Are popular success and literary merit mutually exclusive? I'm

>>8581422
The best works are never the most popular
that goes for most things

They're not mutually exclusive but they are totally unrelated. This is because literary merit ebbs and flows with public consciousness - what was of merit to 19th century society would not necessarily be of merit to 21st century society (see Moby Dick). One could hypothesize the reverse would also be true (see American Psycho).

Likewise, what has literary merit in the 21st century may not even have been "discovered" by enough advocates to be considered valuable yet. It's impossible to deny that there are hundreds or thousands of great works that were simply printed by small publishers and never reached the vaunted halls of academia. They neither achieved popular success nor were they recognized for their literary merit. This is why it seems like so many great books are from the past: Because we haven't yet identified and canonized the great books of today.

Generally speaking, popular things are made for the purpose of being popular rather than quality.

So, no, something isn't inherently less valuable for being popular, but popular things are less likely to be truly valuable.

>>8581455
No.

Literary merit is recorded. Whether it's "truly" merited is not the point; we're talking about agreed-upon canons. They don't ebb and flow unless the paper they are written on is destroyed, as was the case with many greek poems and essays on literature.

You're on point about undiscovered classics of our time, though.

Dickens was popular and is now recognised as literature, but it's not really considered "high" literature compared to, say, Henry James.

I'm curious about the distinction, and I believe it is much more concrete than it is normally polite to say.

>>8581455
>>8581461
From the standpoint of a writer, these ideas, accurate as they are, make the idea of attempting to "get your writing out there", so to speak, during this age of the internet, seem unfulfilling, disappointing and difficult.

>>8581476
Well you have to determine why you're writing. If you want to sell a bunch of books and make a living, then literary merit probably shouldn't be your primary concern. Just write something about vaguely sexual, super-powered teenagers in easy to digest prose.

>>8581473

>Literary canon doesn't ebb and flow
>Half of the Academic community currently wants to rid the canon written by white males

I'd like you to show me what makes up the canon once the human race dies out darling.

>>8581480
Half the fleet wants to bore holes in the sides of their ships.
Well, good luck to that half.

>>8581479
Well then what are the proper channels for acheiving literary merit in the 21st-century. I'm currently studying English at an American university, and so far it seems like literary merit is both created in and mostly acknowledged by those already in the academic community.

>>8581485
More or less my line of thinking.

If Hunger Games, Harry Potter et al are prole bait, what does "academic bait" look like?

To answer my own question...Probably DFW. Not the conclusion I was hoping to come to.
Surely there's a way to achieve recognition without basically serving as a porkbarrel project for professional nitpickers?

File: 21stCenturylit everyone.jpg (176KB, 1178x728px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1178x728px

>>8581455
So is this shit going to be the Moby Dick of 22nd Century academia?

>>8581494
You should read Small World if you wanna get more upset about this topic.

>>8581494
Academic bait is John Barth. Also DeLillo to a smaller extent.

>>8581473
Samuel Johnson? Aphra Behn? Jane Austen?

Johnson was basically the second coming of Christ literarily speaking during his lifetime, but here in modernity he's regarded as an important figure in English letters, but clearly not at the level of a Shakespeare or a Milton. You'll never find him outside an English literature class, much less in the public consciousness.

Aphra Behn, meanwhile, was a somewhat minor writer in her time, but as cultural issues began to take center stage in the West, critics elevated her to a higher position. If and when cultural issues become less relevant, we can expect she'll again be lowered.

Jane Austen wasn't a big name in her lifetime. She's still not huge in the way of Shakespeare. But as women's issues have entered the public consciousness, so have Austen's works been elevated to something more than pleasant summer reading.

You can do this with plenty of authors in the canon.

>>8581485
Be controversial

>>8581498
What it lacks in depth it makes up for in authenticity. It's a historical document.

>>8581514
I used the word nigger at least 8 times, kike 9, fag 16, maed trannies look like fools to a cartoonish extent, and said derogatory things about Muslims, Christians, Jews, Aboriginals, etc. in my finished draft.

Is that controversial enough

>>8581532
I meant more like subversive...not just petulant name calling

>>8581532
>>8581539
Yeah, you need to follow the subversive checklist and get certified by a subversion professional to be an academically approved rebel.

I'm going to put a strong independent woman in my academic bait book, that'll really shock all those railroad barons and russian tsars that academia is still rebelling against, in their quaint and conservative way.

Also, non-linear storytelling. I think I'll criticise the Vietnam war while I'm at it, gotta push the limits.

File: memelit101.jpg (241KB, 758x732px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 758x732px

>>8581518
It's not all like that screencap. Though the parts that aren't might actually be worse.

>>8581548
Honestly, I don't know if I've ever read anything worse.

The most popular (relatively) recent thing that had any merit was Infinite Jest and it was only popular because DeeEffDubya dumbed it down to make it more accessible.