Is 'Literature' Still Being Written?

@kashchei: But 17th century literati universally contrasted them as the heavy-handed genius versus the barely-educated natural talent!

Yo, Milton praised Shakespeare as far more than a barely educated oddity. You should know this.

I hereby award -9001 credibility points to anyone who endorses the line of thinking that writing for "pop" culture automatically loses literary value points. Also, let's not Shakespeare derail this thread. We had enough of that today already.

Moving on, Frank Herbert, above all other science fiction writers, is probably a shoe-in in terms of "classic" authors. As much as Asimov and Clarke did, they neither have popular appeal nor widespread academic recognition. Herbert has both.

Does Nineteen Eighty Four count as science fiction?

(Pre-1950, I know, but only just.)

@kashchei: I didn't say "oddity." Milton came down on the "natural genius > academic genius" side of that debate, which by Samuel Johnson's day had become consensus.

Yes, it technically is, but bookstores are as likely to put there as not, due to it being political commentary and all.

edited 17th Oct '11 9:23:42 PM by TotemicHero

I am not undervaluing Dickens because he wrote for the masses, I'm saying that the subject matter, which appealed to the masses, and his handling of the same, don't qualify him - and have never qualified him - as top tier. Same goes for Dumas. Just because it's a dead writer whose work survives does not mean it's the best of the best.

^^ Fair enough.

Regarding "literary value points", these things are a matter of consensus, remember. Popular fiction, for various reasons, is unlikely to be elevated to the status of books generally regarded as a work of genius.

Meanwhile, many literary theorists are just as happy to analyse soap advertisements as canonical "literature". But you can't really have it both ways.

edited 17th Oct '11 9:28:27 PM by BobbyG

@kashchei: Which 19th century novelists are top-tier. Balzac and...?

I'm on the fence about Balzac - maybe it would help if I could read him in original French, though I really like some of the translations I've encountered - but definitely Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, no?

"Popular fiction, for various reasons, is unlikely to be elevated to the status of books generally regarded as a work of genius."

While elitism plays a huge role in this, there are very, very few works of popular fiction I'd call works of genius.

edited 17th Oct '11 9:35:00 PM by kashchei

How does George Eliot rate?

I'd rate her a little under Dickens, myself. Around the same as Hardy maybe? It's tough, all these fuckers wrote about the same provincial drama shit, which is not really my cup of tea. How do you rate her?

edited 17th Oct '11 9:40:57 PM by kashchei

... yes, certainly Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

^^ Not in a position to say; I haven't read any of her books through, and so far my course has only touched on her views as a critic, rather than an author. I just wondered what you thought.

I like her prose.

I'd rate Dickens over Hardy, certainly. But I consider any rating I give to an author to be purely a question of personal taste at this stage; I'm simply not that well-read.

edited 17th Oct '11 9:52:12 PM by BobbyG

Well, I found her enjoyable enough, and I do commend her for making an infanticidal mother sympathetic. You know how I thrive on writers working to undermine simplistic concepts of evil... I have to confess that I'm really quite easy to please when it comes to the nineteenth century British novel, as I generally like the style they're narrated in, but other than their entertainment value, I'm not crazy about what they have to say about life and society. If you have six+ hours to spend on a book, go with something like Johnny Mad Dog. You'll thank yourself.

Re: nineteenth century, I would rank Poe higher than Dickens.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:07:08 PM by kashchei

I'm pretty sure Dickens was older than the nineteenth century, so it's not exactly a valid point of comparison. Poe is pretty good though.

However, enough older stuff. Let's halt this derail and get back on the topic of modern literature.

Edit: Also, that Johnny Mad Dog article is a stub with no example list. You probably should get on that.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:09:32 PM by TotemicHero

@ Kashchei: Thanks! Added it to my reading list. Above Middlemarch.

@ Totemic: Nope, Dickens was 19th century.

I like Poe.

So, moving back to the present day and "literature", will the distinction between the literary and the non-literary really have the same level of relevance it has historically enjoyed in the next few decades? I'm thinking perhaps not, given that different movements like green studies, cultural materialism and new aestheticism all seem to have radically different ideas about what books are of the greatest importance.

"I'm pretty sure Dickens was older than the nineteenth century, so it's not exactly a valid point of comparison."

Not sure what to say to that other than, you're wrong?

^ There is a much wider variety of topics covered in literature today, which means that there are more fields with their own individual criteria. Feminist critics will value different stuff from postcolonialists, and queer theorists will be looking at different angles from those Marxists are concerned with. There is also room for study of many of the newly prominent devices (e.g. unreliable narrator, non-linear narrative, deployment of different genres within the same work, etc). All in all, I think that's mostly a good thing.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:20:56 PM by kashchei

Funny thing, I could name a lot more literary post 1950 Dutch books than pre 1950 ones, and I've the impression it's the same with other people.

Why would it be like that?

& Argh, my history knowledge has failed me. Oh well.

One thing I have noticed in modern literature is a lack of satire and parody (particularly the former), as books these days tend to lean much more seriously. It kind of makes me wonder why this is.

For the record, the only quality piece of satire that I'm aware of is Real Ultimate Power, which is well worth reading.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:20:32 PM by TotemicHero

The ninja website? *checks Amazon*

...

One explanation is that satire, parody, and allegory are usually heavily politicized, and that living in democratic, liberal regimes does not foster a need for such covert criticism. I have read recent satire like Jennifer Government and Super Sad True Love Story, and they haven't really impressed me.

The Master and Margarita has elements of satire, I highly recommend it if you haven't already checked it out.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:28:54 PM by kashchei

Blixty mentioned House Of Leaves earlier, which has a definite satirical aspect.

Thread Hop

They're wrong, it's the exact opposite. Good literature started being written on statistically relevant level around that time.

edited 17th Oct '11 10:42:15 PM by Deboss

@Totemic; parody and the like are just as cyclic as every other genre and device. I'm guessing these days authors feel much more serious. Which..well, makes a certain amount of sense, given the state of things in general.

No doubt we'll get into parody again soon. Satire... well, satire is just about everywhere and never went away.