How dead is literature currently? [Archive]

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:39 AM

I'm currently angst-ridden about the future of literature - its seems that people can go easily without literature and live a serene life - although it must be a numb serenity, considering illiteracy, or even semi-literacy, breeds degrees of stupidity.

but your an atheist, right? why should you care? you believe "good" is a social construct developed through material processes to cohere societies. where in all that is a care for "literacy" "beauty" or "goodness"?

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 10:46 AM

Ugh. It isn't polite to tell people what they believe.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:55 AM

Ugh. It isn't polite to tell people what they believe.

no it isn't. but it was a very likely belief. i would be surprised if it didn't follow closely to something like that.

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 10:59 AM

Oh, I don't know that it's entirely doom and gloom. Literacy is, in our information based society, I think, becoming even more important. You've always been able to live without being literate, it's no different now. I do have some concern about the potential for literature to persist as a sort of entertainment, but I don't know that I see the bottom dropping out of the world of literature anytime soon. I don't really expect it to blossom, either.

I think the traditional k-12 canon could be updated to include material that engages kids. What's really more important, in the long run--that someone have read Great Expectations, or that they be able to find literature interesting? I doubt it'll happen, but that could help, I think.

Granted, my perspective might be a bit rosy just because I'm studying English right now, so I'm surrounded by people with a passion for literature.

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 11:02 AM

no it isn't. but it was a very likely belief. i would be surprised if it didn't follow closely to something like that.

And I'd be surprised if you aren't just trying to be facetious and derail his thread, which, I note from the OP, has jack-fucking-shit to do with religion or athiesm.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 11:38 AM

sorabji_66

15 Mar 2007, 04:02 PM

why would literature claim to be different from the contributions of art and music of its era?

pretty sad all around these days...

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 05:02 PM

I have no idea what you're talking about. What 'good?' I'm talking literature.

all i mean is that you make a poor "animal" to be wasting your time with books when you should be really out there having "free-sex" and "spreading your seed" like a good little dog - cause that's all you are essentially to Darwin and Crick. also, you make a very poor nihilist (an atheist can only ever be a nihilist unless he is a liar as well) to be concerning your self with values (thinking that being literate is "good" when no such thing even "exists") when such don't exist outside the mind (Kant-Nietzsche-Sartre).

What? Oh. My bad.

15 Mar 2007, 06:15 PM

I didn't know there were varying degrees to which something could be dead.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 07:46 PM

all i mean is that you make a poor "animal" to be wasting your time with books when you should be really out there having "free-sex" and "spreading your seed" like a good little dog - cause that's all you are essentially to Darwin and Crick. also, you make a very poor nihilist (an atheist can only ever be a nihilist unless he is a liar as well) to be concerning your self with values (thinking that being literate is "good" when no such thing even "exists") when such don't exist outside the mind (Kant-Nietzsche-Sartre).

To be an atheist is one thing, to be a nihilist is another thing. If that weren't the case then the two concepts won't be seperated. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm an nihilist. Understand? And I never once remarked that being literate is "good." In fact, literacy is essential. If you can read well, you can speak well and you can articulate your ideas and thoughts logically and coherently. That's a fact. That's why some people read. Others don't because they find it tiresome and boring. That's why they write such nonsense as you're doing.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 07:50 PM

I didn't know there were varying degrees to which something could be dead.

My question point to literature's death as a form of culture. Clearly today its being overshadowed my film,music and various other forms of visual art. Literature fails to appeal to the public. It doesn't speak. If it's not dead already, it's dying a slow death. And as we all now, a society without culture is not a society. So, what contribution is literature still making?

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 08:10 PM

To be an atheist is one thing, to be a nihilist is another thing.
they are one and the same.

atheism - postive denial of the existence of "God"

"God" - infinite valuator- from where meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty can only derive from because He is outside the physical world - that is, outside and above the judgments of men.

nihilism - the positive denial of value, meaning, goodness, truth and beauty (i.e. "God")

In fact, literacy is essential. If you can read well, you can speak well and you can articulate your ideas and thoughts logically and coherently. That's a fact. That's why some people read. Others don't because they find it tiresome and boring.

all value judgments. are you "God"? then unless you are or you believe in one, then it's every man's opinion ("The Will to Power") against another.

That's why they write such nonsense as you're doing.

looks to me like you should heed your own advice.

Nightning

15 Mar 2007, 08:19 PM

My question point to literature's death as a form of culture. Clearly today its being overshadowed my film,music and various other forms of visual art. Literature fails to appeal to the public. It doesn't speak. If it's not dead already, it's dying a slow death. And as we all now, a society without culture is not a society. So, what contribution is literature still making?

That's inevitably the trend to everything in society isn't it? A rise and a fall to cilivizations, religious believes, art, music, even science... But with literature you'll still get a small population of individuals who will continue to be interested. Who knows, maybe there'll be a revival some day... be more optimistic!

