When and why did literature become more concerned about

>>8630191
Form is content

>>8630197
sure form requires content to be expressed, but no one is going to spend 40 pages describing a dress unless one cares more about style than content

When it became a widespread belief that there are no new ideas, which makes content irrelevant as it has no novelty.

>>8630191
Because Ovid wrote the endgame of literature a long time ago.

>>8630191
at several points in time

I'm just going to throw a feeler in from the left-field, see how people react to it:

There's every chance we re-prioritised from content to style because style actually is more important than content, and we just successfully evolved as an institution. Maybe.

>>8630377
Agreed

A series of works in the same same style with different content is far less interesting then a series of works with the same content but different styles

What's wrong with that, OP?

People who put style over content don't actually read.

>>8631960
I disagree with this, college professors of English almost all fall within this category.

>>8630191
Modernism, now fuck off.

style IS content

its form & function

>>8631966
at your plebian school, yes, elsewhere, no.

>>8631966
And they are summarily disregarded.

>>8631973
Nothing more enjoyable than a utilitarian reading of the classics.

I want modernism and postmodernism to die, and sentimentalist sincerity to reign supreme.

it didn't, unless you think harry potter, the hunger games, or 50 shades is about style

>>8630191
because humans are stupid and want to get laid and since most of humanity is stupid focusing on style gets you laid more. (e.g DFW)

>>8630191
>when
since Nabokov
>why
because Nabokov was a bully
>nabokov-boxing-gloves.jpg

>>8630191
in the medieval Persian poetry scene, it was regarded as a great achievement to be able to fit the words "air" "wind" "water" "fire" into the quartines.
style always was more important than content. the way you convey your narrative is often more important than the narrative itself

Cervantes

Style is only good if the content can back it up, otherwise you just have a useless husk.

who cares of the content when there are only four stories

Every plot has already been written. You can't come up with new twists and turns, your only chance is to cook up a mixture of shit others have already done. People nowadays are more familiar with tropes and cliches than ever.

Narrative stylization is something you can't ever run out of. Even if you try mimicking others you'll come up with a new style altogether.

>>8632072
>Every plot has already been written.
No it hasnt and only idiots think this. Nevermind they're only seeing stories from a mechanical perspective instead of the emotional experience, in that alone NO story is the same.

>>8632093
I agree but the emotional experience is delivered by the style not by the content. there are countless accounts of this

>>8630191
That hasn't been the case in several decades.

>>8632099
I can definitely disagree but I would say the emotional impact is the result of both working in unison, not one over the other.

>>8631973
Apostrophe likes you a lot. You should give him some attention.

>>8630191
literature is not in a specific time.
time is not specific
literature is style
can not function without "style"
it´s false
it´s art
humans are not specific
humans evolve too
tied to a spiderweb mermelade
humans lie, and play, and write
like everybody else does
like putting the name of your lover in a tree
thats all the content of literature
within the roots of a shit italian butterfly

>>8630191
>style isn't a form of content
S H I G G Y