Is literature dead?

[Robert E Lee]

Back in the 19th century and earlier even commercial literature (Charles Dickens, Matthew Lewis) was good stuff. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that literacy was low in the less educated classes. As more and more became literate, literature dumbed was dumbed down; and look at it today: The only new books on the shelves are Stephen King, Danielle Steele, Jeffrey Deaver garbage. Every now and then there's some book like The Corrections that passes itself off as real literature, when it's actually just REALLY REALLY BAD wannabe-literary fiction that recycles cliches from films blatantly.

I may sound like an elitist, but it would be silly to say that the lower classes have the same opportunities to understand and appreciate literature given that they have less education and less time to read.

Sure there are still great writers like Russell Banks and Salman Rushdie but very few.

[den]

No I don't think literature is dead, but I think classic literature is underappreciated in contemporary society. All the GenXer's who read Douglas Coupland and Naomi Campbell's et al works feel the siren call for their generational angst, and in context it makes sense, our values have changed, people are more externally motivated now than they ever were.

I agree with your analysis though that the shelves are bogged down with pap these days. Hence why I only frequent used bookstores these days.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by den
No I don't think literature is dead, but I think classic literature is underappreciated in contemporary society.
Ditto.

[piquant]

I completely agree that literature is underappreciated in today's society, but don't blame the lower classes! Danielle Steele can be baught as cheaply as Dante. I have met far more wealthy, far less educated people. And what's your definition of lower class anyway? Where do you draw the line?

[Robert E Lee]

Originally posted by piquant
I completely agree that literature is underappreciated in today's society, but don't blame the lower classes! Danielle Steele can be baught as cheaply as Dante. I have met far more wealthy, far less educated people. And what's your definition of lower class anyway? Where do you draw the line?

It's not directly about money; it's how the poorer people are the less education and free time they have. Appreciation of literature varies directly with those two factors and that's undeniable.

[stavrokin]

in the morden society, why people (not only lower class ) should spend dull hours in the same dark or complicated poem, novel? yes, it's not a good question, i admit, but it's a question which could not be ignored. does reading literture benefit human life?
if it truely benefits our life, how many people will have this benefit of literture?

[Stanislaw]

People are constantly told that classic, or good literature is boring and for nerds, it is much better to read 600+ pages of gory thriller. I think that corperate buisness has ruined the world of literature. It is easy to produce gory thriller, inteligent literature on the other hand is hard to find. I wouldn't blame lower classes. I would blame the money hungry upper class.

[Dick Diver]

The novel will never die because it is pure imagination - the modern world has many more distractions but ultimately the same ennui as earlier epochs.

People will always read jejune literature as surely as they will watch bad films or listen to crap music.

Panem et circenses.....

[crisaor]

Originally posted by stavrokin
Does reading literature benefit human life?
Of course it does. Isn't that why we're here?

[stavrokin]

Yes, to those here, you do perceive the value in literature. You can be intoxicated with literature and heal the pain of reality. However, how many people could cure their ennui, ignorence, and hatred through medicine of literature?

on the other hand, if you and me, and all of the people who love literature, whose fascination could be remained for ever and inherited by the proper groups, seem to be irrational to blame others containing the money hungry upper class or lower classes.

it's conceited manner sometimes behind Literary sentiment.
Nothing will die as long as you keep going on.
But it is more important not to give up or blame others even if all of the rest is crazy for crap music .

[piquant]

I see your point, that lower-class people may be poorly educated, and have less time to read, but I question how it is these people who are responsible for the decline in the appreciation of classic literature. If anything, I blame the complacent middle class, who can easily afford good literature, and are relatively well-educated, but prefer to read crap. Someone who cannot afford to pay rent, or buy food, is most likely not buying books at all , so how they can be the source of the problem is confusing to me.

It is a question of supply and demand, and the middle class is demanding low quality books, the lower-class isn't demanding any at all, and as I know nothing if the upper-class I cannot say what they are demanding (although I have a sneaking suspicion that they read much the same books as the middle class).

The middle class is the largest class, and can we really be suprised that writers and publishers are willing to provide them with what they want?

[AbdoRinbo]

Too many generalizations here. You know I'm a middle-class American and so are my friends, yet we all have the same disdain for tasteless literature. It goes without saying, you have to take the individual into account, not just class statistics.

On another note I think reading is too often confused with life experience. Classic literature is great and all, but at some point you need to get out see what is going on in the world around you. Personally, I've seen a lot of people who live their lives as if they're characters in some overly-dramatized novel. It's worse than watching Keanu Reeves try to act out a love scene. Literature is just escapist entertainment, another profound way to kill time. Most writers (good ones, anyway) are just people who can clearly observe what is going on around them, their senses deranged by harmony. Most writers watch TV, some even read comic books (Thomas Pynchon and Kurt Vonnegut, to name a few).

Literature is not a reason for living, life is. Now hurry up before you die.

[crisaor]

Settled. It's not THE reason clearly, but why don't you consider it to be one of the reasons? I can hardly picture my life (or anybody else's in a situation similar to mine) without literature (or music, or movies, etc.).

[IWilKikU]

From just listening to this conversation, it sounds like what is being said is that every novel written before about 1950 is genious, and every novel written since is complete rubbish. Thats rediculous. While I wasn't alive in the victorian era, I'm pretty sure that there were novelists other than Hardy, Dickens, Austin, and Bronte. The greats are the ones that are remembered. We have the luxury of time on our side. Over the last 100+ years people have sorted through literature and decided which novels are good and which are bad. But anything a victorian reader picked up was not going to be brilliant. Now that the middle and even lower classes are educated there are alot more writers than there were. Not everything is crap. 80 years later people arn't going to remember the names of the harlaquin romance novel writers. They will remember the greats of our era. Our problem is we are unwilling to sift through the crap thats being published to find these jems. I read comercial fiction and I have read some absolutely pathetic novels. But at the same time, I have read some great Authors who deal with universal themes. Authors that delve into philosophy, Authors that still publish nonfiction, Authors who read and respect literature. They do exist. Its just a matter of getting off your lazy asses and trying to find them.

[Stanislaw]

It is truly hard to find a good book lately, everynow and then one comes by, but it takes a lot of work to find one.

