Who killed poetry in the 19th century?

[Anonymous No.20068395]

This is literature jannies, don't delete.

Why did literature switch from poetry as a main form of literary expression to novels in the 19th century?

>inb4 industrial revolution
Sure, but isn't this post-hoc rationalization? Who would've guessed that industrialization would have this impact on literature? What's the mechanism?
>inb4 science
Again, is this correlation and causation? It's a big thing that influenced the 19th century, but is it the cause for the switch from poems to novels?

[Anonymous No.20068986]

The middle class and the death of aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.20069034]

>>20068395
i wasn't going to mention science, but since you did it's partially to blame. poetry tries to touch on human experience and such, fields like sociology and psychology are butting into that and explaining it away. Sylvia Plath's poem about the fig tree slaps but some fucko is going to pipe in and say "ah yes, the phenomenon of paralysis of choice" whereas they wouldn't be doing that earlier

But that's only minor. Another reason is there's more cynicism because of advertising. Watch a television ad about a chocolate bar or somesuch and notice the language they use. It's basically poetry. "wrap yourself in a warm, luscious embrace of a Dove Eternal Chocolate square and let your womanly passions turn inward" idk im not a poet but the idea is people hear poems using that kind of language and their first inclination is "what's this Tennyson fella trying to sell me?"

I can think of other reasons but I gotta go to work OP ill be back

[Anonymous No.20069049]

This probably isn’t even a hot take anymore, but I think the enlightenment and the subsequent stranglehold of science and realism effectively killed all art and literature. In some respects, it may have taken centuries, and may still be taken centuries, but it seems to me pretty obvious that there’s been an ongoing sterilization of art since at least the dawn of the 19th century and if you notice, many of the great outbursts of art like those we saw in the 20th century arise largely out of a sort of outburst from this dominant paradigm. What is romanticism if not a desperate lashing out against sterilization? I personally see the rational scientific paradigm behind a lot of this decline and technology is it’s chief enforcer. Of course, it’s not just that but that’s what I see.

[Anonymous No.20069060]

>What is X if not...
I can only imagine the FREAK that typed that

[Anonymous No.20069061]

>>20069034
>some fucko is going to pipe in and say "ah yes, the phenomenon of paralysis of choice"
god I fucking hate this reducitonist garbage so much and the people who do it are insufferable faggots
knowing a little is worse than knowing nothing in many cases, it just serves to let people think they know enough to have a valid approach/opinion on things that are either meant to just be experienced or to be analyzed by much more knowledgeable people

[Anonymous No.20069117]

>>20068395
From Novalis to Baud'laire to Mallarmé—
Poesy killed in the XIX? I say: Nay!

[Anonymous No.20069155]

Poetry is the creation of meaning, ποίησις is to create. The role of the poet is to explore the deep meaning that resides in the world and to convey it through the creative Word. In a literal way we can retranscribe the beginning of Genesis by saying that the cosmos is the poem of God.
The poet has to experience mystically the beings and the analogies between the beings to compose a work. Today, everything is opposed to the poetic activity: on the one hand, nobody is conscious of the divine character of the word, and the philosophical naturalism makes it pass for contingency which has only practical value in the communication, on the other hand, nobody has a deep feeling of the mystical experience and of the sense of the life, because of the philosophical anthropocentrism which cuts the man of all that can transcend him and lead him to an ontological elevation and to a finality.

The end of the XIX century marks the definitive triumph of the anti-metaphysical mentality, with the deployment of the epistemological positivism, of the Marxist materialism, and the advent of the technical society that fills the heart with vain and ephemeral goods turning it away from the ideal and the absolute.
The intellectual history of Europe made that poetry was dispossessed in the ear of the majority of the means of its expression and of the object of its expression, and this is why it can subsist only in a purely sensitive, phenomenological and weakened way and does not make the weight in front of the novel that belongs more to the psychology and the narrative that are themes still approachable today, although they also wither.

[Anonymous No.20069429]

>>20069117
>some poets disprove that poetry is no longer the main form of literary expression

[Anonymous No.20069557]

>>20069155
I agree. Have you ever read Michel Houllebecq’s essay, To Stay Alive?

