[ 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: 835 KB, 1183x1200, Harold-Bloom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6211114 No.6211114 [Reply] [Original]

>there are people on /lit/ that don't read contemporary literature

explain yourselves

>> No.6211125

older literature is likely to be better

>> No.6211126

I'm male so I care more about hierarchies of quality than ephemeral entertainment value

I would rather force myself to read something old but important in a shitty translation, whereas a woman would rather read anything that makes her feel feelings or whatever, so Franzen is fine for her

>> No.6211139

i have been on /li/ for 3 years and have yet to read a single book.

>> No.6211159

>>6211114
Silly Anon, you have to read all the classics first.

>> No.6211185

When you start with the Greeks it takes a while to catch up with contemporary.

>> No.6211189

>>6211114
A book demands around ten or even substantially more hours of my time and I can generally be more confident that a classic will reward my commitment since there is oceans of research material available and thus it is easier find something that caters to my tastes.

>> No.6211233

>>6211114
But neither does Harold, at least we can guess that off his judgements

>> No.6211236

Because I'm usually not interested by the themes and style of contemporary literature, except for the so called genre literature.

>> No.6211250

>>6211139
Similar to everyone that browses lit.

>> No.6211267
File: 9 KB, 225x225, madotsukipuke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6211267

>contemporary lit

>> No.6211276
File: 20 KB, 233x423, thefifthdepechemodemember.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6211276

>>6211267
>animu reaction face

define contemporary literature, OP

>> No.6211278

>>6211250
Here's a situation where I can actually say you're projecting and not be an idiot for using the word.

>> No.6211313

>>6211114
Why would I try my luck with contemporary when I can read tested classics that are in almost every case better than the contemporary novel?

>> No.6211317

>>6211276
>he's new

>> No.6211327

>>6211114
I wasn't even aware that there was contemporary literature.

>> No.6211336

>>6211114
What's this contemporary literature I keep hearing so much about? A passing fad? I thought we all agreed to stop after WWII.

>> No.6211359

>>6211317
anime is lowbrow shit, nothing to do with being new

>> No.6211386

>>6211359
>inferring postulations

>> No.6211394

>>6211313
>not reading something because you might not like it
>reading something because someone else told you it's "a classic"

your fedora is showing

>> No.6211406

>>6211394
>reading something because someone else told you it's "a classic"

???

Is he supposed to go full Autodidact and start with the letter A?

>> No.6211443

>>6211406
no, but I do think we need to draw a line under certain books somewhere eventually, otherwise you'll be stuck reading about English people from the 1800's all your life while a whole generation of books relevant to your own epoch go unread for fear of offending the tastes of a handful of overeducated assholes.

>> No.6211467

>>6211386
He's right.

>> No.6211492

>>6211126
Franzen isn't a women's writer. He's just a watered down DFW with zero fragmentation. He likes to hide behind the veil of "hyper-realism" for not being as unique as his frater, but it's ultimately a cheap self-designation for lacking imagination and hardly-disguised autobio-content.

>> No.6211508

>>6211267
You really are a fucking loser with that picture eh. Make no mistake about it. You're loser and you know deep down you'll always stay that way.

>> No.6211513

There's nothing to explain, unless you're a total idiot. Most of the people here, myself included, prefer to read stuff that's stood the test of time

>> No.6211514

>>6211443
You do know that classics age span is 3500 years so when I say "classic" I can easily find what I like.

>> No.6212199

I read perhaps one contemporary novel in five classics, mainly because it's easier to find quality prose to read when it has passed the test time, different type of readers and different political eras etc. Now one needs to keep in mind that 'classics' ranges from Gilgamesh to Homer to Zweig, ergo ancient to modern. For more well-read persons, who have digested the couple of thousand of 'must reads' that is the classics, the answer might instead be one classic for every five contemporary.

>> No.6212415

>>6211114
I will spend my whole life reading the classics, although I'm sure there are contemporary releases worth reading. I just wouldn't know where to start, and it's difficult to find a book which doesn't look like a joke.

>> No.6212438

I barely read and /lit/ has repeatedly stated to like my writing lol.

>> No.6212492

>>6211114

Because I'm too busy writing my own stuff and trying to dissect books that are considered classics. That said, what I choose to read is pretty random. If I see something I like (or have heard good things about) I'll pick it up and give it a try. Contemporary literature is such a small percentage of what's out there that I'm more likely to read older stuff.

>> No.6212526

>>6212438
And instead of genuinely trying to write and be great you're going to keep posting random excerpts and finding satisfaction in being an overachiever (achieving above what your background should allow you to achieve).

You're pathetic.

>> No.6212549

>>6211125
why

I used to think that until about 2 years ago when I started reading contemporary, meaning within the last 20 years. There's some good shit.

>> No.6212564

>>6211114
I know what the modern day is, I do not know the past, or enough to quench my thirst, there is little treasure in contemporary literature.

>> No.6212575

>>6211114

Can we talk about Bloom's analysis of Blood Meridian?

Because it seems like complete horseshit to me.

