is the novel dead?

[Anonymous No.9909892]

Do you think that the novel is no longer an effective medium for transmitting ideas and information?

I ask this as someone who values literature above all other forms of media. The great writings of man that were great in the past are just as great today. Truth and beauty do not wane just because time passed. An expertly crafted writing does not lose its intrinsic value just because it's old. But the common pleb is no longer receptive to books. I believe this is because he is addicted to his smartphone, TV, and movies. As a result his intelligence has lowered so much that he only responds to the simplest of stimulation: Facebook pictures or very uncomplicated TV/Netflix episodes. Attention spans in both children and adults are at an all-time low and it only worsens as people depend more and more on their technology to do everything for them. It seems like the average person cannot communicate whatsoever unless using the most basic words and sentences structures. And the prevailing attitude towards all of this is that it's acceptable and natural.

The only literature getting attention today is intellectually worthless. I type this as I sit, freezing and jittering from overpriced coffee, in a Barnes & Noble. When I walked into the store I saw only airport novels, vacuous political examinations, and contrived post-modernist nonsense under the guise of literature. Note that I said "getting attention" because I don't believe there's nothing of value being written. /lit/'s existence is proof alone to me that there are new works of quality being written. It's just a matter of whether or not they'll ever enter the public consciousness in a meaningful way, let alone be published at all. But when it comes to the average person challenging their beliefs or learning anything useful, it seems like all hope is lost.

I know for certain that it wasn't always this way. When did it begin? Was the advent of television the first critical blow to literature? What can we possibly do to combat this? Personally I'm thinking of pursuing writing for the screen as it seems like the only effective way of getting ideas out there. Maybe all hope really is lost.

>tl;dr how can books ever recover?

[Anonymous No.9909982]

i dont know if the novel will make a comeback, it will probably level out here. the medium will adapt, i believe, into a format reminiscent of fanfiction site layout where stories can be binge read on a chapter by chapter basis, like netflix

[Anonymous No.9910011]

>>9909892
Novels are just fine. There is a large following of literary novels that can sustain a large number of publishers. Not only that, but most people read at least a novel a year. The audience that went to tv, Netflix, and smartphones weren't the types to engage with a text anyways. They were the types that consumed adventure, action, and biblical historical fiction. Think of people that consume King, Dan Brown, Rowling, and Anne Rice exclusively. Once they have the option to get more entertainment faster with less effort they dive at it.

[Anonymous No.9910034]

>>9909982
>chapter by chapter basis
I don't like this idea. Episodic format implies that plot is the most valuable aspect. It encourages that "what happens next??" idea that so many TV shows and online series bank on. Viewer involvement and commitment allows the actual ideas of the thing to be weaker and less focused. At that point it's just entertainment which is the precise problem in my original post. Books are better because they're the opposite of that: you have to have your idea (either vaguely or fully) ready from the beginning for it be effective.

[Anonymous No.9910044]

>>9910011
I hadn't really considered that but I guess I knew it from the start. So do you feel then that, good riddance, we don't need em anyway?

[Anonymous No.9910048]

>>9909982
this format it had its heyday in the late18th/early 19th century back when even big authors earned their bread by publishing in literary magazines not quite sure if it'll make a comeback since These kinds of magazines have long died out although with the internet its not impossible

[Anonymous No.9910056]

>>9909892
I'd put it this way: does the average person need to read Plato and his Greek descendants and such to have a meaningful appreciation of how things came to be, or as you said, works that stood the test of time--a statement with its pedantic claims, or does one need to read innovative products of modern intellectuals that are continuations to their precedents, all in all, evaluating the quality of a work of literature and/or philosophy, can't always follow mass-based objectivity. We read certain works out of necessity that's often purely subjective.

[Anonymous No.9910089]

>>9910056
Should we not bother listening to classic music because modern music basically conveys the same ideas?

[Anonymous No.9910135]

>>9910044
It's two-sided for me, but it's selfish. Engaging those people in buying novels can allow publishers more financial leeway to take on more experimental or "artistic" authors. But if the overly commercialized literature becomes too large they could flood out the rest. I'm imagining how many library sales I've been to with piles and piles of books read once, donated, with no purchases or interest so they go to recycling (not that trees aren't replaceable).

[Anonymous No.9910758]

Bumpski because I think this thread has potential.