Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: 1458654901811.png (117KB, 444x440px) Image search:
[Google]
117KB, 444x440px
What do you guys think of the big elephant in the room of literature: Most of it is just not entertaining. Either because it was made in the past and did not have to complete with many other types of media, (see Dickens being paid per word). Or it has completely retreated in to modern art territory - completely divorced from entertainment and obsessed with being a talking point for the chattering classes. And the sums of money in literature are too small for CIA money laundering, so I think we can assume that they're actually serious.
Why are so many self-indulgent pieces of crap praised as worthwhile? "Literary fiction" is a self-indulgent embarrassing mess. I cringe when I see a writer engage in social commentary, even when I like their books. Dostoevsky doesn't get away with this either. I liked Notes form the underground - but NOT because of some stupid message that could've been summarised in 30 seconds, but because it was entertaining.
>>
ok
>>
Entertainment, hear me out, is a buzzword. Everyone's got a different definition for it - it is positively useless in discourse. Doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it, but placing "entertainment" in such a powerful position ( the end all be all of literature ) kills a conversational dead before it has even begun.
You were aesthetically pleased by notes from underground , that is, you were happy with what of the novel was not necessarily attached to reality, like any perceived sort of social message.
I think that dichotomy is much more useful than involving "entertainment." It more or less resolves your issues.
>>
dork
>>
File: 1448509227524.png (504KB, 454x600px) Image search:
[Google]
504KB, 454x600px
>>7839380
>not entertaining
GOOD, so then we can be free of plebs like you.
>>
>>7839380
>Most of it is just not entertaining.
try watching television, friend.
>>
>>7839410
I do feel like I have the right to think this. Post-structuralism / literary """theory""" has infested everything and been bended towards the ends of all sorts. Why is it suddenly so bad when I have my own opinion, one that isn't shared by the media-publishing-academia ponzi industrial complex?
Have you also noticed that indie movies / self-published movies / games are praised as great efforts, while self-published novelists or self-published anything are seen as cranks? And /lit/ agrees and defends this! Where is our Martin Luther who is ready to tell the corporate employed high priests of "taste" how corrupt they've become?
Oh wait, keep telling yourself that Mira Gonzalez is great.
>>
>>7839435
lurk more newfag
>>
File: IMG_20160208_155029.jpg (100KB, 600x876px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 600x876px
for some souls, losing oneself in vast ideas or tortured passions, or the intellectual activity of working through a difficult text, might be a powerful sort of diversion. you might need to expand your conception of "entertainment"
>>
>>7839380
>talks about entertainment
>hasnt read IJ
read or gtfo
>>
>>7839380
effective bait. Well done OP
>>
>>7839380
>Most of it is just not entertaining.
>because it was made in the past
have you read Rabelais?
>>
>>7839380
If I want pure "entertainment", I'd be having sex, or jacking off or getting high. Why would I read a fucking book to just entertain me?
>>
>>7839380
>most of literature is not entertaining to my pleb mind worn down by tv and vidya
Fixed that for you
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4