/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6697299]

Which of these is most to blame for the demise of American literature, and for the general corruption of Western literature?

[Anonymous No.6697314]

[Anonymous No.6697316]

>>6697299
None of them. Relax with the grandiose statements.

[Anonymous No.6697332]

Pynchon. FUCK Pynchon.

[Anonymous No.6697339]

There has always been cheap books available to read, including popular ones. The question is, which ones will stand the test of time?

The only reason we don't think books from before our time were bad is because the bad books didn't last. Just like most books today won't.

[Anonymous No.6697343]

>>6697299
wahh people like things that I don't like literature is le dead : (

Fucking baby.

[Anonymous No.6697356]

>>6697299
None of them, but game of thrones guy is much more cancerous. At least people know that John Green writes for teenagers

[Anonymous No.6697357]

Green. Got is shit, but Martin never claimed to be a literary figure. Green is actually poisoning people's minds with the muh misogynistic Aristotle and Plato le dead white men shit. He needs to be stopped

[Anonymous No.6697363]

You, anon. If you had made the next great true American novel that shook the present and movilized the future things would be different. But I guess you prefered to play with your weiner watching fake sex on your computer.

[Anonymous No.6697370]

>>6697356
>cancerous

your attempt to fit in with the /lit/ taste i.e the flavour of the month meme-correlated hive mind is showing there pal

[Anonymous No.6697379]

Neither...

No author is to blame for any perceived decline of American letters; if you must blame someone, blame the critics and academicians. And blame the politicians for them. And blame capitalism for them.

[Anonymous No.6697386]

>>6697299
The answer is obviously Ayn Rand.
Pulp and YA posing as nothing but what they are, this isn't dangerous. Pseudo-depth kills people.

[Anonymous No.6697389]

>>6697299
Neither because you're overracting

[Anonymous No.6697412]

>>6697314
He gave people a choice, and, naturally, people chose the "easy" route. He is no more to blame than the consumers themselves.
>>6697316
How do you explain this: >>6697143
>>6697339
But we live in an ever-developing technological state. Literature is susceptible to even the most blatant viruses of modern society, viruses that could never have taken hold in times past. As it stands, literature as a whole is the most fragile it has ever been.
>>6697363
What are you trying to prove? So I may not be able to change it, but does that mean I must ignore the currant state literature is in.

[Anonymous No.6697439]

>>6697370
nice frog pic

[Anonymous No.6697469]

>>6697370
Uhh... what? 'Cancerous' and 'Cancer' have been around as pejoratives for ages, nor are they explicitly linked with /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6697494]

>>6697469
Carcinogenic is so much more the mellifluous word though.

[Anonymous No.6697542]

>>6697469
he's right though

[Anonymous No.6697556]

American literature
eh?

[Anonymous No.6697558]

Why is John Green so fucking smug? what does he know that I don't?

[Anonymous No.6697605]

>>6697299

OP

[Anonymous No.6697625]

>>6697558
How to make millions of dollars out of making overweight emo girls feel good about themselves while reading about average sized, socially well-adjusted middle class teenage girls.

[Anonymous No.6697654]

>>6697542
How is he possibly right that using the word 'cancerous' represents trying to fit in with /lit/'s monthly meme cycle? It's like claiming greentext is a recent /lit/ meme.

[Anonymous No.6697676]

>>6697558
>jgw when YA money
>jgw #1 bestseller
>jgw #1 smart writer