/lit/ - Literature

>>14293711
Probably nonexistent like the last two decades

>>14293711
i think we'll really start to see the rotten fruits of coomercore

it's gonna be cringe bro

>>14293720
shut the fuck up you little pissbaby

>>14293728
Go to bed, Rupi

>tags still on the clothes
classy

>>14293753
Looks like I caught a faggot with this one

>>14293753
Lol, Americans really try on underwear in the store. That's fucked up. Imagine sweaty hamplanets with leaky cunts taking turns trying on thongs.

>>14293766
looks like I triggered a poorfag. keep taking selfies in the dressing room bitch

>>14293711
just as garbage and devoid of respectability as today. literature is dead.

>>14293778
lol saved

the overwhelming negativity about contemporary lit on this board is depressing, and feels more like the sour grapes parroting of an established narrative than actually informed opinions. wish /lit/ was more like /mu/ in that it could envision and embrace the infinite possibilites of the artform instead of disregarding literally everything new, or demanding that it’s only sprawling maximalist tomes that get a pass. i’ll take wide-eyed, youthful curiosity over ’blackpilled’ boomerdom any day of the week

>>14293793
case in point >>14293788

>>14293793
It's garbage without remedy, you even have to make some horrific statement in its defense just to try and uplift from the filth it rests in. Nobody is wasting their time on it, its dead. There is no future in the written word.
>boomerdom
You couldn't even define a boomer if you tried. I'm probably younger than you.

>>14293797
It's dead.

>>14293778
How is it relevant what image a poster chooses to post? Not everyone is based and chastepilled like you

>>14293812
chaste and breadpilled

>>14293809
dumb zoomer. bestsellers have always been trash

>>14293817
More excuses piling on. There is no future for literature and contemporary literature is dead. Have you heard contemporary popular music? It's also dead. There is no point in trying to pretend like it will go anywhere, it's better to read the endless classics that were actually perfected. There is nothing of value produced in modernity and nothing of value will be produced in the future. If you think this is a "blackpill" that's your own problem.

>>14293809
>whether literature is in a healthy place or not can be deciphered via sales figures
the absolute STATE of /lit/

>>14293827
>thinks its unimportant what a society is ingesting
>thinks they are a special snowflake
Another reason why modern literature is dead and there is no future. More excuses. Art died a long time ago, stop pretending like it still exists.

>>14293799
I guarantee you haven't read a non-fiction book written this decade. There are plenty of excellent authors still writing, and there's no evidence that literature is 'futureless'; just look at Ducks, Newburyport, for example - an excellent piece published only this year. Go back to whichever containment site you came from.

>>14293826
ok boomer

>>14293833
>There are plenty of excellent authors still writing
>names a single subjective piece
Stop lying to yourself already.

>>14293742
You'll only ever eat white girl feet and you'll never know the Majesty of high caste Punjabi toes awiggle atop your tongue. You'll only ever have to settle with grimey keratinous pinky pigslut mayobulb feet

>>14293837
Ironically enough Boomers are the only people keeping the book market alive, once they're gone - bye bye. Dead medium (art is dead).

Is that the chvrches chick and robyn?

>>14293711
Written literature as a medium will continue the spiral into irrelevance that it has been in for the last like 30 years.

Podcasts are the true literature of the 21st century.

>>14293832
Most of the art worshipped by you 'golden age'-intellectual blackholes was produced in societies with vastly lower literacy rates, where the only form of popular entertainment was just as cheap and banal as it is today. Do you think everyone walked around in the 15th century reading Bocaccio and Petrarch, and that's why Da Vinci and Michelangelo were able to produce their respective masterpieces? Now, more than ever, has the populace got ready and available access to a genuine plethora of great art - and as a result we live in a time of thriving artistry. The fact that you disagree is only testament to your wilful ignorance on the subject, and your desire to languish in a pathetic 'trad' mindset which assumes all good art died out years ago (though you can never really specify when or why that happened, funnily).

>>14293832
but society at large never ’ingested’ quality. do you think middle america were having ulysses book clubs during the great depression? did moby-dick sell by the crateload upon its street date, preceded by months of hype?

