What has happened to literature?

[SubMethod]

edit

[bmain77]

I completely disagree with you. While I agree Stephen King and others probably won't be read on college campuses decades from now, but there is some stuff that might. There are many great novels out there that relatively few know about until the movie comes out. I'm thinking of things like Fight Club or American Psycho. I know there weren't exactly unknown, but far from the mainstream.

Anyways the point is that there are more obscure novels out there like these that some scholar is going to pick up on a whim years from now that lends some sort of insight into our society now and only then will they become considered great literature.

Thats how alot of the stuff we now consider "classics" became so well known. So much of what we now consider great literature was a total failure during it's initial release. It just took some time before it found it's proper audience. Just like a lot of older best sellers from the past have become completely forgotten.

Though I do completely understand your frustration. Almost everything on my "to read list" is at least 20-30 years old. Other than Anne Rice and the occasional historical piece here and there most newer novels don't interest that much.

[The Handeman]

As long as their are MODERN TRAGEDIES SUCH AS ORDINARY PEOPLE AND THE CRUCIBLE IM HAPPY...there i said it

[James Logan]

Although I'm a big fan of old books (over 60 to 70 years old), I have to disagree with you, SubMethod. Maybe there's been a vulgarization (sp?) of literature today in a way, but books still have strong stories, strong themes, powerful emotions. Some of the stuff written today will be considered magnificient classics by all in a few decades, I have no doubt about it.

[James Logan]

BTW, nice avatar, SubMethod...got a bigger version of it, perhaps? :D

[areyoubeingserved]

I am very interested in literature, but I don't know shit about it. I do know however that Koontz, King and whatever other dick head have nothing to do with literature... they are better associated with airport palp. But I don't think anyone on these boards has the required knowledge field to respond to this... It would be interesting to know more and I plan to as I continue life... fuck I haven't even finished reading 1984 yet.

Novels these days are probably out their for the money and thats the right of the publisher, but of course there is some interesting writing, its the same, exact same argument with music... "I wish I was around when The BEatles were playing... fuck off to that. Can you garauntee anyway that you woudld have sat up and paid attention to Orwell, or Lewis (who was completely off his nut on cocaine)? SIT UP NOW... PAY ATTENTION NOW. Don't live in the past, you only miss out again.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

served, cut the 'im smarter than everyone else' shit. Its really annoying. And, just so everyone knows my opinion on things; I am enrolled in an IB Enlgish class (this is my 2nd year) and it requires us to read many, many, many classic novels. Dr. Zhivago, 1984, and classic medevil literature, such as The Canterbury Tales, and Sir Gaiwan and the Green Knight are the novels we have had to read just this year - and it is only the first month and a half of school!!! Last year, some of the books we had to read were The Grapes of Wrath, Medea, every Shakespear play, Walt Whitmans 'Leaves of Grass', and several, several, several, several other poetry sections, Mother Courage, The Two Sisters, A Tale of Two Cities, ect., ect. And my pre-IB had us reading The Hobbit, LotR, Catcher in the Rye, segments on Mar Twain, ect., ect. So, one could say that I am very well-versed in literature. Really, I didnt even list half of what we were required to read. So, yes, my point in all this - I prefer Stephen King to most of the books I had to read!! It is entertaining. Now, history novels are another thing. For IB history, we had to read a TON of novels on every war imaginable. I prefer non-fiction to fiction, in most cases, but in fiction, I still prefer King, Crichton, Grisham, Brooks, Gurney, ect. So, my stance - I like modern literature better, but think classic literature is better written, or whatever. Oh, and just to brag a little more, I also read alot on my own, and have read the entire Harry Potter series, The Chronicles of Narnia, all of Crichton, King, Grisham, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, ect., ect. Good thing I am a fast reader.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by SubMethod
Does anybody else feel like in order to read a good book with actual insight into life and that isnt written for mere entertainment you must look for books at least 40-50 years old. The writers of today just aren't as good I think. How awesome it would have been to live in the time when Hemingway, Steinbeck, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Keroauc, and Orwell were writing. Stephen King, John Grisham, Dean Koontz, they all have talent but they are nothing compared to these greats.

Does anybody else agree?

I strongly disagree. You took three biggest selling writers of the moment as an example. Unlike you might think, the best sellers have always been more of the easy-going entertainment with not much substance. Many of the classics didn't sell many of their books at the time. Maybe you should check some of the hundreds of thousands of other writers who are working these days. The problem is not that books would be worse today, the problem is that you are checking out only the best sellers.