[Anonymous No.20069646]

>>20069155
Incredibly based post especially for an animeposter.
>philosophical naturalism makes it pass for contingency which has only practical value in the communication
Not sure about this part though. Naturalism isn't that similar to pragmatism or materialism and can reach a pseudo-mystical parity in fact.

[Anonymous No.20069658]

>>20069034
>Sylvia Plath's poem about the fig tree slaps but some fucko is going to pipe in and say "ah yes, the phenomenon of paralysis of choice" whereas they wouldn't be doing that earlier
Encapsulates entirely the overgrowth of middlemen and con artists who have inserted their industry between readers and writers.

[Anonymous No.20069704]

>>20069658
Not really, it's just a really bad poem. Maybe Plath herself encapsulates the desolate times we live in better.

[Anonymous No.20069722]

Tennyson

[Anonymous No.20069798]

>>20069155
Someone's gonna get laid college. I like how you say nothing about poetry being a mnemonic device, with its own kinds of biases such as the "rhyme and reason effect."

[Anonymous No.20069884]

>>20069557
No, I've never read anything by Houellebecq, what's his point in this book? I'm a French speaker so if it's worth reading I'll read it.

>>20069646
You are certainly right, in my word I said naturalism but in my mind I had the restricted conception of the blind nature and without reason which prevails today

>>20069798
The didactic poetry is secondary and nobody reads any more since Jacque Delile because it was exceeded by other more practical means for the spirit. This type of poetry is, however, directly related to the creative character of poetry but in its most trivial modality so I don't talk about it here.

[Anonymous No.20070420]

>>20069884
much of contemporary confessional poetry is didactic in nature
>modality
faggot spotted

[Anonymous No.20070834]

>>20069049
This. Science and math, empiricism and objectivity. Literalism, sterility.

[Anonymous No.20070874]

>>20068395
>Who would've guessed that industrialization would have this impact on literature? What's the mechanism?
This is the cause.
>>20068986
>The middle class and the death of aristocracy
This is the effect. Writing and reading formal poetry requires education on technique, structure, meter rhythm, etc. As the middle class began to rise and the aristocracy began to fall, the 'vulgar' or 'popular' literary form, the novel, rose to dominance. You don't need any sort of formal training to write a novel or appreciate one. Prose can be much more direct. Not only was the formal structure of poetry a symbol of aristocratic erudition, it very much was a direct result of it.
>that doesnt make sense since most of the famous novelists were well educated and upper class anyway!!1!
Yes, but they were writing now for a primarily middle class audience who in general did not appreciate or desire the technical formal sophistication of poetry.
See also: whitman. He did not destroy formal poetry, he merely opened the floodgates, by intentionally styling himself as a working class man and writing for a working class audience. He took advantage of the move away from formal poetry, and after leaves of grass published in 1855 it was clear that nobody was interested in sonnets anymore. Which is to say, there was no longer any reason to cleave to poetic technique. Free verse did not take over, though, because LOG proved primarily that 'poetry' as it was understood before whitman, was dying, and the only difference between a free verse poem and prose is line breaks, and the only reason to read poetry over prose is those formal elements. Having wiped those elements away, poetry was made impotent.

[Anonymous No.20071061]

>>20070874
>whitman
Already done way before by romantics like Wordsworth

[Anonymous No.20071089]

>>20071061
I'm saying whitman was the nail in the coffin. I'm also not entirely sure what you mean about Wordsworth. He was writing up until 1850 and leaves of grass published 1855.

[Anonymous No.20071171]

>>20071089
Lyrical Ballads was published around the time of the French Revolution

[Anonymous No.20071244]

>>20069034
ironically this is exactly what school teaches you to do
you go to english class, read some poem or novel excerpt you may or may not feel any connection to
and then spend a week soullessly analyzing it using big words of some twat you have never heard of before
outsourcing all thinking to some "expert" and finally presenting some bullshit essay on someone else's opinions
there is no critical thinking in these critical thinking classes

[Anonymous No.20071282]