>>14293850
yes

>>14293854
>(though you can never really specify when or why that happened, funnily)
don’t get him started, he’ll only flood the thread with variations on ’da joos’ and ’cultural marxism’

>>14293855
Sounds like a total cop out non-argument to me trying to rationalize the fact art is dead. We aren't going to see another "Moby Dick" regardless of what is published today. That book became famous and popular. It's not exclusive here. The Greeks for example were heavily involved in literary culture. The medium is dead with entertainment television, games, and passive consumption of media in general. Art is dead and it's not coming back, I don't see the point in justifying a corpse.

>>14293838
John R. Powers, William Gass (late, obviously, but published a book in 2013), Jayne Anne Phillips, William Vollman, Denis Johnson, Louise Erdrich, McCarthy (who has a forthcoming novel)... going a little further back we have the likes of Stanley Elkin, Gaddis etc. I'm not going to sit and name names, but the fact that you think I can't is again testament to your ignorance on the subject.

>>14293873
I like it more in this context. I worry how corrupted my technique might be if I had money and an editor dangling in front of me all the time.

>>14293854
Literacy rates are high and so is access to information but do you think people are more intelligent and independent or just as reliant if not more reliant then ever before?

>>14293867
You can't address me directly because you innately know art is dead and it's not going to be revived in our life time. Marx and Judaism are unrelated off topics you're trying to throw out in an effort of escapism from this fact. Don't blame me for it.

>>14293854
>and as a result we live in a time of thriving artistry.
like what? youve only named one book which sounds like unoriginal trifles.

>>14293877
Ah real house hold names that are crafting new and exciting stories for us to ingest. Lol. More like forgettable recycled pop culture for consumers trying to pretend like they're apart of an art scene that simply does not exist.

>>14293877
>lists one solid author

>>14293873
Moby Dick was an infamous flop when it was published. It's only retrospectively that it was seen to be the masterpiece it is today. Most of film and television still draws on the novel as source material, also. It is the bedrock of modern entertainment, and isn't going away.

>>14293711
I don't know, but I do hope it has many feminine lesbians

>>14293711
>that extremely fake kissingwith sealed lips
Cringe

>>14293888
Revealing yourself to be so garishly stupid, done to this extent, why it's pyrotechnic.

>>14293793
why dont u suggest some worthy contemporary lit then?

>>14293882
why do you pine for dedication across the board? when have the masses ever enhanced anything?

>>14293882
I think that's a very interesting question, and one that I don't think I'm in a position to answer very well. I feel, though, that the existence of boards like these (with thousands of young high-school and university students all pursuing deeper knowledge) is a rather unique product of the late 20th/early-21st century. If you think back to previous centuries, the pursuit of knowledge was probably more intensified per person, but the actual number of people who had the time and the money to dedicate to studying literature and philosophy is far less than it is today. I may be completely wrong on that though, and anyone smarter than me is welcome to correct me.
>>14293888
If you actually had read any modern literature in the last handful of years you would recognise a fair few of those names. The fact that you can't, and that you think that's somehow won you the argument, is embarrassing.
>>14293893
Have you read any of the other names?

>>14293894
Yes it is the "bedrock of modern entertainment' because art is dead and there's nothing more to it. I don't get why you're so offended by this.

>>14293812

Nobody would notice his retarded question if he didn't post something lewd.

>>14293920
I gave up reading books several months ago around the time that "Homo Sapiens" became a popular read. I decided there wasn't anything worth reading in contemporary literature and have never felt better. I notice a lot of people trying really hard to create some kind of scene like they had in the 20's ,but it's really just a poor effort. I doubt publishing houses will be around much longer outside of the academic sphere, people just aren't buying books.

>>14293924
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not offended, I just don't agree with you. A piece of art can influence modern entertainment without itself being cheap schlock - just look at all the blockbuster Shakespeare adaptions, for example. The fact that modern entertainment (film, tv, video games) exists does nothing to say that modern literature is a dead art-form. Can you actually explain why you think 'art is dead'?

>>14293933
>I doubt publishing houses will be around much longer outside of the academic sphere, people just aren't buying books.

>>14293888
>>14293882
Theoretically, if you wanted what you are saying to be wrong, and it were possible for great works of art to be made, is your point that there is not some unified intelligentsia consensus to gather around the new great works of art and celebrate them?

