3 ms·
It's hardly a monoculture, the canon of literary classics is pretty diverse. It's about attention again. You are saying that we shouldn't give all the attentio
by Gatsky 5y ago
It's hardly a monoculture, the canon of literary classics is pretty diverse.
It's about attention again. You are saying that we shouldn't give all the attention to a few arbitrarily selected writers. That it is better that our attention is shattered into innumerable fragments and dusted across the vast landscape of democratised content.
This is replacing literature with social media, and I can't agree it is a good thing.
- Causality1 5y agoThat's a facile comparison. Novels written by people who aren't millionaires isn't "replacing literature with social media" any more than teaching the classics is replacing literature with religion. More creatives having more opportunity to reach an audience is a good thing. People being able to read what makes them happy is a good thing.
- Gatsky 5y agoMillionaires? I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyway what you describe is a version of the 'repugnant conclusion' except for art [1]. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
- Causality1 5y ago"Non-millionaires" was how I described the recent surge of small-time authors whose work was early referred to as "social media".
- tqi 5y ago> You are saying that we shouldn't give all the attention to a few arbitrarily selected writers. No, actually what I'm saying is we no longer need some Oxbridge Harold Bloom knockoff to select those few arbitrary writers for us.