What? Oh. My bad.

15 Mar 2007, 08:21 PM

That's inevitably the trend to everything in society isn't it? A rise and a fall to cilivizations, religious believes, art, music, even science...

I agree with what you said here.

I would add that nothing stays exactly the same over time. Perhaps literature itself has evolved into something you (the original poster) do not recognize to be literature.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 08:36 PM

they are one and the same.

atheism - postive denial of the existence of "God"

"God" - infinite valuator- from where meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty can only derive from because He is outside the physical world - that is, outside and above the judgments of men.

nihilism - the positive denial of value, meaning, goodness, truth and beauty (i.e. "God")

I'm perplexed. I mean, really perplexed. How on earth can they be the same? They sound a little different, don't they? Let's have a look:

The word nihilism is derived from the Latin word nihil, which means 'nothing.' That's why people say that a nihilist is someone who believes in 'nothing.'

The word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless." That's why people say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god.

What's the difference?

An atheist who doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean he believes in nothing.
That's pure and simple logic.

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 08:47 PM

What? Oh. My bad.

15 Mar 2007, 08:52 PM

Clearly, the denial of a being that cannot be proven to exist is the denial of all things that do seem to exist.

Are you saying that because some certain thing can not be proven, than nothing else exists? Please clarify. That makes no logical sense.

Erratic

15 Mar 2007, 08:54 PM

Are you saying that because some certain thing can not be proven, than nothing else exists? Please clarify. That makes no logical sense.

I totally read it as irony :mellow:

What? Oh. My bad.

15 Mar 2007, 08:55 PM

I totally read it as irony :mellow:

I read it for what it said. I sure hope it was irony.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 08:56 PM

I'm perplexed. I mean, really perplexed. How on earth can they be the same? They sound a little different, don't they? Let's have a look:

The word nihilism is derived from the Latin word nihil, which means 'nothing.' That's why people say that a nihilist is someone who believes in 'nothing.'

The word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless." That's why people say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god.

What's the difference?

An atheist who doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean he believes in nothing.
That's pure and simple logic.

you have missed the point and are tripping over semantics. the two are intertwined, and you can't have one without the other; or one necessarily brings the other one to fruition.

the nihilist does believe in "nothing". but what he really means by that is that everything has lost meaning because there is no "God" (common Nietzschian discourse). the atheist commonly fails to see that a widespread denial of "God" automatically allows "nihilism" to be adopted as its (atheism) "spiritual" sister. it is not for nothing that nihilistic works of art began to appear with the increasing spread of atheism during the enlightenment. one naturally follows the other, as both address two primary concerns of humans ("truth" and "meaning").

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 09:01 PM

Are you saying that because some certain thing can not be proven, than nothing else exists? Please clarify. That makes no logical sense.

Clearly, I am so quite dead-serious as to be seriously dead.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:01 PM

Clearly, the denial of a being that cannot be proven to exist is the denial of all things that do seem to exist. Certainly, there is no meaning in this world if not for the existence of a being that cannot be said, for sure, to be extant.

we are speaking here of fundamentals, not tangentials. whether what we see is "real" is a tangent if it cannot be proven with any amount of definitiveness.

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 09:07 PM

the atheist commonly fails to see that a widespread denial of "God" automatically allows "nihilism" to be adopted as its (atheism) "spiritual" sister. it is not for nothing that nihilistic works of art began to appear with the increasing spread of atheism during the enlightenment. one naturally follows the other, as both address two primary concerns of humans ("truth" and "meaning").

I would, despite myself subscribing to the existence of such a being, insist on the contrary that the supposition of the existence of a "God" serves more to obscure and obfuscate truth and the meaning of things in this world than to lend these things to the world, regardless of the philosophical perspective that a thing may only take on meaning when some other being exists outside it, with the capability to ascribe meaning to it.

HilbertSpace

15 Mar 2007, 09:10 PM

the nihilist does believe in "nothing". but what he really means by that is that everything has lost meaning because there is no "God" (common Nietzschian discourse). the atheist commonly fails to see that a widespread denial of "God" automatically allows "nihilism" to be adopted as its (atheism) "spiritual" sister. it is not for nothing that nihilistic works of art began to appear with the increasing spread of atheism during the enlightenment. one naturally follows the other, as both address two primary concerns of humans ("truth" and "meaning").

By the same token, we might observe that science, in the modern sense, did not come into being until the Enlightenment.

Maybe it is the case that the nihilistic response is a remnant of the previous mystical worldview - a ghost, if you will. If so, it is nothing more than a pining for a meaning that was never there, despite the dearest wishes and beliefs of the mystics. Nihilism is nothing more than a bleary-eyed hangover from millennia of drunken pre-rationality.

It is patently absurd to equate atheism with nihilism, just as it would be to equate religion with being an intellectual Luddite.

abathur

15 Mar 2007, 09:12 PM

we are speaking here of fundamentals, not tangentials. whether what we see is "real" is a tangent if it cannot be proven with any amount of definitiveness.