High culture, high art was never really made for the masses, you are worried that you do not see or have access to the possible realm of non masses where possible high art would be celebrated?

>>14293933
You mean the Yuval Noah Harari book? Anon, if you think that's anything more than airport-fiction then you have been sorely misled on the state of modern literature. Harari's book, along with all these 'The Elegant Art of Not Giving a Damn'-type texts that flood the market, are not representative of the actual literary scene. You're welcome to keep on depriving yourself of genuinely good and intelligent works of art (and don't get me wrong, I'm very hermetic when it comes to literature, I spend most of my time locked away reading the classics too), but don't be fooled into thinking that there is nothing good out there whatsoever, because there really is.

>>14293883
>>14293877

>>14293949
So give a pessimist something to hope for. I'd even consider reading it if you felt sincere enough. This isn't begging, I'm simply curious.

even if contemporary writing is okay, which I dont think it is because the writers seem extremely under-educated and spiritual sterile, why wouldn't I just read the masters of the craft? Where I can walk through historical epochs mediated by humanity's best minds? What more do I need to know about this current world, where everything has been atomized and analyzed as far as it can go? Is a 1000 page book about the experience of a middle class house wife really going to teach me anything new or open up a paradigm of thought not already explored by earlier modernist writers?

>>14293949
>are not representative of the actual literary scene.
where is the actual literary scene? who are its leaders? what are their merits? from where do its judgements come? what does the actual literary scene desire? do they have a website? do they have a forum?

>>14293957
you can do both, you know. unless ur retarded

>>14293957
>i am a SCHOLAR and EVERYTHING is an EPIC BATTLE between OLD (BASED) and NEW (CRINGE)

>>14293968
by that you mean read both good literature and pointless literature? or have you misunderstood?

>>14293963
the fact that you so desperately need centralization and validation and for things to be easily slotted into prefab compartments shows that you probably shouldn’t be reading books at all. just sit on the couch, smoke some weed. do whatever you want. literature is clearly not your thing

>>14293954
Well, I've given a list further up the thread of good contemporary authors that have published in the last decade, so I'd recommend checking those guys out. I'd also recommend Gass, especially, and Ducks, Newburyport is also excellent and only came out this year. McCarthy's new novel is forthcoming too, so that's something to hope for. At the end of the day, reading modern literature isn't like reading classic literature. There aren't real consensuses on which novel is a masterpiece and which is terrible, yet, so you have to pick through and find the good stuff more discerningly than if you were simply going for a copy of Dostoevsky or what-have-you. In his day, Keats was maligned and it was only after his death he saw any real success. In the same vein, the authors you read today might not become venerated until long into the future. You have to take chances, and you won't always be satisfied with what you read, but when you find stuff that is genuinely good, it's great fun.

>>14293985
Modern literature is not 'pointless', it's just yet to be judged by society as either good or bad. The masters of the craft were once publishing 'pointless literature' too. It's up to you as a contemporary reader to aid in the classification of modern work as either worthy or unworthy by actually bothering to read it in the first place. A 'good' book doesn't just materialise from thin air, its position in the Canon is fought for by its author and his readers.

Hopefully me making money and fucking bitches thanks to my pseud cred as a midwit author

>>14293711
a whole lot of teenagers loitering pretending to study

>>14293997
You said there is an actual literary scene, as opposed to best sellers and whatever popular contemporary works the person you were arguing with was holding up as evidence of contemporary literatures failures:

I was simply asking you to describe this actual literary scene a bit.

Can you make any ballpark estimate as to its members numbers? 10 people? 10,000 people? 50,000 people? And they have no consensus? There is no where clusters of members of this actual literary scene discuss and celebrate contemporary books that may be the shinning jewels of this age, that the actual literary scene of the future generations will recognize as the successors of humanities great writing tradition?

>>14293945
Now subtract all of the books that people are only buying because their college classes require them.

Has anything worth reading even been written in the last twenty years?

>>14294042
That's still only around 100 million books

Literature is over, nothing more needs be said

>>14293793
the modern world is a spiritual wasteland, how could the art that comes out that ever be any good?