>>20071244
I've hated modernism since high school and I nearly failed because the cocksucker whore hag of a teacher couldn't bear that I disliked Picasso and Matisse and gave me shit marks for it. I hated that shit with a passion then and I hate it even more today. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it! It's shit, SHIT! I don't fucking care about your analysis of how they used primary colors, it looks like a fucking turd while academic art that is so boring and trite looks fucking phenomenal. Why did they have to destroy the technique instead of just changing the subject matter? Because modernism is an assault to humanity. I made a post on modernist architecture, saying it's meant to make you feel like you have tumors where you live. I'm going to add a further thought: it's to actively distance you from the space you live in. Like if every modernshit monument in my city were swapped out for something else overnight, I wouldn't care even though I would probably notice that one mess of a shit sculpture has been substituted for another. So not only it's a tumor that makes you feel depressed, it's a tumor you cannot fight, you cannot destroy it, you cannot commit a thought to it, because it's easily replaced, just like history can now be manipulated and articles are updated to conform to what's written on Wikipedia. If they changed a figure in a painting like, I dunno, the Cossacks of Zaporosz I would notice and I'd be mad about it. When someone attacks a good painting with acid that's a tragedy, that's actual damage. If you destroy some piece of shit modernist art with acid, what's the difference? It's indestructible. This quality is also reflected in how it follows no sensible methodology, there's no anatomy or symmetry or anything that is supposed to be correct, so you cannot say "this painting's anatomy is wrong" or "this painting's colors are gross" because the artist will just say "well it's MEANT to look like shit!" and everyone boos you for being such an ignorant swine. Modernism is absolute cancer. I legitimately ghost people after I find out that they do not actively hate modernist art.

[Anonymous No.20071297]

>>20071171
Oh, I think I see what you mean now, that wordsworth and coleridge were also going after a more middle/lower class audience back in the 1790s? That's true, and obviously the transition from poetic dominance to novel was gradual, but who are the earliest modern novelists of note from the late 18th century? Swift? Walpole? Even Austen in the early 19th was basically unknown.... poetry was still on top for some time after lyrical ballads

[Anonymous No.20071771]

bump

[Anonymous No.20073046]

@20071282
I was in Sevilla and went into a gutted Monastery that now contained modernist artwork and felt so drained and depressed afterward.

[Anonymous No.20073062]

>>20071282
chill, some modernists were genuinely beautiful, its just that the pomos and some of the moderns were retards

[Anonymous No.20073119]

>>20068986
This

[Anonymous No.20073213]

>>20071282
there's truth in what you say but you're also filtered and ass-mad about it kek

[Anonymous No.20073223]

>>20068395
Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley etc. are mostly kitsch crap, and none of them was worthy of licking Ezra Pound's, Rilke's, or Eugenio Montale's feet.

[Anonymous No.20073258]

>>20073223
>t. double digit IQ

[Anonymous No.20073265]

Don't underestimate Darwin's Origin of the Species. It came out at the middle of the century and it had a seismic impact on intellectuals of that era. It shattered many people's faith and continues to do many generations after. Without a divinity, people are emptier, more pessimistic, and weaker. The 19th century was simply too much for our culture to take, and it started with the French Revolution.

[Anonymous No.20073270]