I believe the existence of a God is fundamental to your argument that no meaning can exist without the existence of a God. If meaning is able to be found in this world, the entirety of your argument then hinges on the existence of such a being. Likewise, your argument is rather pointless.

I may instead say that, clearly, purple lollipops (or love, for that matter) may only exist if there is a God; this does not make it so, and the existence of these things makes no case for the existence of God, unless you can prove that a being must exist outside of this universe for meaning to exist within.

Furthermore, I posit that the desire that God exist is not a search for meaning IN this world, but a search for meaning OUTSIDE of this world.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 09:16 PM

[QUOTE=aleph_ingrate;577313]you have missed the point and are tripping over semantics. the two are intertwined, and you can't have one without the other; or one necessarily brings the other one to fruition.

the nihilist does believe in "nothing". but what he really means by that is that everything has lost meaning because there is no "God" (common Nietzschian discourse). the atheist commonly fails to see that a widespread denial of "God" automatically allows "nihilism" to be adopted as its (atheism) "spiritual" sister. it is not for nothing that nihilistic works of art began to appear with the increasing spread of atheism during the enlightenment. one naturally follows the other, as both address two primary concerns of humans ("truth" and "meaning").[/QUOTE

O.K. You're getting too scatter-brained here. Let's stick too something more simple. Are you saying that, because Mr.Miagi is an atheist, he is also a nihilist? Am I correcting in assuming that position of yours?

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 09:17 PM

you have missed the point and are tripping over semantics. the two are intertwined, and you can't have one without the other; or one necessarily brings the other one to fruition.

the nihilist does believe in "nothing". but what he really means by that is that everything has lost meaning because there is no "God" (common Nietzschian discourse). the atheist commonly fails to see that a widespread denial of "God" automatically allows "nihilism" to be adopted as its (atheism) "spiritual" sister. it is not for nothing that nihilistic works of art began to appear with the increasing spread of atheism during the enlightenment. one naturally follows the other, as both address two primary concerns of humans ("truth" and "meaning").

O.K. You're getting too scatter-brained here. Let's stick too something more simple. Are you saying that, because Mr.Miagi is an atheist, he is also a nihilist? Am I correcting in assuming that position of yours?

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:19 PM

I would, despite myself subscribing to the existence of such a being, insist on the contrary that the supposition of the existence of a "God" serves more to obscure and obfuscate truth and the meaning of things in this world than to lend these things to the world, regardless of the philosophical perspective that a thing may only take on meaning when some other being exists outside it, with the capability to ascribe meaning to it.

that isn't true at all. and it definitely depends on what you mean by truth.

to be honest, i don't care to explore this, out of sheer laziness. maybe another theist can help me and show that our modern "knowledge" and sense of truth is nothing more than assumed hubris (it takes as much faith to believe in truth than in a "God", you know- as humans we have well defined limits)

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:21 PM

O.K. You're getting too scatter-brained here. Let's stick too something more simple. Are you saying that, because Mr.Miagi is an atheist, he is also a nihilist? Am I correcting in assuming that position of yours?

essentially, yes.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 09:26 PM

we are speaking here of fundamentals, not tangentials.
Seems that much of this discussion of atheism and God IS tangential ( if not subordinate :) ) to a discussion about the future of literature, except in the broadest of terms.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 09:26 PM

essentially, yes.

I'm afraid I cannot continue this discussion with you. It would be a waste of my meaningless energy.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:31 PM

Maybe it is the case that the nihilistic response is a remnant of the previous mystical worldview - a ghost, if you will. If so, it is nothing more than a pining for a meaning that was never there, despite the dearest wishes and beliefs of the mystics. Nihilism is nothing more than a bleary-eyed hangover from millennia of drunken pre-rationality.

i doubt this very much. you would have to kill it them, or distract it out of them (for example, by Modern entertainment which equates to little more than keeping your mind off "essentials").

It is patently absurd to equate atheism with nihilism, just as it would be to equate religion with being an intellectual Luddite.

no- but i am a theist and a luddite, in the classic sense of the word. :D

i've clearly already shown why it isn't absurd in the least to equate the two, but you can gladly continue to bury your head in the sand if you wish - it's your prerogative i imagine as a "modern man."

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:32 PM

Seems that much of this discussion of atheism and God IS tangential ( if not subordinate :) ) to a discussion about the future of literature, except in the broadest of terms.

very true! and it was not my intention at all.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 09:34 PM

I'm afraid I cannot continue this discussion with you. It would be a waste of my meaningless energy.

good luck!

HilbertSpace

15 Mar 2007, 09:44 PM

i doubt this very much. you would have to kill it them, or distract it out of them (for example, by Modern entertainment which equates to little more than keeping your mind off "essentials").