>>14294050
what is ’worth reading’ lmao

why is literature this titanic life-and-death endeavour to you nerds. like achievements in a fucking video game

Men used to write great books to get money and impress women with their intelligence and artistry and imagination and skill, then women stopped being impressed and started writing their own books, so now only women read and write books

>>14294077
Women have always consumed more literature than men. Eliot and Pound, for example, used to get very frustrated that the patrons who supported their endeavours were mostly women, and that their influence would dilute the art.

>>14294072
yeah the world was surely a better place when most people were literal serfs and the rulers fancied themselves a devastating war every other week

fuck clean water through the tap and all that

>>14294076
Like, is there anything that I can read after which I can feel like it was a good use of my time?

>>14293770
imagine if you got to sniff the panties after these stacies were done with them though

>Men used to write great books to get money and impress women with their intelligence and artistry and imagination and skill, then women stopped being impressed and started writing their own books, so now only women read and write books

>>14293711
Who's on right? Looks familiar
(O if only I could lie beneath and lap up their orifices and appendages!)

>>14294098
you seem like a dork so probably not. i refer you to >>14293997

>>14293997
>the fact that you so desperately need centralization and validation and for things to be easily slotted into prefab compartments shows that you probably shouldn’t be reading books at all. just sit on the couch, smoke some weed. do whatever you want. literature is clearly not your thing
>>14294127
The exact problem is that there is such an over saturation of quantity, why is it so insane to think that this conversation has been a discussion of possible quality, and that it was believed that was what was meant by the term 'actual literary scene', one that valiantly fights through the storm of shit to find the gems. The person you have been talking to is asking, 'I look and see what is heralded and celebrated and best seller and most popular and there is a lot and a lot of it and I like and do not think it very good to and for me, I have no clue where to look for what might be made today that is good to and for me, of quality on par with the milenias legacy of excellent writing, is there some underground group, or overground, some findable safeguarded safehaven of dedicatees to the cause of true literature, maybe even an actual literary scene, with which I can find some of what may be vetted by may be trustworthy tastes and minds as some of the greatest books published over the past 10 years' and all you can do is be dismissive and rude.

If you are not a member of this secret cult of high contemporary literature nor know of its lists and whereabouts, then you needed neednt to comment. Thanks regardless, sincerely.

>>14294117
no they didnt you virgin, men wrote books for other men. the average woman can barely read

>>14294170
based retard

this a topic of the size and style of publishing houses. /lit/ could be an actual contemporary literary scene, but only discusses old books and books made by popular publishing houses, no one has their finger on the pulse of contemporary quality literary art and all the small presses, no one reads

>>14293793
>

the next houellebecq book will cost 50 euros. fuck flammarion

>>14293711
Man vs technology will become a more common plot point.

>>14294267
Thoughts about books published by Castalia House?

>>14293854
>people actually think like this
Good lord.

>>14294605
Can you give a genuine response, instead of that pathetic, speaking-out-of-the-side-of-your-mouth response?

>>14293854
Yikes

>>14293854
>the only form of popular entertainment was just as cheap and banal as it is today
Commedia dell'arte is a 1000x better than whatever soap opera bs is leaking out of the tv today.

>>14293809
>Burgerland
>bestsellers
Low IQ post.

>>14293770
Coomer

>>14294732
Actually, the opposite

>>14294740
>Pretending he was hard whilst typing and sending that

>>14293711
barren

>>14293877
>McCarthy
McCarthy is a god but I'm waiting on his new novel like

>>14293843
If I wanted to taste pajeeta feet I'd eat the shit out of my toilet

>>14294753
>Pretending he was hard whilst typing and sending that
Stop projecting, closet coomer. I was pointing out how repulsive it is that fat people can try on underwear before buying it.

>>14293711
>price tag
They're lezzing on in a store in underwear they haven't bought? Surely they're not going to put them back on the racks for the next pair of lesbians to try on?

>>14293711
Christopher Nicholson, C.E. Morgan, Ross Raisin, and Amanda Coplin will publish their masterpieces in 2020. David Mitchell, whose first four novels were amazing, will continue to descend into stupid shit that sells, meaning more Bone Clocks. Three substantially talented writers will emerge and along the way we will get a nonstop deluge of MFA writers talking about their campus experiences and editors of literary journals publishing their trite shit, such as what was most recently published in The New Yorker by an editor at The New Yorker.