>>20071282
And of course you know very little about modernism and your tastes are extremely superficial, which can be inferred from the very words you use to describe the works you enjoy.
"It looks fucking phenomenal!" - I can see you're still in high school.
Also, if you like academic art so much, there are still tons of it. Just look at any videogame and you will instantly see academic "art" made with very detailed and careful technique, superior in fact to that of many, many of the "old masters", including Cimabue, Giotto, Pier, Tura etc. The same arguments you apply against modernism, any videogame developer could apply against Giotto. Think about that. And such techniques are still practiced with traditional materials too, such as in the Academy of Firenze or at the Nerdrum school. Modernism didn't "kill" anything, it just showed how laughable it is to keep imitating dead styles when modernity itself offers all that is needed for new ways of artistic creation which can be as powerful (for those who are receptive to it) as classical art (for those who are receptive to it). Truth is that no one cares if you can paint "realistically". There are already computer softwares which can do it better than many of these "anti-modern" painters. And no one cares that you can write a sonnet. Any ape can learn to write a sonnet in a week at most.
Your preference for "traditional" (not so traditional really, given that its modern initiators, such as Giotto and Uccello, were themselves innovators, and the same can be said about Greek sculptors), is nothing but a result of your own upbringing. Most cultures do not make Western-style mimetic art, nor do they even attempt to. They do their own thing, just like Chagall and Matisse did their own thing too. There are passages in the KJV which are written in free verse, and that's actually an inspiration for Whitman. Surrealism was already present in much of classical literature and definitely in some Medieval manuscripts. Abstract art has always existed in architecture and is a major aspect of Muslim cultures, specially tapestry and calligraphy. Depictions of "ugliness" (highly subjective concept, by the way) have always being common, as anyone who has read about the grotesque in Medieval, specially Gothic art has already known. The main "trends" of modernism are just expressions of natural human longings, which have always existed, but became more preeminent in the 19-20th centuries, after the stupidity of endless imitation became apparent, and the only artists with any life in their work - Wagner, Mallarmé, Turner etc. - were precisely the ones pushing the boundaries away from mannerism.
You sound like an ignorant twat who has very little knowledge of that which he criticizes.
I am yet to find one critic of modernism who isn't woefully superficial. Even Scruton often admitted the greatness of modern art, and even of Mark Rothko, an artist to whom I myself am somewhat indifferent.

[Anonymous No.20073273]

>>20068395
Poetry is inherently more difficult to turn into a commodity. The size of a novel naturally makes it an easy product.

[Anonymous No.20073281]

>>20073270
Don't care faggot, it's all a bunch of ugly horseshit. Stay coping.

[Anonymous No.20073292]

>>20073258
Higher than yours (useless measurement), and I've learned more languages too (actually useful measurement of intelligence).
Just deal with the fact that modernism is the natural consequence of the tension between baroque and classicism, as well as the relationship between art and the world, and that anyone who doesn't practice modern art today is either some imitator trying to recover a world which only exists in his imagination, or someone trying to impress others with outdate merely imitative techniques which do not so much constitute a new style as a mere footnote to someone else's (as Roberto Ferri is a mere footnote to Caravaggio), and therefore add nothing to art history.

[Anonymous No.20073301]

>>20073281
Coping against what? I live in the modernist/post-modernism/whatever-you-wanna-call-it age and am very happy with it.
It's you who are coping against the fact that there is a multiplicity of styles in the world when you rather wished there was only one major style, namely that of Western Academic art as practiced in imitation of (Greek-influenced) Renaissance painters and a certain kind of classical Greek sculptures. You wish that the individuality of the artist remained restrained inside that overarching style and the fact that this doesn't happen anymore annoys you. That's your problem, not the world's.

[Anonymouṡ No.20073340]

>>20068395
I think one important reason, perhaps the main one, was this —

A long time ago, people didn't, as a rule, read their literature. They *heard* it. Either from going to see plays, or from hearing stories and poems and songs spoken aloud, or from hearing the KJV read in Church, etc.

This is because a lot of people were illiterate, and printing was non-existent (at first) and then very restricted and expensive.

Gradually this changed. More people learned to read, and printing spread so that lengthy written texts were generally affordable and available.

When your culture is oral, it's going to be more based on poetry. Once it becomes written, that opens the doors for prose, and in particular big fat novels, because they are essentially a written art.

Another issue is the spread of female authors. Women are much happier writing novels than poetry, and much better at it. This is because poetry combines linguistic and musical aspects, and women are hopeless at writing music.

In olden times, women didn't produce literature. Then, from the 18th or 19th century onwards, they started getting in on the act and producing (and consuming) more and more of it. This naturally swung the balance in favour of prose.


Both these points are nicely illustrated by the well-known passage in Northanger Abbey, by Jane Austen published at the beginning of the 19th century:


They called each other by their Christian name, were always arm in arm when they walked, pinned up each other’s train for the dance, and were not to be divided in the set; and if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel-writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding — joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans.

[1/2]

[Anonymouṡ No.20073344]

>>20073340
Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel-reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss —?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language.

