6 ms·

Contemporary literature is valuable for its insights in the present. I love classics, and much of what I read was published before this century, but I would be

Contemporary literature is valuable for its insights in the present. I love classics, and much of what I read was published before this century, but I would be missing out if I stuck just with tried and proven titles and authors.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
I would say that contemporary literature can't provide any insights, by definition. Because it's a slave to its zeitgeist. Anything touching politics, history, economy and especially society will be tainted.
- api 3y ago
  Wouldn’t this apply to all literature then? Because it was all a product of its time.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    Of course all literature is a product of its time but when you are reading an old book most of the time you are distanced from the events or then-new ideas presented and it's much easier to think objectively about them. As an example I'll give Marx works on communism. If I was XIX century working man I would be ecstatic about the idea, with the hindsight how communism actually works in practice I would have second thoughts. But the difference between the theory and the practice would be the actual insight. And in case of the contemporary events the actual insight would be in how they were presented and perceived when they were happening compared to how they are seen now
    - spookybones 3y ago
      Marxism is very antiquated without modern insights applied to it.
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      Reminds me of The Machine Stops: “Beware of first-hand ideas!” exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. “First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by love and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element — direct observation. [...] And in time there will come a generation that had got beyond facts, beyond impressions, a generation absolutely colourless, a generation seraphically free from taint of personality.”
  - trilbyglens 3y ago
    The difference is that the books we still read are the ones that have proven to be more universally true than the rest. We only know about old books that have remained relevant in one way or another. We've long forgotten the tripe. With modern things, we don't yet know what will remain relevant and what will fade into obscurity or lose its relevance.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Plenty of still-popular ancient books are full of fiction, myth, and superstition. Perhaps one could say some have remained more useful.
- spookybones 3y ago
  That isn’t an argument to stop producing them. It’s an argument for letting time pass to determine which remain relevant.
Amezarak 3y ago
Can you give an example of a book published after, say, 2000 that is really valuable for insights we would not be able to get from either older books (if related to the human condition) or news articles (if more to do with some bare fact)? I read mostly books written before the World Wars and I’m doubtful there’s much after that period of any real and lasting value. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy some of it, of course, mostly the fiction. The exception might be really niche works of local history, which is probably <0.001% of all such books, or a few really good scientific/mathematical compendiums.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  Obviously it's a bit of a cop out but analysis of events. Books on the invasion of Iraq, or the gulf war. Books on the financial crisis. You might say this is a small portion of what's worth reading, but these are things with undoubtedly huge relevance to what is happening today in the short term future, as well as giving insight into the people and systems that govern us very specifically
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    I could be wrong, but I think almost everything in those examples exists in news articles, although to be fair, those articles are often long-form, and some are sourced with reporting from the books you mention. I've never read a book on either subject, but I maybe presumptuously think myself well-informed. ;) I do think, as time goes on, and things are declassified, we'll learn more about e.g., the Iraq War than we know now. To a point, things become clearer with distance, which often renders books written on contemporary subjects outdated. But a book published today could be a decent summary of events for people who didn't live through them, or were too young to pay attention at the time. Unfortunately, one recent why I don't pay them too much mind is that most of the genre is hopelessly partisan, one way or another, and I don't know that there are any really great historians to write something timeless. But either way, I would say the insights you can glean from those books are still readily available if you're watching events critically today. Not much has changed, and if it has, it was usually for the worst. Maybe the most interesting part for many people would be the reminder that many of the same people directly responsible for those disasters are still considered respectable people today and help drive policy. E.g., Bill Kristol didn't go into some kind of exile - he's still considered a very serious person and has a lot of influence and is out there shilling the same type of thinking in a different context.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago

I would say that contemporary literature can't provide any insights, by definition. Because it's a slave to its zeitgeist. Anything touching politics, history, economy and especially society will be tainted.

api 3y ago
Wouldn’t this apply to all literature then? Because it was all a product of its time.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  Of course all literature is a product of its time but when you are reading an old book most of the time you are distanced from the events or then-new ideas presented and it's much easier to think objectively about them. As an example I'll give Marx works on communism. If I was XIX century working man I would be ecstatic about the idea, with the hindsight how communism actually works in practice I would have second thoughts. But the difference between the theory and the practice would be the actual insight. And in case of the contemporary events the actual insight would be in how they were presented and perceived when they were happening compared to how they are seen now
  - spookybones 3y ago
    Marxism is very antiquated without modern insights applied to it.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Reminds me of The Machine Stops: “Beware of first-hand ideas!” exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. “First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by love and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element — direct observation. [...] And in time there will come a generation that had got beyond facts, beyond impressions, a generation absolutely colourless, a generation seraphically free from taint of personality.”
- trilbyglens 3y ago
  The difference is that the books we still read are the ones that have proven to be more universally true than the rest. We only know about old books that have remained relevant in one way or another. We've long forgotten the tripe. With modern things, we don't yet know what will remain relevant and what will fade into obscurity or lose its relevance.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Plenty of still-popular ancient books are full of fiction, myth, and superstition. Perhaps one could say some have remained more useful.
spookybones 3y ago
That isn’t an argument to stop producing them. It’s an argument for letting time pass to determine which remain relevant.

Amezarak 3y ago

Can you give an example of a book published after, say, 2000 that is really valuable for insights we would not be able to get from either older books (if related to the human condition) or news articles (if more to do with some bare fact)? I read mostly books written before the World Wars and I’m doubtful there’s much after that period of any real and lasting value. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy some of it, of course, mostly the fiction. The exception might be really niche works of local history, which is probably <0.001% of all such books, or a few really good scientific/mathematical compendiums.

RugnirViking 3y ago
Obviously it's a bit of a cop out but analysis of events. Books on the invasion of Iraq, or the gulf war. Books on the financial crisis. You might say this is a small portion of what's worth reading, but these are things with undoubtedly huge relevance to what is happening today in the short term future, as well as giving insight into the people and systems that govern us very specifically
- Amezarak 3y ago
  I could be wrong, but I think almost everything in those examples exists in news articles, although to be fair, those articles are often long-form, and some are sourced with reporting from the books you mention. I've never read a book on either subject, but I maybe presumptuously think myself well-informed. ;) I do think, as time goes on, and things are declassified, we'll learn more about e.g., the Iraq War than we know now. To a point, things become clearer with distance, which often renders books written on contemporary subjects outdated. But a book published today could be a decent summary of events for people who didn't live through them, or were too young to pay attention at the time. Unfortunately, one recent why I don't pay them too much mind is that most of the genre is hopelessly partisan, one way or another, and I don't know that there are any really great historians to write something timeless. But either way, I would say the insights you can glean from those books are still readily available if you're watching events critically today. Not much has changed, and if it has, it was usually for the worst. Maybe the most interesting part for many people would be the reminder that many of the same people directly responsible for those disasters are still considered respectable people today and help drive policy. E.g., Bill Kristol didn't go into some kind of exile - he's still considered a very serious person and has a lot of influence and is out there shilling the same type of thinking in a different context.