Modern entertainment? You mean as opposed to those Morris dancers? Yeah, they really explored the whole nature of existence thing. For as long as there was entertainment, it has existed to distract (panis et circenses, which you can take in a political sense, or simply with the acknowledgment that people are more willing to pay for things that make them happy).

no- but i am a theist and a luddite, in the classic sense of the word. :D

i've clearly already shown why it isn't absurd in the least to equate the two, but you can gladly continue to bury your head in the sand if you wish - it's your prerogative i imagine as a "modern man."

I'm surprised that you think this is what you did. I could do as much by declaring (ex cathedra, if you will) that Unicorns represent Love and all that is Good in the world, and in a world without Unicorns neither Love nor Goodness can exist.

Religion is a pre-rational attempt to understand the world. As such, it set up certain axiomatic beliefs - good and evil being divine properties, or the futility of meaning in a world that lacks eternity. A nihilist retains these axioms, and essentially agrees with the premises set forth by the mystics. It is not a defining characteristic of atheism, per se.

Note: I would not have participated in what is obviously a blatant post hijacking, except for the fact that the OP also went for it.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 09:50 PM

but your an atheist, right? why should you care? you believe "good" is a social construct developed through material processes to cohere societies. where in all that is a care for "literacy" "beauty" or "goodness"?

Post #2 is where you went off on a tangent.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What 'good?' I'm talking literature.

This was where Mr. Miagi attempted to go back to literature.

very true! and it was not my intention at all.
I grant that people DID respond to your suggested tangent, therefore supplying the other half of the dialogue. I was talking about music the other day with someone here, in the music forum, and suddenly he, too, brought Nietzsche into it. Nietzsche appears to be popular enough here at INTPC that we could perhaps devote a forum to the subject.

"What kind of coffee do you like ?"
"What difference does it make if everything is meaningless? As Nietzsche was saying...." :)

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:37 PM

For as long as there was entertainment, it has existed to distract (

i agree with this. it was just one example.

I'm surprised that you think this is what you did. I could do as much by declaring (ex cathedra, if you will) that Unicorns represent Love and all that is Good in the world, and in a world without Unicorns neither Love nor Goodness can exist.

you're missing the point. a concept like "good" needs an ultimate valuator, a "God", in order to have widespread, normative influence upon mankind (that is, in order for it to truly "exist" as an object). if not, then it's simply one will against another in a fight to "define" what is "good".

it would help to realize that if i were a criminal who felt that killing people and raping women were my "good" then i'm wholly justified in my definition above all others because i've in this case "willed" it to occur (this is what neitzsche was getting at in his "death of God" declaration). conceptions of value (from "good" to "clever") all need this "ultimate valuator" or else all possible conceptions of value level off and thus become "good". this is the consequence of rejecting belief in God, and it is why social problems in modern societies can only be dealt with by means of overt control (prisons, manipulation, propaganda, medication).

It is not a defining characteristic of atheism, per se.
no, but they're are connected.

Note: I would not have participated in what is obviously a blatant post hijacking, except for the fact that the OP also went for it.
yeah, i'm embarrassed a bit about it. it was only a snide comment that wasnt meant to be anything more.

HilbertSpace

15 Mar 2007, 10:37 PM

In an attempt to bring this back around...

I'm currently angst-ridden about the future of literature - its seems that people can go easily without literature and live a serene life - although it must be a numb serenity, considering illiteracy, or even semi-literacy, breeds degrees of stupidity.

I think you'd have to define your terms. You seem to be suggesting (by using "current state") that literature is less common now than before. I think there's actually two value-neutral factors at play here.

First, literature isn't necessarily considered as such until it has proven itself by standing the test of time. Shakespeare was a popular figure in his day, rather than something appealing exclusively to the literati. From that perspective, questioning why there's so little modern day literature is a little like wondering why no one makes antiques anymore.

The second aspect is what, really should be compared. If you're talking about the bulk of books, then there is no doubt that there are fewer, proportionately, than there were in previous times. On the other hand, because of the increasing rate of literacy and the decreasing cost of publishing, there are far more people reading now than before. If you're going to make that comparison (say, in order to bemoan the fact that Stephen King outsells Salman Rushdie), you'd have to control for that aspect.

EDIT:

yeah, i'm embarrassed a bit about it. it was only a snide comment that wasnt meant to be anything more.

Then let's drop it or move it into another thread.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:39 PM

"What kind of coffee do you like ?"
"What difference does it make if everything is meaningless? As Nietzsche was saying...." :)

lol

Ferrus

15 Mar 2007, 10:40 PM

Literature, among the literati, is in as rude health as ever - if in a somewhat different mode. You conflate this with popular literature, which always was and shall always be intellectually base.

What? Oh. My bad.