[2/2]

[Anonymous No.20073445]

>>20068395
The evaporation of critical standards (which is the thing we are discussing since novels are of a purely negative character) did not originate in the 19th century but is a pattern visible across all of western literature from the Renaissance onwards - all attempts to codify a set of rules and devices have failed, and no stable poetics has ever existed in the west
You can clearly see the same development in the literature of the 18th century - for example look at English poetry after Pope in writers like Gray, Young, Chatterton, or Rousseau, or the Germans, all rebelling against the old rules and stressing the significance of authentic expression - even in the classicizing 17th century you see writers like Corneille or Dryden struggling against the paradigm
(Indeed the anti-regulative feeling is so strong in the west that writers in more unruly times wrote much more elaborate and complex works than later ones - just compare the lexicon between Shakespeare's and Dryden's dramas)
>>20069155
I dislike this explanation, many of the writers of the 16th to 18th centuries had no personal connection to metaphysics of metaphysical thought - and if you will say that the expressed opinions of particular authors mean less than the character of the age as a whole, then I will question whether our age is "anti-metaphysical" just because some authors mouth such opinions
>>20073270
You bring up "most cultures" as a counterexample but I don't think they have anything but the most shallow resemblance to modern art - granted the conventions of Chinese or Indian or Islamic art are not mimetic but these conventions are enforced and legislated by a shared series of conventions and rules - contrast this to modern art where (as anon said) where you cannot even distinguish an intact and a ruined work
The issue is not so much realism vs. non-realism as law vs. anarchy, if the latter succeeds and art is left unregulated, there is no way to make critical judgements apart from meaningless subjective statements
>Also, if you like academic art so much, there are still tons of it. Just look at any videogame and you will instantly see academic "art" made with very detailed and careful technique, superior in fact to that of many, many of the "old masters", including Cimabue, Giotto, Pier, Tura etc.
If you have such art then please post it

[Anonymous No.20073452]

>>20068395
>Why did literature switch from poetry
https://scholars-stage.org/longfellow-and-the-decline-of-american-poetry/
"most lyric poems in the renaissance era were “rhetorical” lyrics, not “interiorized” ones. But the bulk of Renaissance and Restoration poetry were not even lyric poems to start with. They were dramatic or narrative poems. Poets like Chaucer, Spencer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and Pope, who reigned supreme as the exemplary poets of their respective centuries, made their fame not through short lyric poems, but through plays, masques, epics, dramatic dialogues, poetic narratives, and poetic essays."

"This century long shift away from rhetorical or narrative poems towards intimate, interiorized lyrics is one of the central engines of poetry’s declining popularity as an artform."

[Anonymous No.20073476]

>>20073265
>Don't underestimate Darwin's Origin of the Species.
>Without a divinity, people are emptier,
Just assume your god is Nick Land's Gnon - a transcendent lovecraftian eldritch deity that wants your growth through suffering and evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.20073495]

>>20070874
>>>The middle class and the death of aristocracy
>This is the effect.
the replacement of the nobility by the bourgeoisie is the cause. bourgeois only care about commerce and want to minimize the effect of everything else on commerce.
poetry and plenty of other things have no place in a business world

[Anonymous No.20073508]

>>20069034
>Watch a television ad about a chocolate bar or somesuch and notice the language they use. It's basically poetry. "wrap yourself in a warm, luscious embrace of a Dove Eternal Chocolate square and let your womanly passions turn inward"
I always laff when in the ad, the whores eating chocolate close their eyes, like when some of the orbiters they picked for casual sex eat their pussy

[Anonymous No.20073517]

The reason is that because of advanced technology, poetry could be combined with actual music. Which made dry poetry kind of useless.

[Anonymous No.20073521]

>>20073495
Then why was the late 18th century and the Victorian era so fruitful for literature?

[Anonymous No.20073525]

>>20073517
This is the opposite of what actually happened. Older poetry like court poetry and balladry had musical accompaniment. The advances in printing popularized what you call "dry poetry".

[Anonymous No.20073553]

>>20073525
OK, sure. But then telephone came. Records came.

I mean, isn't music just poetry with sound? It is ridiculous to think the avarage man of 19th century read Whiteman or edger. He probably would have toned some stupid rhyme about girls or drinking, as do popular music today do.