All in all, some good shit is around the corner. The existence and praise for Ducks, Newburyport is also proof that people are ready to champion a behemoth if one shows up. That book's very good but /lit/ hates change and also women so it will never get the time of day here.

Oh and around 2025 the cultural tension that's been making people question "selfie culture" and the like will give way to a brief ressurection in literary interest. Books will become a hot selling fad and a few fakes will ride the crest.

t.time-traveller. See all of you soon.

>>14293770
Rent free

>>14295983
Cope

>>14293793
>wide-eyed, youthful curiosity
aka propagandized consumer herd animals

>>14293838
I like Michael cisco and robert persson especially, but there's dozens of great experimenting fiction writers right now. I think you're too gay to know about them though

>>14296029
>actually sheepleposting in the year of our lord 2019
lmao
no, i'm not saying that one shouldn't be discerning. just not to the point where it spills over into strapping on blinkers and pissing oneself in a hissy fit over anything post-gravity's rainbow like a lot of /lit/ does. that's just being an ignorant asshole on purpose. not quite the literary lifestyle
developing a generous but honed critical eye (via reading a wide selection of literature) will allow future classics to rise to the top and lesser books to be rightfully forgotten

>>14293793
/mu/ has been shit for almost a decade

>>14296016
Dilate

>>14293957
The way you write sounds really affected. I don't know why you feel the need to put on airs in an anime forum, of all places.

>>14294170
Scholar here. I found over-intellectualizing faggots to be tiresome. I read one of my wife’s trashy fantasy action books and was amazed at how fun and easy to absorb it was. First person multi POV, short chapters, no bloated expo. The future’s so bright you won’t need eyes.

>>14293833

>>14296169
Seethe

>>14294097
>"contemporary culture is soulless"
>"b-but muh material progress!!"
Retarded beyond words.

>>14295979
>t.time-traveller. See all of you soon
Do I get a gf in the next decade?

>>14293998
>check out the works of this dead boomer, this soon to be dead boomer and this meme boomoid
Yeah, literature really is thriving

>>14293793
Many of the pseuds on this board are reading top 100 lists that look like summer reading for a junior in his (which they may in fact be). They are not brave enough to seek out new and interesting authors.

>>14293809
Go look at a best seller list from the 20s, it’s the same shit. Women have always gobbled up terrible novels.

>>14296729
I travel between times and also alternate timelines. In one timeline, you allow your doubts to get the better of you, you fail to venture into the wider world, and you become resentful and shut-in while watching the world pass you by. In another, you read this message, and understand that even if you're not as handsome or socially graceful as you like, you are still a living person with just as much potential as the next. From there you force yourself, one awkward situation after the other, into situations that make you uncomfortable but from which you take away valuable lessons that help you grow as a person. In time you become a confident, kind-hearted anon who helps in others in need when they feel lost in their own lives. You can help them because you've walked and overcome the same path. The rest I can't reveal as its against the time-traveller rules. But I wager you're going to do a good job and be very satisfied with your future. All it takes is that first step.

>>14296918
Neither are you, you just come here to moan and pose.

>>14296942
So no in other words.

>>14296708
Have Sex

>>14293793
>/mu/
>good at all
Let me guess, you visited 4chan for the first time two years ago?

>>14296948
I can't fucking TELL you anon jesus CHRIST I'm trying to HELP you, you FAG.

>>14296963
Just visited to confirm and they are discussing the same shit of always. How can anyone not get bored of /mu/ after a few months?

>>14294108
kek

literature is dead, dumbass

>>14296963
christ i am dealing with morons here
i mean that /mu/ doesn't shut itself out of all developments in popular music since sgt pepper or whatever. while a shit board in many, many regards, in general they have a healthy attitude towards both old and new

meanwhile /lit/ are staunch born in le wrong generation harold bloom nutswinger canon defeners, and more often than not justify their ostriching with conspiracy babble of the most boring, rudimentary /pol/tard kind. which is fucking pathetic for a place where people supposedly read books

>>14297010
case in point

>>14297023
post recs

>>14293888
Trips don't lie, modern lit is pseud shit

>>14296968
Stop LARPing retard, it's pathetic

>>14297023
What is your favorite contemporary lit anon?
It seems you only want us to recommend you shit like /mu/ since you actually don't know jack shit

>>14297085
If somebody asks me about their prospective sexual futures, I'll LARP whatever the fuck I so please, you joyless fucking queer. I imagine you're one of the retards up above saying literature's dead. Blow the dust out of your vagina and loosen up.

