3 ms·
Stephen King. Homer was not great literature at the time he his works were written. He was popular entertainment with a dose of folk religion. I’m not sure Home
by yaman12 3mo ago
Stephen King. Homer was not great literature at the time he his works were written. He was popular entertainment with a dose of folk religion. I’m not sure Homer existed. 1000 years from now people will say the same of SK.
- 01284a7e 3mo ago"Homer was not great literature at the time he his works were written". They were not written at all. No written literature existed in the time of Homer.
- stronglikedan 3mo agoI can write a poem in my head without ever writing it down on paper. I still wrote a poem, even if I just pass it along orally. If I write a song for my girl, I'm not going to hand her a piece of paper with sheet music and lyrics, I'm going to perform it for her. I may write it down, or I may not. Of course, composed is a more precise word, but everyone still knows what I mean if I replace it with write.
- furyofantares 3mo agoAre you also calling it literature if it's not written down?
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> I can write a poem in my head without ever writing it down on paper. I still wrote a poem, even if I just pass it along orally This is generalising the term writing to the point of uselessness. In your example, you thought of a poem and spoke it. You didn't write it.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2mo agoI don’t think so. The colloquial usage exists as grandparent commenter describes. I can be a “songwriter” without literally writing the lyrics to my song down.
- ben_w 2mo agoDisagree, I think it's analogous to how we today use "fire" to describe the action of loosing an arrow or whatever the technical term is for a trebuchet, even though neither has gunpowder.
- aforwardslash 3mo agoYou can take note. Writing is a physical action, e.g. performing output. Writing is an action. You can memorize, take a mental note, but you are not writing. (Someone else mentioned Camōes, a portuguese who famously/allegedly saved his writings from a shipwreck by swimming with one arm and using the other to keep the book above water; your interpretation of "writing" is an insult)
- agumonkey 3mo agoHow long after were these put down as writings ?
- wk_end 3mo ago...you think 1000 years from now people will wonder whether or not Stephen King existed?
- aforwardslash 3mo agoGood question. No. Since the press was invented, our records have improved tremendously, partially because of the low cost of maintaing them. However, we still have detailed records from many eras, tracing back at least 3000 years. The egyptians had archeologists, let that sink in.
- aforwardslash 3mo agoSome fun trivia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ea-n%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ir
- ksd482 2mo agoYou are technically right, but I believe the spirit of the question was "how significant Stephen King would be a 1000 years from now?".
- ben_w 2mo agoProbably sooner, IMO. Absent radical life extension, even 200 years from now there'll be nobody's left who remembers the time before deepfakes, and history will be brought into doubt. Though bluntly we've always had nationalistic narratives contaminating what's "approved" in school, both with literature and history. Stephen King could be anything from mandatory to forbidden for any reason at the same time in different places, even on that kind of timescale. The USA may cease to exist as a singular coherent entity, and it may be two or more successor states in parallel who have a culture war with each other over if Stephen King was real or not.
- asimpletune 2mo agoHomer was near god status even then. I'm really not sure how anything else could be interpreted? I think this was actually very much to people's frustration even, as Homer was often misunderstood in their eyes, e.g. Plato often expresses this sentiment.