[Anonymous No.20073594]

>>20073553
yeah ok i agree, you're talking about 19th->20th century, i was talking about what happened before that. traditionally there were two popular forms of lyrical content: the ballad and the song. both were sung and also printed and distributed, the ballad was lengthier and told stories about heroes and villains and supernatural beings, the songs were about regular life: boozing and wenching. narrative printed poetry was popular in the 19th century, which was a continuation of the ballad tradition. ivory tower bullshit killed poetry dead. folk singers and collectors like Lomax picked up the ballad and song tradition where the new poets abandoned it.

[Anonymous No.20073685]

>>20073594

Then we can safely conclude, that the possibilities of modern organs and musical instruments, combined with possibility to actually record and distribute across time and space (formally only printed words could to that) is what killed poetry as a vital machinism of culture.

Also, if you ask me, it should remain dead. Anybody can come up with some words that rhyme with some concept behind them. But to create a world, with characters and situations that surprise you, now that's art.

[Anonymous No.20073736]

>>20069155
>Poetry is the creation of meaning, ποίησις is to create. The role of the poet is to explore the deep meaning that resides in the world and to convey it through the creative Word. In a literal way we can retranscribe the beginning of Genesis by saying that the cosmos is the poem of God.
That's the narrative creates aposteriori to try to pass mental ramblings as deep

[Anonymous No.20073742]

>>20073736
>creates
created

[Anonymous No.20073782]

>>20073273
>Poetry is inherently more difficult to turn into a commodity.
Have you heard of Rupi Kaur? That's not the issue.

[Anonymous No.20073795]

>>20073782
this only happens after the socialists realized in 2012 with occupy wall street that
-since socialism was supposed to be a bridge to communism, and since communism failed, socialism was meaningless
-socialists being braindead, they did not have anything to offer to their audience (ie the '''''''''''''proletariat''''''''''')
-young yuppies are atheists, they love humanism, and they are desperate to show how good they are at virtue signaling using their freedom of speech
-it is the best opportunity for the socialists to create a socialism independent of whatever the fuck remains of communism, and to cater to a new market: the city-dwellers who just want to fill up their lives with righthink and to hear how good they are for liking humanism all day long.

[Anonymous No.20073803]

I read the thread and if I were to summarize I'd say we have nothing. Everyone has their own hypothesis and there's little agreement even on fudametal aspects.

Overall, it seems to be related to the decline of high culture which happened for whatever reason (population growth, revolutionary sentiment, industrial revolution, science, women rights, decline of religion, decline of aristocracy, etc.) Sure, they're all related but as for a main cause... I can't distill one from this thread.

[Anonymous No.20073913]

>>20071282
modernism's strength is in making midwits seethe

[Anonymous No.20074846]

>>20073913
More like in making midwits feel superior

[Anonymous No.20075365]

>>20074846
"Traditional" art is midwit art almost by definition.
Show your average lawyer, scientist or physician those dumb child "prodigies" who make realist paintings and they will immediately say "Oh, what a genius! It's the new Michelangelo!"
Atonal music and abstract cinema are definitely *not* very popular with the midwit classes.

[Anonymous No.20075436]

>>20075365
Is this "midwit" in the room with you right now?

[Anonymous No.20075464]

>>20075365
They're popular ONLY with midwit classes. Particularly, the pseud midwit class.

[Anonymous No.20075471]

Seriously, the answer's Tennyson.

[Anonymous No.20075567]

>>20075471
Explain

[Anonymous No.20075759]

>>20075567
Have you read the Idylls of the King?

[Anonymous No.20075876]

Jack the Ripper
Writing poetry after the Whitechapel murders is barbaric.

[Anonymous No.20075924]

>>20075759
No

[Anonymous No.20075934]

>>20075759
This doesn't look like an explanation

[Anonymous No.20075947]

>>20075365
I have spoken with an average scientist and he very much prefers non-traditional art
The point is moot any way, since art should be generally appreciable because aesthetic criteria are founded on common consent

[Anonymous No.20076158]

>>20075924
You think you haven't.
>>20075934
It explains everything. It explains the names of people and things you thought were old timey, why thousands of fantasy tropes and spellings were promulgated through culture, to the point anon who thinks he didn't read it will recognise lines and styles cribbed from the one unifying source of all the shitness of the century after, and why when you were little and used to touch yourself at night telling yourself you were a smart boy you thought of words like heretofore and henceforward, and always preferred melancholy to sadness and thought it was great if you ever had to explain the sense of the word "fain" to anyone. He's also the only reason anyone cares about Arthur from that point, so you should feel robbed.

