The cultural decline of literary fiction(oyyy.substack.com)
oyyy.substack.com
The cultural decline of literary fiction
https://oyyy.substack.com/p/the-cultural-decline-of-literary
419 comments
This is all built on an assumption that arts/media can all be strictly ranked “best” to “worst.” There are a million metrics by which we might try to measure it, but well… that’s just not how art works. Thinking this way indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what art is.
Probably one of the most important metrics is “relevance to, and effect on, the state of the world as it is right now.” And pretty much any arbitrary “1000 best” list is not going to take that into account.
That’s why people listen to Chappell Roan, and near-instinctively belt her songs out out after a few drinks, instead of Beethoven symphonies or Mozart operas, even if the latter may be “superior” in nearly every measurable way. Part of art is how it speaks to the listener. In fact… I might argue that that’s all of art, with metrics about it being an entirely different, not-art thing.
(I say all this as a classical musician and senior software engineer with a math background, myself.)
That’s why people listen to Chappell Roan, and near-instinctively belt her songs out out after a few drinks, instead of Beethoven symphonies or Mozart operas, even if the latter may be “superior” in nearly every measurable way. Part of art is how it speaks to the listener. In fact… I might argue that that’s all of art, with metrics about it being an entirely different, not-art thing.
(I say all this as a classical musician and senior software engineer with a math background, myself.)
You don't need to rank strictly and linearly. An objective ordering need not exist. It's enough to see that on shortlists of "great" works, common themes emerge. Is The Great Gatsby better than The Catcher in the Rye? It doesn't matter. They both come with universal acclaim, and that's stiff competition for anything new. Besides, are great works not promoted as being timelessly relevant to the state of the world?
And I loved Catcher in the Rye, but not so much The Great Gatsby. I've found this "shortlist" of classics that have universal acclaim has always been hit or miss for me. The classics I was assigned to read in high school would seem to lurch from riveting to a slog to get thorough. I don't blame the books, it's just what captures my particular interest. Given that, I have never really used "the classics" as a guarantee that I will find the reading fulfilling over other, more obscure, recommendations that I may receive, whether they be old books or new.
I've felt this before. A librarian taught me a trick: chug the book. You were probably trained to really analyze what you're reading, look for symbolism, etc, but you can enjoy a book as almost an emotional-sensory experience instead.
I read both twice, once in high school and again a few years after I graduated (this was over 15 years ago). I loved The Great Gatsby even more (that opening first page is magnificent), and couldn't help but feel like The Catcher in the Rye as being so incredibly naive and juvenile. The latter experience is similar to reading (or watching) Fight Club and thinking Tyler Durden is a hero of sorts and something to aspire to, which is not the ultimate lesson.
Stan Lee made a comic about how he and his co-workers made comics, and in one frame he says something like "How dare it he say it is hackneyed? I stole it from the best classic I could find!" That is, if superhero movies sell today, stories about Hercules and Theseus sold 2500 years ago.
Parent's point is not some abstract personal value problem.
Think about public libraries. They have limited space and budget, and already abundantly hold loved classics. They'll still take in some amount of new books, but when a 8 yo kid goes in to decide what to read, the vast majority will be older books.
Think about public libraries. They have limited space and budget, and already abundantly hold loved classics. They'll still take in some amount of new books, but when a 8 yo kid goes in to decide what to read, the vast majority will be older books.
I visit libraries wherever I go and that's not true anymore, outside of university libraries. The average municipal/county library is almost entirely books published in the past 15 years. Most classics have to be procured through ILL, if they're even available then.
But it's true in book stores. It's not only old classics; there's a lot of well-known 20th century literature, often in new editions.
> That’s why people listen to Chappell Roan, and near-instinctively belt her songs out out after a few drinks, instead of Beethoven symphonies or Mozart operas, even if the latter may be “superior” in nearly every measurable way.
As someone who grew up on Looney Tunes and the like, I absolutely start humming and making up words to classical music far more often than anything from this century.
As someone who grew up on Looney Tunes and the like, I absolutely start humming and making up words to classical music far more often than anything from this century.
Conversely, watching looney tunes is the only way I can enjoy classical music.
I would love to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra play the classical music in "What's Opera, Doc?" and other Looney Tunes classics. Saw them do that with The Godfather and a couple other full-length films which was great.
>This is all built on an assumption that arts/media can all be strictly ranked “best” to “worst.”
Not at all. The only assumption the OP needs is that old media can still appeal to modern people, at which point quantity and accessibility may give it a certain advantage.
Not at all. The only assumption the OP needs is that old media can still appeal to modern people, at which point quantity and accessibility may give it a certain advantage.
> This is all built on an assumption that arts/media can all be strictly ranked “best” to “worst.”
No it isn't. It's just based on the objectively true assumption that contemporary fiction is competing with all fiction ever written.
It absolutely doesn't have to be the case that people buy more classics because the classics are objectively better. (Although that is, in fact, he case).
No it isn't. It's just based on the objectively true assumption that contemporary fiction is competing with all fiction ever written.
It absolutely doesn't have to be the case that people buy more classics because the classics are objectively better. (Although that is, in fact, he case).
Art has no objective measure. I cannot stand classical music because it has very little rhythm and emotion compared to the other, more modern music I listen to. Does that make classical music worse? No.
Just because something may have been popular in the past and is now seen as "smart" e.g. the opera, books, classical music, painting, does not make it better than what's popular now, e.g. television, video games, and rhythmic music.
If anything I'd argue art has gotten significantly better and more advanced over the years. I don't play many video games but the combination of visual, auditory, interactivity, and storytelling still blows me away.
Just because something may have been popular in the past and is now seen as "smart" e.g. the opera, books, classical music, painting, does not make it better than what's popular now, e.g. television, video games, and rhythmic music.
If anything I'd argue art has gotten significantly better and more advanced over the years. I don't play many video games but the combination of visual, auditory, interactivity, and storytelling still blows me away.
Art is indeed subjective, but saying classical music has no emotion is a pretty controversial opinion. I've wept from plenty of classical symphonies and don't know much about the genre. A lot of movies just aren't the same without some Hans Zimmerman or John Williams.
Hans and Williams aren’t classical music.
> saying classical music has no emotion is a pretty controversial opinion
That's very clearly not what they said at all.
That's very clearly not what they said at all.
Very little rhythm and emotion?
First emotion https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JzFi-7H9TKs
https://youtu.be/rVw6NRXSDhM?si=wchNK9I3RO_XJxeG
Rythym: let's start with the most infamous percussion sequence of all time https://youtu.be/wZtWAqc3qyk?si=B47DQZ1auKx53OaD
Unless you're listening to extremely niche heavy metal, electronica, or the kind of jazz that they don't play on the radio you aren't listen to anything with the skill and complexity of classical. And the people who do also show up to new music.
I don't think there is any video game that comes close in depth to the Ring Cycle.
First emotion https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JzFi-7H9TKs
https://youtu.be/rVw6NRXSDhM?si=wchNK9I3RO_XJxeG
Rythym: let's start with the most infamous percussion sequence of all time https://youtu.be/wZtWAqc3qyk?si=B47DQZ1auKx53OaD
Unless you're listening to extremely niche heavy metal, electronica, or the kind of jazz that they don't play on the radio you aren't listen to anything with the skill and complexity of classical. And the people who do also show up to new music.
I don't think there is any video game that comes close in depth to the Ring Cycle.
I’d add to that that classical music was made at a time recording and listening whatever you want, whenever and wherever, wasn’t a thing.
Many pieces were intended as a whole, and optimised for specific settings.
I’ve long thought I wasn’t an opera person. I listened to pieces of some on my iPod, or on the tv in music class in school. Then, years later, some friend told me he had extra tickets for the opera.
It hit very, very differently. It is likely the experiences I had gone through since school helped the opera’s theme and songs resonate with me. But I’m pretty sure listening and witnessing it, from beginning to end, in a room carefully crafted for this specific purpose and left little room for distractions contributed immensely.
Many pieces were intended as a whole, and optimised for specific settings.
I’ve long thought I wasn’t an opera person. I listened to pieces of some on my iPod, or on the tv in music class in school. Then, years later, some friend told me he had extra tickets for the opera.
It hit very, very differently. It is likely the experiences I had gone through since school helped the opera’s theme and songs resonate with me. But I’m pretty sure listening and witnessing it, from beginning to end, in a room carefully crafted for this specific purpose and left little room for distractions contributed immensely.
I thought you were going to link to the incessant ominous col legno (hitting the strings with the stick of the bow) at the start of Holst's Mars for rhythm, so please allow me to add that one to the list.
https://youtu.be/cXOanvv4plU?si=WrIuBfmofTo6szRa
And as for emotion, this version of the 1812 Overture always sends chills up my spine.
https://youtu.be/uYnCCWsfx3c?si=OQEA5_JYpWn1kHFj
https://youtu.be/cXOanvv4plU?si=WrIuBfmofTo6szRa
And as for emotion, this version of the 1812 Overture always sends chills up my spine.
https://youtu.be/uYnCCWsfx3c?si=OQEA5_JYpWn1kHFj
All of this is immensely subjective. The pieces presented were utterly bland to me, bordering on the unlistenable. This is obviously not due to a lack of quality for they have plenty, but they register as little more than noise to my brain; to which i prefer silence...
