Is literary modernism supposed to be good or is it just a meme?

>>9717044

>their works seem mannered, pretentious, self-absorbed, and psychologically and intellectually shallow

you're thinking of the next generation of authors like Pynchon and DFW

Woolf, Faulkner and Joyce weren't pretentious, they were actually hitting as high as they were aiming

>>9717054
This. Woolf, Faulkner, and Joyce are literary titans. They are unparalleled in psychological insight and truth of character
If you had the top three works from each of them that's honestly a lifetime's worth of literature.

It's not good. Skip modernism and read the postmodernists.

>>9717054
>they were actually hitting as high as they were aiming
certainly not. literature works best when a writer's reach slightly exceeds his grasp.

>>9717044
I have the same taste OP (although I do like Yeats as well). And I've come to the same conclusion. It's weird that they're attempting something as lively as exploring reality and it always comes to the same conclusion that 'sometimes things are this way sometimes they're this way'. Honestly stream of consciousness is gimmicky in this regard. I'm actually really glad for what we consider postmodern since it's completely unrestricted what literature can be.

>>9717161
>it always comes to the same conclusion that 'sometimes things are this way sometimes they're this way'
god I hope this is a parody

>>9717161
Yeats isn't really "modern", his work is basically late Romanticism.