>>14297162
You've clearly invested a lot into this so I apologize for piercing your little game that you're playing with yourself.

>>14295979
Cringe

>>14297182
What a prissy, passive aggressive response. You write like a woman. Thanks for the apology, cunt, I'll send a swiffer your way and you can get to work on those cobwebs.

>>14297213
Seethe more impotent loser.

>>14297242
>seethe
Got you, fag. You browse /lit/ and can't even enjoy a little fun with words. Go read a book and stop worsening the board with your myopia.

>>14296086
>no, i'm not saying that
>>14297023
>i mean that
Pretty funny how a lot of responses of yours in this thread are something like, "waaah you're not getting what I'm meaning," while then adding post-hoc justifications for something that wasn't present in your original post.

You're kind of shit at getting your point across, which is hilarious for someone who is whining about literature.

>>14293711
Instead of studying for exams, I've spent 8 hours the last three days with a hard on watching lesbian porn

>>14293957
>a 1000 page book about the experience of a middle class house wife really going to teach me anything new or open up
Anna Karenina is great you pleb

>>14295240
lol, me too anon

>>14296705
Is there a point somewhere here that you're trying to make?

>>14296739
They've published in this decade, though, which is the point. Most writers aren't considered worth reckoning with until they're at least in their 40s/50s, so is it really any surprise that the most prominent authors around today were born in the 60s?

>>14297327
I think people are just wilfully misunderstanding him (like you are doing now) in some childish attempt to defuse his comments. He's right, and this thread is a testament to that. Ask people on /lit/ to read something written after the mid-2000s and they'll tell you to fuck off, that it's all shit or bad because it's written by women and Jews. You can believe all that if you want, but at least recognise that you're deliberately denying yourself modern literature out of wilful ignorance, rather than claiming that nothing good is out there (which you have no way of proving, seeing as you're too busy sniffing your own farts reading Joyce on the tube).

>>14293711
When the wave of despair hits the echo generation they should produce some good art from their crushing pain.

>>14297252
>fun
Kek, imagine enjoying being this pathetic. Get some friends m8

>>14297874
>like you are doing now
How is that? He is saying, "that's not what I meant," in response to several people, so it can't be a semantic misunderstanding. The implication is that his posts are a matter of speaker misunderstanding (what he meant as a speaker, which is exactly what he says to the responses). If it is indeed a matter of just reading off what he is writing (that he is semantically transparent), then take the first conversation between him and that another anon I linked above: how exactly does (1) "wide-eyed, youthful curiosity" entail (2) "developing a generous but honed critical eye (via reading a wide selection of literature)"? Nothing in the non-parenthetic part of (2) about criticism is found in (1). "Wide-eyed" and "youthful" certainly doesn't contain it, since being wide-eyed is about non-judgment and "youthful" has connotations of fresh uncritical eyes. "Curiosity" by itself is a stronger case in terms of a desire to inquire into something with some sort of standards ("honed critical eye"). But still doesn't cut it for what he says he really means, since the curiousness here is a special kind of inquiry involving the characteristics of wide-eyedness and youthfulness (otherwise he wouldn't have added them). Both characteristics are non-judgmental and hence non-critical. He's saying that the first non-judgment statement is really about judging something.

There's also another way that his explanation in (2) is not what he really meant in (1). Being generous with his explanation, you could take it as a process of events where (1) leads to "reading a wide selection of literature" then leads to "developing a generous but honed critical eye". He doesn't explain how this process works. Clearly he believes that (1) acts as some sort of regulative drive (desire to read) that guides the process as a feedback loop. This still doesn't explain the choice (and hence judgment) of the "wide selection of literature." So we are back to the paragraph above. There's some sort of weird causal loop in his reasoning where the "honed critical eye" needs to be pre-supposed even before the reading and continues to be pre-supposed throughout the loop as if there is no metacognitive higher-order critique of the critical ability (it's just given).

