Death of literature

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 28 Jul 2006 19:18

It seems to me - and I guess I don't have a great deal of real evidence to base this on - other than the fact that I read 2 - 3 books a week and have for pretty much my whole life - but it seems like there is a big decrease in books that demonstrate a great amount of skill in writing by the author. It seems like books these days are much more about just entertainment and not about anything deeper or challenging. The best books I've read in the last few years (in terms of writing skill) were all written more than 20 years ago - perhaps with the exception of American Psycho but that was still 1991.

Recently the Australian (the most intellectual Australian newspaper I guess) followed up on a British experiement and sent out a chapter of Patrick White's "The Eye Of THe Storm" [1973] to a large number of publishers in Australia - all of which rejected the chapter and one of which even recommended the writer (who submitted the work under a slightly different name) read a how to write fiction book. "The Eye of the Storm" is obviously the only Austrailan piece of writing to win a nobel prize for literature.

So what do you think? Is real literature dieing? Are there any works that will be remembered from the last 20 years for their skill as opposed to their sales?

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 28 Jul 2006 21:54

Read Terry Goodkind. Unless you dislike fantasy, I think its an epic of philosophy and fantasy when you get down to tons of books and thousands of pages.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 29 Jul 2006 04:32

I have yet to read a good (in terms of writing skill) book that was published less than 20 years ago or so.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 29 Jul 2006 05:56

I think your perspective is wrong, Jeremy.
Of all the books that you've read, they're just a spit in the ocean with regards to all the books that have been written.
How many crap books have you read that are over 20 years old? I would guess very few, probably because no-one recomends crap books.

I'm sure there is great literature out there, you've just gotta sift through all the shit to find it.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 29 Jul 2006 20:15

How many crap books have you read that are over 20 years old? I would guess very few, probably because no-one recomends crap books.

Good point.

Still, I understand what you're saying, Jeremy. My favorite period of literature was 1920-1950, and it hasn't seemed the same since. It's all cycillic though. You just have to look closely to find good stuff now.

Pengu · Post by **Pengu** » 29 Jul 2006 20:38

I don't necessarily agree. Modern literature such as those found as the Booker Prize winner and shortlist all have been enjoyable, thought-provoking literature in my opinion. Good books are out there. You just need to find it. I thoroughly enjoyed Rohinton Mistry's Family Matters and Margarette Atwood's The Blind Assassin. Just because books these days aren't written like those written 50 years ago, doesn't mean some of these writers haven't been at it for that long.

A little digging and an open mind and you'll find gems and junk in any era. I'm sure 50 years ago, there was junk pulp fiction as well. Bad literature just isn't quite as able to stick around for 50 years so its easier to find the gems of times gone by than wading through the overwhelming piles of books being published yearly now that have only had a year or so for critical review and for their word of mouth to spread.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 30 Jul 2006 06:10

I don't think Jeremy's point was that there's more junk now I think he was saying that the best stuff being written now isn't as good as the best stuff that was being written in past decades.
I think literature's place within culture has shifted as a result of broader social shifts, particularly the information revolution, and no one has been able to offer a style of literature - either creating something new, or re-using old styles in new ways/contexts, which has come to terms with the shift. Pynchon is the last person I have read that fits the bill, and that's over 20yrs. American Psycho is also up there. Has Amis done anything good lately? Furthrmore its now easier to reach small niches so since big publishers are only interested in proven styles the experimewntal wrtiter is better off disseminating his own work - which means the best of the last two decades probably never got published by a big house, and was probably on some small backyard print run or more likely online.
As Gareth points out it may just be that I haven't come across it yet, which is highly likely because I havent had much of a chance to follow my interests with regards to literature (e'g I haven't read The Blind Assassin yet but there was good buzz surrounding it- when you study lit, there's always something else you have to read for your studies. But even so I think that as Jeremy pointed out few publishers are interested in avant-garde literature so it doesn't get out there to a wider audience.
I certainly don't think its dead though, its just in a flat spot between periods. What will follow Post-Modernity? "Hyper-Modernity" maybe - "High-pop"? I think the next literary genius is just around the corner, if s/he's smart which no doubt s/he'll have to be to be the next literary genius, then the first book will be some average run of the mill novel, then having made a name s/he'll push the boundaries more and more until finally s/he goes too far and it'll be at that point that somehting amazing will have been achieved.