15 Mar 2007, 10:45 PM

Literature is whatever people agree that it is. If we say that literature is dead, then it is.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:46 PM

Literature, among the literati, is in as rude health as ever -

yes, it's in a pretty vile state- either meandering essays on filth, squalor and despair or disgusting "fem-lit" "multi-cult-lit" tirades that have little to do with art but much to do with pc posturing and ranting against the "White-Male-Hegemony". it's no wonder guys run away from literature like roaches from light.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 10:49 PM

Literature is whatever people agree that it is. If we say that literature is dead, then it is.
I guess the jury is still out then, considering the existence of this thread. :)

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 10:53 PM

yes, it's in a pretty vile state- either meandering essays on filth, squalor and despair or disgusting "fem-lit" "multi-cult-lit" tirades that have little to do with art but much to do with pc posturing and ranting against the "White-Male-Hegemony". it's no wonder guys run away from literature like roaches from light.

Is an "essay" literature ? I guess I was thinking we were talking about fiction in general.

To trivialize it all to what you have described is an over-simplified compartmentalization.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:53 PM

EDIT:

Then let's drop it or move it into another thread.

i've said all i've wanted to say about it.

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 10:54 PM

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

15 Mar 2007, 10:58 PM

Is an "essay" literature ? I guess I was thinking we were talking about fiction in general.

To trivialize it all to what you have described is an over-simplified compartmentalization.

i used essay for lack of a better word. not much sleep last night. :)

oh, i know - but to find such work is very hard.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 11:00 PM

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 11:04 PM

oh, i know - but to find such work is very hard.
It gets easier as you find it, because you can then research that author to see who his/her influences were/are, and who "follows" them, just as Nietzsche can lead one to Schopenhauer.

I can enjoy good genre fiction, too, but in a different way than I do "literature".

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 11:09 PM

I'm uncertain if you are referring to :
(A. ) All text
(B. ) All text printed on thin sheets such as paper
(C. ) All fiction
(D. ) All fiction printed on thin sheets such as paper
(E. ) All text considered "classic" ( so we are debating what IS classic )
(F. ) All fiction considered classic
(G. ) All "popular" text
(H.-Z. ) Etc.

I'm concentrating mostly on fiction. Fiction in bookform is struggling to hold its own. It's struggling to sell. Except for soppy Romance novels crap, most fiction genres are struggling to sell. The novel in bookform is dissapearing.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 11:14 PM

I'm concentrating mostly on fiction. Fiction in bookform is struggling to hold its own. It's struggling to sell. Except for soppy Romance novels crap, most fiction genres are struggling to sell. The novel in bookform is dissapearing.

If you go back to my post that you quoted, you'll see that we can divide fiction into subcategories also. I guess it wasn't clear to me if you were talking about the demise of a particular medium due to technology advances or whether you were making an observation on the taste of the masses and the publishers taking less chances these days on catering to their demand.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=19535&highlight=Comic+Books

Mr.Miagi

15 Mar 2007, 11:26 PM

If you go back to my post that you quoted, you'll see that we can divide fiction into subcategories also. I guess it wasn't clear to me if you were talking about the demise of a particular medium due to technology advances or whether you were making an observation on the taste of the masses and the publishers taking less chances these days on catering to their demand.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=19535&highlight=Comic+Books

hmm... interesting. Comic books are in the doldrums for much the same reason fiction are. Yet, and this actually is why I started the thread in the first place, I believe that these forms of literature are slowly but surely being removed. My problem is that television and film is not an adequate replacement for the written form of art. No film or TV series can capture an indivivdual's imagination like a well-written work of fiction can do. Reading a work of fiction takes hours of concentration, its a sole acitivity between the text and the reader. Television and TV series numbs the mind, the senses, the imagination. Written fiction I believe informs and stimulate the mind more than any form of art. I don't have anything against television. I love it. But it's taking over, with computer. And I don't think it's good.

kuranes

15 Mar 2007, 11:35 PM

Well, there's a great deal of laziness about these days. For example, I might tell someone ( whose taste I have come to know better than a random stranger ) on this site about an author that I think they would enjoy. If they respond to it before it scrolls away, they might say "Link please". They couldn't be bothered to even go to Google. And if they did, then they might find that it's been out of print a few years. Then give up. I might tell people about a musical group and then be asked "Where can I get it as a free download?" it's almost become a kind of new etiquette that if you dare suggest something, then you must also provide it on a platter.

I have even said to people "You can probably get it for free by having your library order it for you on inter-library loan", but even that will be seen as too much hassle. People are used to getting things immediately, and yet the quirky items are usually not "mainstream" ( there are exceptions ) by definition. So you have Paris Hilton and Britney Spears etc. as lowest common denominator offerings, because there's some money behind the "supply", and the "demand" for such is created after the fact, with hype.

I agree that television and film require less imagination. This is both a bad and good thing. We should not discard more fleshed out mediums in favor of those which require imagination, but enrich both. Unfortunately people without much imagination don't know enough about what they're missing to ask for this, except perhaps for experiencing a vague longing; to say nothing of them "demanding it".

