Is 'Literature' Still Being Written?

If you ask the average English teacher/professor, good literature stopped being written somewhere around 1950. Now, I really don't like the idea that this period of time is any different from any other, and this attitude seems to reinforce that. However, I have honestly yet to really enjoy any book lately, or at least not on the same level as I enjoy Steinbeck. In fact, the latest book I remember liking that much was probably Lord of the Rings.

So does the written word just suck nowadays, or am I just not reading the right books?

Still Sheepin'

You're not reading the right books. Or, you know, it could be that you just prefer the stuff written back in the 1950's to what's being written now. Different strokes for different folks, and all that.

Generally, you judge "true literature" as that which survives long enough to be remembered past the era it was written in. In fifty years people are more likely to be discussing Harry Potter than Twilight, even though they share roughly equal popularity right now.

Assuming your English teacher is a liberal humanist, OK.

"Literature", meaning the literary canon, stops around 1950 if not earlier because after that point there's little agreement about what books truly belong to it, not because no good stories or poetry are being written. Wait a century or so for something resembling a consensus to emerge.

ninja'd

edited 17th Oct '11 3:37:32 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

The problem is that it takes time to separate the good books from the exceptional ones. Give it fifty years, and people will begin to discover the great works of the early 21th century.

When I am in the mood for serious literature, I tend to favor older books, for this very reason — it's easier to find truly excellent old literature than truly excellent novel one, albeit the latter definitely exists. But for example, I can wholeheartedly recommend Orhan Pamuk's books, these are really good — I dunno if they will ever count as "classics", but I would not discount the possibility.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

More like nobody can decide what is good literature when it is being written. Afterall, Shakespeare was derided as garbage in its time period, to be enjoyed by the lower classes.

There's also the fact of changing critical approaches to literature (e.g. theory over liberal humanism, in the academic/art world), a greater regard for "lower" forms of entertainment like pop culture, and perhaps most importantly, the sheer volume of writing being produced in this day and age. Selecting any group of works and declaring them to be the finest literature that the late 20th and early 21st century have to offer will inevitably be seen as privileging a particular style or perspective.

^ No, Shakespeare was never regarded as garbage; he was immensely popular with both the rich and the poor alike.

A better example might be John Keats, who was dismissed mainly for being a Cockney.

edited 17th Oct '11 3:45:54 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

If your teacher is a complete hack, then yes. The most recent books I've been made read in University were from the 90's (The God Of Small Things and Football Factory), and new books will become subject of analysis as tume passes and the generation shifts.

The thing is, we don't know what's the great literature of this time, because that kind of thing is only apparent in retrospect. Many works of great literature were badly recieved at the time of publication, or worse, ignored.

[ed.] BTW. I wouldn't be surprised if the Harry Potter series was given some esteem by the new generation of academia, though the writing does deserve some criticism.

edited 17th Oct '11 3:49:32 PM by JethroQWalrustitty

The Harry Potter series might win praise for its themes, but won't the fact that it's a children's series at its heart harm its chance of acceptance?

Were I a betting man, my money would be on The Lord Of The Rings, given Tolkien's academic background and the book's impact on culture at large.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

House Of Leaves is very much literature, though I didn't particularly enjoy it.

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

Anybody who claims that The Left Hand Of Darkness or The Kite Runner don't count as literature doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Nope, I think the moratorium on Tolkien will continue. He wasn't that great a writer. He does have an important role in the history of genre fiction (which if I were a professor, i would totally hold a course on. Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Philip K Dick, Isaac Asimov, H. P. Lovecraft, seriously, great material)

But there has been a Doctorate Thesis in Management written about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, "Management By Sauron". So there's that.

Also, worth noting is that the treand these days is towards non-western literature, so Haruki Murakami could be a good candidate for a hip new writer to talk about.

@Taoist: True Art Is Realistic is not in vogue in the literary field these days.

One of my professors put up American Gods as required reading for the course, so make of that what you will.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest was 1962, Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead was 1966, The Things They Carried was 1990, and The Joy Luck Club was 1989, so. *shrug*

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...

Looking at a list of the highest rated books of the early 2000's, aside from Twilight and Harry Potter, potential future classics include The Kite Runner (sorry Taoist, you're right here), Middlesex, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Kafka on the Shore and White Teeth.

Hm... what about Jeanette Winterson's books?

Redlink, really?

edited 17th Oct '11 4:15:08 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

A teacher once told me that it was at least partly because "On Looking Into Chapman's Homer" had a few factual errors, and more importantly praised a free translation of Homer. Any truth to that?

(sorry for being offtopic)

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I love literature, I studied it, but I... really dislike the idea that there's a 'canon' which is great literature and everything else is hackwork which is only good for a guilty pleasure. Of course literature is still being written, writers are still creative and have a drive to write and things to say. Are some better than others? You bet. Are some written in a more 'popular' style? Of course. But it's on a continuum - actually, much more complicated than a continuum, a multidimensional variable chart where the variables are things like 'intricate and connected plot', 'complication of sentences' and 'use of poetic devices'.

The way I see it, there are far too many books worth reading to have any sort of 'canon' of required literature. A good book is a good book is a good book, and you should be able to support your reasoning for why you think it's a good book, why the writing style compels you and why the plot leaves you breathless, without resorting to 'because everyone else likes it'.

Although I do understand using books from the past that have stood the test of time and have a good reputation as a way of finding books that will be compelling and you have a good chance of enjoying and learning from.

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

^^ As to that I have no idea; I haven't read any criticism that has focused on that, but I've been steering clear of older analyses of Keats, for the most part, because I'm conscious that he's been reappraised a lot of late. I only started to take an interest in his poems in summer, so I haven't read that much.

^ I can't speak for anyone else, but when I talk about the "canon" I'm talking about something which exists and which is usually given particular attention and the label of "literature"; I'm not really endorsing the idea, which I think is an outdated one that's been mostly superseded by various different theoretical approaches to literature.

edited 17th Oct '11 4:30:18 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Is knowing what the fuck they're talking about in vogue in the literary field these days?

re: TKR making top rated lists: Damn straight!

For "conventional genre fiction" counting as literature, the closest thing I would acknowledge as reaching that is either American Gods (and Anansi Boys) or The Name Of The Wind (and the rest of the Kingkiller Chronicles).

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I imagine Cormac Mc Carthy will be well-regarded by future literary scholars. Maybe Roddy Doyle, though I'm not entirely sure; I like Roddy Doyle, so maybe that's just my personal bias speaking.

Bobby: Ah. Gotcha, that you're talking just about that particular approach to literature and that you don't even necessarily endorse it. Didn't mean to go on such a big rant, but the 'One True Canon' approach to literature just really rubs me the wrong way as being elitist and a turn-off to potential lit majors (or just lit lovers) that happen to prefer a different kind of book.

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

"So does the written word just suck nowadays, or am I just not reading the right books?"

The latter. Poke around a list of Nobel laureates, you'll find plenty of recent literature that's both acclaimed and enjoyable.

"The Harry Potter series might win praise for its themes"

Eh, I wouldn't hold my breath. Her idea that your moral character is decided by your disposition at the age of eleven, and other unsavory notions on what qualifies as ethical, have garnered more criticism than praise from serious reviewers as far as I have seen.

edited 17th Oct '11 5:06:02 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

The field's going to open up a bit once the Sci Fi Ghetto finally breaks down. Arthur C Clarke in particular is very literary in some ways.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I already can't take seriously the "average English teacher/professor".

Literature is written fiction or non-fiction, so of course literature is still being written.

edited 17th Oct '11 5:33:31 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.