That said, I do enjoy some classical music. For instance, I deeply enjoy this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1lvxx9lzAg&list=RDz1lvxx9lz...
That said, I do enjoy some classical music. For instance, I deeply enjoy this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1lvxx9lzAg&list=RDz1lvxx9lz...
You didn't correctly read my comment.
> Art has no objective measure.
That would be emotion to _you_, not to me. You've also missed this point:
> compared to the other, more modern music I listen to.
Additionally, complexity is not an accurate measure of how "good" art is. But if you want to argue about complexity - and this would mean total complexity, not just sheer storytelling complexity, an easy refute to your point is GTA V, which is arguably one of the most complex pieces of art ever made.
> Art has no objective measure.
That would be emotion to _you_, not to me. You've also missed this point:
> compared to the other, more modern music I listen to.
Additionally, complexity is not an accurate measure of how "good" art is. But if you want to argue about complexity - and this would mean total complexity, not just sheer storytelling complexity, an easy refute to your point is GTA V, which is arguably one of the most complex pieces of art ever made.
I guess anything is arguable, but I think it would be pretty difficult to make a very good argument that GTA V is one of the most complex pieces of art ever made. I mean, first we’d have to define a piece of art, then we’d have to define what it “complexity” means in that context…
Eh, he’s right though. You could get sidetracked quibbling about the edges of the definitions, or you could just use their centers and see that there obviously are some modern works of art that are immense team efforts and substantially justify the label of “one of the most complex pieces of art ever”.
Depends what we mean by better. If you prefer rock music to Bach then great. Enjoy! I love popular music and classical for different reasons
But if we're talking skill, intellectual depth, craft, then there are objective criteria. Take Bach, his music is like a masterpiece of engineering with its unparalleled compositional complexity and craftsmanship. His mastery of counterpoint being but one example. His work represents a pinnacle of musical architecture, establishing foundational principles that profoundly influenced centuries of Western music.
That just doesn't compare to most pop music does it?
But if we're talking skill, intellectual depth, craft, then there are objective criteria. Take Bach, his music is like a masterpiece of engineering with its unparalleled compositional complexity and craftsmanship. His mastery of counterpoint being but one example. His work represents a pinnacle of musical architecture, establishing foundational principles that profoundly influenced centuries of Western music.
That just doesn't compare to most pop music does it?
Counterpoint is cool, but a lot of the time is carries the emotional weight of listening to someone solve sudoku.
Objectively, Bach lacks the skill and emotional depth to write a song about that lonely feeling you get when you drink too much and get kicked out of the party (a foundational principal of Country Western music)
Objectively, Bach lacks the skill and emotional depth to write a song about that lonely feeling you get when you drink too much and get kicked out of the party (a foundational principal of Country Western music)
> Bach lacks the skill and emotional depth to write a song about that lonely feeling
For a wide range of such feelings, some can regard as "lonely", as they develop, achieve a triumph, a catharsis, and finally a recapitulation and a comforting, secure resolution -- communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion, i.e., art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEUYq5t-cCM
Bach wrote it for solo violin, but it's been arranged for solo piano, full orchestra, etc.
For a wide range of such feelings, some can regard as "lonely", as they develop, achieve a triumph, a catharsis, and finally a recapitulation and a comforting, secure resolution -- communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion, i.e., art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEUYq5t-cCM
Bach wrote it for solo violin, but it's been arranged for solo piano, full orchestra, etc.
Mozart can be really singable. The catalogue song, the Figaro aria, etc. it's not all hell's fire burns in my heart.
Sure you don't have an objective best to worst, but I'm sure that most serious listeners will venture to music from all kind of eras and cultures.
I find that it's much harder ( than visual art ) to say "I don't like this" and more "This sounds really fun but I can't budget time to listen to this kind music".
Or maybe this is just me.
I find that it's much harder ( than visual art ) to say "I don't like this" and more "This sounds really fun but I can't budget time to listen to this kind music".
Or maybe this is just me.
I have no idea whatsoever what a "Chappell Roan" even is. Sorry.
(I do know Beethoven and Mozart though.)
(I do know Beethoven and Mozart though.)
She's a good pop musician. No need to be snarky just because she might not be your thing. Comments on HM tend to put down popular music / art / whatever for the sole reason of having some kind of pop sensibility
I'm not being snarky. I literally do not know who or what a "Chappell Roan" is. (And never will, life is too short.)
> "Chappell Roan"
Just now listened to some of her music, two of her pieces
Good Luck Babe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RKqOmSkGgM&pp=ygUcY2hhcHBlb...
and
Pink Pony Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Liudev18&pp=ygUOcGluayBwb...
So, with the definition of art as the "communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion" what I saw in those two pieces was that they were intended for some teen girls and young women -- single, lonely, generally afraid of their circumstances, don't understand what they see of reality, eager for sex but afraid of it, lost, i.e., missing any good cultural, social, or intellectual foundation for understanding reality or facing life, ....
So in the music, the costumes and stage shows are rapidly changing, outrageous, meaningless, fantasy, scary, i.e., are communication, interpretation of those women's experience, emotions, rapidly changing, outrageous ....
In simple terms, those women have circumstances that yield strong emotions that the music communicates.
"Communicates"? Why? As common, to the audience comfortingly confirms that they are not alone and instead like many others.
How could this be? In the past the women lived in a culture based on strong social, practical, economic, religious, parenting forces. Now (1) for millions of those women the culture is weak or gone and (2) the Internet permits getting confirming, reinforcing communication, interpretation of their scary circumstances from the loss of the culture.
In short, the music really is communication, interpretation of the experience and emotions of those women.
To me it seems that Taylor Swift did much the same, i.e., similar audience, but Chappell Roan is stronger, louder, more outrageous for an audience with stronger emotions.
As a young man, the teen girls I knew, right, had the anxieties from their circumstances but much more constrained and less scary than now.
The music, for me, a man: Get rid of the sets, costumes, dancing, and words and take just the background music (a lot of drum beating) and the singing. In places, the singing is pretty good, i.e., expressive, but really the singing, as art, is all nearly the same, that is, the same vocal content for the same communication, interpretation of experience and emotion.
I expect that even the current devoted audience will soon, a year or so, give up on the current Chappell Roan -- for a cruel joke, "A one trick pony.".
From Vivaldi and Bach through Beethoven and Brahms ... Wagner, Tchaikowsky, ..., Barber there is a lot of effective communication, interpretation of a wide range of experiences, emotions, that is, really good art.
For level 101, a major key is glad and a minor key, sad. Then changing keys, selected chords within keys, pitch, volume, variety of sounds from the variety of instruments, combinations, ..., give a lot more tools for expression than used by Chappell Roan and, thus, permit a lot more music, art.
Next, the tools were just means, and Bach, Wagner, Tchaikowsky, ..., were really good in the artistic content, that is, again, communication, interpretation of human experience emotion.
Just now listened to some of her music, two of her pieces
Good Luck Babe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RKqOmSkGgM&pp=ygUcY2hhcHBlb...
and
Pink Pony Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Liudev18&pp=ygUOcGluayBwb...
So, with the definition of art as the "communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion" what I saw in those two pieces was that they were intended for some teen girls and young women -- single, lonely, generally afraid of their circumstances, don't understand what they see of reality, eager for sex but afraid of it, lost, i.e., missing any good cultural, social, or intellectual foundation for understanding reality or facing life, ....
So in the music, the costumes and stage shows are rapidly changing, outrageous, meaningless, fantasy, scary, i.e., are communication, interpretation of those women's experience, emotions, rapidly changing, outrageous ....
In simple terms, those women have circumstances that yield strong emotions that the music communicates.
"Communicates"? Why? As common, to the audience comfortingly confirms that they are not alone and instead like many others.
How could this be? In the past the women lived in a culture based on strong social, practical, economic, religious, parenting forces. Now (1) for millions of those women the culture is weak or gone and (2) the Internet permits getting confirming, reinforcing communication, interpretation of their scary circumstances from the loss of the culture.
In short, the music really is communication, interpretation of the experience and emotions of those women.
To me it seems that Taylor Swift did much the same, i.e., similar audience, but Chappell Roan is stronger, louder, more outrageous for an audience with stronger emotions.
As a young man, the teen girls I knew, right, had the anxieties from their circumstances but much more constrained and less scary than now.
The music, for me, a man: Get rid of the sets, costumes, dancing, and words and take just the background music (a lot of drum beating) and the singing. In places, the singing is pretty good, i.e., expressive, but really the singing, as art, is all nearly the same, that is, the same vocal content for the same communication, interpretation of experience and emotion.
I expect that even the current devoted audience will soon, a year or so, give up on the current Chappell Roan -- for a cruel joke, "A one trick pony.".
