[ 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: 45 KB, 360x484, doyouevenobject.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3620052 No.3620052 [Reply] [Original]

Why is the /lit/ wiki of recommended books full of books that have been published during the 1800s or early 1900s.

Are you guys actually just some edgy hipster tryhards that can't appreciate modern literature?

>> No.3620060

ITT autism

>> No.3620057

You realize most of the books /lit/ regularly discusses are either canon or published after 1950, right?

>> No.3620061

>>3620052

No, it's just easy to find good modern literature because it's in stores.

I'd like to see a section dedicated to the best authors in the different genres though.

>> No.3620074

I agree, OP. I mean some losers like to watch black and white movies. Idiots! Don't they know about Scarface?

>> No.3620131

>>3620074

Yes, some people like black and white movies. I rarely see people that like only black and white movies.

>> No.3620146

>>3620131
I see people that only like colour films.

Modern authors just don't write the same, and so the community gets split. There are a few modern authors I quite like, but none that I make a point of reading the entire collection of.

>> No.3620161

I have a hard time finding good modern books.
The thing I like most about classics is that they've passed through the filter of time, and have stuck around as great books.

>> No.3620182

>>3620161

This.

Also I feel like old books are important and that I can't claim to have a full appreciation of literature unless I have read a lot of the older greater works. More recently I have begun reading some more contemporary work but there's plenty of shit I would have fawned over two years ago if I hadn't covered the classics.

>> No.3620188

>>3620146
>I see people that only like colour films.

Those people are plebeians who have never watched a good black and white film.

>> No.3620201

>>3620188
Yes, they're absolutely retarded, but doesn't change the fact that they still exist.

In fact most of my friends (age 19) are against watching a film older than the 90s, because they just can't stand the older style of cinematography. I'll never understand them.

>> No.3620213

>>3620201
Try getting friends that aren't plebs, or sit them down to watch some age old classic.

>> No.3620216

>>3620201

What is worse, and very common annoyingly are those who claim to love film and know tons about film. When you ask them about cinema post-1990 they are indeed well-versed, if you ask them about the few classics pre-1990 by Kubrick or Scorcese they also know them. But if you asked them about any work pre 1990 that isn't critically acclaimed by almost everyone then they won't know a thing.

>> No.3620223

>>3620216
Reminds me of the /tv/ top 100 films chart(as voted by /tv/ users). Top film is Pulp Fiction, with Fight Club in a close second. I don't know the rest, because I stopped reading there.

>> No.3620232

>>3620223

Yeah. I used to do film studies and was surrounded by people like that. Sure, there amazing films post-1990 and I can't blame someone born after that period to have mostly ingested work from that time. But those who actively claim to love cinema but don't venture into its past annoy me.

>> No.3620236

>>3620213
I have a pretty wide circle of friends, and as such am part of some pretty different groups of people. The one in particular I was talking about are the people I go to the pub with, talk about football matches or the things going on in our lives and have a bit of a laugh. I leave intellectual discussion for online, and any tech related discussion to my overseas group of friends I talk to on Mumble.

I like to compartmentalize my life.

>>3620216
Yeah, not a fan of those people either. I wouldn't say I'm especially well-versed in older films but I still watch them from time to time and judge their quality by the year they were made and not "oh god this isn't as good as Transformers, fuck this shit, why is Michael Caine playing everyone in this film?!" (Sleuth, great film)

>> No.3620247

>>3620232
>doing film studies
>full of people who don't give a shit about films
>I love films
>discuss it all the time

>assignment for the year is randomly decided, no choice in the matter by students
>music video
>I do shit, mostly everyone else does alright
>get a C thanks to the poster and previous year's work on a film opening

Fuck those people.

>> No.3620253
File: 2.68 MB, 1852x1882, tv films.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3620253

>>3620232
I found this just for you.

>> No.3620267

>>3620253
>The Godfather
>beaten by Blade Runner
>beaten by The Dark Knight

>The Prestige
>beaten by Star Wars
>beaten by Drive
>beaten by Terminator 2

I think I'm having a heart attack/

>> No.3620277

>>3620253

Haven't looked at list yet but I imagine these pre-1990 films will be the highest.

Anything by Kubrick
Blade Runner
The Godfather
Goodfellas or Taxi Driver
Brazil
Back to the Future

>> No.3620279

>>3620267
I think what ticks me off most is Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke being on there, being as I'm a huge anime fan. Even worse than both of those being on there is 5 cm/s being so low compared to them.

>> No.3620283

>>3620277
It hurts me to say it, but yes. Some people really need to get Netflix and check out some classics.

>> No.3620285

>>3620277
Brazil is at 61. The rest you named are in the top twenty. I'm not sure if I can name any films by Kubrick.

>> No.3620291

>>3620285
>Kubrick
Clockwork Orange
2001
The Shining

Off the top of my head.

>> No.3620293

>>3620291
Oh okay, so it is the guy I was thinking of. I'm pretty terrible with movies, sorry.

>> No.3620304

>>3620293
No worries, a lot of people think of films in terms of their title, characters or actors rather than their director.

Sort of like how everyone refers to JK Rowling as "the Harry Potter writer".

>> No.3620308

>>3620285
>>3620283

Expected as much. Not to criticise those films, they are all great. Just people need to get more out of their comfort zone.

