5 ms·

There are more classics from years past than I'll ever have time for, I have no need for contemporary bestsellers nor worsesellers. Unfortunate perhaps for my

by OJFord 3y ago

There are more classics from years past than I'll ever have time for, I have no need for contemporary bestsellers nor worsesellers. Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now if the article is correct and there isn't the 21st century to sample like I can read the 20th, but I think that's hard to judge in the moment, especially when (inherently in the argument) critical 'edgy' unpopular classics-in-the-making aren't getting the attention. In the meantime, there's a large pool that's stood the test of time to draw from, and if you know what you like and just want more ('instant gratification') of it, it makes sense that that would be churned out contemporarily, as I'm sure it was in the past - especially serialised in magazines and newspapers.

nathan_compton 3y ago
The problem with this attitude is that you're missing out on reading material that reflects in incisive ways on genuinely contemporary issues in ways that Dostoevsky can't. Obviously books from the past can and do enlighten us about the present, and they don't literally have to talk about CNN to be clarifying about the nature of propaganda, but there are limits to what Plato can tell you about a world with 8 billion people in it. In a way, your attitude is akin to only reading scientific articles from more than 50 years ago because those have "stood the test of time." In science, you can see how silly this is - not only is that material often just wrong, undeveloped, etc, but relegating yourself to only papers older than 50 years would leave you totally blind to contemporary scientific progress, including whatever seeds are presently germinating that will change the world in the future.
- krona 3y ago
  The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    Yeah, dude, that's a set of words you can type. It hardly constitutes an argument. Globalized financial markets are new. The internet is new. Machines you can converse with are new. CRISPR is new, Quantum Field Theory is new, RNA vaccines are new. While I agree its true that less is novel than some people believe, the idea that nothing in the contemporary experience is worth meditating on beyond what people in the past have said is, I think, obviously absurd, pithy quotations notwithstanding.
    - krona 3y ago
      All you're interested in is ephemeral window dressing. The best literature stands alone, in time and space. The world that created the Epic of Gilgamesh no longer exists and is completely alien to us. And yet the epic is reskinned every century for a new audience. Things change and yet everything is the same. Maybe you're not old enough to realise. I was a neophile too, once.
      - quickthrower2 3y ago
        Well most modern TV series use these in their plots like Bitcoin and SuperPACs in The Good Wife springs to mind. So same for books?
      - nathan_compton 3y ago
        I don't disagree per se. But it doesn't follow that therefor all the good literature is in the past. In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.
        3y ago
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Late XX century onwards is the age of non-fiction. Why would I read fiction set in Somalia or Gaza when I can read genuine-ish journalist reports or plain old Wikipedia? After all, we know that fiction writers were often clueless about the subjects they wrote on.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    Why would you look at paintings instead of photographs? Why would you watch movies instead of documentaries? Why would you listen to music instead of lectures?
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Why would I prefer contemporary paintings or movies?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 3y ago
  Compared to scientific articles though, writers haven't discovered anything new in a long while. Has there been a new archetype or plot in the last century? Almost all the innovation in storytelling and communication is happening in mediums that don't lean as heavily on longform writing as literature. Case in point, if you want to look at the biggest influence on discrediting CNN's propaganda it would probably be ... Trump, on Twitter, screaming "Fake News!" endlessly. That did a lot more to undermine their brand than any academic analysis.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    I'm not disputing twitter is writing, though. I'm sure the "I only read the classics" types disdain twitter too. But I also think your comment is roughly akin to someone saying that there hasn't been anything new in theory of gravity research since the publication of GR in 1915. That might appear to be the case for lay people, but the field has made major advancements since then both in refining what is understood about GR and staking out territory on the frontier. Just because literature hasn't produce an archetype or story as durable as the the old standards (which arguably have nothing much going for them except familiarity and an appeal to the lowest common denominator) doesn't mean there hasn't been any "progress" or genuine novelty either.
- cousin_it 3y ago
  I think literature (and other arts) is primarily entertainment. You start with easy works and then gradually find that you're interested by deeper and deeper works. And at some point you start noticing that the best modern works are less deep, less able to interest you, than the best past works. It's a bit of mystery why this happens. Since there are many more creators today, it seems their best output should be above the best of the past, but no. My best hypothesis is that we're in a phase of decline: all Western arts peaked at the end of the 19th century, then the world wars broke something important, and it's not going to recover. Similar to how Rome's decline was accompanied by a decline of art quality.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    Once you start claiming that the arts peaked at some point, millions of other informed, erudite people are going to disagree and set it at some other point or not at all. You say the end of the 19th century was the start of a decline? That was before jazz was a thing, and that’s a genre that plenty would defend as high art. It was before plenty of novelists, poets, painters and playwrights that have both popular appeal and have entered the serious canon. Hell, it was before writing fiction even began in some languages, because for whatever reason (such as censorship by a dominating power) speakers of those languages were unable to do so before the early 20th century. Moreover, claiming such a peak followed by a decline, and drawing comparisons with Rome, is so often linked to a reactionary politics that even many conservatives feel is extremist, your interlocutors are going to be suspicious of your motives.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that there are many more modern works than past works and it is much more work to filter the wheat from chaff, especially without the benefit of time. But that doesn't mean dismissing contemporary art is the right perspective either. I don't buy the idea of cultural decline, at any rate. It think the article makes a pretty good case that commodification is the reason for the apparent decline in the average quality of literature.
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
>Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now Doesn't have to be. There are plenty of extremely well read literature lovers who have both the time and the taste to sample works both past and present; these will become the tastemakers of people in the far future.
Willwhatley 3y ago
I request you post your "To-read," "Reading now," and "Have read" lists.