From Vivaldi and Bach through Beethoven and Brahms ... Wagner, Tchaikowsky, ..., Barber there is a lot of effective communication, interpretation of a wide range of experiences, emotions, that is, really good art.
For level 101, a major key is glad and a minor key, sad. Then changing keys, selected chords within keys, pitch, volume, variety of sounds from the variety of instruments, combinations, ..., give a lot more tools for expression than used by Chappell Roan and, thus, permit a lot more music, art.
Next, the tools were just means, and Bach, Wagner, Tchaikowsky, ..., were really good in the artistic content, that is, again, communication, interpretation of human experience emotion.
Yeah this is ridiculous. One of the songs you posted has a key change so if you're saying a key change is fundamental for expression you're clearly not listening hard enough. You also didn't do a great job trying to explain the appeal of it, likely because you don't like it, as you will never be able to capture the fire like someone who does, so it just comes across as condescending. As well, likening her to "Taylor Swift but Louder" further shows your lack of knowledge about pop theory and history.
The rapidly moving pace of the music and performances in those two performances (2 of her hits, of course they're intense) is because she believes those were the more interesting/economical choices at the time. any inferences you make about the women who listen to it are purely based on your personal idea of what you decide women are thinking about on a given day.
The rapidly moving pace of the music and performances in those two performances (2 of her hits, of course they're intense) is because she believes those were the more interesting/economical choices at the time. any inferences you make about the women who listen to it are purely based on your personal idea of what you decide women are thinking about on a given day.
Taylor Swift did well understanding the emotions of teen girls, so well that lots of teen girls, not just in the US, begged their fathers and got ~$1000 for a ticket to a Swift concert, and Swift ended up worth ~$1 billion.
It also helped that with good makeup and a good photographer, she had one of the prettiest faces of any human female. She also had a near perfect figure. So, her audience could identify with those. Likely even more important, were her stories of love gained/lost.
I'm a man and so don't much like Swift's art, but the ~$1 billion got me to try to explain her success.
For any men here slow to figure this out and take it seriously, a lot of teen girls and young women have some strong emotions, and art that communicates and interprets those emotions to those teens/women can be very welcome, so welcome to generate ~$1 billion.
I did spend enough time with teen girls and young women to understand a little about their strong emotions.
On key changes in music, the Bach piece in the URL I gave starts in D minor, has central section on D major, and has the final third a lot like the first section and also in D minor.
When I was playing it on violin, I liked the D major section the best. There are some triplets, and I played them insistently, maybe not the best interpretation -- the URL doesn't do that. Maybe I tried the interpretation from a Heifetz performance.
The piece is also sometimes played on guitar. Waiting for a concert to start, a guitarist sat next to composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco and said "The Bach Chaconne sure is difficult to play." The composer, a man of few words, said nothing until the end of the concert and then replied "The Bach Chaconne is the greatest piece of music ever written."
Oh, the URL I gave is a full orchestra arrangement of the Chaconne.
If pop music is that good, I'll be glad to listen to it!
It also helped that with good makeup and a good photographer, she had one of the prettiest faces of any human female. She also had a near perfect figure. So, her audience could identify with those. Likely even more important, were her stories of love gained/lost.
I'm a man and so don't much like Swift's art, but the ~$1 billion got me to try to explain her success.
For any men here slow to figure this out and take it seriously, a lot of teen girls and young women have some strong emotions, and art that communicates and interprets those emotions to those teens/women can be very welcome, so welcome to generate ~$1 billion.
I did spend enough time with teen girls and young women to understand a little about their strong emotions.
On key changes in music, the Bach piece in the URL I gave starts in D minor, has central section on D major, and has the final third a lot like the first section and also in D minor.
When I was playing it on violin, I liked the D major section the best. There are some triplets, and I played them insistently, maybe not the best interpretation -- the URL doesn't do that. Maybe I tried the interpretation from a Heifetz performance.
The piece is also sometimes played on guitar. Waiting for a concert to start, a guitarist sat next to composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco and said "The Bach Chaconne sure is difficult to play." The composer, a man of few words, said nothing until the end of the concert and then replied "The Bach Chaconne is the greatest piece of music ever written."
Oh, the URL I gave is a full orchestra arrangement of the Chaconne.
If pop music is that good, I'll be glad to listen to it!
> Probably one of the most important metrics is “relevance to, and effect on, the state of the world as it is right now.”
Actually, no! It's more of “relevance to the state of the world as it was right then, and as it is right now, and that teaches you that we are not living in bizarre times, but then we just don't know enough about ourselves as a society and we keep committing the same errors.”
Actually, no! It's more of “relevance to the state of the world as it was right then, and as it is right now, and that teaches you that we are not living in bizarre times, but then we just don't know enough about ourselves as a society and we keep committing the same errors.”
The fact that you can belt out Chappel Roan drunk is pretty much an objective assessment of its "worse'ness." Beethoven takes many years of dedicated practice to be able to achieve and you would have to be very skilled to perform it drunk.
Man, you should go to an open air classical concert in Europe sometime.
Sure we are just quietly getting shitfaced for most of it but if they play Ode to Joy you can be certain that the 10000 drunks in Waldbühne will belt it.
Also not Beethoven but I'm pretty sure some violins will get broken if they don't play Berliner Luft here in town.
Sure we are just quietly getting shitfaced for most of it but if they play Ode to Joy you can be certain that the 10000 drunks in Waldbühne will belt it.
Also not Beethoven but I'm pretty sure some violins will get broken if they don't play Berliner Luft here in town.
Like how it's probably law in the UK that any classical concert with a large crowd in attendance must end with Jerusalem for a good ol singalong, or else they tar and feather the conductor.
I can belt out (and am known to occasionally do so when walking home from the pub solo) Ein Schwan by Grieg (in the German, didn't learn the Norwegian version) and Ave Verum Corpus by Byrd while drunk, so you're saying these two pieces suck?
(I also like to throw the occasional Magnificat or Nunc Dimittis to mix it up. As you can tell, I'm a reformed choir boy. Oh, and Jerusalem by Parry/Blake is custom designed for drunken singalongs.)
I beg you to listen to the first two pieces and perhaps reconsider your chosen metric.
https://youtu.be/BNuT7-6zBds?si=fbyim815cp6tiD4R
https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3vuU7XAaUM
(I also like to throw the occasional Magnificat or Nunc Dimittis to mix it up. As you can tell, I'm a reformed choir boy. Oh, and Jerusalem by Parry/Blake is custom designed for drunken singalongs.)
I beg you to listen to the first two pieces and perhaps reconsider your chosen metric.
https://youtu.be/BNuT7-6zBds?si=fbyim815cp6tiD4R
https://youtube.com/watch?v=R3vuU7XAaUM
This equates the value of art with technical difficulty, which is not how most people actually evaluate art.
A friend of the family gave my son a guitar a while back and more recently tried to get him to play Sugar Mountain by Neil Young. He worked at it pretty hard and struggled with it because even though it is simple it has to be played with great precision to sound good. Then he discovered grunge and bar chords and had a breakthrough with The Day I Tried to Live by Soundgarden and Rooster by Alice in Chains.
Now he's looking for good songs he can play and that's gotten him into David Bowie songs from The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. For a long time I thought of David Bowie as one of those classically trained musicians like Frank Zappa who played rock because it had commercial potential, but he found many songs on that album to be great songs that were within his reach. Now when we have houseguests who say they like Rush he will be able to play the chorus of a few songs in 24 hours and he's building instruments like a Guitar-harp-ukulele (fretless guitar with two bridges, one of which has a harp section) and he's asking me about the physics to build a bass guitar tuned an octave or two below a regular bass guitar.
Now he's looking for good songs he can play and that's gotten him into David Bowie songs from The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. For a long time I thought of David Bowie as one of those classically trained musicians like Frank Zappa who played rock because it had commercial potential, but he found many songs on that album to be great songs that were within his reach. Now when we have houseguests who say they like Rush he will be able to play the chorus of a few songs in 24 hours and he's building instruments like a Guitar-harp-ukulele (fretless guitar with two bridges, one of which has a harp section) and he's asking me about the physics to build a bass guitar tuned an octave or two below a regular bass guitar.
There is no two octaves below a regular bass guitar. On a 5 string bass, the lowest string is B0 in standard tuning, coming in at 30hz. You can get a long scale length bass and put really chonky strings on it and drop that down as low as E0, which is 20hz, but past that point most people just can't hear the notes anymore.
When trying to learn the guitar I fell in love with Santa Monica by Everclear, and Go With The Flow by Queens Of The Stone Age.
An electric bass that's tuned an octave lower exists - https://www.lignum-art.com/product-page/4-string-sub-octave-...
> he's asking me about the physics to build a bass guitar tuned an octave or two below a regular bass guitar.
I barely know anything about music, and probably less about guitars, but if he can do barre chords, then you can try to build a simple capo with him, since he might readily grasp the utility of having a clamp that essentially gives you another hand on that side of the guitar.