There's also various other issues with his posts (the whole "read old books plus post mid-2000s is better than just old books" goes unexplained), but I couldn't be assed writing anymore, because he's not really here to have a conversation. He's here to stamp about like a gorilla and throw shit around. Half the thread is him getting assmad and calling everyone stupid, because he doesn't know how to explain himself. Or even argue, in one of the posts above he dismisses something as an old meme, then he uses "le wrong generation" and "music defener" in a few posts after that. He's an arrogant dummy, and you're a dummy for defending him.

>>14295240
McCarthy is shit.

You could randomize the order of his sentences in each paragraph and not notice the difference.

>>14298162
holy autism

>>14293809
>Sam Houston and the Alamo avengers

Based

>>14293826
We are living in an sterile, egoistic, rational world. It is the barbarism of reflection. Read giambattista vico

>>14296952
post body

>>14293854
Popular media lead to the commercialization of all art, including high art. So the high art of today is as subject to the whims of the market as pop art is, which is leading to its degeneration. The great artists of the past were patronized, so they avoided this potential pit fall

>>14294062
fuck you bitch, I'm reviving the ancient tradition of oral poetry as we speak

>>14293793
>it's better to be enthusiastic about eating shit than remain disgusted by it
Massive cope.

>>14293817
Bestsellers have always been the more accessible literature but you can still see wide difference in them.
Best seller from prior times would be She or the Lord of the Ring.

>>14298798
You've just said yourself that great art grows from patronage, not from the advance of popular media into the art world. The true reason for the death of art is the death of the bourgeoise. There are no longer rich high-class people willing to fund artists, or at least they are few and far between.

>>14298162
The more literature you read, the more your ability to critique new literature grows. It's not hard, anon.

>>14293843
>You'll only ever have to settle with grimey keratinous pinky pigslut mayobulb feet

Kek. True prose has not left this world it seems.

>>14293721
>coomercore
Protagonist will be a camwhore trying to monetize all the fetishes and find a good man willing to marry her at the same time?

>>14293854
It’s a quality vs quantity argument. DaVinci wasn’t some pleb nor did he paint to turn a profit, which unfortunately, is not the case for modern art today. There’s many reasons why people find modern art (and literature) to be shit, but mostly it’s because we’re all inundated with massive amounts of “art” that is really just garbage. There are vastly more “how to get rich working 3 hours a week” books than there are literary novellas, or even shitty genre fiction. Let’s not even consider how much art is subject to the same tired political tropes that we’ve all seen and heard a billion times. So consider for a moment that virtually all modern art has to make money primarily, otherwise it doesn’t get made and unfortunately, that often precludes it from being genuinely good art. Ezra said it in Canto XLV, “...no picture is made to endure nor to live with, but it is made to sell and sell quickly.” You also have the fact that while many more people are literate today, they’re still kind of plebs and their relationship to art is mostly patronage. It’s a status symbol, something that holds monetary or social value, and nothing more. Further, just because someone is literate doesn’t mean they’re capable of producing good poetry.

So, it’s really not a matter of there being no good modern art, it’s just that there’s less of it because of the people that are making and appreciating art and there’s vastly more bad art because of the contextual circumstances it is produced in.

Trump's tweets will take an impressionistic turn.

>>14298929
>The more literature you read, the more your ability to critique new literature grows. It's not hard, anon.
its an issue of quality and quantity. There are 100,000 or more very low quality books put out each year, how does one find the quality? There are different websites, publishers, bookstores, clubs, universities, professors, that are 'striving to be the gatekeepers and ambassadors and championers and preachers' of the continously contemporary literature, still there is an extreme quantity of these groups, and still, how to determine which of them most likely has correctly championed.

In short, how to avoid being wide eyed and curious and confidently going to a few of the many gate keepers and championers of contemporary quality, and reading 100 worthless books a year, is the only response better luck next time? There are many many people that get paid many many money to dedicate their lives to finding the highest quality contemporary literature and making it accessible to the 'public', what steps can the public take, namely, high brow patrician /lit/izens, to not waste their time and money finding the best literature made today?

That anon is saying, from what he sees hoisted and championed, it is all shit, where can one go to peruse the contemporary selection of 'the furthest from being shit'?

>>14298967
>marriage
Let his boomer meme die already.

I am sure there is some historical value, it is certainly something of a literary achievement, but at the same time it is something like 'copy paste facebook extravaganza: a boomer tale; Mom youre embarrassing me, the novel'

>>14297874
You're right.