Troyson · Post by **Troyson** » 30 Jul 2006 10:58

all i have to say is this....HARRY POTTER!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2006 21:54

Yeah Dyalan put his finger on it. Each year I read most of the booker prize winning and nominated books and they're all really good books - no doubt about that. I would say "The God of Small Things" Arundhati Roy (1996) - which won the booker prize in 1997 is definitely one of my favourite books of the last 10 years - even though it took me about 5 attempts to read it.
However I don't think modern literature compares at all to that of the past - will "The God of Small Things" still be in print in 50 years time? I highly doubt it.

I have to say that I disagree with the assessment that there is much junk in literature now as there was 50 years ago. It's much easier to write and publish a book now that it was in the past and there is a much bigger pulp fiction market now than there has ever been in the past. Authors have gone from being people who have studied writing and literature at university of years to being people who get bored of their day job and decide to write a book.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 31 Jul 2006 08:40

I would say that this problem transfers over to other forms of art as well - music, cinema, photography...

Perhaps it's because everything is more accessible when it is current, but only truly good things are still accessible down the road?

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 31 Jul 2006 16:10

I blame capitalism.

Pengu · Post by **Pengu** » 01 Aug 2006 14:42

You don't think that there was as much appetite for pulp fiction 50 years ago as there are now? The masses have always enjoyed entertaining reads thaht don't require much brain muscle to be flexed to enjoy. I would even argue there was more pulp fiction in those days because there was less predominance by television and other medias and literature was still a mainstream form of entertainment. Bored people were able to write and publish then as well. Again I point out that the sustaining power of junk fiction isn't great so it's more difficult for you to find such books these days in major bookstore chains. If you look in used bookstores, there are plenty of books that were mere entertainment for mass consumption that aren't critically acclaimed from 50 years ago. You've just never heard of such titles and can't name them because they aren't significant and easily forgettable. A prime example is Harlequin, which has been kept in business by fantasizing housewives since 1908. There's also a lot of junk being published by individual indie publishing as well. People who are deluded enough to think they are good writers, will publish their "work" one way or another. It's not fair to generalize that indie will ultimately mean good and that major publishers will always publish junk. Its up to the reader to be critical of the work and unfortunately, the books that make it on the best-sellers lists often are dictated by the mass consumer than the critical thinker.

Publishers who are in it for the money know that and so they would prefer to publish a book that is guaranteed to sell. It is sad that the "Eye of the Storm" got rejected so many times. Anyone who has ever tried to get their work published will attest that it requires many tries before one publisher understands the genius. So this field test, although sad, demonstrates the nature of the publishing market. I'm sure the first time "Eye of the Storm" was sent out for publishers, it was rejected numerous times as well.

And I do think "God of Small Things" will be in print in 50 years. Margaret Atwood's The Edible Woman was written almost 50 years ago and is still in print. I think she is just as relevant in "The Blind Assassin" as she was in "The Edible Woman" and I expect the newer book to be still in print 50 years from now. I feel like you're mistaking accessibility for good literature though. Yan Martel's "Life of Pi" is on the bestseller's list not only because of acclaim, but its accessibility. It's brilliant story-telling in a easy to digest form, hence its rapid success. It doesn't take away from how good a book it is though.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 01 Aug 2006 15:37

I don't know if Jeremy's "mistaking accessability for good literature" it seems to me he was saying that what is now considered to be the best of the current generation of 'lterary geniusus' won't have the longevity that previous works of genius have had.
No one saying that all stuff published by the big houses is crap - it's just that they are largely closed to new ideas and styles. On the flipside I don't think anyone has claimed that the indie houses publish only quality, if anything they publish more crap than the big houses, but in many cases they are more willing to take risks because they cater to the more experimental and open minded niche markets. So if ytou've written something good theres a small chance you'll get published by a big house, and a larger chance you'll get published by an indie publisher, so it should be no surprise that its more likely that the next big thing in literature will come out of a smaller publisher before getting swept up by a larger one.

Anyone who has ever tried to get their work published will attest that it requires many tries before one publisher understands the genius. So this field test, although sad, demonstrates the nature of the publishing market.