I barely know anything about music, and probably less about guitars, but if he can do barre chords, then you can try to build a simple capo with him, since he might readily grasp the utility of having a clamp that essentially gives you another hand on that side of the guitar.
He's been experimenting with clamps, he has one for the fretless guitar section of the guitar-ukulele.
As for the electric quadro- or octo-bass the variables you can tweak are:
But really he's the one to build things. Back when I was in physics they kept trying to get me to do experiment rather than theory, if I have any regret it is that if I had studied experiment I'd be able to build all the things that my son wanted to build but, hey, he can build those things now.
As for the electric quadro- or octo-bass the variables you can tweak are:
* length
* mass/length
* tension
But really he's the one to build things. Back when I was in physics they kept trying to get me to do experiment rather than theory, if I have any regret it is that if I had studied experiment I'd be able to build all the things that my son wanted to build but, hey, he can build those things now.
Life is the ultimate test. We see ourselves reflected in the eyes of others. There may be nothing more humbling than being confronted with our own ignorance, except when we have an audience.
I guess once the strings are too loose, then they can’t vibrate consistently enough for long enough to be tunable/playable? I am wondering if a kind of lap guitar or a guitar laid flat might allow for pedals to be used that could bisect the strings to do octave changes upward in pitch. Going downward in pitch from an open position is going to be hard unless you have some excess tunable string beyond the last point of contact with the strings, and that contact could be released to increase the string length?.
You might be able to find an 8 string bass, and have two different string gauges. The top four could be heavier gauge and tuned at a lower octave. Or you could alternate gauges and silence the strings? I don’t know much about playing technique, but it sounds like it might be hard to build in such a way so idiomatic playing technique and style is preserved, but many alternate tuning methods and tools do affect how the guitar is played, so that may not be such a big deal if he’s the only one playing it, but if he wants the mechanics to translate to playing other guitars, those concerns might be more relevant.
It might also be possible to teach him how to build simple guitar pedals, which can easily pitch bend in post-processing once you know how the parts fit conceptually together.
Your guitar projects sound interesting and would be a good post for HN if you can find the time.
I guess once the strings are too loose, then they can’t vibrate consistently enough for long enough to be tunable/playable? I am wondering if a kind of lap guitar or a guitar laid flat might allow for pedals to be used that could bisect the strings to do octave changes upward in pitch. Going downward in pitch from an open position is going to be hard unless you have some excess tunable string beyond the last point of contact with the strings, and that contact could be released to increase the string length?.
You might be able to find an 8 string bass, and have two different string gauges. The top four could be heavier gauge and tuned at a lower octave. Or you could alternate gauges and silence the strings? I don’t know much about playing technique, but it sounds like it might be hard to build in such a way so idiomatic playing technique and style is preserved, but many alternate tuning methods and tools do affect how the guitar is played, so that may not be such a big deal if he’s the only one playing it, but if he wants the mechanics to translate to playing other guitars, those concerns might be more relevant.
It might also be possible to teach him how to build simple guitar pedals, which can easily pitch bend in post-processing once you know how the parts fit conceptually together.
Your guitar projects sound interesting and would be a good post for HN if you can find the time.
Get him a multiscale/fanned fret 5 string bass and just size up the gauges. A 37" scale bass trying to hit E0 will need about 0.18ga on the low string to be playable, which will definitely require a nut modification, but is doable.
There was once a company making a bass ukulele with inch-thick polymer strings. Playing them was kind of hilarious, and would be fun to see it scaled up to the size of an actual bass guitar... Probably someone has done it...
I would not say that the value of art is strictly equivalent to technical difficulty. But I would say that there is a level of technical competence required for art to be good. Something that takes no skill to create (e.g. that absurd banana duct taped to a wall "piece") is not good art, if indeed it can be called art at all.
I would argue art is not about how "good" it is, but rather how it makes you feel. And the duct tape banana, just by referencing it, is successful in making you feel something.
The fact that people still talk about it and ridicule it 6 years after it was created, and it lives on in the cultural zeitgeist as that, makes it good art. It's literally called Comedian.
It had to be removed from the fair early because it was drawing dangerously large crowds. [1] If art moves people, Comedian was an undeniably literal success.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/banana-remove...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/banana-remove...
This guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
killed off the argument that "X isn't art" for all X.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
killed off the argument that "X isn't art" for all X.
I don't see any art in the linked article.
"I don't think it's art, therefore it's not art."
Congratulations, you're the type of person Marcel Duchamp was making fun of in 1917. 108 years later, the stance you're defending has been so comprehensively trashed by the art community that anything I could say about it has been said a thousand times already.
Congratulations, you're the type of person Marcel Duchamp was making fun of in 1917. 108 years later, the stance you're defending has been so comprehensively trashed by the art community that anything I could say about it has been said a thousand times already.
If by "art community" you mean people who make "art" like that, the only thing they have succeeded in is convincing most of the rest of us that their opinion on what is and isn't art is irrelevant.
Which is to say, it's not that I don't think it's art. It's that most people would agree with me that it isn't art, and what the word means in colloquial speech is defined by popular consensus, not by what a bunch of snobs decide it means.
Which is to say, it's not that I don't think it's art. It's that most people would agree with me that it isn't art, and what the word means in colloquial speech is defined by popular consensus, not by what a bunch of snobs decide it means.
> If by "art community" you mean people who make "art" like that
I didn't.
> what the word means in colloquial speech is defined by popular consensus
If I asked for the popular consensus on the definition of, say, "insouciant," and the majority of people answered, "I don't know," does that mean the word has no meaning?
Which is to say, no, meaning is not a democracy. It's contextual, and I don't care what art means in a context exclusive to people who don't really give a shit about art (which is the context you're appealing to when you say, "most people would agree with me that it isn't art").
I didn't.
> what the word means in colloquial speech is defined by popular consensus
If I asked for the popular consensus on the definition of, say, "insouciant," and the majority of people answered, "I don't know," does that mean the word has no meaning?
Which is to say, no, meaning is not a democracy. It's contextual, and I don't care what art means in a context exclusive to people who don't really give a shit about art (which is the context you're appealing to when you say, "most people would agree with me that it isn't art").
killed off the argument that X isn't art for some Y, where Y is people trying to decide if X is art or not.
To be clear: I have spent the years to memorize and be able to perform a few Beethoven sonatas (not to mention the years required to even get to that point). I can also play them drunk (though not as cleanly, and wouldn't do that in any paid/professional performance situation). I literally did this sort of thing for a living before deciding to use my CS/Math degree to be able to better provide for my family (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlatane/).
And none of that makes Beethoven "better" than Chappell Roan. Because there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is.
On the other had, your inability to correctly spell the name of an influential contemporary artist, with 40+M listeners per month, replying to a comment that did correctly spell her name, is a pretty objective reason to not trust anything you have to say about art (or, perhaps, much else, at least until you address whatever underlying issues/pathologies have you thinking this way).
Perhaps this will offer you some perspective: back when I did music for a living, I often did think this way. I thought most contemporary music was trash if it didn't offer the harmonic or contrapuntal complexity of classical, or even jazz. Really, being a young man from a poor background, I believe it was more a survival instinct (trying to gaslight myself and others into measuring me as "good enough" for gigs). It nearly ruined music for me, though. It required me being dishonest with myself about what I really enjoyed. Letting all that go has been a multi-decade process, and it's made me a much more well-adjusted individual. It also applies in many ways to the software world (as long as you stay out of Google-/Meta-/Oracle-type bigtech misery-inducing rat races).
And none of that makes Beethoven "better" than Chappell Roan. Because there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is.
On the other had, your inability to correctly spell the name of an influential contemporary artist, with 40+M listeners per month, replying to a comment that did correctly spell her name, is a pretty objective reason to not trust anything you have to say about art (or, perhaps, much else, at least until you address whatever underlying issues/pathologies have you thinking this way).
Perhaps this will offer you some perspective: back when I did music for a living, I often did think this way. I thought most contemporary music was trash if it didn't offer the harmonic or contrapuntal complexity of classical, or even jazz. Really, being a young man from a poor background, I believe it was more a survival instinct (trying to gaslight myself and others into measuring me as "good enough" for gigs). It nearly ruined music for me, though. It required me being dishonest with myself about what I really enjoyed. Letting all that go has been a multi-decade process, and it's made me a much more well-adjusted individual. It also applies in many ways to the software world (as long as you stay out of Google-/Meta-/Oracle-type bigtech misery-inducing rat races).
> there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is.
You've been fooled by the rent seeking class.
You've been fooled by the rent seeking class.
Precisely the opposite. Rent-seekers eagerly invite comparison for purposes of valuation, and push the lens of art towards technical and political measurements. When a work is incomparable in the way in which it achieves verisimilitude it is escaping this system.
Agreed here. Every time my kids bring up tier list rankings I have to again explain this to them.
You are basically talking about the part where the system is so broken or rent captured that the only way out is through the bottom. Sure, but that doesn't make it good automatically.