[IWilKikU]

If you want some great literature that's been published in the last 20 years, I suggest Umberto Eco. He has published both fiction and nonfiction. I havn't read his work yet, but most of the 3rd year students in my course (only a 3 year course) are fanatic about him. I respect these guys opinions alot. Here's what it has to say about him in 'About the Author' in Foucault's Pendulum :


Umberto Eco has an international reputation as a philosopher, historian and literary critic. His first novel, The Name of the Rose, was a bestseller throughout the world. A professor at the University of Bologna, he lives in Milan.

Has anyone read Eco? If you have, what do you think?

[subterranean]

Hi, I'm a new creature on board :)

I live in country where many of the great classics are not so familiar and popular, and I suppose all of you were reffering to the condition in the States or other English speaking countries.

But one thing that I surely think about the classics is that some of them are very hard to understand (the language) and it took alot of efforts for me to understand them, since my native language is not English. But I love them

[crisaor]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Has anyone read Eco? If you have, what do you think?
I have. He rules. The Name of the Rose is awesome, you should read it ASAP if you haven't already. Foucault's Pendulum is his second novel, very inferior to the name..., but it's still good. As a semiologist, he's written several essay books on a lot of subjects. Maybe you should check those out. Some are really interesting.

[IWilKikU]

Sweet I will as soon as I can.

Subterranean, where are you from and what classics are you talking about?
PS. I love your Avatar! (I'm one of those few who DOESN'T think Radiohead has sold out.

[MacBeth]

Although there has been a decline in the production of quality fiction in the past few decades, I must agree with IWillKikU; just pick of a copy of The Strand before Arthur Conan Doyle was given his monthly slot, the magazine was rafe with "600+ page" rubbish. It was perhaps more populous then, in an age without television, than now. In the end, Danielle Steele writes crap, and shall be remembered as thus; Eco, however, shall be remembered differently.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Subterranean, where are you from and what classics are you talking about?

Such as Poe's. Im from Indonesia


PS. I love your Avatar! (I'm one of those few who DOESN'T think Radiohead has sold out.

Yes, indeed

[Robert E Lee]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Sweet I will as soon as I can.

Subterranean, where are you from and what classics are you talking about?
PS. I love your Avatar! (I'm one of those few who DOESN'T think Radiohead has sold out.

Hate to disappoint you Britboy, but here in the colonies (i.e. the US) it's very trendy and "cool" to like Radiohead's new pretentious albums. As for myself, I think Radiohead peaked with The Bends.

[AbdoRinbo]

Uh oh . . . here it comes.

[crisaor]

Then it shall come ;) . Radiohead peaked with OK Computer. Everyone knows that. It's a scientific fact (if you believe in such things).:)

[Azoic]

mmm.... science.... ewww.... radiohead.... ah, well to each his/her own.

[Adso]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Has anyone read Eco? If you have, what do you think?

I've just finished reading "The name of the rose" about 30 minutes ago. It's an absolutely amazing book! I really recommend it to everyone... It's just so complex... I'm still trying to figure out a lot of its meanings!

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by Robert E Lee
Hate to disappoint you Britboy, but here in the colonies (i.e. the US) it's very trendy and "cool" to like Radiohead's new pretentious albums. As for myself, I think Radiohead peaked with The Bends.

Britboy!!! HA! I hate to twist your gibblets, son, but I'm a Virginia boy from the good ol' US of A! I liked Radiohead as an American. If ya want to take a gander at my Location, it says Newbold College, UK. College. Boarding college! I'm a southern countryboy from the heart of big game huntin', tobbaca chawin', big truck drivin', flanell shirt wearin', riproarin', redneck America! YEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAA!!!!! And even through my thick southern skull, I can still reckon that Radiohead peaked with OK computer. Everyone knows that, old Hoss! And yes it is trendy and "cool" to like Radioheads new albums. I'll admit that, but thinkin' back to '97 I'm seemin' to 'member all kinds a them music magazines that the kids are all readin' and tearin' out them posters and stickin' em up on yonder walls, well I seems to 'member em going Radiohead bonkers! Every magazine I read that had a 'top 10 albums of the '90s' list had OK Computer right there on it! And have you noticed, even today, how much airplay 'Creep' gets compared to songs off of 'Hail to the Thief'? I don't see what has changed, other than they've pushed the envelope as far as expirimental music goes. They refused to write the same album over and over and over like some other brit-pop bands (oasis! God they suck!). People who LOOOOOVED the bends, and wanted more of the bends are obviously going to accuse Radiohead of selling out cause they aren't writing any more Bends!!!! Get over it!

Thats all I have to say about that.

For more interesting posts on the subject of Radiohead's commercialization, see thread, 'Radiohead and 1984' by IWilKikU in the George Orwell forum.

[Dick Diver]

God, give me pretentious Radiohead over bloody Coldplay any day.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
They refused to write the same album over and over and over like some other brit-pop bands (oasis! God they suck!).

Originally posted by Dick Diver
God, give me pretentious Radiohead over bloody Coldplay any day.
Careful, watch it you two. ;)

[Robert E Lee]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Britboy!!! HA! I hate to twist your gibblets, son, but I'm a Virginia boy from the good ol' US of A! I liked Radiohead as an American. If ya want to take a gander at my Location, it says Newbold College, UK. College. Boarding college! I'm a southern countryboy from the heart of big game huntin', tobbaca chawin', big truck drivin', flanell shirt wearin', riproarin', redneck America! YEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAA!!!!! And even through my thick southern skull, I can still reckon that Radiohead peaked with OK computer. Everyone knows that, old Hoss! And yes it is trendy and "cool" to like Radioheads new albums. I'll admit that, but thinkin' back to '97 I'm seemin' to 'member all kinds a them music magazines that the kids are all readin' and tearin' out them posters and stickin' em up on yonder walls, well I seems to 'member em going Radiohead bonkers! Every magazine I read that had a 'top 10 albums of the '90s' list had OK Computer right there on it! And have you noticed, even today, how much airplay 'Creep' gets compared to songs off of 'Hail to the Thief'? I don't see what has changed, other than they've pushed the envelope as far as expirimental music goes. They refused to write the same album over and over and over like some other brit-pop bands (oasis! God they suck!). People who LOOOOOVED the bends, and wanted more of the bends are obviously going to accuse Radiohead of selling out cause they aren't writing any more Bends!!!! Get over it!

