Did literature die in the 21st century? Was it defeated by media

Because deconstruction became popular in the 90s.

>>9123630
Read The Culture Industry by Adorno and Horkheimer.

>inb4 retarded frog Nazis

>>9123647
Deconstruction was the only thing keep literature alive from then until now.

>>9123630
It was defeated by texting, actually.

>>9123657
It opened the door for what we have now.The state of literary culture is the direct result of critics eating whatever it was Derrida shit out.

>21st century
Try 20th.

Golden-age of poetry was ages ago, depending on the language (Elizabethan era for English). Prose fiction/novels are considered to have peaked in the 17th-19th centuries. Philosophy in the 19th (whether you are an idealist or a naturalist), if not The Greeks themselves (not everything survived afterall, but on the otherhand more recent scientific revolutions may be the reason we can reach certain conclusions over others, e.g. the mind evolving from matter eliminates the problem of dualism).

So yes, aesthetically it was defeated by more technologically-advanced artforms which bring more pleasure, and philosophically it was defeated by pragmatic approaches (in the sense that once we have chosen the best approach in theory, it should no longer need to be written about, it should be implemented and lived for real, ideally unconsciously).

>>9123647
You have a myopic view of history, only caring about your own immediate past.

>>9123648
What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

>>9123660
Texting is literature, it's just one of the contemporary equivalents of sending letters/mail. And OP was probably talking about poetry/novels/philosophy, not letters.

>>9123713
Fuck off, myopic plebe.

>>9123725
>What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange
Is this bait?

File: B9DUh3hIMAEMSZF[1].jpg (12KB, 403x234px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 403x234px

>>9123725
>we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization

My Gott

>>9123725
>Texting is literature, it's just one of the contemporary equivalents of sending letters/mail
Not an equivalent at all.
Think before you post.

>>9123630
Daily reminder that being lazy and not seeking out contemporary works of literary fiction that appeal to you just because you havent finished blooms canon is no excuse to generalize and denigrate all modern literature. Its a shit attitude.

>inb4 name me ONE (1) work that was published in the last 50 years

Do some fucking ground work and read the contents of a few issues of modern reviews and skip the political garbage. Look, heres a decent book that came out FOUR (4) days ago. Is it the greatest work ever written? probably not, but pynchon likes him and he wrote a good book of short stories a few years ago.

The garbage classic obsessed contrarians here refuse to accept that there are gems of contemporary literature being published all the time, from Krasznahorkai to Houellebecq to Chirbes. They are not correct, just young, poorly read, and lazy.

>>9123811
spoonfeed me a list of good 21st literature or something

>>9123769
Letter
>A written communication addressed to a person
Text [message]
>A written message addressed to a person which is transmitted electronically [lel]
t. Oxford Dictionary

>>9123731
No.

>>9123743
If my ideology is clearer and more descriptive than your prescriptive, moralising (using unproven, decadent axioms, 'slave morality') ideology, mine is superior.

>>9123811
The point isn't that there is no good writers anymore. It's that even the best writers of this century are not going to compare to the best writers of centuries where literature was one of the most loved artforms, and when the English language was more easily moulded in the poet's hands. It won't compare to centuries when the technical bar-to-entry was much higher, and writers had more virtuosity (you could cite Joyce and Pound as counter-examples, but they are in fact virtuosos *DESPITE* the lack of technical-constraints placed on modern writers; just compare the accessibility of Milton or Shakespeare's virtuosity with theirs).

Furthermore, even if the artistic potential of each century's climate was hypothetically equal, your attempt ('Krasznahorkai to Houellebecq to Chirbes') to find an equivalent to the canonical greats is premature, a gamble. Bloom is even ambivalent about predicting which 20th century writers will survive, nevermind 21st century. Pic-related. My point here is that if you choose to read writers that have survived over writers that are still alive, then the former is more likely to be good (you have centuries of quality-control helping you).

File: sellers-classics.png (67KB, 680x656px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x656px

>>9124161
>Pic-related