopenhauer wrote about this phenomenon. This doesn't imply that every generation is as fertile as any other when it comes to art.

>>19732275
>You cannot do anything new with a novel.
Maybe you can't.

>Poetry, of course, is buried
Huh? There are many popular poetry books still in circulation today. Also, ever heard of spoken word? You clearly don't know what you're talking about lmao.

>>19731891
>Also, they weren't THAT good. Notoriety in the literary canon is more a function of social popularity than quality.

This point shouldn't be left understated. 90% of everything is shit, 5-7% is good, and only about 3% is truly great. This applies equally to "classic literature." Most classics haven't terribly impressed me, even while sitting well above most genre fiction. Then you have to factor in people's widely varying taste.

You're lucky if, out of all the books you read in your life, 1% is true five-star material.

>>19724789
Don't worry bro, it's just white civilization dying out. All of it. In 1,000 years, white people won't even be remembered, just another spec of dust in history. And nobody will remember that white women were the cause of it, either.
So just forget about it and read YA, because it's fun, easy and tells a good story [sometimes].

>>19732287
Don't cite Schopenhauer. He's Schopenhauer. Also, that was not the point being made by the other post. His point was the quality is the same and you're dumb if you don't agree.

>>19732290
Spoken word? You're joking, right?

Poetry has zero cultural influence.

>>19732309
Everything has zero cultural influence.

>>19732301
Why does literature have to be White? There are plenty of classics from non-White civilizations: Mahabarita, Journey to the West. What are you even talking about?

>>19732316
You're retarded and a nigger, clearly.

>>19732303
Yes and if you lived in Melville's time you would not read Moby Dick or you would agree with most of the reviewers that it's mediocre and boring. If you lived in Fitzgerald's time you would never read The Great Gatsby.

>>19732309
Amanda Gorman performing poetry in front of the White house on inauguration day isn't cultural influence? Are you joking?

>>19732320
> If you lived in Fitzgerald's time you would never read The Great Gatsby.
I mean, he lives in contemporary times and still never read The Great Gatsby.

>>19732319
You like to put your finger up your butt and get pegged by old fat women, clearly.

>>19732330
yes and no

>>19732332
Go crawl back under your hole, troll.
Your xbox, dorritos, lotion and kleenex are waiting for you.

>>19732320
How would you even know that? Do you just come here to beat your own dick on these posts? Pretend you know things? Calm the fuck down.

>>19732352
Lol, sorry that you're a nigger. It doesn't change that 99% of meaningful literature is white.

>>19732364
Because those writers died unrecognised. It's a question of probability. I'll admit I'm wrong though if you say that you genuinely do read a lot of modern writers, you just think they're all bad.

>>19732385
99% of your day is spent getting spit roasted by ku klux klan members. The other 1% is spent beating your dick to that naked picture of Alex Jones you have saved on your laptop.

>>19732324
A presidential inaugural? You think that reverberates in the zeitgeist? Cope as much as you want, but poetry is dead and has been for decades. My Silent-gen grandpa memorized poetry as a child. Something like that is impossible to imagine today.

>>19732315
>Striner

>>19727692
This is the only reasonable reply so far and it doesn't hold up that well because people still read and discuss classics, even at the academic level. The people entertained by YA fiction could theoretically make the same argument the other way: "No one reads YA anymore. They just read stuffy classics with themes of death and despair. Why can't we read light, happy stuff?"
Well, because some people think it's irresponsible to avoid serious subject matter, sweetheart.

>>19724789
Something that helps me when I'm feeling this way is to imagine that you are not having a conversation with the present world, but instead a conversation with people like yourself over the much broader timeline of history.

>>19732200
Not OP, I want to type mean words but I will not. I'll just say have poor reading comprehension.

>>19732200
I forgot the word "you" and now look like a retard. Toodaloo!

>>19725860
Taipei
Elementary Particles
Underworld
Wind-Up Bird Chronicles
The Man Without Qualities (on the older side)

>>19726167
Based

>>19734444
Wasted my quads for what amounts to an upvote. Sorry lit bros

>>19725860
undying mercenaries

>>19726167
>because God forbid they read any new books
Why would you dig through piles of shit waiting to find some lucky hit when there's a practically limitless amount of classic literature to read which is obviously more worthwhile? If some great YA novel comes out it'll gain recognition naturally and people will read it. This attitude works with music because good music is a lot easier to create than good literature especially due to the experimental freedom of musical aesthetics.
>you just have to read (ugh, I know)
Its not that people don't want to read its that they don't want to waste their time. Your expression of contempt comes off as a projection. Digging through shit is not an adventure unless you have a shit fetish.

>>19735776
Not him but you are so insecure and he is not even talking about "some great YA novel", retard. You are aware that there are still books being written with literary ambition, correct? It is not very hard to find novels worth trying if you just research contemporary fiction a little bit beyond nagging posts on this board and booktubers. Eventually you will find things that are engaging to you, just like one does when exploring classic literature for the first time, unless you are one of those fags who followed a guide on /lit/ and base your entire literary worldview on that :^)