Thats all I have to say about that.

For more interesting posts on the subject of Radiohead's commercialization, see thread, 'Radiohead and 1984' by IWilKikU in the George Orwell forum. '

Creep is from Pablo Honey, which is a pretty bad album.

Oasis rocks. Get over it.
God, give me pretentious Radiohead over bloody Coldplay any day.

I hate Coldplay so damn much. The singer moans like a ***** having an orgasm on Clocks, and it sounds so pathetic that I cringe whenever I hear it. Effete music at it's worst.

[AbdoRinbo]

We never meant to cause you trouble.

[Jay]

Said Ab and went in search for someone else to cause troubles to ;) :D

[subterranean]

ouw, i noticed that there have been some interesting posts about radiohead going on in this thread (which should not belong here)..

Thank's to my avatar!!
(i wonder why..)

[AbdoRinbo]

If I didn't know any better, I'd say Robert E Lee had a crush on me.

[AbdoRinbo]

EwWwWwWwWw . . . Weeeeird.

[azmuse]

re: Weeeeird
I'm glad you noticed (heeheehee)

[Jay]

LOL :D:D:D

[IWilKikU]

Sorry to hijack this thread to Radioheadland. I just like Sub's avatar.

[Koa]

I like 2 or 3 Radiohead songs (I'd like a few more if I liked the way he sings but I really DON'T- I could say it in a much more unpolite way but there are some fans here and I tend to respect them as I respect this band, despite my opinion).

I detest Coldplay in every possible way.

I didn't know Umberto Eco was that popular, most people here fall asleep only at the mention of 'the name of the rose'...I've mostly heard that it's quite boring and if someone claism he read it all he gets a lot of respect like he was super-clever. I'm also told it has lots of parts in Latin or kinda Latin.

I'm not going to discuss whether literature is dead or not, cos it's that kind of philosphical question I wouldn't enjoy discussing and I wouldn't get anything out of it.

Amen.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Robert E Lee
'
Creep is from Pablo Honey, which is a pretty bad album.
Oasis rocks. Get over it.
YEP.


Originally posted by Robert E Lee
We never meant to cause you trouble.
LOL. :D

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Robert E Lee
[B]'

Creep is from Pablo Honey, which is a pretty bad album.



Play it loud, that's the right way to listen to it

And I just hate it when people compare Radiohead with Coldplay. Is this band worth listening to? Have I miss the boat?

[IWilKikU]

Pablo Honey isn't bad. Its just different. Every one of their albums progresses a little. It doesn't get "better" or "worse", it just changes as they try somthing new. People generally don't like Pablo Honey very much, but I think its quality stuff. Check out the Japanese import album, "Itch" it has some live cuts of Pablo tracks that are really cool.

[leonthepupil]

Literature is not a reason for living, life is. Now hurry up before you die.

i totally agree with this.
I learn it from my own experience.
I kinda had some issues come along like those in "Dead poets Society". i finally realised :
to enjoy literature is a way we can enjoy our life more..
but never be obliged to read anything

[Zooey]

I blame television (and to a slightly lesser extent, movies) and the rise of Spark Notes on most of today's reading woes.

Why read a book when you can watch the movie version? And even better, why read at all when there's so many television programs to watch? It's so much less effort.

And though I appreciate Spark Notes and the like for helping me out with particularly difficult works of literature after I've read the books themselves, I see far to often that my peers won't even bother opening the book assigned, and instead turning to easy-to-read summaries. It's really sad, and there's really no good way for professors and teachers to stop this.

[Zooey]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
From just listening to this conversation, it sounds like what is being said is that every novel written before about 1950 is genious, and every novel written since is complete rubbish. Thats rediculous. While I wasn't alive in the victorian era, I'm pretty sure that there were novelists other than Hardy, Dickens, Austin, and Bronte. The greats are the ones that are remembered. We have the luxury of time on our side. Over the last 100+ years people have sorted through literature and decided which novels are good and which are bad. But anything a victorian reader picked up was not going to be brilliant. Now that the middle and even lower classes are educated there are alot more writers than there were. Not everything is crap. 80 years later people arn't going to remember the names of the harlaquin romance novel writers. They will remember the greats of our era. Our problem is we are unwilling to sift through the crap thats being published to find these jems. I read comercial fiction and I have read some absolutely pathetic novels. But at the same time, I have read some great Authors who deal with universal themes. Authors that delve into philosophy, Authors that still publish nonfiction, Authors who read and respect literature. They do exist. Its just a matter of getting off your lazy asses and trying to find them. Exactly. I always tell this to people who complain that movies just aren't nearly as good as they were 30 - 50 years ago. It's not that movies are necessarily worse today, it's just that time has weeded out the crap, and only the jewels remain. I'd say it's the exact same with literature. In 50 years, only the truly great stuff from today's books will remain.

[Dick Diver]

Originally posted by subterranean
Play it loud, that's the right way to listen to it

And I just hate it when people compare Radiohead with Coldplay. Is this band worth listening to? Have I miss the boat? I just consider Coldplay as Radiohead for loved-up couples who want to feel angsty for an hour or so.

Never forget that one of Coldplay sued a neighbour for taking the taxi he had ordered - rock and roll.....

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Zooey
I blame television (and to a slightly lesser extent, movies) and the rise of Spark Notes on most of today's reading woes.

Why read a book when you can watch the movie version? And even better, why read at all when there's so many television programs to watch? It's so much less effort.




In addition, I blame video and computer games also. A friend of mine bought his kids an X-Box this X'mas. The kids got toys for every special occasion. I guess that's the way things are these days..