>> No.6213383

>>6211114
Get hold of an old paperback copy of a book from decades ago - say the 1940s or 50s. Have a look at the books that they're advertising on the back or inside, and note how you've never heard of most (or any) of those books. Every decade has piles of books published, and no matter how much they may be acclaimed, the majority will be justly forgotten in time.

By reading books published a while ago and yet still known today, you're concentrating on the wheat while ignoring the chaff. If you read contemporary books, you'll be mostly wasting your time on the chaff.

>> No.6213417
File: 63 KB, 778x351, Newsletter%20Img[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6213417

>>6211114
How do you filter the good from the dull when it comes to contemporary literature? So much of what is published just seems flat and lacking in individuality.

>> No.6213439

>>6212549
Name books that came out in the past 20 years you liked.

>> No.6213441
File: 113 KB, 464x580, 1417820888150.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6213441

The older you go the more the content has been through a filter, all of the shit has been flung aside, all that's left is gold. The newer you get the more it is likely to be shit. There is an incredibly small number of books I will ever get to read, and when I actually get around to reading I'd rather read something you absolutely can't miss than something that most likely will be ok and very rarely be sorta great, but nowhere near as great as works that have stood the test of thousands of years that many people have devoted their lives to just to transcribe or preserve it for another generation of people.

>> No.6213444

>>6213439

Hard mode: Authors who also first published (not including in small literary magazines and things like that) in the last 20 years.

>> No.6213454

>>6213441
>stood the test of thousands of years

limiting yourself a bit eh?

>> No.6213519

>>6213454
I personally only read ancient cave paintings, myself.

>> No.6213521

>>6211126
>I'm male so I care more about hierarchies of quality than ephemeral entertainment value

You mean you're a self-conscious smug who doesn't even enjoy what he does.

>I would rather force myself to read something old but important in a shitty translation, whereas a woman would rather read anything that makes her feel feelings or whatever, so Franzen is fine for her

The women you know are shitty, and judging from your post they must be the one who developed your literary tastes.

>>6211114
I read the contemporary literature I write.

>> No.6213531

>>6213439
Alain Damasio's La Horde du Contrevent. Probably qualifies for >>6213444.

>>6213441
>the "test of time" is an objective evaluation of quality an anon is bound to be receptive to anything that has stood the "test of time"

>> No.6213634

>>6213521

>I read the contemporary literature I write.

Care to share your tumblr? :^)

>> No.6213772

I bet these fucking kids who think contemporary literature is shit are the exact same ones who think music died in the 2000s. I understand that it's easier to find good things that were made in the past because they've already been acclaimed and the trash has been filtered, but it's just absurd to completely ignore anything written in the past 50 years due to your inability to form your own opinions and dig through the garbage, experimenting with different publishing houses, review sites, you name it, for quality literature. How fucking cynical do you have to be for all your desire to explore and think for yourself vanish?

Why am I even on this board. Half the threads are philosophy which is only tangentially related to literature at best and the other half is "discussion" of exclusively "/lit/ approved" meme authors like DFW and Pynchon. If you like those authors that's great, but when the board is populated by the kind of drones that exist in the thread and the over-saturation of threads about those books it leads to an incredibly creatively-stunted environment where nothing new is discussed and the only thing you've gained is knowledge for a "talented but lazy" 17 year old on why Dostoevsky is "reddit tier trash." It's like the only thing this board cares about is image; having the image of being well read; having the image of being an intellectual. And there's still a thread a day from one of these bozos bemoaning the supposed "death of literature." How ironic.

>> No.6213841

>>6213772
this. thank you based anon

>> No.6214193

>>6213772
These truth bombs fall more often than good threads. This is only more rigorous hating.

>> No.6214250

>>6211139
Really? tell us your history.

>> No.6214920

>>6211114
It's hard to sift through all the trash yourself, and getting help form other sources doesn't work because people read trash. Every contemporary recommendation I've ever gotten has been trash. On /lit we circle jerk over classics, in the real world it's all DFW, Franzen and Murakami.

>> No.6214922

>>6214920

found the non-reader

>> No.6214931

>>6214922
Found the meme fan.
Dank, bro.

>> No.6214933

>>6211114
I started with the Greeks, trying to catch up.

>> No.6214937

>>6212549
Because older books have generally stood the test of time while newer books haven't been weeded through.

Honestly though, the increased output of the publishing industry and the constant churnign mas of literature they produce will make it harder and harder each year to catch good books. Imagine what will potentially fly under the radar then.

>> No.6214945

>>6211114
his neck is disgusting

>> No.6214973

>>6214945
What neck?

>> No.6214980

>>6211114
>people that
is this correct? it sounds terrible

>> No.6215024

>>6213441
the unfortunate thing is, in the past pre 1800s i'd say, most literature was made great for political reasons, not purely creative reasons. That is why there is rarely secular literature from before the 1800s even though the most intelligent people back then had a higher chance of producing great art and being irreligious.

>> No.6215028

>>6214980
>is this correct?


Yup.

http://grammarist.com/usage/that-who/