>>14298970
DaVinci absolutely painted for profit. Most of his work was commissions.

>>14299157
You’re missing the point I think. I’m not saying he didn’t receive a profit for his work. I’m saying he didn’t create the work with the primary intention of turning a profit. It was good art first and way of living second. Most art today is a way of living first, a status symbol second, and good art third.

>>14293826
>contemporary
>popular

There lies your problem. Just because mainstream art is bad, doesn't mean all of it is.

>>14299255
>>14299157
I think the true point is, his profit was assured by a few proven to have good and high taste rich people, instead of flailing mad and wildly about the world scared and nervous about where your next meal will come from, wanting to make a living from your craft, and the most hopeful way of getting money for your craft is not appealing to a few good taste rich, but the many poor taste poor

new donna tartt book i hope :)

>>14299009
Can't wait for his blue period

>>14298580
REMEBA

>>14293809
>half are either directly or indirectly because of trump

>>14298970
>da vinci didn't turn a profit
bruh

>>14299438
Yeah. Basically, this is what I was trying to say. Also, how many would be great artists today waste all of their time in some STEMbug job or at some bank somewhere, or work round the clock to pay off their debt, which wasn’t really even option in his day.

>>14299438
Yes. Even if he had to be commissioned for a painting to afford to make it, he would’ve been paid by an elite few so he’d be appealing to the artistic tastes of a handful of aristocrats and noblemen, whereas today art has to appeal to the tastes of the masses to get made and the masses generally have shit taste in art.

>>14299889
I didn’t say that. You deliberately edited my words for your green text. I said he didn’t paint TO turn a profit, not that he didn’t turn a profit. Read my other replies.

>>14298967
Probably more like a beta who virtue signals on Twitter about how feminist he is. He's in a "poly" relationship with 5 low-T dudes and 1 obese girl. He's transparently a cuck, but because self-improvement is hard his ego won't allow him to consider it, and he takes every instance of his 20% girlfriend being disinterested in sex with him as evidence he is insufficiently woke. If only he'd been more feminist and more sex positive! Then she might finally become the unrestrained, lust filled porn whore he's been looking for since he hit puberty and give him something better than a half-hearted handjob.

He tries to usurp the alpha of the cuck harem by Tweeting support for random "sex workers", in-between telling anyone to the right of him to "have sex". Every third word he says in "incel" because the reality of his situation hurts him to the core and he desperately wants to believe that those who disagree with him have some how ended up as even lower status males.

He unironically can't see that's he's in a worse spot than any incel. He's at the exact same height of the totem-pole societally, but has much less self-respect.

He numbs his pain with whatever the latest Nintendo product is. He turns up his games so he can't hear the alpha of the cuck harem taking his turn on the shared landwhale.

>>14294050
english is off to a bad start
antonio moresco
mircea cartarescu
daniel sada

why is lesbianism the patrician fetish?

>>14299988
Meh, it's a beginner fetish. At first you enjoy it because "hey, two of what I like" but eventually you grow older and it starts being too soft for you.

>>14299999
nice quints

>>14293711
The "book" will gradually die out for it's more portable variation, the "e-book", at least in scholarly places such as academia, workplaces, schools, etc. These e-books will enter network circulation and culminate in a soundcloud-for-books type deal that will completely flood the market with shit (think deviant art for books).

This has already happened.

>>14299999
>>14300000

>>14293913
>>when have the masses ever enhanced anything?

>They pay taxes that support the sciences and build the roads?
>They provide the bodies for defense, so your lumpy holier-then-thou aristocrat self isn't slumming it on a boat in the South China Sea, or protecting strategic interests by sitting around in some sweaty tent in Afghanistan?
>They maintain and manage the daily operation of most basic means of production and infrastructure you rely on, such as indoor plumbing, construction, and the transportation of goods?
>They are what make the economy work, enabling the smart and clever to sell products and services, and through capitalistic competition create a better life for both themselves, their children, and society as a whole?
>At a more petty level and personal level, they fill up AoE2 lobbies and give me something fun to do on a Friday?

The masses have done a shit-ton of enhancement, don't lose touch with the reality you live in.

>>14300071
Based.