Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
No Books in the 21st Century 2017-08-04 06:17:17 Post No. 9848928
[Report] Image search: [Google]
No Books in the 21st Century 2017-08-04 06:17:17 Post No. 9848928
[Report] Image search: [Google]
>"So. in the next century there will be no more books. It takes too long to read, when success comes from gaining time. What will be called a book will be a printed object whose "message" (its information content) and name and title will first have been broadcast by the media, a film, a newspaper interview, a television program, and a cassette recording. It will be an object from whose sales the publisher (who will also have produced the film, the interview, the program, etc.) will obtain a certain profit margin, because people will think that they must "have" it (and therefore buy it) so as not to be taken for idiots or to break (my goodness) the social bond! The book will be distributed at a premium, yielding a financial profit for the publisher and a symbolic one for the reader."
>"Philosophers have never had instituted addressees, which is nothing new. The reflection's destination is also an object of reflection. The last of last year's line has been around a long time. So has solitude. Still there is something new: the relation to time (I am tempted to write the "use of time") that reigns today in the "public space." Reflection is not thrust aside today because it is dangerous or up- setting, but simply because it is a waste of time. It is "good for nothing," it is not good for gaining time. For success is gaining time. A book, for example, is a success if its first printing is rapidly sold out. This finality is the finality of the economic genre. Philosophy has been able to publish its reflections under the guise of many genres (artistic, political, theological, scientific, anthropological), at the price, of course, of misunderstandings and grave wrongs, but still.... whereas economic calculation seems fatal to it.The differend does not bear upon the content of the reflection. It concerns (and tampers with) its ultimate presuppositions. Reflection requires that you watch out for occurrences, that you don't already know what's happening. It leaves open the question: Is it happening ? It tries to keep up with the now (a belabored word). In the economic genre, the rule is that what happens can happen only if it has already been paid back, and therefore has already happened. Exchange presupposes that the cession is canceled in advance by a counter-cession, the circulation of the book being canceled by its sales. And the sooner this is done, the better the book is."
Lyotard, The Differend, 1983
>>
>>9848928
So, 35 years later, 17 years into the new century, is Lyotard right? Do we still write books or are books too slow? The internet, e-readers, book reviews (even booktubers), and even this image board, seem to have the goal of 'gaining time'. Thus all of the "where do I start?", reading charts, "redpill me on X", "what am I in for?" threads. Today's most popular (though maybe not 'best') philosopher's all have some kind of social media or public platform, that outpaces their printed books.
It must have been so different, even just 50 years ago, where getting an opinion on a text was difficult, and you had little choice but to open the book and read it.
>>
>>9848928
apparently the 21st century is too fast for even this thread.
>>
>>9848929
>getting an opinion on a text was difficult
>you had litle choice but to open the book and read it
t. millennial who has never read a newspaper or a printed book review of any kind in their entire life
>>
>>9849446
>>getting an opinion on a text was difficult
>>you had litle choice but to open the book and read it
>t. millennial who has never read a newspaper or a printed book review of any kind in their entire life
I actually write art criticism for magazines and newspapers. The form is too slow for the 21st century, it only survives because of online editions, social media sharing, commenting, etc.
and emphasis on 'difficult', not impossible. Have you ever gone to a library, opened up the back catalogues of your daily newspaper, and searched for a book review? How many people actually did/do that? Few, I'm guessing.
Today, a search engine will bring you a book review in multiple formats instantly. Want a video, want a newspaper article, want a scholarly article, it's all there.
I think Lyotard's hypothesis has turned out true. Take recent 'big hits' like Houellebecq, JK Rowling, or 50 Shades of Gray. People have opinions on these things, even if they've never read them. Their primary use isn't to be read, but to be used as a phrase in a political discussion. Look at the way Peterson's fans talk about post-modern writing, without actually reading it.
I think Lyotard was right. This century is too fast for books.
>>
>>9849483
>Have you ever gone to a library, opened up the back catalogues of your daily newspaper, and searched for a book review?
The implication is that people would do that before going to a library/book store, or even ask the librarian/clerk for recommendations. I don't know where you're getting the idea that people would show up to a library without having any idea of what they want to read. The idea that it was difficult to get an opinion on a book when authors like Charled Dickens and Mark Twain were practically rock stars seems silly.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1