The Future of Great Literature

Hemingway wasn't a forerunner of short time spam, because Poe already did it. His focus on short stories is part much of his belief people would prefer to read as fast as possible. And even so, a basic rule of short stories is minimalism, derivated from the short spam listeners have on oral storytelling.

I saw a research that showed people reading online remember less of what they read than people reading paper material. This, more than the physical effort to conect the long sentences may be the cause of the internet pleasure for short texts, you are more remarkable in Oscar Wilde style: the witty quotes of the long Dorian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Hemingway wasn't a forerunner of short time spam, because Poe already did it. His focus on short stories is part much of his belief people would prefer to read as fast as possible. And even so, a basic rule of short stories is minimalism, derivated from the short spam listeners have on oral storytelling.

I saw a research that showed people reading online remember less of what they read than people reading paper material. This, more than the physical effort to conect the long sentences may be the cause of the internet pleasure for short texts, you are more remarkable in Oscar Wilde style: the witty quotes of the long Dorian.

---

Yes you are right, but I think that great literature(as mentioned in the OP) is primarily about the novel. You make an interesting point regarding reading on line as opposed to reading from the printed page. However, does this mean that people reading from a Kindle would retain less of what they read than those who read from the printed page ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Yes you are right, but I think that great literature(as mentioned in the OP) is primarily about the novel. You make an interesting point regarding reading on line as opposed to reading from the printed page. However, does this mean that people reading from a Kindle would retain less of what they read than those who read from the printed page ?

---

No definitely not. I don't know about the online Vs paper research (if you could dig that up JC it might be interesting) but the kindle uses e-ink which is virtually identical to normal paper ink. Reading from the kindle is not the same as reading from a web page. I couldn't read at length online because it hurts my eyes after so long, even reading/writing lengthy posts does sometimes (I'm even squinting here a little at this time of night (+ a bottle of red! - French Cab Sav)) but this is not the same experience I get when reading from the kindle, or other e-readers that use a similar e-ink technology. It is the same as reading a book.

I'm currently halfway through David Copperfield on the kindle which I also have on paper as an old Penguin copy, but I have chosen to read it on the kindle because for one it is better to read in bed and two, the practicality of the kindle is great. Though certainly, retention wise the reading experience is identical.

I don't know why you would retain less online Vs paper, though I suppose it could be due to the back light of the computer screen as mentioned maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christinamellow

As stated in the quotation by C.S. Lewis, literature not only describes reality but also adds to it. Yes, literature is not merely a depiction of reality; it is rather a value-addition. Literary works are portrayals of the thinking patterns and social norms prevalent in society. They are a depiction of the different facets of common man's life. Classical literary works serve as a food for thought and a tonic for imagination and creativity. Exposing an individual to good literary works, is equivalent to providing him/her with the finest of educational opportunities. On the other hand, the lack of exposure to classic literary works is equal to depriving an individual from an opportunity to grow as an individual.Prose, poetry, drama, essays, fiction, literary works based on philosophy, art, history, religion, and culture and also scientific and legal writings are grouped under the category of literature. Creative nonfiction of the ancient times and literary journalism also fall under literature. Certain extremely technical writings such as those on logistics and mathematics are also believed to be a part of literature.

---

Agreed. I've read a fair amount in years past, but it was exposure to and study of the classics that made the biggest contribution to my reading comprehension/analysis and writing. That's why I hope the classics don't become "museum pieces" that are only read when assigned by high school english teachers and lit professors. Greater access to these works and opportunity for self-publishing is fantastic, but I wonder about our direction. Will masterful writing become less and less appreciated amidst the blurbs, tweets, and unintelligible facebook pages? Only time will tell, but when the Twilight series tops goodreads.com's Best Books Ever (and others) list, I begin to worry. I hope that the quality of future literature doesn't go the way of Hollywood and popular/radio/Justin Bieber(esque) music...

As for technology, I've never understood how anyone could stand reading an entire novel on a computer screen, Kindle, etc. If I had done Remembrance of Things Past that way I would have gone blind :crazy:.

But, I must report that I just read Metamorphosis on my new Android. Not much, I know, but a big step for this stubborn traditionalist. I might become a convert yet :smile5:

If the great literature is novel, then it is doomed, novels are far even 1/3 of great literature and the format is only present in a few countries, as dominant form.