Exactly, this is exactly the point. And it is this nature that slows development. I'm not saying that the publishers should do anything differently - they have to opertate this way to survive, and given the sheer amount being written what else can they do (in many ways its that increase in the amount being written that makes it difficult for the good stuff to get out there) I'm just saying (and think Jeremy agree's) that the downside is that the quality of published literature has suffered.
Basically you seem to actually agree with Jeremey you've just missed the point.

You don't think that there was as much appetite for pulp fiction 50 years ago as there are now?

I don't think this is quite what he meant - I think he was saying that in sheer number terms, because there are more people who buy books, there is a larger pulp market, and subsequently in sheer number terms publishers are abe to pump out more crap and get it sold. Surely you'd agree with this.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 04 Aug 2006 10:57

To put everything into perspective, great writers have always had to deal with aversion from the "bigs", and also the pulp shit that they have to sift through and seperate themselves from. In the end though, great writers always win , and usually make their way to the forefront (Sometimes post-humuously) of their profession. This is because great writers are great because they're not writing to recieve admiration from the idiots who publish pulp, or the idiots who read pulp. Great writers will always write great writing no matter how small the audience, and that is why literature is not dead, and also why it will never die. Good literature is more powerful than any bullshit social trend, and it will always be with us in some form.

Pulp literature has been there from day one. Everyone in this society is just so caught up in themselves and their time period that they think since pulp is being published that it's the death of literature because it's happening in their time period. Stop whining Jeremy. No one cares if you've read fifteen books a day your whole life.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 04 Aug 2006 12:18

I don't know what the hell you're all complaining about. Stephen King is the shit.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Aug 2006 17:46

Insightful comments from Dan...

I think Peng made a good point about The Life of Pi (which incidentally my brothers girlfriend totally destroyed for me by telling me the ending just as I started reading it - which meant it entirely lost it's impact - although I still enjoyed it - it's strange that most of my favourite books are about religion when I'm such a strong athiest. Actually all of my favourite books are either about religion or crazy people (often both) which makes sense in my mind

) being popular because it was accessable. I think books that can be enjoyed by the most amount of people are definitely what publishers aim for. My experience from school is that most people don't attempt to understand things below the surface. I remember in year 9 we studied a children's book called "The Rabbits" by John Marsden and Shaun Tan I think - which is surely aimed at very early readers (it has like one or two small easy to understand sentences per page) and was very clearly about the white invasion of Australia - clearly as in the rabbits were all dressed up in early settler clothing and the story line was exactly the same as the invasion of Australia. Yet only about 4 people in the class of 25 understood this before it was explained to them and I was the only person who got an A on the essay - which I thought was no reflection on my abilities because when the standard is so low how can a good mark mean anything? Anyway the point is that if you want to make a lot of money from a book you need to appeal to all those people - not just the top 20%. Life of Pi is great because on the surface it's an engaging story. The Eye of The Storm - is a lot less accessable maybe (I haven't read it - so I'm just going from what the rejecting publishers said) - it might be brilliant but only for people who understand that brilliance.

There was a very interesting show on tv about the rise of historically false books that claim to be true. Mainly the show was about 1421 but also mentioned the Da Vinci Code (both books printed by the same publisher, and both claim to have some historical truth - 1421 claims to be entirely non-fiction and Da Vinci Code claims to be based on historical truths - but in reality the history behind them is clearly false and the authors are either grossly mistaken or lieing) - anyway the important thing was when the spokeswoman for the publisher in refering to a critic who is also a historian at oxford I think said (I'm paraphrasing) "He's probably just jealous that he hasn't made millions of dollars with his books" - and I think that sums up the issue well - publishers don't care about the quality of a book - they just want to make money.

So I guess in some respect Seath's answer of "capitalism" is accurate - but it doesn't address the question of "why do people buy these books?" - Is it more to do with falling levels of education? At my school I didn't get to study and books that are regarded as "classics" or have won any awards for literature through out my entire education (apart from some childrens books written for people under 10). While I can read and write well, it wasn't really until after I left school that I grew to appreciate the difference between somebody like Stephen King and John Steinbeck.

Actually I think Stephen King is very talented - he just has the wrong approach to writing (and he pretty much said so in his book about writing - Dance Macarbe I think it's called).