[IWilKikU]

I just got back from a family Christmas in FL at my aunt and uncle's place. They got their 14 yearold kid a game cube for xmas. After presants we hooked it up and played from about 2 pm to about 2 am with a brake for dinner. The next morning he wandered into the living room, where I was sleeping on the couch, and started the damn thing back up. I tried to resist the call of the console, but to no avail. We ended up playing literally all day and deep into the night. When I got into the car for the 16 hour ride home, I looked at A Tale of Two Cities with contept and listened to the radio instead. It wasn't until about 4 hours into the trip that I remembered how much I loved reading and picked the book back up. The game cube almost brainwashed me into the tv glued preteen that I used to be. AND IT ONLY TOOK IT TWO DAYS!!! Video games are bad, but worse is that they are POWERFUL!!!

[Shortbread]

The main difference is that in the best of the previous centuries remains nowadays. My grand father bought a lot of very well know author from the 19th century but nobody reminds them. We only remember what is seen as good literature, that's why I feel that nobody in one century is going to remember who Mary Higgins Clark or Stephen King was. Furthermore, the sheme of their book is so easy that it will not be studied at school.
After all, there some very good books nowadays, it's just that you have to find it. You have to make yourself decide and not let the big publishers decide for you.

[grace86]

I do not think literature is dead, just the love for it. But then again you do have so many things now that were not present in the past like t.v, the phone, myspace, movies etc etc. IWilKikU, I agree about the videogames, they have a power that is like all consuming!

I had an experience several months ago. I was at the bookstore and I was looking at bookplates. The sales guy was looking at me and said, "Oh the bookplates, do you have problems with people borrowing your books and not giving them back?" I actually laughed at the guy. No one around here reads anymore. I am having more trouble trying to locate my audioslave cd than in any of the books I own.

I sometimes look at people and wonder if their brains are shutting down. People are getting lazier and don't want to think about thinking. I have a friend who has only ever completed two books in his life. When I have a book in my hands, people ask me if I am reading it for class....umm hmmm. I don't think literature is dying, there are still plenty of good contemporary authors, I just think people don't think it is very entertaining to put their brains to a little work. But as people say, to each his own.

[superunknown]

99% of every art is crap, and that's a fact. Granted, lately all art, from painting to literature to music seems to be exceedingly awful as compared to, say, 70 years ago.

[PeterL]

99% of every art is crap, and that's a fact. Granted, lately all art, from painting to literature to music seems to be exceedingly awful as compared to, say, 70 years ago.

99% of everything is crap, not just art.

[rachel]

I honestly think that things go in cycles, I mean the other night I was watching the black and white version of Anna Karenina with Vivienne Leigh(love it) and noticed how it was the big trend then to have these lavish social parties and afterward, instead of settling back and talking about the writers of the day or artists, they sat round the old table and tried to evoke the spirits of dead women or men that had scandalous love affairs. No matter how trendy something is, how advanced, there will come that defining moment when people sicken of certain things and go back to basics. there is something intrinsically beautiful, nurturing and peaceful about holding a book in one's hand and quietly entering another time and place and losing onesself in the story.
I tried reading a Doestovsky online and got so distracted and uncomfortable I gave it up. There will always be a segment of society that cannot live without the beauty and enriching fulfillment of reading a good book, looking at a truly fine piece of art or in fact creating both. The rest of the world, like all times past will always take the easy way out, but what can one do?

[The Unnamable]

99% of everything is crap, not just art.
You are too optimistic. I’d say 99.99%

[blp]

The thing that really narks me off is the way we're constantly being told all this stupid American TV like the sopranos and six feet under is sort of equivalent to great art, when actually it's surprisingly lame compared to the supercharged vit C shot of the really good stuff.

I'm put in mind of an exhibition title by the art group Bank, referring to things like artists DJing in galleries and spening whole nights in the pub talking about sitcoms:

Stop short-changing us. Popular culture is for idiots. We believe in art.

[mono]

Pardon me for speaking (or typing :p) in a slightly extremist way, but I would never go so far as to call literature dead, nor judge it as 99% or 99.99% inefficient and unsatisfying.
Throughout time, literature does not seem the only thing that changes, but also readers' tastes in literature. Ideally, much literature, especially what sells best, ought to reflect and represent many of the sociological and psychological values, beliefs, thoughts, imagined whims, and morals of its readers. This, unlike literature and literature's readers, has never changed.
I read mostly classics, like most people here, not quite finding a lot of contemporary literature in my taste, but would not necessarily label contemporary literature as poorly written or 'bad' by any percentage impossible to determine. I primarly read classic literature because I admire the representation of the past - as I said, their sociological and psychological values, beliefs, thoughts, imagined whims, and morals. No, literature has not died, nor does it even seem near dying; to a limit, one can even call the instruction booklet to my digital camera literature, but not in the same sense as Charles Dickens, for example.

[PeterL]

You are too optimistic. I’d say 99.99%

Yes, I confess to optimism.

[bhekti]

If dead here means having nothing new to offer, then I'll say literature is 99,99% dead.
Today we have only variants and repetitions and (simply) boredom. No more creation. Only arrangements. ....hmm

[bhekti]

If dead here means having nothing new to offer, then I'll say literature is 99,99% dead.
Today we have only variants and repetitions and (simply) boredom. No more creation. Only arrangements. ....hmm

It doesn't matter, does it? :( .... :confused: .... :brickwall

[PeterL]

If dead here means having nothing new to offer, then I'll say literature is 99,99% dead.
Today we have only variants and repetitions and (simply) boredom. No more creation. Only arrangements. ....hmm

Literature has never been more than rearrangement of the themes that humans deem important. The "Enuma Elish" has essentially all of the themes that have ever appeared in literature, and it is probable that a similar oral tradition existed for a few hundred thousand years before that. There are only a few things that are important to humans. Good literature says something interesting about those basic themes.

[Pensive]

Literature is not dead.


I do not think literature is dead, just the love for it.
I agree to some extent here but I believe that this "love" is also not completely dead.

My cousins from England came, the eldest was about eight years old. I noticed that he was really interested in sports. My mother gave him some books to read and then he looked at my mother in a strange manner and said that he does not read books at all. My grandfather, who is himself very much interested in literature becomes very disappointed to see that some of his grandchildren don't like literature at all. But as far as I believe, I think that everyone has his own choices. If you don't like literature, the world will not end. If "Pride and Prejudice" is not pleasing you then why care to keep on reading it? Leave it a side, your intelligence will not decrease. To enjoy reading is a natural feeling which one can not force on self.