Kropotkin

16 Mar 2007, 12:34 AM

I didn't read the thread but I can definitely note having lived in a college neighborhood and interacting with young people daily for 20 years now that young people today have almost no knowledge of literature compared to the past.

It's scary. Colleges have largely removed "Great Books" courses from the BA programs and replaced them with either technical rhetoric and/or ideological education (i.e., women's studies.)

The cafes in my neighborhood use to be loaded with people reading books; indeed, it was hip. People would prop up their Foucault or Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche just enough so that other people could see what they were reading :)

Ah, the days of the Clove-smoking semiotics nerdgirl are gone. So sad.

No more. All replaced by notebook computers and Ipods; the modern day centrifugal bumblepuppies.

Ferrus

16 Mar 2007, 12:51 AM

yes, it's in a pretty vile state- either meandering essays on filth, squalor and despair or disgusting "fem-lit" "multi-cult-lit" tirades that have little to do with art but much to do with pc posturing and ranting against the "White-Male-Hegemony". it's no wonder guys run away from literature like roaches from light.
It very much depends where you look. When I say high culture literature I don't necessarily mean the elitest tripe that is academic literature.

Ah, the days of the Clove-smoking semiotics nerdgirl are gone. So sad.

No more. All replaced by notebook computers and Ipods; the modern day centrifugal bumblepuppies.
Indeed, which is why I find my social life at university rather dull.

abathur

16 Mar 2007, 01:35 AM

Ah, the days of the Clove-smoking semiotics nerdgirl are gone. So sad.

I know one of these. It's sad, in contrast, because she's a really fun person who spends all of her time trying to project a certain image.

Kropotkin

16 Mar 2007, 01:41 AM

I know one of these. It's sad, in contrast, because she's a really fun person who spends all of her time trying to project a certain image.

Yes, but it's forgivable and charming at a certain age. At least in retrospect.

Behind that image is a cauldron of passion.

abathur

16 Mar 2007, 07:17 AM

Yes, but it's forgivable and charming at a certain age. At least in retrospect.

Behind that image is a cauldron of passion.

She's not just a cauldron of passion--she's a disaster waiting to happen, and I wish there were something I could do about it. She's already not-very-mentally-stable, and she's completely buying into the clove-smoking, miserable, self-medicating, going-to-die-young poet image. We haven't been speaking for a while now. She's one of the better poets her age I know (just turning 20 this next month) and I'm not so sure she'll make 30.

outmywindow

16 Mar 2007, 07:28 AM

I didn't even bother reading this whole thread (it seemed to get really bicker-y really fast), but I'll just say that I am both an agnostic/atheist (atheist in opinions but unwilling to be presumptuous enough to say that I 100% know the truth -- too religiously dogmatic, imho) and a student of literature. The two can indeed coincide.

As for the current state of literature and its future, sure, the average person doesn't read as much as I'd like them to, but that's their choice. I'm too busy reading literature which is 1000 years old to pay attention to most current 'literature' (I'm not counting pulpy sci-fi and PI novels, or the latest Harry Potter novel in my definition of 'literature'). I'm sure that the written word won't die out. The format it is found in, sure, that might change. But then, seeing as how the novel itself wasn't even invented until the early 1700s, I'm sure there are plenty of un-thought-of ways for people to express themselves. We'll be okay.

dunee

16 Mar 2007, 08:16 AM

But then, seeing as how the novel itself wasn't even invented until the early 1700s, I'm sure there are plenty of un-thought-of ways for people to express themselves. We'll be okay.

*cough*fanfiction anyone?*cough*

outmywindow

16 Mar 2007, 08:45 AM

*cough*fanfiction anyone?*cough*

But fanfiction isn't necessarily a new form of written narrative (by 'form' I mean concept as to how the story is structurally put on the page). It is a new type in that it collects a whole new author and reader base, and that the creation of characters is somewhat disconnected from the creation of plot strings, but I don't see it as a new physical format. When I say that the novel was invented, I mean just that. People hadn't thought to express narratives in a long prose format utilizing breaks in the action (namely, chapters). Before the novel came the epistolary form, which is basically just a novel formed from letters or diary entries between characters (it's easy to see how one would grow out of another). Up until then, poetry had been the form of choice for telling a story in the Western World. Notice how the epic poem went out of fashion once the novel caught on? Presumably, something like that will happen again.

By the way, I have no idea what your post actually meant in terms of sarcasm level, etc.

Ferrus

16 Mar 2007, 01:11 PM

In truth the epic poetic form is better suited to oral communities; the rhymes and meters aid remeberance. In written form they are rather effortful to execute.

Ely

17 Mar 2007, 07:04 AM

I don't know anyone in my everyday life who loves literature like I do. It feels very isolating sometimes. I share your angst.

naruto littles helpers.jpeg

17 Mar 2007, 07:08 AM

I don't know anyone in my everyday life who loves literature like I do. It feels very isolating sometimes. I share your angst.

baybe, if youwe re talking to me, we coold love litreature together for ever!

abathur

17 Mar 2007, 07:21 AM

*spasms*

Ely

17 Mar 2007, 12:34 PM

baybe, if youwe re talking to me, we coold love litreature together for ever!