by OJFord 3y ago

nathan_compton 3y ago

The problem with this attitude is that you're missing out on reading material that reflects in incisive ways on genuinely contemporary issues in ways that Dostoevsky can't. Obviously books from the past can and do enlighten us about the present, and they don't literally have to talk about CNN to be clarifying about the nature of propaganda, but there are limits to what Plato can tell you about a world with 8 billion people in it. In a way, your attitude is akin to only reading scientific articles from more than 50 years ago because those have "stood the test of time." In science, you can see how silly this is - not only is that material often just wrong, undeveloped, etc, but relegating yourself to only papers older than 50 years would leave you totally blind to contemporary scientific progress, including whatever seeds are presently germinating that will change the world in the future.

krona 3y ago
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Yeah, dude, that's a set of words you can type. It hardly constitutes an argument. Globalized financial markets are new. The internet is new. Machines you can converse with are new. CRISPR is new, Quantum Field Theory is new, RNA vaccines are new. While I agree its true that less is novel than some people believe, the idea that nothing in the contemporary experience is worth meditating on beyond what people in the past have said is, I think, obviously absurd, pithy quotations notwithstanding.
  - krona 3y ago
    All you're interested in is ephemeral window dressing. The best literature stands alone, in time and space. The world that created the Epic of Gilgamesh no longer exists and is completely alien to us. And yet the epic is reskinned every century for a new audience. Things change and yet everything is the same. Maybe you're not old enough to realise. I was a neophile too, once.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      Well most modern TV series use these in their plots like Bitcoin and SuperPACs in The Good Wife springs to mind. So same for books?
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      I don't disagree per se. But it doesn't follow that therefor all the good literature is in the past. In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.
      - 3y ago
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
thriftwy 3y ago
Late XX century onwards is the age of non-fiction. Why would I read fiction set in Somalia or Gaza when I can read genuine-ish journalist reports or plain old Wikipedia? After all, we know that fiction writers were often clueless about the subjects they wrote on.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Why would you look at paintings instead of photographs? Why would you watch movies instead of documentaries? Why would you listen to music instead of lectures?
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Why would I prefer contemporary paintings or movies?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 3y ago
Compared to scientific articles though, writers haven't discovered anything new in a long while. Has there been a new archetype or plot in the last century? Almost all the innovation in storytelling and communication is happening in mediums that don't lean as heavily on longform writing as literature. Case in point, if you want to look at the biggest influence on discrediting CNN's propaganda it would probably be ... Trump, on Twitter, screaming "Fake News!" endlessly. That did a lot more to undermine their brand than any academic analysis.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  I'm not disputing twitter is writing, though. I'm sure the "I only read the classics" types disdain twitter too. But I also think your comment is roughly akin to someone saying that there hasn't been anything new in theory of gravity research since the publication of GR in 1915. That might appear to be the case for lay people, but the field has made major advancements since then both in refining what is understood about GR and staking out territory on the frontier. Just because literature hasn't produce an archetype or story as durable as the the old standards (which arguably have nothing much going for them except familiarity and an appeal to the lowest common denominator) doesn't mean there hasn't been any "progress" or genuine novelty either.
cousin_it 3y ago
I think literature (and other arts) is primarily entertainment. You start with easy works and then gradually find that you're interested by deeper and deeper works. And at some point you start noticing that the best modern works are less deep, less able to interest you, than the best past works. It's a bit of mystery why this happens. Since there are many more creators today, it seems their best output should be above the best of the past, but no. My best hypothesis is that we're in a phase of decline: all Western arts peaked at the end of the 19th century, then the world wars broke something important, and it's not going to recover. Similar to how Rome's decline was accompanied by a decline of art quality.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Once you start claiming that the arts peaked at some point, millions of other informed, erudite people are going to disagree and set it at some other point or not at all. You say the end of the 19th century was the start of a decline? That was before jazz was a thing, and that’s a genre that plenty would defend as high art. It was before plenty of novelists, poets, painters and playwrights that have both popular appeal and have entered the serious canon. Hell, it was before writing fiction even began in some languages, because for whatever reason (such as censorship by a dominating power) speakers of those languages were unable to do so before the early 20th century. Moreover, claiming such a peak followed by a decline, and drawing comparisons with Rome, is so often linked to a reactionary politics that even many conservatives feel is extremist, your interlocutors are going to be suspicious of your motives.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that there are many more modern works than past works and it is much more work to filter the wheat from chaff, especially without the benefit of time. But that doesn't mean dismissing contemporary art is the right perspective either. I don't buy the idea of cultural decline, at any rate. It think the article makes a pretty good case that commodification is the reason for the apparent decline in the average quality of literature.

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

>Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now Doesn't have to be. There are plenty of extremely well read literature lovers who have both the time and the taste to sample works both past and present; these will become the tastemakers of people in the far future.

Willwhatley 3y ago

I request you post your "To-read," "Reading now," and "Have read" lists.