IwillKIkU, I face this kind of situation atleast once a week. Sometimes I gets so engaged in playing GTA, Mario Brothers, Sims, Donkey Kong etc, that I forget everything. VIDEO GAMES ARE REALLY POWERFUL but we can control ourselves though sometimes it looks impossible to do so. Isaac Asimov said:

"I don't fear machines but the lack of them"

So, in the end I will say that litrerature is alive but because of modern technology, children have more engaging things to do and a nation's future is all based on children. If they are not interested in literature, from where good writers will come? This situation is quite dangerous. The only way in my opinion to control this is to get interest for reading in children. People say lots of things about Rowling but I believe that she is the one who created interest for reading in children. I am an example. I did not care for books much but after reading HP series I started to read books. Stephen King is also another good example. Teenagers like his works. (I consider his works a good deal of literature) Atleast these authors have not let the literature to be completely dead. We have still got something to read according to new generations demand.

[blp]

You're rather contradicting yourself, Pensive. First you say



But as far as I believe, I think that everyone has his own choices. If you don't like literature, the world will not end. If "Pride and Prejudice" is not pleasing you then why care to keep on reading it? Leave it a side, your intelligence will not decrease. To enjoy reading is a natural feeling which one can not force on self.


then



If they are not interested in literature, from where good writers will come? This situation is quite dangerous.

I'm more for the latter statement. Being able to read isn't just a matter of having access to a particular area of entertainment. It's access to complexity, tolerance and a sense of possibilities.

It's good, I suppose, that Rowling got you into reading - as long as it was a gateway drug that led to harder stuff.

[The Unnamable]

to a limit, one can even call the instruction booklet to my digital camera literature, but not in the same sense as Charles Dickens, for example.
Apparently, scientists somewhere have discovered that horses and cows are different, as well. :rolleyes:

PS My comment above was really not meant to be an accurate appraisal. Also, at that point, PeterL was saying that everything is crap, not just art. I wasn’t expecting to be taken seriously.

[PeterL]

Apparently, scientists somewhere have discovered that horses and cows are different, as well. :rolleyes:

PS My comment above was really not meant to be an accurate appraisal. Also, at that point, PeterL was saying that everything is crap, not just art. I wasn’t expecting to be taken seriously.

Not too seriously anyway.

I was trying to quote Sturgeon's Law, but I couldn't remember the exact wording or its name. The original was "Ninety percent of everything is crud."
More about Sturgeon's Law and Sturgeon's Revalation (which is what I was actually trying to cite) are available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

[kjt1981]

i think............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............................
no.

[kimpossible]

I will begin this entry by informing you that I have not read this entire thread and therefore do not know what has already been discussed:

I have not read this entire thread and therefore do not know what has already been discussed.

The first few entries, however, seemed very interesting to me. i would like to introduce myself: I am a senior in high school, I live in the evergreen state, and I spend any free time with penguins. Penguin classics, penguin's greatest novels of the twentieth century, or penguin's anniversary editions of Graham Greene.

I am somewhat new to the world of literature.

Is literature dead? In answering this question, I would like to know what qualifies as alive. It certainly seems video games and movies have usurped the posistions of novels as favored means of entertainment. But then literature doesn't aim to entertain. Literature, by definition, offers a moral point of view doesn't it?
At this point, I would like to say that I have no idea where I am going with this.

Now back to my rambling.

I have a novel on my person at all times. By my count, I am about one of three of this type in my school (which, as an ethnically diverse middle class suburban community, may be taken as an effective microcosm for our wonderful nation). I am curious, does this change later in life? Will this percentage of lit. enthousiasts grow as I enter college and begin my excessively expensive studies? if literature is indeed "dead", what percentage of the population did enthousiasts make up when it was "alive"?

I am in no way attempting to make a statement. These are sincere inquiries.

If you have read this, far I commend you.
I hang out in a crowd where weekend fun results in headaches and nausea on Sunday mornings. My friends now get angry at me when I bring Fitzgerald or Kerouac to one of our high-class soirees. Why do i read? I am unable to explain myself, but lit. lives with me and that seems to be enough.

[Trifkin]

Literature will never be dead as long as there are those who can look at the world around them (or inside themselves) and make accessible their observations to others through the written word.

[CourtnyG]

I realize that this is an old thread, but it's a topic that affects me on a regular basis so I wanted to jump in with my thoughts. I'm a new poster. I was thrilled to find this website because I'm a lonely reader in a sea of people who have never owned a book. I always want to discuss whichever book I'm currently reading, but there is no one to discuss it with. I have a high school diploma and I went to college for a year. I simply read for pleasure. You don't have to have a phd in English Lit to read, comprehend, and enjoy classic literature. I don't think literature is dead, but I think people who read good literature for pleasure are becoming more and more rare. I work in an office of 20 people. One male I work with reads fantasy and sci-fi, one female I work with reads mystery and court room drama, and I read classic literature (though I do enjoy histories and biographies as well). The other 17 people in my office haven't picked up a book in years. In all honesty, it's obvious when talking to them. They have a small vocabulary, horrible grammer, and a smaller range of interests and knowledge. I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with some of them. It has nothing to do with money or class. Reading is free. You can go to the library or download free literature on-line. I really don't know why more people don't read anything at all, let alone real literature. Maybe it's laziness. Reading a book takes more time than watching a movie, it requires more imagination and a more extensive vocabulary (or a dictionary). Maybe it's the effect modern conveniences have on the masses. If telephones, movies, television, and computers were around in 1700 or 1800 would our current lack of interest in reading have happened much sooner? I don't think it's horribly important what books you specifically read, as long as you do read books. Unfortunately I think there are far too many people who simply don't read at all.

Courtny

[grace86]

CourtnyG

Welcome to the forum. You will realize that there are many people here who were in your situation - there are more fish in the sea ;) It is pretty sad when you are talking to a group of people and they don't even know what the word "noose" means.

I think you are right about laziness. Modern technology has made everything more of a convenience; it takes less time to do everything and to read a book is the same as it was in 1700 - 1800. The appreciation for reading has definitely fallen...our libraries are underfunded and parents just don't care or are just too busy to teach their children the proper way to read.