There's art that moves you, or does not move you. That's the measure that matters most in your unique and finite life. You get to choose for yourself what to spend your time on, objectivity be damned.
Is there an article (so you don't have to write an essay) that explains what you mean here? I don't think I'm familiar with the short hand point you're making here. I understand the terms rent seeking and familiar with the argument made in the quote fwiw.
Are you honestly tell me that you would let someone correct you on a matter of taste? That an authority could tell you, "no, you're wrong for enjoying this piece of art. It's bad and you ought to dislike it," and you would obey?
If so, you're a dupe. Trust your own taste. That's the first step to connoisseurship.
If so, you're a dupe. Trust your own taste. That's the first step to connoisseurship.
> I think the author skips past the real answer right here. The old books haven’t gone away. Even if we assume there are good new books, they have to compete with the supply of existing books, which grows without bound - unlike the time and attention of consumers.
That's a real phenomenon in music. New works have to compete with the entire body of existing work, some of which is pretty good.
That's a real phenomenon in music. New works have to compete with the entire body of existing work, some of which is pretty good.
True, but I'd say it's worse for books than for music.
For music there's still plenty of network effects in favor of new music... things like live concerts, radio and DJs playing the latest stuff, playlists that make actual money being all about new stuff, younger people wanting to connect to their own generation, pop culture enthusiasts always chasing the "new thing".
Sure there are oldies stations and DJs and listeners rediscovering vintage stuff, but network effects for books are rarer, there's not that many Dan Browns anymore.
For music there's still plenty of network effects in favor of new music... things like live concerts, radio and DJs playing the latest stuff, playlists that make actual money being all about new stuff, younger people wanting to connect to their own generation, pop culture enthusiasts always chasing the "new thing".
Sure there are oldies stations and DJs and listeners rediscovering vintage stuff, but network effects for books are rarer, there's not that many Dan Browns anymore.
To note, books have a different networks: they can get movie/TV/game adaptions and get pushed to the news forefront, their author can also play the SNS game.
There's still no Spotlight for books, and I'm with you how tougher than other media it is.
There's still no Spotlight for books, and I'm with you how tougher than other media it is.
I heard a joke that you don't write a political book for people to read, you write it so you can go on all the talk shows to be interviewed about your book.
That is of course not a joke at all depending on the field. It's kinda like being published in prestigious papers.
While specialists and enthusiasts will enjoy and peek at the content, being recognized as someone who writes about the subject and can be presented as an expert of the field can absolutely be the main impact for the author.
While specialists and enthusiasts will enjoy and peek at the content, being recognized as someone who writes about the subject and can be presented as an expert of the field can absolutely be the main impact for the author.
On the other hand, music is arguably more timeless, in that the contents of lyrics is less crucial for the enjoyment of music.
I don't think that's true at all, plenty of my friends has some kind of aversion to "old" music because they could not "get" the aesthetic.
Plus I'm sure most people are sick of Fur Elise.
Compositions: absolutely.
More “evergreen” genres like classical, jazz, soundtracks, and also stuff by established artists? Surely!
But pop music recordings get “too dated” quite fast for the mainstream and mainstream audiences. This kinda keeps Spotify and Radio charts fresh and newer artists make some money. IMO of course!
EDIT: Wait! One thing however where you’re right and I’m wrong is with live concerts. Today older legacy acts compete and often surpass attendance of newer acts.
More “evergreen” genres like classical, jazz, soundtracks, and also stuff by established artists? Surely!
But pop music recordings get “too dated” quite fast for the mainstream and mainstream audiences. This kinda keeps Spotify and Radio charts fresh and newer artists make some money. IMO of course!
EDIT: Wait! One thing however where you’re right and I’m wrong is with live concerts. Today older legacy acts compete and often surpass attendance of newer acts.
Yeah I would say books got it worse, there's a strong tradition of re-arranging old classics in new music, e.g.: kamasi washington remaking clair de lune. so listening to old pieces are not only rewarding, it's even necessary.
And movies and TV. Why try some random new stuff when any of the classic movies is both guaranteed to be good and probably available for free from the library's DVD collection?
I feel a reader or a music lover is more likely to delve into the past than a gamer or movie watcher. I cant remember meeting anyone that was put off by the age of a book or a song, but have recommended games and movies to hardcore gamers and self labelled cinephiles and they were written off immediately due to age.
Relevance!
eg: What's it like to be a teenager alongside the rise of AI? It's a hell of a lot different than the old sci-fi imagines, and old sci-fi generally skipped to the 'end-phase-ubiquitous-AGI' instead of focusing on the transitionary 'awkward teenage' period of the technology.
eg: What's it like to be a teenager alongside the rise of AI? It's a hell of a lot different than the old sci-fi imagines, and old sci-fi generally skipped to the 'end-phase-ubiquitous-AGI' instead of focusing on the transitionary 'awkward teenage' period of the technology.
> What's it like to be a teenager alongside the rise of AI?
That's a tough question? Going to college and taking on debt no longer looks like a good choice. What to learn that won't be heavily devalued in four years?
That's a tough question? Going to college and taking on debt no longer looks like a good choice. What to learn that won't be heavily devalued in four years?
> That's a real phenomenon in music. New works have to compete with the entire body of existing work, some of which is pretty good.
John Philip Sousa was right about recorded music.
John Philip Sousa was right about recorded music.
and the author of course is only sampling a very tiny dataset of the works pushed by the algorithm. Many authors like me will never get on their radar.
The authors of those works (Pride and Prejudice, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov) were greatly influenced by Greek classics, Milton, Shakespeare, or their contemporaries (such as Charles Dickens) who were also shaped by some of those same sources.
> At this moment, there are not even any famous literary fiction writers (much less geniuses) in the United States of America under the age of 65.
> Literary fiction peaked on the charts in the 1950s and 1960s and was quite present before then. There was a sustained decline from the 1970s onward.
Authors under the age of 65 grew up in an impoverished literary environment. How could we expect them to compete with those whose imaginations were formed when culture was more uniformly attuned to what has been considered great throughout the centuries? What books did Austen, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky grow up with, or learn in school, that are no longer widely regarded or read?
> At this moment, there are not even any famous literary fiction writers (much less geniuses) in the United States of America under the age of 65.
> Literary fiction peaked on the charts in the 1950s and 1960s and was quite present before then. There was a sustained decline from the 1970s onward.
Authors under the age of 65 grew up in an impoverished literary environment. How could we expect them to compete with those whose imaginations were formed when culture was more uniformly attuned to what has been considered great throughout the centuries? What books did Austen, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky grow up with, or learn in school, that are no longer widely regarded or read?
> Authors under the age of 65 grew up in an impoverished literary environment. How could we expect them to compete with those whose imaginations were formed when culture was more uniformly attuned to what has been considered great throughout the centuries? What books did Austen, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky grow up with, or learn in school, that are no longer widely regarded or read?
You are operating under the asumption that the issue is authors. I think the issue is the readership. Great books are still being written. They are just not widely read anymore.
The problem is that it's easier to mindlessly scroll through Instagram or watch meaningless YouTube videos than take the time to read a book. There are large teams dedicated to ensuring this stays so and that these products are as addictive as they can be.
We, as a society, have apparently decided that it's acceptable to turn a large part of the population into idiots to sell more detergents. It's sad but at least we are selfdestructing through global warming so the problem will have an end.
You are operating under the asumption that the issue is authors. I think the issue is the readership. Great books are still being written. They are just not widely read anymore.
The problem is that it's easier to mindlessly scroll through Instagram or watch meaningless YouTube videos than take the time to read a book. There are large teams dedicated to ensuring this stays so and that these products are as addictive as they can be.
We, as a society, have apparently decided that it's acceptable to turn a large part of the population into idiots to sell more detergents. It's sad but at least we are selfdestructing through global warming so the problem will have an end.
That is the hypothesis that the author debunks in the second half of the article - that there are no readers any more because smartphones.
And they debunk it by pointing out that classic literary fiction is still being read, it's just contemporary literary fiction that isn't being read (and then they go on to hypothesise that it's this very attitude that is killing contemporary literary fiction readership).
I find it ironic that your comment laments the inability of readers to actually read, while failing to actually read the article that you're commenting on.
And they debunk it by pointing out that classic literary fiction is still being read, it's just contemporary literary fiction that isn't being read (and then they go on to hypothesise that it's this very attitude that is killing contemporary literary fiction readership).
I find it ironic that your comment laments the inability of readers to actually read, while failing to actually read the article that you're commenting on.
> And they debunk it by pointing out that classic literary fiction is still being read
Not at all.
Classic fiction is still far out of the most sold books nowadays which is entirely non fiction. That’s in the first half of the article by the way so I might not be the one with reading comprehension issue. I can somehow excuse you because the article author constantly confuses fiction and non fiction readership and fails to comprehend what should be seen in absolute numbers and when proportion actually matters for most of the article.
To address specifically the unconvincingly point that classic sell in absolute numbers, this should be unsurprising to anyone who has gone to school: contrary to modern fiction classics are actually studied and are part of various curriculum.