One point I will make about this and literature is that people will read classic works from the 1800s or early Twentieth Century that are acclaimed classics that everyone has read. Few have read more obscure works from before that period.

I think this exists less in literature though. Probably due to the amount of time it has been around. So many great older works to choose from.

>> No.3620314

>>3620052

Because modern literature has not been given enough time to withstand the test of time so to speak.

Give it a few more decades before the wheat can be separated from the chaff, and the unappreciated earn new respect.

>> No.3620325

>>3620314
Now I'm getting a greater understanding of why so many artists die poor.
It's a shame we don't have more faith in them. On the other hand, if they weren't suffering, perhaps their art wouldn't be so good.

>> No.3620336

>>3620052
>Why is the /lit/ wiki of recommended books full of books that have been published during the 1800s or early 1900s.
>Are you guys actually just some edgy hipster tryhards that can't appreciate modern literature?
Funny. I thought you were going to accuse the board of failing to appreciate older literature. 1800-1900s is definitely within the 'modern' period.

>> No.3620774

>2013
>not just now reading Asimov
I was skeptical to pick up his shit before I headed off to 'Nam, but I finally got round to it and taken a liking to the fellow.

>> No.3620951
File: 20 KB, 480x360, 1346541268358.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3620951

>only 2013
>completely abandoned reading clay tablets and parchment in favor of books and ereaders

Doesn't anyone even oral tradition anymore?

>> No.3620976

>>3620951
I'm sure you can find a backwards as fuck island in the Pacific that still does. Also, campfire tales sort of count as oral tradition.

>> No.3621391

>>3620304
>sort of like how everyone refers to Jk Rowling as the Harry potter writer

I've never heard anyone refer to her in that manner. I'm pretty sure just about everyone knows her by name.

>> No.3621435

>>3620236
>I wouldn't say I'm especially well-versed in older films but I still watch them from time to time and judge their quality by the year they were made and not "oh god this isn't as good as Transformers, fuck this shit, why is Michael Caine playing everyone in this film?!"
So you're saying older movies are objectively worse and you're a cultured person that's willing to turn a blind eye to their shittiness because it'd be wrong to expect as much from them as from newer ones?

>> No.3621439

>>3620216
Is it not the same to read' THE CLASSICS"?
A bit hypocritical.

>> No.3621471
File: 2.88 MB, 2900x3201, contemporary novellas smaller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3621471

Assuming OP meant contemporary literature, most of the charts do feature that.

Where are you looking? Most of the charts on "by origin" include a handful of contemporary authors each, most of the ones on "by type" do as well. Non-fiction has a bit. Genre fiction I don't know, I don't mess with that section.

>> No.3621487

>>3621471
For example, for the Netherlands there's:

Out of Mind (1984) by J. Bernlef
Parents Worry (1988) by Gerard Reve
The Following Story (1991) by Cees Nooteboom
The Discovery of Heaven (1992) by Harry Mulisch
Omega Minor (2004) by Paul Verhaeghen
Tomorrow Pamplona (2007) by Jan van Mersbergen
The Twin (2008) by Gerbrand Bakker

Iceland:

Justice Undone (1986) by Thor Vilhjalmsson
The Swan (1991) by Gudbergur Bergsson
Angels of the Universe (1993) by Einar Mar Gudmundsson
The Journey Home (1999) by Olaf Olafsson
The Blue Fox (2003) by Sjon
Stone Tree (2005) by Gyir Eliasson

China:

The Three-Inch Golden Lotus (1985) by Feng Jicai
Waves (1985) by Bei Dao
Red Sorghum (1987) by Mo Yan
The August Sleepwalker (1988) by Bei Dao
The King of Trees (1990) by Ah Cheng
Soul Mountain (1990) by Gao Xingjian
To Live (1993) by Yu Hua
Five Spice Street (2003) by Can Xue
Brothers (2005) by Yu Hua
Life and Death are Wearing Me Out (2006) by Mo Yan
Vertical Motion (2011) by Can Xue

Korea:

Our Twisted Hero (1987) by Yi Munyol
The Poet (1992) by Yi Munyol
Land (1994) by Park Kyong-Ni
Who Ate up All the Shinga (1995) by Park Wan-suh
I Have the Right to Destroy Myself (1996) by Kim Young-ha
Contradictions (1998) by Yang Gui-ja
The Guest (2002) by Hwang Sok-yong

South Africa:

Ways of Dying (1995) by Zakes Mda
Disgrace (1999) by J.M. Coetzee
The Way of the Women (2004) by Marlene van Niekerk
Portrait with Keys (2006) by Ivan Vladislavic
Zoo City (2010) by Lauren Beukes


There are obviously going to be more books recommended before 1980, because there have been significantly more books published before then in most of those countries literary histories. It would be silly to have, with China for example, a majority of the recommended works be from the last few decades. When they've been creating literature for a couple thousand years.

>> No.3621503

>>3621471
>"babyfucker: Biliangual Edition"
What the fuck? This is what we're calling 'the best of contemporary literature'?

>> No.3621504

>>3620052
What's the problem here? The /lit/ recommendation wiki is intended for people first getting into literature, so of course it's going to start with the classics. If you bothered lurking the board, you'd see everyone discussing a lot of contemporary literature as well though.

>> No.3621520

>>3621503
Those are exclusively novellas. It's not as edgy or trashy as the title implies.

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/suisse/allemann.htm