[areyoubeingserved]

Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**
served, cut the 'im smarter than everyone else' shit. Its really annoying. So, my stance - I like modern literature better, but think classic literature is better written, or whatever.

That entire lot managed to argue nothing. It simply ticked off some books you read.

I don't think I'm smarter than anyone else, maybe sometimes in my head I pretend to be but I can recognize what I can and can't comment on... and when other poeple are in that same position. No offense is meant out of this, but your argument wasn't articulated very well (mine wasn't either) and thats what I made clear when I originally posted.

[areyoubeingserved]

I was just thinking randomly, Franzen's The Corrections? And the two books The Virgin Suicides and Middlesex (which I am yet to read)?

[chinton]

I am sorry but I am sick of people bemoaning literature today. I mean if really want to r ead good literature why dont you look at the as said before thousands up thousands of authors who dont get the time of day. Its easy to pick out three novelists and then embody for the falling of literature.

Two "literate" books

English Passengers by Mathew Kneale

Wicked by Gregory Maguire


Also I for one think Stephen King is one of the great modern day writers. Just because his books are hooror does not mean his characters convery real emotion. Also since when is being popular have anything to do with literature.

[areyoubeingserved]

Originally posted by chinton

Also I for one think Stephen King is one of the great modern day writers. Just because his books are hooror does not mean his characters convery real emotion.

I think that that is one of the most interesting arguments of modern writing (as well as film), why is it so automatic to hold horror as an inferior genre? I wrote an essay based on this for school, its very interesting.

Still, I despise King, he's a producer, a machine existing to churn out mass pleasing work, often copying himself, and that some people accidently class it all under interesting writing is plain offensive.

[chinton]

Well guess what I find it offensive that you think its a "mistake" that I like Stephen King. You know just because an author is popular does not mean hes sold out. It means poeple like his books. Also about the idea of repeating things yes he has but its not like it started with him. All authors have repeated at certain things. Just because theyre 50 years old does not make the infalliable

[areyoubeingserved]

Oh Chinton, I can completely comprehend why people like him, and thus why he is popular, but I despise the man and his brand of mass produced literature. He's the fucking Bruckheimer (or possibly even Spielberg minus Schindlers List and double Goldmember cameo) of writing.

[chinton]

But why would you compare him to Bruckheimer. I mean how do y ou distinguish between a popular writer and a writer whos selling out or however you say it. You have actually read his books or at least one right. If you havent then what youre saying kind of completely unfair

[GingerNjack]

I was just thinking randomly, Franzen's The Corrections? And the two books The Virgin Suicides and Middlesex (which I am yet to read)?

Middlesex was definitely the best book I've read in a long time. Good use of folklore as well. Definitely recommend.

[bowieee]

I used to have that mindset but I've found so many ingenius books in the past few years that my opinion has completly flipped around about modern literature. Some examples I found this year:

American Gods by Neil Gaiman
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (Maybe the best fantasy book I've ever read. That's including the chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings)
Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides


All three of these books could stand toe to toe with any of the classics.

[chinton]

I forgot about this post. And the argument still annoys me. Why it does is because by saying litearture is dead or where is there great literature implies that you have read every single book that has ever been written in the past 5 years. Of course nobody has so I find those kind of blanket generalizations annoying.


Also classics sometimes are not all they a re cracked up to be. Just becuase they are classics does not mean they ahve to be liked. For exmaple I cant stand Faulkner nor All the Kings Men and they are considered classics.


Also I still dont under serveds comment about comparing King to bruckheimer. I mean how does one decide between an author selling out and an author who is popular becuase people like him and happens to write a lot of books. Its a Catch 22. If King wasnt famous then people would use that as evidence that hes a hack writer. He becomes popular and eltists can use that in their argument that modern day readers are idiots. God I hate gloom and doom naysayers.



Also Submethod what you said is only another Catch-22. These "classic" authors are so built up and put on a pedestal that it is too easy to take any author no matter how good he is and say oh well he doesnt live up. To me thats not only unfair but insultting to many great authors.

Also the time wouldnt be that great to me Kerouac is a horrible writer for one.

Read my post I think titled "Will King retire a victim of intellectual elitism"


This is probably why I got into arguments all the time with my English teachers.

[Tweek]

First off, Hemingway can kiss my ass.

Secondly, I find it abhorrent that the romance section of the supermarket (because i don't get to the bookstore often), outweighs a lot of the other sections.