[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 272 KB, 1280x799, 1610021448522.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17587216 No.17587216 [Reply] [Original]

One thing I find myself realizing more and more is that people will read into the future, if the literature is good.

It's not that nobody reads any more. People have plenty of distractions. Millennials and Zoomers are distracted by the internet, and by mass culture more broadly.

But they'll read if the books are good. They will always read if the books are worth reading. Even if it's not millions and millions of people, there will always be an audience for good literature.

But I think the trouble is that there's kind of a lack of good books written of late. I've been gravitating to a few modern writers. Marlon James. George Saunders. A few others. Admittedly I found out about them because they won awards. But their books are actually good, and worth reading, and I find them compelling and actually captivating.

But what else is out there? These guys, plus a few others, are good. But it seems to me that the vast amount of "serious" literature published these days is actually pretty bad. Insufferable. Up its own asshole. Lacking in empathy. More concerned with signaling to an "in crowd" politically and culturally than it is with beauty and goodness and truth. It's not a matter of crafting great art any more, it's about ticking boxes off a list.

And in that light I can't blame Millennials and Zoomers from being turned off from literature. Look at what we're presenting them with. Look at the state of so much of modern literature, literature actually written in the 21st Century. How good is it? How much does it arrest the heart, and grab the eye? How much of it is true, good, and beautiful? Does it make you cry, or rage, or laugh with joy?

And since younger would-be readers are fed this sort of thing, maybe that's why they have a dim view of reading in general. Maybe it's not all their fault. Maybe they just are suspicious of books because books keep being shit, in their own time.

>> No.17587405

>>17587216
What was it with this pseud and trees? Trees are not /lit/, the pollute the atmosphere with Co2 and cannot talk

>> No.17587419

>>17587405
Tolkien was not /lit/ either.

>> No.17587676

>>17587405
Trees are definitely lit, many poems are about nature.

>> No.17587690

>>17587419
Even ignoring the content, there are few books in this world, that aren't poetry, with language as beautiful as the Hobbit and LotR.

>> No.17587792

>>17587676
Trees aren't nature retard

>> No.17587814

>>17587792
You're not nature

>> No.17587821

>>17587814
You're nature's call.

>> No.17587860
File: 6 KB, 320x180, mqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17587860

>>17587821

>> No.17587878

>But I think the trouble is that there's kind of a lack of good books written of late.
Not the question at all but I think this is a good time to ask what old books you would recommend?
I am getting increasingly disillusioned with the poor quality of classic literature, it's almost as bad as modern stuff.
I'm sure there's some really good stuff out there, I'm just not finding it at all as of late so I would really appreciate some mad reccs that aren't boring, completely unrelatable/visibly aged, or just fucking shit in general.
Inb4 shakespeare or dante, they both suck ass in the worst possible ways.
Philosophy books are also welcome provided they're not just some philosopher rewriting the bible

>> No.17587904

>>17587878
Easy reading?
The Hobbit, Musashi, Kino's Journey ( There are free translated pdfs of most of the books.)

Easily digested bloomer philosophy?
Alan Watts.

>> No.17587942

>>17587904
I think I've surpassed the hobbit, I read it a long time ago but I'll check out the others.
Idc about philosophy being too easily digested I'm used to the standard philosophical prose but I'll check him out yeah thanks dude
The problem is not my vocabulary being small or anything, it's the lack of content that actually piques my interest

>> No.17587959

>>17587942
Musashi is thick but a page-turner.
Kino has some philosophical questions it brushes up against but intentionally doesn't bother to answer.
Watts is just fun to read imo.

>> No.17587965

>>17587959
Yeah no worries I am completely unfamiliar with most of those, you just kept saying easy so I assumed you were one of those dudes who think you must not be smart enough if you can't appreciate classical literature but I'm glad you're not. I'll give them a read, have a good one mate and to anyone else reading this the more reccs the merrier!

>> No.17587966

>>17587405
>they pollute the atmosphere with CO2
American education, everybody