The other points against the influence of internet (and television before) are equally empty and hinge on a confusion between absolute number of readers (stable) and actual readers of serious fiction (vanishing).
I have little interest in actually commenting the virtues of the article to be frank - it’s garbage. The author opinion that postmodern authors are somehow written for critics is laughable. It’s so devoid of substance. It ignores both the actual critical consensus around those books when they were written (far from universal praise) and what they contain. The rest of the arguments are barely better sadly. And let’s not talk about what the article entirely fails to address: the rise of YA, book tok, the modern fiction bestsellers from Crichton to Dan Brown, the impact of movie adaptation (ever heard of Harry Potter, yes me too).
Anyway, I was merely replying to the comment above mine.
Not at all.
Classic fiction is still far out of the most sold books nowadays which is entirely non fiction. That’s in the first half of the article by the way so I might not be the one with reading comprehension issue. I can somehow excuse you because the article author constantly confuses fiction and non fiction readership and fails to comprehend what should be seen in absolute numbers and when proportion actually matters for most of the article.
To address specifically the unconvincingly point that classic sell in absolute numbers, this should be unsurprising to anyone who has gone to school: contrary to modern fiction classics are actually studied and are part of various curriculum.
The other points against the influence of internet (and television before) are equally empty and hinge on a confusion between absolute number of readers (stable) and actual readers of serious fiction (vanishing).
I have little interest in actually commenting the virtues of the article to be frank - it’s garbage. The author opinion that postmodern authors are somehow written for critics is laughable. It’s so devoid of substance. It ignores both the actual critical consensus around those books when they were written (far from universal praise) and what they contain. The rest of the arguments are barely better sadly. And let’s not talk about what the article entirely fails to address: the rise of YA, book tok, the modern fiction bestsellers from Crichton to Dan Brown, the impact of movie adaptation (ever heard of Harry Potter, yes me too).
Anyway, I was merely replying to the comment above mine.
I had to look it up but mark Z Danielewski (author of House of Leaves) is 59 years old, doesn't push back the age very far though. For a 55-year-old they'd be 10 in 1985, I imagine they'd be more influenced by Star Wars, Brazil, and The Breakfast Club, than Her or We and go on to write Severance, Fleabag, or Atlanta than Heart of Darkness or 1984.
This might prove too much, particularly for the case of literature. There were people writing commercially successful and culturally relevant literary fiction in 1970; back then you already had Austen and Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and Cervantes, plus Joyce and Woolf and Hemingway and Faulkner. I think there’s books published in the last 50 years that deserves a place on a short list of Best Novels, but I don’t think it has much overlap with the best-selling literary fiction being published at that time.
This reason doesn’t seem to be correct. Why do we have so many YouTube videos published that still garner views? Why TV shows? We still make culturally relevant movies every year. Why?
Books don’t need to compete with all previous books but just have to be culturally relevant now.
Books don’t need to compete with all previous books but just have to be culturally relevant now.
Novelty bias.
I agree. I've often thought about this via a thought experiment : How much money would it take for you to agree not to consume any new instance of a particular media type? In other words, you're offered fifty thousand dollars (or some other non-trivial but not outrageous amount of money) and in agreement you won't read a book released after June 2025.
Clearly this is going to vary from person to person but I might accept $50k to not read any new fiction title, but wouldn't accept the same deal for video games as it's likely new technology will result in some new classics in the coming years - the amount of money you'd need to offer would need to be much higher. Movies are somewhere in the middle.
This effect is self-reinforcing since at least part of the value in watching a movie / reading a book / etc is the ability to discuss it with other people. Not seeing any new movies would reduce my ability to participate in discussions with people. As less people watch new things, this becomes less of an issue.
Clearly this is going to vary from person to person but I might accept $50k to not read any new fiction title, but wouldn't accept the same deal for video games as it's likely new technology will result in some new classics in the coming years - the amount of money you'd need to offer would need to be much higher. Movies are somewhere in the middle.
This effect is self-reinforcing since at least part of the value in watching a movie / reading a book / etc is the ability to discuss it with other people. Not seeing any new movies would reduce my ability to participate in discussions with people. As less people watch new things, this becomes less of an issue.
There is also an issue that ranking is easily available now.
Of course, recommendations existed in the past as well, and stuff like classic literature was ranked for centuries at this point, but still, I think we relied on word of mouth more.
Nowadays you can easily get a list of "top ..." in any area and chances are high that it is all old stuff.
Of course, recommendations existed in the past as well, and stuff like classic literature was ranked for centuries at this point, but still, I think we relied on word of mouth more.
Nowadays you can easily get a list of "top ..." in any area and chances are high that it is all old stuff.
It's a deep problem with music and video games. I mean, can a Mario game really top Super Mario World? Not to say some later games aren't fun, but Persona 6 could only really top Persona 5 by being something really different, and if it was different it wouldn't be Persona 6.
Not so much with video games. The industry is so young that most of those "classics" are actually much less fun than I remember them. (Super Mario World does hold up very well though.) But since you mention Persona, consider how much better Persona 3 Portable is than Persona 3 FES. Game design has come a long way, and I believe it still has a long way to go. Not to mention the technical improvements that allow a game like Uncharted to exist, which cannot be compared to any 16-bit or earlier game.
Video games are stagnating hard. I've basically quit gaming for like the past 5 years, playing maybe two graphically undemanding games to completion per year, and what I'm seeing is that it's the same old games that have remained popular. From my perspective as someone coming back, it's as if time had stood still. In fact, one of the games I played was initially released 10 years ago in early access.
Bethesda even decided to just remake Oblivion rather than show off more of TES 6.
Bethesda even decided to just remake Oblivion rather than show off more of TES 6.
That might be true about the time period from the SNES to the present but it's not clear to me that we're really getting better games post the PS3.
I have Persona 5 Royal on my mind because I am playing through it now maybe a decade after I played Persona 4 Golden on the PS Vita. I love the story, I love the art, but the music isn't up there with P4G (how can you beat Reach out or Make history?) and I think it's a disappointment as a game.
Hypothetically it matters if you develop relationships with the characters and raise your social stats but practically you're not required to make hard choices because you have enough time to do everything -- and since the game is so long you feel compelled to do it all in one playthrough which stretches out the game even longer.
It's not so much a P5R problem as a general problem in the industry. In my current playthrough status ailments, buffs, debuffs and such just don't matter. That's the case for most turn-based games, just as the weapons triangle ceased to matter in Fire Emblem games a long time ago.
My son and I have been thinking a lot about a "visual novel + something else" game which is maybe 30 minutes - 6 hours per playthrough but requires multiple playthroughs. I'd be happy to have NG+, but he thinks that's cheap.
Dialogue has been a weak point in "interactive fiction" since the beginning, maybe LLMs will change that. Fictional VR games like Sword Art Online and Shangri-La Frontier have NPCs you can just talk to, I'd love to see that in real games. For now we get Meta's absurd model that you can make a storefront in Horizon Worlds but you need to have a real person to staff it which makes sense to exactly one person.
I have Persona 5 Royal on my mind because I am playing through it now maybe a decade after I played Persona 4 Golden on the PS Vita. I love the story, I love the art, but the music isn't up there with P4G (how can you beat Reach out or Make history?) and I think it's a disappointment as a game.
Hypothetically it matters if you develop relationships with the characters and raise your social stats but practically you're not required to make hard choices because you have enough time to do everything -- and since the game is so long you feel compelled to do it all in one playthrough which stretches out the game even longer.
It's not so much a P5R problem as a general problem in the industry. In my current playthrough status ailments, buffs, debuffs and such just don't matter. That's the case for most turn-based games, just as the weapons triangle ceased to matter in Fire Emblem games a long time ago.
My son and I have been thinking a lot about a "visual novel + something else" game which is maybe 30 minutes - 6 hours per playthrough but requires multiple playthroughs. I'd be happy to have NG+, but he thinks that's cheap.
Dialogue has been a weak point in "interactive fiction" since the beginning, maybe LLMs will change that. Fictional VR games like Sword Art Online and Shangri-La Frontier have NPCs you can just talk to, I'd love to see that in real games. For now we get Meta's absurd model that you can make a storefront in Horizon Worlds but you need to have a real person to staff it which makes sense to exactly one person.
We aren't getting good games past 2015 or so because the industry has become incredibly risk-averse and realized there's more profit to be made releasing sequels and remakes than producing something innovative. That being said, that's not a sustainable strategy and we are seeing the limits of that.
>It's not so much a P5R problem as a general problem in the industry. In my current playthrough status ailments, buffs, debuffs and such just don't matter. That's the case for most turn-based games, just as the weapons triangle ceased to matter in Fire Emblem games a long time ago.
I think that's more a function of the games you are playing, in Kiseki or Xenoblade or (some) Final Fantasy there is alot more strategy involved than in Persona, whose primairly appeal I believe is more of a social life simulator than a deep rpg experience. Even with music, it's just a different style where P4 is pop while P5 is jazz, but other games draw from instrumentals or ecelectic mixes like Ar Tonelico. To say one is better/worse isn't a good term because they aren't easily comparable.
