Why is /lit/ against works written post 2000? Why do you continuously

why do you make weird assumptions?

jerusalem. the instructions

>>9638264
Because we aren't secure enough in our knowledge of literature or convictions that we dare praise a work of literature that hasn't been critically acclaimed for at least a decade

>>9638264
Because the novel died in 1953 and Beckett killed it

>>9638270
>jerusalem
utter tripe. such overwrought prose that i sensed a smithy running mad through his typewriter. could not reach the foot of a page without breaking into laughter which was followed by sadness for alan, the yes men surrounding him, overwhelming him, tonguing his rear end; their deeds will ensure he cannot ever grow into even an acceptable author.

>>9638264
i don't read anything after 1800's unless it's self-help or how-to guides.
>self-help as a comparison to alchemy, the difference in values between "then" and "now" makes sense of the shift from "elder/ancient esoteric/occult tradition" to "buzzword-filled marketing gimmicks with ~2% valuable info"
>i like learning how to do shit

just feel like anything past maybe 1896 is shit and that, even though my opinion is subjective and i'm wrong about a lot of things, i'm not willing to budge on this one.

>>9638288
Dude he's just a silly comic book guy, he's not worth it

>>9638314
you're right, but i just had to let that loose before it corrupted me.

>>9638271
This. There's just no way of knowing which works from the last 17 years will survive the test of time. It's too soon.

>>9638322
Really, no way at all?

>>9638326
Some future Harold Bloom can always declare something like Infinite Jest bunk and kill off all scholarship on it for 100 years.

And how many Moby Dicks are waiting in the wings for someone to discover them?

>>9638264
the real reason is that there is no figure to come along and tell people what they should like in this generation.
there are so many voices of our generation, and no critics of our generation. all who would be are drowned out by beggars demanding equality of artistic endeavor. none who can fight against the tide of bitchy generics.
when it becomes feasible to have an opinion again, it will follow that there will be cream that has risen to the top. until then, let the patient believe that it is merely that the lens is too close. it won't make any difference to them.

File: MTE5NDg0MDU0OTAxMjYxODM5.jpg (111KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x1200px

>>9638334
>Some future Harold Bloom can always declare something like Infinite Jest bunk and kill off all scholarship on it for 100 years.

Implying this didn't literally happen with the original G

because /lit/ is full of plebs.

>>9638264
'cuz we're contrarians.

>>9638264
Because the age demographics here are a great deal of collegiate kids reading around the classics.

There are numerous threads asking if any good books have been published in the last 5 years created every month, and every month 10-20 excellent contemporary works are suggested. Not all are universally accepted as excellent, but there they are. There is a massive diverse (politically) contemporary critical movement from the New Criterion to Laphams to the NYT literary supplement to NYRB. some is identity politics on the right and left yes, but also excellent works (with two, 2666 and IJ hitting meme status immediately).

So stop reading your summer reading list and your english lit syllabi and try to read 1 contemporary novel for every 10 (classics)

>>9638288
not all wrong, but you (you, personally) would say the same given a blind taste of pynchon

>>9638775
i cannot speak for a hypothetical, but i can say that though pynchon is bizarre, he seems to be rarely overwrought. there is not much wasted in what he does. sure, it's goofy, but not unintentionally so. i can see in myself the same problems that alan has, at least in some of the work that i wrote as a teenager on drugs. if i'm reminded of that while reading alan's masterpiece, it certainly does not bode well in my mind. take my opinion as you will. he is no genius.

>>9638264
I just read a pretty based travelogue published in 2011. Consolations of the Forest, I think you lit-boys would like it. He talks a lot about Ernst Junger and Neitzche during his journey

>>9638264
Houellebecq is the most popular writer here. Kill yourself tourist

>>9638264
>reading after 1950
you're already doing it wrong

>>9638264
Remember when there was a Tao Lin thread every day?