I know of some professors who try to promote reading by having students read aloud from the textbook in class. I don't like hearing people jumble over simple words.

Sometimes I think the only hope we have is to instill an appreciation and a love for reading into our children and hope that they carry it with them.

[Turk]

Literature is not dead. It's living in a coma. :)

Art always depends people, economics and technology etc. In this century (Capitalism) time=money. While there's art of cinema of course people will prefer to watch a movie. If you can read fast, to read Brothers Karamazov will take at least 8-9 hours to finish. But it's only 2 hours to watch Brothers Karamazov movie, and you can characters, you can hear'em. Of course i don't think reading and watching are same thing. Firstly while you read you brain works, you think about sentences you read and you use your imagination. But there's not enough time to think on movies, on other word reading is much creative and productive for a person, movie is closer to consumption and less creative. But it's not people's mistake, cuz they have work schedules and an average person works around 40 hours in a week. If you count other factors, such as traffic, shopping rr LAZINESS etc. you can clearly see people really have a little time to live (life is not working on a company and spending time on roads of a city, i want to mean creative period of life). And while they even don'T enough time to LIVE how can they read a lot of books? I think because of modern slavery system most of people sees reading as waste of time. If you try to understand this in their point of view you understand what i mean.

Last word; literature will live forever, but in a coma. Cuz change of society and economics also changes people'S prefers. Cinema is most influential form of art since end of 1940's. And although i don't think movies are much better for personal-spiritiual development, cinema has it'S own advantages too, for example movie "A Clockwork Orange" was far better than novel and you can watch a movie with your friends or family. But while you reading a book you'r alone. I think it's an another factor too, movies are generally a group fun, and today's human is enough alone in his life.

Well if i'd know English better, i could tell more clearly but i tried to tell my ideas with the way best i can. :)

[CourtnyG]

grace86

Thank you for the making me feel welcome. I agree about instilling the love of reading in children. My mother has always loved to read, and so I love to read. We lived in a suburb of Detroit until I was ten, and we went to the library for our books because we didn't have any extra money. I always looked forward to our trips to the library. I understand that people don't have much extra time, but people didn't have much extra time 100 years ago either. There was always something that needed to be done (and without modern conveniences it took longer to do them), the same as today. I work 40 hour weeks at a location 30 minutes away from my home. I could always be doing something instead of reading. My house is never as clean as it should be, my meals are never as intricate as they could be, there is always laundry to do, but I live with those things in order to have the joy of reading in my life. It's a small price to pay, and I've never regretted it; not even when non-readers come over and look at my dusty house, and my stacks of books crowding the end tables, and think it must mean that I'm the lazy one.

CourtnyG

[grace86]

You're welcome CourtnyG - and I understand completely on the dusty house and undone laundry :)

[EAP]

Ultimately you cannot force someone to read. As sad as it sounds, for several people, school is responsible for the disdain they hold books into.


I won't even bother answering the original question. Even as a rhetorical conversation starter, it is silly beyond belief.

[thirtyspokes]

xxxxx

[Stieg]

Is literature dead?

Of course not.

You can propose the same idea with movie theatres in contrast to video rental stores, more and more movie lovers are inclined to wait for the DVD release rather than see it in theatres.

Movies and video games are limited in the information and subjects they can provide an audience. Naturally, people will turn to books to receive more.

And books are linked by common interests or subjects or references which usually sparks a chain of reader queus by many individuals.

Than there is pop-lit lead by the likes of J K Rowling, Stephen King, Dan Brown, and Chuck Palahniuk which seem to have increased literary reading by those whom have not had a great impulse to read.

Many people I know love to read and some just love discussing the messages behind such works as A Clockwork Orange, Survivor, Childhood's End, Brave New World, etc. Books have messages and that is one of their strongest draws.

I have the fortunate of having two large bookstores both not 3-5 miles away in opposite directions, Borders and Barnes & Noble, and the amount of business both stores enjoy collectively is personally very optimistic.

[Video Drone]

I feel everything is going down culturally. Music, movies, games, and books as well. In the movie and game department I can be quite certain because I observe those closely. Good things are coming out not out of the regular market, but something hidden, indie, arthouse, cultist. The regular market becomes a business and it becomes corrupted, spawning professional creators who create not for art but for money... I cannot say if that is the same with literature because I am not a close observant but is there a large number of good books that came out? I only hear of Stephen King, Harry Potter, and Eragon so far. >_< Good works usually become popular among communities such as this forum, but all I have been observing is old books.

[Aiculík]

I cannot say if that is the same with literature because I am not a close observant but is there a large number of good books that came out? I only hear of Stephen King, Harry Potter, and Eragon so far. >_< Good works usually become popular among communities such as this forum, but all I have been observing is old books.

There are many good books that come out... but usually they're not bestsellers, so people don't hear about them. Which doesn't mean they don't exist.

When I enter the bookstore, I don't even look at the "top 10" shelf... I'm interested in besttellers, not bestsellers. :) But every bookstore has some part for "high" literature and every time I come I find at least two dozens of new books that seem more than interesting and leave with broken heart as I can't afford to buy them all. Not that I don't try. :D This year (and it's just July) I bought some 30 books, most of them by modern foreign authors I didn't know before. The last disovery was Alessandro Baricco, popular italian writer and his novel Silk. I higly recommend it.

[KidTruth]

Back in the 19th century and earlier even commercial literature (Charles Dickens, Matthew Lewis) was good stuff. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that literacy was low in the less educated classes. As more and more became literate, literature dumbed was dumbed down; and look at it today: The only new books on the shelves are Stephen King, Danielle Steele, Jeffrey Deaver garbage. Every now and then there's some book like The Corrections that passes itself off as real literature, when it's actually just REALLY REALLY BAD wannabe-literary fiction that recycles cliches from films blatantly.

I may sound like an elitist, but it would be silly to say that the lower classes have the same opportunities to understand and appreciate literature given that they have less education and less time to read.

Sure there are still great writers like Russell Banks and Salman Rushdie but very few.

You sound like an elitist. Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying:

"Why aren't people writing old books anymore?!"

