[ 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: 20 KB, 421x512, scoff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4090207 No.4090207[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is /lit/ so obsessed with 20th century literature?

You know there are centuries and centuries of literature beyond 100 years ago, correct?

And don't try to prove me wrong by saying "B-but we talk about late 19th century books, too!" That's not variety.

>> No.4090212

The novel was only created in the early 16th century though with Robinson Crusoe.
Literature needed time to mature.
To me, modern literature doesn't even really exist until we get to Shakespeare and Dickens.

>> No.4090215

>>4090212
No. English novel was. Novel stricto sensu was created with Cervantes and Madame de Lafayette.

>> No.4090224

most of the novels around in libraries and bookstores were published in the 20th century

i'd guess that many more books were published in the 20th over the 19th century so it stands to reason that these books would dominate discussion

>> No.4090222

to some extent I agree, the fact that people consider themselves patrician and only read 20th century stuff, and thus missing plenty of allusions, is embarrassing.

however, I hold a great preference for 19th and 20th century lit because of the themes it focuses on, which are more varied and psychological, and the modernist and post-modernist techniques are just more interesting. I find a lot of older works are well written but lack depth in comparison to modern stuff.

>> No.4090227

>>4090215

what? Tale of Genji, Improvement of Human Reason, La Celestina, Life of Lazarillo and I'm sure many others were before Quixote

>>4090212

>implying prose is better than verse

>> No.4090229

>>4090222
>lack depth
You just don't get it.

>> No.4090234

>>4090227
Prose is much better, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It's more coherent and flexible. It's also easier to understand.
Verse is more artistic sure, but does it really make for a better story?

>> No.4090285

>>4090212
who cares about "the novel"? There were forms of literature far before the monstrous and clumsy phallic instrument we call "the novel."

>> No.4090296

>>4090285
Most people here read novels.
What do you read?

>> No.4090298

>>4090222
>19th and 20th century lit because of the themes it focuses on, which are more varied and psychological

Have you ever even picked up Shakespeare or Dante?

>>4090224
>most of the novels around in libraries and bookstores were published in the 20th century

I'd like to know the names of the libraries that don't have Homer and Sophocles.

Tip: you are not forced to read novels

>>4090234
>prose is much better

[citation needed]

prose has existed before Crusoe

>> No.4090299

>>4090296
You don't have to, though.

I read literature, in all of its forms.

>> No.4090302

>>4090227
Novel as in the modern novel.

>> No.4090303

>>4090234
>reading literature for "stories"
how qt

>> No.4090306

>>4090303
I agree literature shouldn't be read solely for plot, but you are not dismissing story in general, are you?

>> No.4090307

>>4090298

>Have you ever even picked up Shakespeare or Dante?

sigh...did you miss the fact that "a lot" is not a synonym for "all?"

I was even going to mention "before Shakespeare" but I didn't bother

>> No.4090310

>>4090298
Prose has existed before that, but Crusoe is the first novel in English. reading translated works isn't nearly as good as lit in the original language and verse is a huge pain in the ass, so many readers are limited to works after Crusoe in English.

>> No.4090311

>>4090307
There are hordes of writers that are 'more varied and psychological' than 20th century writers, so much so that using phrase 'a lot' is still false.

>> No.4090314

>>4090303
The story is the clothing you wrap the meaning and message in. If your story sucks, no one is gonna want to hear the message.

>> No.4090316

>>4090298

>I'd like to know the names of the libraries that don't have Homer and Sophocles.

can you even into critical thinking?

>if x and y exist in z and x exists in z then x must be the majority in z

that's your fucking argument jesus christ

>> No.4090318

>>4090310
reading translation is still better than limiting yourself to a handful of writers all in the same short period.

>> No.4090319

>>4090314
>reading literature for a "message"
how qt

>> No.4090325

>>4090311
I think he meant to say that because they are 20th cent and more modern, the deeper levels of reality within the story is easier to access because they are more readily relatable and use more familiar language.

>> No.4090326

>>4090314

except there have been plenty of naturalist and existential novels with incredibly minimalist stories that have achieved fame and acclaim

>> No.4090333

>>4090318
I will cede that point.
>>4090319
What do you read for then?
I read for a story that is entertaining and a message that makes me feel as if I learned something.
If that makes me naive, so be it.

>> No.4090334

>>4090326
Examples?

Also, since when did minimalism suck? Is that what you took from my previous post?

>> No.4090335

>>4090325

>more familiar language.

well, no, that isn't what I was saying, I actually enjoy archaic language.

but yes, they are more relatable, as they have a more existential nature (though there are certainly precursors of that in older lit).

i'm not trying to claim they're better but I enjoy them more.

>> No.4090342

>>4090334

>since when did minimalism suck?

your reading comprehension is terrible. I was saying the opposite. a story that consists entirely of a few people in a room doing nothing is not what I'd assume you meant by "good story" because nothing really happens, and I was refuting your claim.

Beckett is the best example, but there's plenty others.

>> No.4090345

>>4090333
I read for the aesthetic pleasure of it. A message in a literary fiction is a disgusting thing.

>> No.4090350

>>4090212
>Not reading Machiavelli, Chaucer or Dante
ISHYGDDT

>> No.4090371

>>4090345
the aesthetic is the message. The message doesn't necessarily have to be political or moral.

>> No.4090381

>>4090207
That's because this is an anglophone board - and English literature (in the sense of novels, being the matter of discussion on this board) seems to have its peak in the 20th century.
Of course in other languages, such as German or Russian, I would locate the most interesting and literature in the 18th/19th century.

