4 ms·

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 Dosto

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.
      - spicymapotofu 3y ago
        The GP comment appears to not be saying anything which opposes the idea that new literature can interrogate our beliefs too. I think they're trying to point out that the new tech you're highlighting is on the object level, whereas the fundamental topics which make good literature stand the test of time are meta level - human nature. Yes, we trade digitally instead of physically, and yet tales of merchants long scattered remain pertinent. The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted. Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.
- 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.

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.
    - spicymapotofu 3y ago
      The GP comment appears to not be saying anything which opposes the idea that new literature can interrogate our beliefs too. I think they're trying to point out that the new tech you're highlighting is on the object level, whereas the fundamental topics which make good literature stand the test of time are meta level - human nature. Yes, we trade digitally instead of physically, and yet tales of merchants long scattered remain pertinent. The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted. Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.
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.