Your own fetish for books that are at least fifty to sixty years old blinds you to any good literature being written today. I wonder how much of our fascination with old literature and how intelligent it is comes from the fact that much of its obfuscation is due to out-of-style dialect, hype and the history we have to learn to understand what they are saying.

Either I'm right in my above conjecture, or you're right and everyone in the world became stupider for no real reason at all.

[stlukesguild]

You sound like an elitist. Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying:

"Why aren't people writing old books anymore?!"

Your own fetish for books that are at least fifty to sixty years old blinds you to any good literature being written today. I wonder how much of our fascination with old literature and how intelligent it is comes from the fact that much of its obfuscation is due to out-of-style dialect, hype and the history we have to learn to understand what they are saying.

Either I'm right in my above conjecture, or you're right and everyone in the world became stupider for no real reason at all.

I can't speak for Robert E. Lee... but I will gladly admit that I am an "elitist". I am an "elitist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of artistic or cultural relativism which declares that there is no good nor bad art... but thinking makes it so... that all is pure subjectivity. On the other hand, I most certainly will not not agree with any notion that no one is writing good books anymore. There are any number of living writers whom I feel are certainly good... perhaps great (Cormac McCarthy, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, John Ashberry, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and many others immediately jump to mind). Of course it is always more difficult to judge contemporary work of art than one in that has been absorbed into the culture. It can be challenging to discern true formal originality with mere novelty or to recognize the difference between what may be merely timely but soon to relegated to the category of "period pieces" from that which is bears a timeless relevance. It also might be pointed out that our access to contemporary literature is often far more limited in that there are often few translations available of the contemporary works (good, bad,or mediocre) written in other languages.

I don't buy the notion that it is a merely an outdated vocabulary or diction that makes older works difficult (and thus attractive to some readers). John Milton was never an easy read, neither in Geoffrey Hill or Thomas Pynchon. Personally I can find any number of modern or contemporary works that are just as difficult (if not more-so) than most older works. Neither is difficulty nor lack of difficulty any guarantee of artistic merit. On the other hand... one may surely be enamored of the beauty of certain older artistic languages. One may find the Elizabethan language or the Victorian language as represented by the greatest authors of those periods to have a certain beauty that one admires far more than than languages of Faulkner, Beckett, or Pynchon. This would seem to be no different than if one were to greatly prefer the style of Renaissance or Impressionist painting to Picasso, Pollack, or Lucian Freud... or the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Rossini to that of Schoenberg, Webern, and Philip Glass. Such would not necessarily be an expression of snobbishness... but more a personal preference.

I do agree with R.E.L. that the broadening of the audience has not meant a necessary improvement in the overall quality of what does get published or what gains the support of the publishers. Literature... art as a whole... is largely seen as mere entertainment by many and the art which can entertain the largest audience gains the largest audience. But art can be and often is more than entertainment. We may have grown far more literate as a society (surely a good thing) but this in no way assures us that this broad audience will take the time and put forth the effort demanded by some literature (or art... or music). I don't know that I would go so far as to suggest that we are in some artistic decline... although I do greatly suspect that we are no longer in a period that in any way can compete with that of early Modernism. I doubt that this is some long slide into mediocrity (or worse). Every great period in the history of the arts has been followed up by a lull of sorts. It is only to be expected and does not mean that there are/were not artists of truly great ability and achievements active during these times. Perhaps it merely demands more of an effort upon the part of the audience to seek out the best of contemporary art... but it is assuredly worth the effort.

[poofyhead15]

If dead here means having nothing new to offer, then I'll say literature is 99,99% dead.
Today we have only variants and repetitions and (simply) boredom. No more creation. Only arrangements. ....hmm

I agree. You can see the lack of ideas in the movies too. Take a look at the movies coming out in the past few years. It's gotten so bad, these writers are making sequels, then part III, IV, V, etc. to originally bad movies, movies based on comic books. I realize that there are interesting independent films, but the majority exhibit the lack of intellectually stimulating art.

[ClickForth]

okokok

[JBI]

Don't give me that; have you seen the amount of sequels coming out these days? Yeah right, like movies haven't gone downhill. I think literature now isn't "dead", good stuff is just hard to find. Now everyone is an aspiring writer, which makes things more difficult for the good writers. It is the publishers that are to blame not the readers. They are there to make money, therefore they publicize what sells. Though, some great authors sell well, many other greats don't.

[ClickForth]

okokok

[Big Al]

Don't give me that; have you seen the amount of sequels coming out these days?

How many James Bond films were made throughout the '60s and '70s? How many entries in the Thin Man franchise were produced in the '40s and '50s?


Yeah right, like movies haven't gone downhill. I think literature now isn't "dead", good stuff is just hard to find. Now everyone is an aspiring writer, which makes things more difficult for the good writers.

As with artists in any field, I am sure many of the great authors struggled to make a living. Look what happened to Herman Melville after he wrote Moby Dick. There has and always will be drivel clogging up the shelves and hogging all the attention, but the truly timeless works being written will be remembered and celebrated fifty years from now.


It is the publishers that are to blame not the readers. They are there to make money, therefore they publicize what sells. Though, some great authors sell well, many other greats don't.

There is a contradiction here, I think. The readers are not to blame because publishers only publicize what sells. In other words, publishers publish what readers read. Sounds like the root of the problem is the general public after all. But then again, there's no accounting for taste.

Oh, and to the author of the original thread, I have a few names for you:

Cormac McCarthy
Thomas Pynchon
Gene Wolfe
Clive Barker
William Gibson

...Just to name a few.

[DigitalLove]

I remember being shocked to learn in literature class that there was a huge market for 'junk' literature in the 1800's. Apparently there were a lot more newspapers and other types of publications back then. The junk literature was written primarily for bored housewives, and it was sort of like the romance novels of today.

It is interesting to note how human nature can romanticize the past. I think there is a lot of great literature out there today, but I do agree it can be hard to find at times.