Excellent :) But we are really going to have to do something about your spelling first okay........

FuelShopTech

18 Mar 2007, 07:01 AM

I'm currently angst-ridden about the future of literature - its seems that people can go easily without literature and live a serene life - although it must be a numb serenity, considering illiteracy, or even semi-literacy, breeds degrees of stupidity.

Before I can comment if I think literature is "dead" I would first have to know what is being classified as "literature." My laughable A.A. degree in Liberal Arts was comprised of mostly literature courses, and not everything I read met my criteria for a "good book." I thought THE GREAT GATSBY was terrible.

Literature, among the literati, is in as rude health as ever - if in a somewhat different mode. You conflate this with popular literature, which always was and shall always be intellectually base.

Now, I do have a rather warped image of what "art" really is, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't share your sentiments on "popular fiction." Intellectually, I can move from SIR GAWIAN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT, to Stephen King, to John Donne, to ENDER'S GAME without blinking. I'll read damn-near anything. At it's core, it's all pretty much the same shit whether it's on the NYT best-seller list, sitting on a dusty library shelf, or coming at us through a TV screen.

Television and TV series numbs the mind, the senses, the imagination. Written fiction I believe informs and stimulate the mind more than any form of art. I don't have anything against television. I love it. But it's taking over, with computer. And I don't think it's good.

I don't necessarily think it's the medium (television/computers/ect.) that's to blame. We could have great fiction presented on TV if it was not for one important factor: capitalism. The need to reap profits robs televised fiction of the essential elements to make long-lasting, great stories.

dubbeltop

18 Mar 2007, 12:59 PM

How dead is literature currently?

We still use the alphabet instead of picture talk so I guess we still have some literature to go before we start talking without using our mouth but instead use video's,photo and music

......and holographic presentation

.....ah and our personal communication assistant(PCA) to backup those introverted nerds like me to seduce a pretty girl by flashing my C-box and having the CPU do all the smooth talking instead of me (i suck at communication/interpreting conversations)

Ferrus

18 Mar 2007, 01:28 PM

Now, I do have a rather warped image of what "art" really is, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't share your sentiments on "popular fiction." Intellectually, I can move from SIR GAWIAN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT, to Stephen King, to John Donne, to ENDER'S GAME without blinking. I'll read damn-near anything. At it's core, it's all pretty much the same shit whether it's on the NYT best-seller list, sitting on a dusty library shelf, or coming at us through a TV screen.
I would class Ender's Game as literature, but not Stephen King (eurgh).

FuelShopTech

18 Mar 2007, 10:40 PM

I would class Ender's Game as literature, but not Stephen King (eurgh).

Which brings me back to my original question: what is "literature?"

Personally, I used to hate King too, until I actually sat down and read a few of his books.

Ely

19 Mar 2007, 10:54 AM

George Orwell - literature can't be dead while people are still reading Orwell.......surely.....:mellow:

Ferrus

19 Mar 2007, 11:40 AM

Orwell is passable, if a little over-valuated. His personal accounts are superior to his fiction.

Larkin

23 May 2007, 12:19 AM

Not to flame or anything, but u people are crazy! Miagi asked about literature. On the very next post he was attacked for being an atheist. being an apologetic atheist myself, i always thought it was us atheists that had a chip on our shoulder.

I'm currently angst-ridden about the future of literature - its seems that people can go easily without literature and live a serene life - although it must be a numb serenity, considering illiteracy, or even semi-literacy, breeds degrees of stupidity.

When i would find a writer that i really like or maybe i might think it may be an inspired work, i made sure to pass it on to someone else that might appreciate it.
I dont do that anymore. I am afraid that an exceptional work will be here for a moment and then dissapear from print forever.
a lot less people read today, but, to quote Ely
George Orwell - literature can't be dead while people are still reading Orwell.......surely.....
but then, there might be a good reason for reading Orwell these days.

intpgolfer

23 May 2007, 01:01 AM

Mr.Miagi

23 May 2007, 06:12 AM

50 years ....

Let the cream come to the top - 99% of everything written today will happily be forgotten. Almost all of the classics were not understood by the generation they were composed in.

Many recommend never reading a book less than 50 years old - if you do - you very, very, very, very probably will be disappointed.

This is what I hate about lists. They put in Fitzgerald in your favourite Great Books website, but they omitt Hemingway. Why? That's stupid and a slap in the face of one of the best fiction writers of the 20th century. And I'm not even American. I can't be biased.

Mr.Miagi

23 May 2007, 12:58 PM

50 years ....

Let the cream come to the top - 99% of everything written today will happily be forgotten. Almost all of the classics were not understood by the generation they were composed in.