>Fictional VR games like Sword Art Online and Shangri-La Frontier have NPCs you can just talk to, I'd love to see that in real games.
Well that's just a MMORPG or a RPG or ImSim. And the MMORPG is probably closer to needing a fresh start than being anywhere close to a solved genre. But as the riskiest and most expensive genre, nobody is going to funding something that really pushes the line due to the sheer risk involved.
>It's not so much a P5R problem as a general problem in the industry. In my current playthrough status ailments, buffs, debuffs and such just don't matter. That's the case for most turn-based games, just as the weapons triangle ceased to matter in Fire Emblem games a long time ago.
I think that's more a function of the games you are playing, in Kiseki or Xenoblade or (some) Final Fantasy there is alot more strategy involved than in Persona, whose primairly appeal I believe is more of a social life simulator than a deep rpg experience. Even with music, it's just a different style where P4 is pop while P5 is jazz, but other games draw from instrumentals or ecelectic mixes like Ar Tonelico. To say one is better/worse isn't a good term because they aren't easily comparable.
>Fictional VR games like Sword Art Online and Shangri-La Frontier have NPCs you can just talk to, I'd love to see that in real games.
Well that's just a MMORPG or a RPG or ImSim. And the MMORPG is probably closer to needing a fresh start than being anywhere close to a solved genre. But as the riskiest and most expensive genre, nobody is going to funding something that really pushes the line due to the sheer risk involved.
My favourite game of all time, Outer Wilds, was released in 2019.
I agree that AAA dev is too risk-averse and that there's a dearth of mid-budget games, but the indie sphere is still very rich.
I agree that AAA dev is too risk-averse and that there's a dearth of mid-budget games, but the indie sphere is still very rich.
>We aren't getting good games past 2015 or so because the industry has become incredibly risk-averse
Slay the Spire was released in 2017. Are you accounting for indie games?
Slay the Spire was released in 2017. Are you accounting for indie games?
There will always be exceptions to any trends, but I wouldn't say the deluge of generic roguelike platformers with 16 bit art has been paticularly flattering to the indie industry. Have things really progressed in 2024 since 2012 in the same way that 2012 was abjectly different from 2002? Not really, you could release Slay the Spire in 2012 or 2024 and it wouldn't look out of place.
They mostly seem interested in JRPG anime slop, and even then Expedition 33 was released just this year and is probably the best example of that genre from the last 20 years? That's also by a relatively small studio though..
I would agree that big AAA studios are basically entirely creatively bankrupt at this point, but that's not exclusive to games, the same trend is apparent with movies (remakes of Disney movies, Star Wars sequels, etc.).
Another end-of-ZIRP casualty?
I would agree that big AAA studios are basically entirely creatively bankrupt at this point, but that's not exclusive to games, the same trend is apparent with movies (remakes of Disney movies, Star Wars sequels, etc.).
Another end-of-ZIRP casualty?
I got stuck 1/3 of the way through Xenoblade on my New 3DS, I oughta figure out how and finish it!
>It's not so much a P5R problem as a general problem in the industry. In my current playthrough status ailments, buffs, debuffs and such just don't matter. That's the case for most turn-based games, just as the weapons triangle ceased to matter in Fire Emblem games a long time ago.
You can try Etrian Odyssey series by Atlus. It's all about status ailments, binds, buffs and debuffs.
You can try Etrian Odyssey series by Atlus. It's all about status ailments, binds, buffs and debuffs.
I got that on my New 3DS, gotta try it some day!
> Dialogue has been a weak point in "interactive fiction" since the beginning
Hard disagree. Dialogue is a strength of interactive fiction. Dialogue trees are unique to the medium. Titles like Firewatch, Night in the Woods, and Disco Elysium are all-time great examples of dialogue writing. I'd love to see interactive fiction that put more emphasis on internality instead; in that dimension, Disco Elysium really stands alone.
> maybe LLMs will change that
LLM-generated dialogue is only ever going to waste your time. Good dialogue is expressive and clever and characteristic and dense, none of which describe anything I've seen from an LLM. You'd be better-off just reading the prompt.
Hard disagree. Dialogue is a strength of interactive fiction. Dialogue trees are unique to the medium. Titles like Firewatch, Night in the Woods, and Disco Elysium are all-time great examples of dialogue writing. I'd love to see interactive fiction that put more emphasis on internality instead; in that dimension, Disco Elysium really stands alone.
> maybe LLMs will change that
LLM-generated dialogue is only ever going to waste your time. Good dialogue is expressive and clever and characteristic and dense, none of which describe anything I've seen from an LLM. You'd be better-off just reading the prompt.
To be fair, Persona 5 is my least favorite out of 3/4/5. Most fans of the series agree it's embarrassingly easy. Persona 3 (Portable is best, or FES if you're a masochist, but not Reloaded) offers a perfect challenge on the hardest difficulty, and Persona 4 was pretty well-tuned also. It wouldn't surprise me if P6 was closer to P4 or P3 than P5.
There are mods for Skyrim that hook into LLMs for dialogue and voice, some people seem to like it but from the videos I've seen I'd call it more of a curiosity or an experience than an engaging system.
I have to disagree. Evidence for this being wrong is right on many games websites a la Backloggd with plenty of people rating older games very highly, more than many new releases. More evidence: numerous games being re-released with mainly surface-level changes (older Final Fantasy’s, arguably Oblivion Remastered).
While I absolutely agree some games age like milk (IMO Persona 3 FES/Portable mechanically play like garbage and P4 ain’t much better) there are many games that were either the pinnacle of their of their craft in pretty fundamental ways or were just doing very odd, interesting things that no one tries to do anymore (outside indies). JRPGs are honestly the big genre I see for aging well, but there’s a bunch of PS1/PS2 era games having a big second life with the younger generation.
While I absolutely agree some games age like milk (IMO Persona 3 FES/Portable mechanically play like garbage and P4 ain’t much better) there are many games that were either the pinnacle of their of their craft in pretty fundamental ways or were just doing very odd, interesting things that no one tries to do anymore (outside indies). JRPGs are honestly the big genre I see for aging well, but there’s a bunch of PS1/PS2 era games having a big second life with the younger generation.
I would say every genre of media has this problem. A form of media might exist for thousands of years, but genre and fashion always evolve in new directions, because what's the point of creating more of what exists already.
Video Games were immune for a while because technology was changing so fast, but in the last decade or so its become really clear players don't care nearly as much about graphics as they used to.
People will quite happily pickup and play games from many years ago. Many of my teenage kids favourite games were made before they were born.
People will quite happily pickup and play games from many years ago. Many of my teenage kids favourite games were made before they were born.
Well, graphics plateaued and then we started to remember that fun and highest fidelity graphics don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.
People do care enough about graphics for Bethesda to spend time and money making e.g. Oblivion Remastered, though.
Oblivion is nearly 20 years old now and looked terrible at the time. (compared to other games that shipped at the time) Oblivion is a _big_ game not a polished game.
update: I found this screenshot and I think I was remembering Morrowinds characters.
https://slayweb.blogspot.com/2011/08/elder-scrolls-evolution...
update: I found this screenshot and I think I was remembering Morrowinds characters.
https://slayweb.blogspot.com/2011/08/elder-scrolls-evolution...
Morrowind had very janky animations, but it wasn't too bad for 2002 otherwise. Definitely not top notch, but, well, look at faces in Deus Ex for another example from this period...
Oblivion had those weird faces but was otherwise pretty good actually, especially the lush outdoor environments.
Oblivion had those weird faces but was otherwise pretty good actually, especially the lush outdoor environments.
There's a cave in France where somebody started painting a horse and 10,000 years later (but still tens of thousands of years ago) somebody finished it in the exact same style and technique. Novelty isn't required in art though it's currently prized.
> genre and fashion always evolve in new directions, because what's the point of creating more of what exists already
Well aren’t we mostly retelling Greek myths and great works the same as Shakespeare did in his time?
Well aren’t we mostly retelling Greek myths and great works the same as Shakespeare did in his time?
Culture evolves. There's no accounting for taste.
Putting aside the issues with manipulated IMDB ratings, look at the volume of Marvel movies ranked equal or better than classics like "Vertigo" or "Lawrence of Arabia".
Film lovers (or perhaps snobs?) feel jaded about recent output. Pop culture dictates that superhero movies are more accessible. The coarsening of culture is a continual, evergreen observation.
Putting aside the issues with manipulated IMDB ratings, look at the volume of Marvel movies ranked equal or better than classics like "Vertigo" or "Lawrence of Arabia".
Film lovers (or perhaps snobs?) feel jaded about recent output. Pop culture dictates that superhero movies are more accessible. The coarsening of culture is a continual, evergreen observation.
> Even if we assume there are good new books, they have to compete with the supply of existing books, which grows without bound - unlike the time and attention of consumers.