[Calidore]

Edit: No longer applicable

[Atomic]

Not dead - there are some fine contempory writers; Margaret Atwood, J.M. Coatzee, William Gibson, Natsuo Kirino...don't forget that there was a time when all 'novels' were viewed a trashy indulgences. When the novel broke out as an art form, it was quickly established as one of the most profund forms of expression, but even in the 1800s and early 1900s, the 'greats' were always a dime a dozen. It may be a dime a thousand now, with so much published trash, and the market in ruin, but there are still many fine writers floating about, aching for your recognition. Go and read them!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yep. Literature is dead. Completely, utterly dead.

[tonywalt]

Literature is more accessible in these times.

The dumming down result can be frustrating. I was watching a news conference for Naomi Campbell's autobiography and one intrepid report asking if writing was cathartic. Needless to say, she had no idea what the word meant, but in true form gave a rude answer to the reporter and even threw in my favourite word - "whatever" - part of the slapdown for asking such a lettered question:brickwall

There is a lot of good literature, but it does not sell as well - Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Zadie Smith, David Foster Wallace....and they do well in the market place.

[nancybella]

People don't ask will science literature die. It never will of course, as people are born with a curiosity to figure out how the natural world operates.

It's the same with literary writing: people are born with a curiosity about human behaviour and suggest solutions with imaginative scenarios. A solution usually amounts to nothing more than a nice way of expressing the problem.

A love of stories, a beginning, a middle, and an end, whether it's planet earth and her fellow planets and the great dome she lives under, or if it's just the people running round on the planet.

I think people will always want to read and write.

[mal4mac]

... I will gladly admit that I am an "elitist". I am an "elitist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of artistic or cultural relativism which declares that there is no good nor bad art... but thinking makes it so... that all is pure subjectivity.


A non-elitist does not necessarily think there is no good or bad art, but that the seat of judgement must lie in the person appreciating the art. If someone dismisses a work of art too readily, then it would not be elitist to cajole them into trying harder. But if they do try hard, and still don't like the work, then there is nothing to say they are somehow inferior. It's just that they and some particular art form don't get on together.




On the other hand, I most certainly will not not agree with any notion that no one is writing good books anymore. There are any number of living writers whom I feel are certainly good... perhaps great (Cormac McCarthy, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, John Ashberry, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and many others immediately jump to mind). Of course it is always more difficult to judge contemporary work of art than one in that has been absorbed into the culture. It can be challenging to discern true formal originality...


What's so great about "true formal originality"? I tend to read realist novels without much formal originality - Simon Raven's "Alms for Oblivion" sequence is my latest discovery here! It's a great example of superior modern writing in the old, realist style. It shows little formal originality, but remains within the formality defined by Dickens and other greats of that ilk. I prefer Raven to Proust, Marquez, Joyce, and other modernists/magical realists.



... recognize the difference between what may be merely timely but soon to relegated to the category of "period pieces" from that which is bears a timeless relevance.


I agree timeless relevance has to be a factor. But this has nothing to do with 'formal novelty'. Dickens is, surely timeless. Raven might be - several of his novels have the Suez crisis as the centre of interest, which has obvious parallels to the Iraq crisis and surely will always have something to say about how politician get into, and out of, ridiculous, large scale, errors of judgment.



Literature... art as a whole... is largely seen as mere entertainment by many and the art which can entertain the largest audience gains the largest audience.


Entertainment doesn't have to be "mere". I'm entertained by political machinations about the Suez crisis, and debates about how one can live with failure in one's chosen career. Certainly Raven combines depth and "basic entertainment" when discussing these topics!

I dislike works that try too hard to be different and turn art into some kind of puzzle (Marquez, Joyce...) - just my personal preference. I also think these "puzzle" works don't go any deeper into "big issues" than serious writers in a more transparent genre, like Tolstoy or Raven. Tolstoy is not generally thought to be a lesser writer than Joyce, so unless you like modernist puzzle solving, why bother with Joyce and his ilk?


Perhaps it merely demands more of an effort upon the part of the audience to seek out the best of contemporary art...

Or perhaps it doesn't - I picked up Raven, and other recent favourites, on the library "New books just in" shelf. The Victorians didn't need much effort to find Dickens - you would expect great, modern authors to still be selling quite well and fairly easy to find. Although I wish the library would try slightly harder, the "Dan Brown: Simon Raven" ratio is too high...

[nancybella]

Mac, if you've no time for self-appointed elites, why bother shooting yourself in the foot, after making some good points, by saying why bother with Joyce?

Plenty of intelligent people do bother with Joyce. No argument is strong enough to defeat that fact. It's a reality and reality is to be respected. If you don't agree with it, then disagreeing with it isn't the way to come to terms with. Simple avoidance (of what you don't like) is the way to come to terms with it, spending time with the things you do enjoy.

And you're a lucky man, your cup is full, if you like Tolstoy.

Tolstoy himself is a case in point. He wrote a good essay disparaging Shakespeare's writing ability. Some excellent points. But his essay achieves nothing, and nor should it. Other intelligent people intelligently like Shakespeare and that's stronger than the most insightful argument.

[nancybella]

But you're right as well, we have to say what we don't like, just as it was worthwhile for Tolstoy to write his essay.

Our voices of dissent are important, but it's not when we're at our best and a life spent in intellectual dissension is wasted. Though I know you were doing no such thing.

It's like Tolstoy's message of love. We're at our best when we're in the company we love, whether people or, in their absence, books.

[mal4mac]

Mac, if you've no time for self-appointed elites, why bother shooting yourself in the foot, after making some good points, by saying why bother with Joyce?

I shot myself in the foot and didn't even feel it! Still don't - can you spell out why you think there's a bloody hole in my foot? Maybe I wasn't clear, I'll try and be more clear...

Why should you bother reading Joyce if you don't like modernist writing? There are enough realist novels for a lifetime's reading. I'm not trying to form a realist elite by suggesting that modernism is inferior - simply that *I* prefer realism, and prefer avoiding modernism.

I admit "plenty of intelligent people do bother with Joyce". Plenty of intelligent people train dogs to perform at dog shows - but I prefer to avoid that activity. I'm certainly not arguing that Joyce and dog-training should be avoided by everyone.

[Darcy88]

No. Its alive and well.

[MarilynMonroe]

mal4mac, when you talk to people, I'd say they give a big smile and think 'idiot' and 'here we go' :-)