Anyway I have to go, just felt like putting forward some more "whining".

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 05 Aug 2006 18:38

Insightful comments from Dan...

My mutterings are 10 fold more intelligent than you explaining why we shouldn't be impressed by you getting an A on a paper.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 05 Aug 2006 20:41

Dan, your crush on Jeremy is so cute!

I'll admit that I haven't read any of this thread other than the last paragraph of the OP, but 50 bucks says that this is a 'kids these days' debate. That is, Jeremy's cause(s) for concern could have been intelligently put forth at any point since the invention of the printing press, and the whole thing is fueled by a sort of nostalgia/pessimism complex.

Any worthwhile book will appreciate in value.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Aug 2006 18:43

I don't think this is about "kids these days" - It's about the fact that in two countries (England and Australia) two different newspapers have submitted work by people who have won nobel prizes for literature to publishers and have neither been caught out for plagerism or have had the work accepted. The point is that if publishers wont publish work that is regarded as some of the finest english literature ever written how are going to get more work of that level of skill?

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 06 Aug 2006 18:57

Since I've abstained from footbag discussions, why not participate in non-footbag one?

Methinks that 'Great Literature' simply takes time to become great. Usually, someone in their 20s isn't going to be able to suddenly write a book that will last 50+ years. Nor will someone who works some random job, or a celebrity, or some random person who gets into a strange position be able to spontaeneously conjure something incredibly profound.

The trend I've noticed recently is that people write in order to capitalize (make money) on something that has happened to them or in general. This explains the HUGE jump in autobiographies that we see every celebrity have. It's straightforward. It's probably interesting to read. But it probably isn't going to be something that you will read more than once.

In my opinion, the increase in literacy over the years is the most significant reason of why there is and hasn't been much real literature for a while. Don't get me wrong. It's nice that everyone can read the billboards and various magazines, but a century ago...fuck that, 50 years ago, far fewer people could read and write literature. As that amount slowly started to increase, reading and writing stories, books, articles became commonplace. You don't have to study how to write anymore. You don't have to pay attention to other literature...meaning no deep allusions. Now that reading some random magazine or book is an everyday activity, people look for the stuff that is easy to read and to understand, and foremost has an interesting plot. Reading and writing isn't a luxury anymore.

Also, I'm not saying that there is no great literature right now. Arundhati Roy's book definitely belongs on that list (Ironically, I'm pretty sure it's her first and ONLY fiction book). It's just that with so much crap in general, finding the good stuff is like sifting for gold in a river or finding a needle in a haystack.

Unfortunately, I'm currently with the masses. I don't remember the last time I read anything contemporary that I'd say was 'great'. I think it was The Left Hand of Darkness by LeGuin...and even that I read simply because I love the way she writes. Only recently did I start to notice how some aprts in it deviate from her normal writing, various other intricate details that make it much deeper, and a whole slew of other stuff. I started reading her work because the scifi (note that most scifi/fantasy tends to be straightforward and also in the pulp category) geek in me said so, not because I was looking for a deep book.

I guess writing now, first-and-foremost, is a business instead of an art as it used to be.

EDIT: Hell, while I'm at it, let's continue. Another facet of society today which shows the diminishing value of good literature. Fewer people have libraries. Sorry, I'm not sure of the exact word, but I mean to say that fewer people keep their books. They either throw them out (CRUEL CRUEL)...or they give them away (alright)...or they sell them to make room. It's because of the 'read again' factor in the standard autobiography crap literature (money back sounds great!). Chances are there is no reason to look deeper into such a text, because it wasn't written with that intent. Thus, people write on their books and otherwise vandalize them. Few books have a lasting rereadability. Those are the 'great ones'.

I must say that personally, I also lack a library. To a degree. My reasons are that my parents apartment, including my fucking room is fileld with their books, thus not letting me keep much more than the books I reread the most and my standard textbooks for whichever class I'll be taking. The books I don't own, I either get from the library or from Project Gutenberg and the like. Still, most of my friends don't buy books. One does. Another tends to get them from me...normally he doesn't care to read something. Another simply doesn't read much more than magazines and TV Guide. Another uses his mother's library to read from it once in a blue moon. I could go on for a while. Youth and collegeish people simply don't read much anymore. At least not much more than their general education stuff requires them to.