Anyways, the study is from University of Oregon, it tested the capacity of retaining the memory and used the New York Times online and traditional format. Now, this does not means digital text of any kind provokes lose of memory, it just points the reading experience is different. Our expectations and rituals are different, the medium (as MacLurhan would say, it does matter) is another. So, all those people tested are, at best, educated to read in papper, so their incapacity may be the same as someone changing from a PC to a Mac. They werent trained to fully take advantages of the digital experience. (I expect, people to not be able to record details in 3-d movies well as they did in 2-d movies). It may tell more about the relationship with the text format, that the text itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawthorns

Agreed. I've read a fair amount in years past, but it was exposure to and study of the classics that made the biggest contribution to my reading comprehension/analysis and writing. That's why I hope the classics don't become "museum pieces" that are only read when assigned by high school english teachers and lit professors. Greater access to these works and opportunity for self-publishing is fantastic, but I wonder about our direction. Will masterful writing become less and less appreciated amidst the blurbs, tweets, and unintelligible facebook pages? Only time will tell, but when the Twilight series tops goodreads.com's Best Books Ever (and others) list, I begin to worry. I hope that the quality of future literature doesn't go the way of Hollywood and popular/radio/Justin Bieber(esque) music...

---

I don't think that quality will become less and less appreciated, rather it will probably remain mostly consistant - though who knows for sure? As has been mentioned before in other threads, namely by Stlukes, the devotion to quality literature/art has always been something of niche market anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawthorns

As for technology, I've never understood how anyone could stand reading an entire novel on a computer screen, Kindle, etc. If I had done Remembrance of Things Past that way I would have gone blind :crazy:.

But, I must report that I just read Metamorphosis on my new Android. Not much, I know, but a big step for this stubborn traditionalist. I might become a convert yet :smile5:

---

Please consider my previous post in regards to the kindle. It is nothing like reading from a computer screen. Reading from the kindle is nothing like reading from a computer screen, reading from the kindle is nothing like reading from a computer screen, reading from the kindle...

Edit: Thanks JC, I'll think about that tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I don't think that quality will become less and less appreciated, rather it will probably remain mostly consistant - though who knows for sure? As has been mentioned before in other threads, namely by Stlukes, the devotion to quality literature/art has always been something of niche market anyway.

Good Point



Please consider my previous post in regards to the kindle. It is nothing like reading from a computer screen. Reading from the kindle is nothing like reading from a computer screen, reading from the kindle is nothing like reading from a computer screen, reading from the kindle...

Edit: Thanks JC, I'll think about that tomorrow.

---

Yeah that was interesting. Although with my eyes, I can't tell any difference. Both are unpleasurable when compared to a book for some reason.

Quote:

---

Yeah that was interesting. Although with my eyes, I can't tell any difference. Both are unpleasurable when compared to a book for some reason.

---

Do you have a kindle then?

This is completely different from an android phone which is basically a smaller version of a computer screen, I think anyway (I have an ancient phone). I'm not saying that you shouldn't prefer a book over an e-reader, that's just preference, but in terms of the hurting eyes thing it is the book/e-reader Vs the computer screen, for the two are virtually identical in terms of reading from them Vs online.

Oh yes, don't worry about the quality thing overmuch, certain types of reader will always be around pretty much, I think.

Welcome to Litnet by the way, what are you reading at the moment out of interest?

Edit: I'm pretty sure (99%) that's a picture of Proust as your avatar. Did you know that Wilde once met Proust while in Paris? He was invited into his house as his guest but his parents were around and his apartment was a total mess. This upset upset Wilde so much that he sneaked out and ran off down the street!! :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Do you have a kindle then?

This is completely different from an android phone which is basically a smaller version of a computer screen, I think anyway (I have an ancient phone). I'm not saying that you shouldn't prefer a book over an e-reader, that's just preference, but in terms of the hurting eyes thing it is the book/e-reader Vs the computer screen, for the two are virtually identical in terms of reading from them Vs online.

Oh yes, don't worry about the quality thing overmuch, certain types of reader will always be around pretty much, I think.

Welcome to Litnet by the way, what are you reading at the moment out of interest?

Edit: I'm pretty sure (99%) that's a picture of Proust as your avatar. Did you know that Wilde once met Proust while in Paris? He was invited into his house as his guest but his parents were around and his apartment was a total mess. This upset upset Wilde so much that he sneaked out and ran off down the street!! :lol: :lol:

---

I don't have a Kindle now but tried it in the past. Actually, it's more preference than eye strain for me. And yes, the Android would be brutal comparatively.

Not sure what I'm going to read next. I think I'll take a break from novels and do some more short stories and poetry.

