Modern literature is boring (15)

1 Name: Bookworm : 2008-05-01 18:37 ID:Qx/yOB2z


2 Name: Bookworm : 2008-05-01 19:50 ID:qP1i4R/C

No u

3 Name: Bookworm : 2008-05-02 01:05 ID:XsMaEBg6

What do you qualify as "modern"?

In art history, "Modern" is early 20th century... I suppose you mean 'contemporary' ?

4 Name: Bookworm : 2008-05-02 22:13 ID:Qx/yOB2z

>>3 Almost. Post-WWII.

5 Name: Bookworm : 2008-05-04 08:52 ID:Heaven

Nothing by the Beats is boring. You might think its terrible maybe, but not boring.

6 Name: Bookworm : 2008-07-23 05:56 ID:3FxSPMJc

I agree with this. I hate the beats. But it is far from boring.

Just read good books OP. There are tons of them out there.

A few of my favorites:

The New York Trilogy - Paul Auster
A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
Not Fade Away - Jim Dodge
Tales of the City - Armistead Maupin
The Fuck Up - Arthur Nersesian
Still Life with Woodpecker - Tom Robbins
The Shipping News - Annie Proulx

Go read those now.

7 Name: Bookworm : 2008-07-24 04:30 ID:Wc0I4zKu

Modern literature is absolute shit. Just think, very very few books of any actual lasting importance have been written within recent memory. Ask any librarian out there, they will all descry the lack of good new books. If any good books actually make it out there, its almost by accident.

8 Name: Bookworm : 2008-07-24 06:09 ID:3FxSPMJc

Very few books at all have any lasting importance. Do you realize how many books have been published since people started writing them down and publishing them? A hell of a lot. And what, there are, maybe, a few hundred over the last few thousand years that we still read today.

What difference does it make if they are "important" as long as they are well written and fun to read?

Don't get me wrong, I think all writers should strive for social impact, but if it turns out that the book accomplished nothing, I don't really give a damn.

9 Name: Bookworm : 2008-07-31 15:17 ID:Heaven


I do believe that for decades to come people will still be reading Hunter S Thompson. And you're over looking the fact that comic books are considered literature to. And many libraries carry them. So, yeah, comics.

10 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-03 12:09 ID:u7vRceml

Fail. Modern is late 18th century up to WWII.

Post-Modernism is then 'til now.
Contemporary literature is considered post-modern, as is contemporary art, music, and more.

This is because there has not been a dynamic change in the way society thinks, rather the world is merely rotting away.

11 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-03 18:28 ID:ThRMBTVx

pffff, I'm young, so I have the inability to appreciate the crappiness of newer lit.

12 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-04 23:58 ID:mOBi2Skr

Uh, the lack of literature? I suppose you guys never heard of Updike or Philip Roth?

13 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-07 20:51 ID:zb0/k6B1

Fail. Postmodernism refers to a cultural movement employing a loosely defined set of principles and values. Basically, pomo is "not modernism".

Just because something was made after WWII doesn't automatically make it postmodern.

14 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-08 03:33 ID:Heaven

Literature that's being written nowadays is contemporary literature.

Now, we can resume the original debate of the thread.

15 Name: Bookworm : 2008-08-14 07:00 ID:V3i8d6hb

Kerouc puts me to sleep. Ginsberg's poetry is lame.

Now >>8 has the right idea. The sheer volume of books published dwarfs the number of classics. Consider that amazing classics like Catch-22 took a while before they caught on and everything kind of falls into perspective. Ten years from now people will be reading gems published in the nineties that no one has heard of now. Claiming that "all modern/contemporary literature sucks" is short-sighted folly.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.