[Anonymous No.20076536]

>>20068395
>>20069034
>>20068986
>>20069049
>>20069155
Go to Wikipedia, type in German Revolution of 1918.

Scroll down to the list of leaders on the Communist side.

>Rosa Luxemburg: Born and raised in an assimilated Jewish family in Poland, she became a German citizen in 1897.

>Kurt Eisner was born in Berlin on 14 May 1867, to Emanuel Eisner and Hedwig Levenstein, both Jewish.

>Clara Zetkin: She also adopted the name of her lover, the Russian-Jewish Ossip Zetkin [de], a devoted Marxist

>Paul Levi was born on 11 March 1883 in Hechingen in Hohenzollern Province to a well-to-do Jewish merchant family.

>Leon Jogiches was born on 17 July 1867 to a wealthy ethnic Polish-Jewish[2][3] family in Vilnius, now Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire.

>Ernst Toller was born in 1893 into a Jewish family in Samotschin, Germany (now Szamocin, Poland)

>The third child born to Siegfried Seligmann Mühsam, a middle-class Jewish pharmacist, Erich Mühsam was born in Berlin on 6 April 1878.

>Landauer was the second child of Jewish parents Rosa née Neuberger and Herman Landauer.[2

>Eugen Leviné was born on May 10, 1883, in St. Petersburg into the rich[10] Jewish merchant family Julius and Rozalia (née Goldberg).[2]

>Radek was born in Lemberg, Austria-Hungary (now Lviv in Ukraine), as Karol Sobelsohn, to a Jewish Litvak family

But of course the stab in the back was a "myth" and the communist revolution was a (((people's revolution))).

[Anonymous No.20076558]

Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis page is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.

Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.

Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:

>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people.

https://www.gommies.gom/fug/

https://www.gommies.gom/starve/

GL uses philosphy of gib and starve, see here: https://www.gommies.gom/ohfugme/

It is recommend you kill yourself so you can avoid starving.

Resources: https://www.gommies.gom/ohshid/

https://www.gommies.gom/1984/

https://www.gommies.gom/guck/

https://www.gommies.gom/probaganda/

https://www.gommies.gom/XDDDD/

https://www.gommies.gom/wheresfood/

https://www.gommies.gom/benis/

Da sdages of gommunism.

>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.

>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.

>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.

[Anonymous No.20076993]

>>20076158
So.. you're saying Tennyson's poetry was so bad it degenerated the entire genre..................... what's your actual argument lmao

[Anonymous No.20077479]

>>20076993
It's not an argument. It's a fact. Tennyson is living rent free in your head and you don't even know where to post the eviction notice. He's like the off flow of teflon; there's nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.20077669]

>>20068395
>Why did literature switch from poetry as a main form of literary expression to novels in the 19th century?

Why? It was a culture change. The dominant culture changed from that of mediaeval aristocracy to that of bourgeoisie. Everything grand to nobility was instantly out of place for the nouveau riche.

[Anonymous No.20078701]

>>20077479
>>20076158
How retarded are you really?

[Anonymous No.20078707]

Everything of value that's ever been created was made by and for the middle classes.

[Anonymous No.20078722]

>>20078707
You probably thought you said something intelligent but you're retarded

[Anonymous No.20078725]

>>20078722
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.20078732]

>>20078725
Yeah no shit. You don't argue with retards, you just mock them. They're retarded, they don't understand argumets.

[Anonymous No.20078737]

>>20078732
>argumets
Not a word.

[Anonymous No.20079240]

>>20078701
Not my fault you want to deny reality and leave Tennyson live rent free in your brain. Just remember you're part of the problem when you meet someone named in his style, or who thinks their fantasy books is legit medieval.

[Anonymous No.20079686]

>>20079240
Meds

[Anonymous No.20080394]

>>20073795
>France
why am I not surprised

[Anonymous No.20080602]

>>20078707
I don't think you actually believe that.