>> No.4090384

>>4090381
>English literature [...] seems to have its peak in the 20th century.

Who are Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keats?

also see
>>4090318

>> No.4090391

>>4090342
So in Heart of Darkness, which is just one big story told by a guy to a few people sitting on a boat, nothing happens?
Are you so dense that you think the physical occurrences that go on in a piece of text are the story, and everything else is just.... words?

>> No.4090407
File: 1.10 MB, 320x275, 1369478427805.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4090407

>>4090285
>the monstrous and clumsy phallic instrument we call "the novel."

>> No.4090414

>>4090384

Mhh... >>4090318 makes a fair point, indeed.

Though I wonder if those who, in this case, point towards translations are the same guys being upset if someone then actually wants to read an older work (before 20th century) in translation...

>> No.4090415

>>4090391

you realize the crux of the "I read for plot" mindset is that people completely eschew themes and subtext? this is me just assuming what you're trying to talk about, because your argument was fairly vague in the first place.

i'm not going to bother arguing further because the distinctions are getting too arbitrary.

>> No.4090420

>>4090222
This. Entirely

>> No.4090419

>>4090285
I don't think you know what phallic means.

>> No.4090423

I am the OP and I also wrote
>>4090318

Reading translation is not a bad thing per se. Obviously you aren't getting the full picture but it's not evil by any measure.

>> No.4090428

>>4090419
the novel is a masculine fixture.

>> No.4090431

Have you read literature from the 18th century and before? There are some obvious exceptions, and we read them, but most of it is dull and less accessible due to the antiquated language.

>> No.4090433

>>4090431
>but most of it is dull and less accessible due to the antiquated language.

Go back to watching MTV

>> No.4090436
File: 101 KB, 379x480, 1377914428565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4090436

>>4090428
Troll or Women's Studies hambeast?

>> No.4090438

>>4090433
Fer sher, brah. Fer sher!

>> No.4090445

>>4090345
word

>> No.4090453

>>4090436
I'm not saying it's bad because it's written by men (most sagas, epic poems, poetry, etc. were written by men), but it's an over-intellectualized process (more of an essay than art) for a logic-obsessed people.

>> No.4090469

>>4090453
Ah, okay. I think I've been over-sensitized by phrases like 'dead white males', which seek to denigrate the authors for who they were, while hiding behind the claim that they're just stating facts about the authors.

>> No.4090478

Because people here generally prefer more modern styles. I certainly do. 19th and 18th century novels are always so purple and pedantic because that was the vogue at the time. There were never very many points in those periods where writers reacted to bland romanticism. Novels were literally considered by the industry to be for women up until the 19th century.

>> No.4090482

>>4090371
mes·sage (msj)
n.
3. A basic thesis or lesson; a moral: a play with a message.

>> No.4090511

>>4090345
no you're just an idiot.

>> No.4090523

>>4090511
why is he an idiot for enjoying art for its aesthetic qualities?

>> No.4090527

>>4090482
>being this fucking autistic

he just defined his fucking terms, and you're trying to refute his point by giving the dictionary definition, completely out of context of the dialogue? you a stupid nigga.

>> No.4090529

>>4090469
I am by no means a member of the school of resentment

>>4090482
mes·sage
noun

3 : an underlying theme or idea

definitions definitions definitions.... I'm referring to a philosophical concept or idea by message, ok?

>> No.4090573

>>4090527
you don't create nice definitions of a given word just because you fancy it, dumbfuck.

>>4090529
the aesthetics has nothing to do with the "underlying theme"; it's rather the style of the prose.

>> No.4090584

>>4090573
You create definitions all the time in formal debates or writing. As long as you mention the word will be using a different definition than the standard one and explain the alternate definition clearly it's fine. It is usually for brevity's sake.

>> No.4090585

>>4090573
>it's rather the style of the prose
It's not just the prose. Please stop using terms you don't understand, you will embarrass the rest of us.

>> No.4090620

>>4090415
Meh, I agree.

>> No.4090635

>>4090453
What do you read then?

>> No.4090658

19th and 20th century European writers were the peak of literature. Deal with it.

>> No.4090669

I just ordered Dante's Divine Comedy. Looking forward to it, heralded as the greatest literature italy has produced. Or something along those lines

>> No.4090685

>>4090658
Idiot.

>> No.4090687

>>4090635
see
>>4090299

>> No.4090689
File: 1.03 MB, 900x1302, korean laughs at youre math.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4090689

>>4090207
>Why is /lit/ so obsessed with 20th century literature?

The further back you go the harder it is to find YA lit.

>> No.4090690

>>4090658
I don't care if you continue leading a deluded life, but don't act as if you are 'patrician' because of it.

>> No.4090875

>>4090687
Then you're a liar and a backpedaler, because you clearly pointed out the negativity of something being written by a man.

>> No.4090916

>>4090212
>Robinson Crusoe
>early 16th century
my god you're a faggot.

>> No.4090946

>>4090875
.... how

>> No.4090988

>>4090916
I meant early 18th you butt. I'm dyslexic as fuck.

>> No.4091002

Why are you so obsessed with 21st century clothing?
Why are you so obsessed with 21st century food?
Why are you so obsessed with 21st century internet?
Why do you stupid fucks have trouble living in your own time when all the great literature you talk about from the past is great for being the embodiment of its own?

>> No.4091040

>>4091002
because PoMo is scary