Many recommend never reading a book less than 50 years old - if you do - you very, very, very, very probably will be disappointed.

But I kind of agree of you on this point. Most fiction books I read are classics anyway, published 50 years before or more. And you right, a lot of contemporary fiction I try to read is shit. What interests me though is how and when a writer and his works are given 'classical' status, or the canonizing process and all that. How does the cream come to the top?

SolitaryWalker

27 May 2007, 05:02 AM

FuelShopTech

27 May 2007, 07:53 AM

Many recommend never reading a book less than 50 years old - if you do - you very, very, very, very probably will be disappointed.

I read books younger than that all the time and am rarely dissapointed.

Seriously, I'm still waiting to hear what exactly "literature" is.

IntenseNitroTruckPow

27 May 2007, 03:01 PM

Wow, I don't usually see a jump from a question about the place of literature in modern times to a denunciation of atheism in the second post. . . then it got weird.

So do atheists have any basis to judge things against the absolute Good? Not really relevant to this discussion. The OP's question implicitly judges literature as something "good" only insofar as it's better than music videos, half-hour sitcoms or webtoons. His atheism can't hinder him from making this relative judgement.

Anyway, atheist or no, it would disturb me to learn that highschoolers and college students no longer read serious literature as part of the general cirriculum, though it's probably headed that way . . .

nagrom

27 May 2007, 09:14 PM

EDITED

Faith in Whales

27 May 2007, 11:49 PM

My problem with literature is that it is struggling to hold its own against other forms of culture. Literature only breathes in and around academia. Outside academia literature is by the point of fact dead. Literary fiction outside academia is extinct. Nobody reads literary novels. They don't believe that it can add value to ones life, or that it can even entertain. Although literacy is rising, the aesthetics of literacy isn't.
This statement is thankfully incorrect.

Individuation, in the Jungian sense, is an impulse that exists in all MBTI temperaments; the urge to think free is not uncommon. As it exists in each person, people do privately douse the television, newspaper, and other forms of mass-minded media, to find sources of imagery which augment light individuality.

The most customizable media is literature. Literature will be alive as long as there are individuals. While it hasn't seen a boom in recent years (because the demand for it has always been high), it has received media attention recently over works such as The DaVinci Code, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Ring Trilogy, superhero comics, family psychology, spirituality, classics, etc. And let's not get started on the contributions of the internet; the success independent internet news sources and video sites such as YouTube showcase that the masses are not as tame and predictable (unIndividualized) as once thought.

MacGuffin

27 May 2007, 11:57 PM

Literature is not dead, but it does not hold the same place in the consciousness of the masses. No longer is a new book an eagerly anticipated milestone in pop culture (except Harry Potter). Authors are not the titans of these times like Hemingway or Capote were.

Novels are not as important, and almost no one can name a significant short story writer.

Which is strange, because in television you have novel-like arcs in the shows now. Before every drama could be watched as a stand alone episode (I wouldn't recommend that for something like Lost). They are complex, character-driven, and their plots take years to resolve.

nagrom

28 May 2007, 12:04 AM

MacGuffin

28 May 2007, 12:45 AM

Most of the 'literature' I've read in school has been underwhelming.
The Great Gatsby, Song of Solomon, The Awakening, Great Expectations, Moby Dick (I didn't really read it though), The Odyssey, The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible... all ok books in my opinion.

So far I much prefer dystopian/utopian literature and science fiction. Vonnegut's books, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, WE, The Diamond Age and Snow Crash, Dune, Lord of the Flies, The Wanting Seed, Lord of the Rings, Foundation, Ender's Game...

I think if I was told why each piece of literature I read was considered 'literature', I would have a greater appreciation for it.
Literature is often something that requires a bit of effort. Most of the symbolism and architecture of novels will go over the head of someone not used to reading at that level. With respect to the books you call "dystopian/utopian literature and science fiction" (some of those are my favorites too) the themes in them are not that subtle.

nagrom

5 Jun 2007, 05:10 PM

Literature is often something that requires a bit of effort. Most of the symbolism and architecture of novels will go over the head of someone not used to reading at that level. With respect to the books you call "dystopian/utopian literature and science fiction" (some of those are my favorites too) the themes in them are not that subtle.

But why? It all seems like masturbatory literary tricks to me.
It's like taking the meaning out of a novel and replacing it with fickle illusions.

I want to understand though. I judge a novel, generally, by its applicability to my life. When I read science fiction, the concepts determine my thoughts for the next few months and I use the characters as imprimers (http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/E2/eb2.html) (idols, role-models).
When I read literature, I find a striking lack of profound conceptual thought, and I seldom have anything to learn from the characters (they often seem concerned with trivialities, or they deal with conflicts that are so alien to me that I can't even begin to relate to them, nor do I want to; they seem boring).

I want to be proved wrong, but even my favorite English teachers haven't provided an argument that resonates with me; and never mind the SJ kids who eat it up.