You're correct about the painting. Jacques-Emile Blanche's portrait of a young Proust is housed in the Musee D'Orsay. I travelled to Paris last August, only to discover it had been placed in storage. Just my luck...

That's funny about Wilde! I've read several interesting stories about him (Proust), and actually stayed about 1/2 mile from his apartment on Haussmann. Ironically, we also were a stone's throw away from Wagner's apartment--my favorite composer :nopity:

A fan of Wilde, Proust, and Wagner. We'll have to make an effort to see that you stay around. :smile5:

You might also want to check over under General Chat to the sub-forum General Movies, Music, and Television where you will find a long-running classical music thread and more than a few Wagner fans... myself included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

A fan of Wilde, Proust, and Wagner. We'll have to make an effort to see that you stay around. :smile5:

You might also want to check over under General Chat to the sub-forum General Movies, Music, and Television where you will find a long-running classical music thread and more than a few Wagner fans... myself included.

---

Thanks! I'll be sure to head over there. Nothing quite gives me goosebumps like Meistersinger, Parsifal, and especially, Tristan.

Neely,

In anwer to your question, I think I've decided on Les Fleurs Du Mal :smile5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I don't believe that any one style, genre, or medium is necessary to tell the narrative of our time. I think that all you need is a genius to wield whatever tools come to hand.

Perhaps... but context plays a role. It is doubtful that Michelangelo would have had the same impact had his paintings been rendered in illuminated manuscripts or even as small canvases. It is also doubtful that they would have been as central to art history had they been painted in Norway.

---

Think about what you are saying though, and think about all of the exceptions to it. Think of all the composers you admire who wrote concertos, lieder, and requiems when it would have been more fashionable to write symphonies. Or what of the great artists who came almost out of nowhere to have huge effects on culture such as Neruda and Ibsen? Their cultures weren't so rich and influential.

Think about Michelangelo. He is known as much for his sculpture as for his painting. If he hadn't painted the Sistine chapel we'd still know him for his David, the Pieta, Moses, St Peters Basilica, and his sonnets. Think about all of the artists who have successfully tried their hand in a variety of mediums. If Goethe weren't known for Faust he'd be remembered for The Sorrows of Young Werther, or maybe Hermann and Dorothea.

Is Picasso important because he painted in the Cubist style, or is the cubist style important because Picasso painted in it? I choose to think the latter. A movement is not a movement without it's geniuses. Stated more simply, genius leads a movement not vice versa. Without artists of talent your so called "mediums of their age" are hollow and insignificant. I think Picasso showed that when he moved beyond cubism. It needed him more than he needed it, and he made great art in his blue period, his rose period, his classical period, and his African influenced period. Which one of those was the important style of it's time? Was fine art even the important artistic style of the era Picasso was living in? Was France the hub of the artistic world the last thirty years of Picasso's career?

How important is location really? Like I said earlier, Ibsen is from Norway, Neruda is from Chile, Dvorak is a Czech, Sibelius is from Finland.

You say that Michelangelo wouldn't have been as important if he'd painted on a smaller pallet but how big is the Mona Lisa? How big are Vermeer's paintings?

You say "It is also doubtful that [the Sistine chapel frescoes] would have been as central to art history had they been painted in Norway." But I say that once Michelangelo paints The Last Judgement and the Book of Genesis, wherever he does this becomes the center of the artistic world.

The Elizabethan age is known for it's plays. But for Shakespeare, it might just as easily be known for it's epics like The Faerie Queene, Jerusalem Delivered, and The Lusiads, or for it's sonnets by Wyatt, Surrey, Sidney, Ronsard, Raleigh, and Donne. How can you say that there is just one appropriate medium or style for a time?

Given high oil and food prices, what is likely a permanent global recession, the threat of declining resources, and environmental damage, it is likely that mass comm will not affect the act of reading so much. However, the need to prioritize necessities will also affect the same.

But Mortal, things would be different. The extremelly unlikely present we live is a result of very unlikely combinations of occurances, which even being the same, could be completely different. All you needed is a blow of wind and we could have the entreteia and not internet and Harold Bloom would have to write about the cult to Lope de Vega. Imagine changing a little, like moving Michelangelo out of Italy, or even if Goethe didnt had Faust.

Of course, this also makes the argument by Stlukes not strong, more like: things must be as they are. But the truth is that art only happens in a medium and literature (just like visual arts) is deeply affected if society starts to use another medium. And it will happen again.