There is a lot of supply, but language change makes existing books impossible to read over time. You're always limited to whatever's been made in the last X years.
There is a lot of supply, but language change makes existing books impossible to read over time. You're always limited to whatever's been made in the last X years.
The consumption of media is exponential, if you read something good and you expect more from a genre, the number of consumable works quickly dwindles down to the point that you often end up waiting for new works. In the same way, as people get a better understanding of their own preferences, entire subgenres will become less relevant.
That's why I find that the true enthusiasts of a hobby tend to prefer works that are less well known or even not even high in "quality", primairly because "quality" is no longer a suitable metric for them. The kind of "hobbyists" who just stick to the classics strikes me more as lifestyle hobbyists that aren't neccessairly interested for intrinsic reasons.
That's why I find that the true enthusiasts of a hobby tend to prefer works that are less well known or even not even high in "quality", primairly because "quality" is no longer a suitable metric for them. The kind of "hobbyists" who just stick to the classics strikes me more as lifestyle hobbyists that aren't neccessairly interested for intrinsic reasons.
Music is a lot easier than visual media or books though. You can listen to new songs daily and have a good knowledge of the last century's music. It's also easy to listen and concentrate while doing something else, like walking or driving. You don't need light either.
Films are a 1-2 hour commitment. A TV series could be anywhere from 10-100 hours. A novella might be a couple of hours, but most people would take at least a day to read a novel. And these need close to 100% attention. Reading all the Hugo winners at a book a week would take 1.5 years, and you've not touched the nominees or books in series.
Films are a 1-2 hour commitment. A TV series could be anywhere from 10-100 hours. A novella might be a couple of hours, but most people would take at least a day to read a novel. And these need close to 100% attention. Reading all the Hugo winners at a book a week would take 1.5 years, and you've not touched the nominees or books in series.
It goes beyond this. Reading is a form of entertainment. There has been an explosion of new and different forms of personal entertainment, so books now have to compete not just with old books, but movies, video games, social media, etc etc etc
You point out the exact reason why I am so blasé about the potential for AI art and (back in the Bush years) rampant piracy to destroy creative fields. Who cares? We already have multiple lifetimes of quality work to enjoy.
This exactly why I push back to people such as Sam Altman making the claim that AI will allow us to create more art, which people want. Do people truly want or need that?
Turns out that most people enjoy the process of creating art themselves, with any tools that are available. It's a nearly universal method of human expression.
This is completely orthogonal to whether anyone else likes that art or finds it valuable.
This is completely orthogonal to whether anyone else likes that art or finds it valuable.
I kind of think a lot of these are bought as gifts, not really a thing people actually intend to read.
Or for college classes.
I've wondered about this with children's books. Classics like Alice in Wonderland and The Wind in the Willows are still wildly popular. I can't believe nobody has been able to write anything better since those days. It must exist but I've never managed to find them in the library or know how to find them among the tidal wave of slop. Most of them are very similar and, to me, low quality fluff with no nuanced characters, no rich fantasy worlds, no serious human interactions. 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy. The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books. Why do authors crank out so much low-quality crap instead of masterpieces?
IMO, a large part of the appeal of classics is that you know others have also read the book so there will be opportunities to quote from it and share the experience, perhaps for decades to come. In contrast, most recent best sellers disappear off the radar so quickly that the reader knows the opportunity to share them will be ephemeral. This if you can't enjoy the reading experience of a recent work all by yourself, without sharing it with others, then your only hope to share it socially is to join a book club that reads it.
For adult books maybe, but my child often chooses classic stories like those over piles of modern books that we also have. She doesn't know they're popular yet.
I assure you there are more interesting books for children. At least judged by the "do kids actually want to read it" factor. I do not know "The Wind in the Willows", but Alice in Wonderland is not all that interesting. I mean, the philosophy parts were good, but the storyline something to be skipped.
> 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy.
You are talking about books for very small kids here. At that age, they were not understanding Alice in Wonderland. But, the small ones actually liked those losing a toy books.
> The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books.
Kids books and entertainment was always vehicle for teaching kids rights and wrongs. You have that in Narnia, you have that in Thomas the Tank Engine, you have that in pretty much any Christian kids books. The moralizing ethical aspect is especially clear when you look at older books, because distance makes it all that more apparent.
Even Alice in Wonderland is meant to teach you philosophy first rather then be just a story.
> 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy.
You are talking about books for very small kids here. At that age, they were not understanding Alice in Wonderland. But, the small ones actually liked those losing a toy books.
> The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books.
Kids books and entertainment was always vehicle for teaching kids rights and wrongs. You have that in Narnia, you have that in Thomas the Tank Engine, you have that in pretty much any Christian kids books. The moralizing ethical aspect is especially clear when you look at older books, because distance makes it all that more apparent.
Even Alice in Wonderland is meant to teach you philosophy first rather then be just a story.
I agree right and wrong is good when it's fundamental enough to bet it'll last their lifetime and isn't simple preaching. But also complex human emotions and interactions are useful and interesting to them. The politics I'm complaining about is far more specific than that and I don't think 3-5 year olds either need it or can understand it - like environmental pollution, punishing capitalists, which ancient battle some holiday commemorates, life story of a specific politician, endangered species, cultural headgear, etc.
My kid seems to prefer choosing classic stories over the piles of modern books we also have.
My kid seems to prefer choosing classic stories over the piles of modern books we also have.
> A new movie comes out: what are the odds of it being more worth your while than one on the existing IMDb Top 1000? Decreasing
Not really? This is a rather "mechanical" view missing the bigger social part - for example, a big part of that worth is the social conversation, and the chances of your friends to watch that new movie vs the top 1000 isn't decreasing.
Also there is this factor of new films being able to incorporate "current" events which old films can't, and that's another factor of worth that's not decreasing with time
Not really? This is a rather "mechanical" view missing the bigger social part - for example, a big part of that worth is the social conversation, and the chances of your friends to watch that new movie vs the top 1000 isn't decreasing.
Also there is this factor of new films being able to incorporate "current" events which old films can't, and that's another factor of worth that's not decreasing with time
>bigger social part
Perhaps the "bigger" social part is what is missing. I've found I stop reading books or watching movies now days all the time. It seems like no media/author can resists SHOVING their micro-politic issue down your throat rather than simply presenting it as part of a story that you digest.
Its not that the social parts are missing. Its that there are 1,000,000 competing social issues and everyone is trying to make theirs heard.
I'm not sure if its the creator's or the publishing companies watering things down. Either way someone is doing it intentionally. No book where the prominent theme is is a micro politic will ever stand the test of time, or even gain a significant following.
Perhaps the "bigger" social part is what is missing. I've found I stop reading books or watching movies now days all the time. It seems like no media/author can resists SHOVING their micro-politic issue down your throat rather than simply presenting it as part of a story that you digest.
Its not that the social parts are missing. Its that there are 1,000,000 competing social issues and everyone is trying to make theirs heard.
I'm not sure if its the creator's or the publishing companies watering things down. Either way someone is doing it intentionally. No book where the prominent theme is is a micro politic will ever stand the test of time, or even gain a significant following.
I've found I've stopped watching TV or movies or reading written fiction, but it's because fiction in general has ceased to do something for me. It's as if there's a willing suspension of disbelief needed that I can no longer muster. Fiction comes across to me as inherently false. This seems to transcend the particular political position taken, if any.
It could be that reality is more "exciting" than any fiction, and your mind can't handle any more.
> It seems like no media/author can resists SHOVING their micro-politic issue down your throat rather than simply presenting it as part of a story that you digest.
That may say something about the declining quality of writing.
You have to be a real pro to write propaganda for any topic that is also good literature. But most people are not Jack London :)
That may say something about the declining quality of writing.
You have to be a real pro to write propaganda for any topic that is also good literature. But most people are not Jack London :)
I think it's due to a general decline into literalness.
I'm not sure which came first: audiences that no longer understand symbolism, metaphor, allegory, or writers who no longer use it. In any case, all of these things are basically completely absent from any modern piece of mainstream media. Wherever there's an attempt, it's decidedly conspicuous. There's little nuance and subtlety.
I'm not sure which came first: audiences that no longer understand symbolism, metaphor, allegory, or writers who no longer use it. In any case, all of these things are basically completely absent from any modern piece of mainstream media. Wherever there's an attempt, it's decidedly conspicuous. There's little nuance and subtlety.
>That may say something about the declining quality of writing.
It might but I'm not sure its all of the story.
I know how business and money works. I can say for sure there are forces out there saying. "Our focus group didn't understand this, make the message POP more,more,more" To writers/producers before they are willing to cut a check.
It might but I'm not sure its all of the story.
I know how business and money works. I can say for sure there are forces out there saying. "Our focus group didn't understand this, make the message POP more,more,more" To writers/producers before they are willing to cut a check.
Well if it works for the movie industry why wouldn't it work for "literature" too...
At this point I honestly feel the same about those books as I did later in life when I did that IMDb top 250 in college. I wish I would have read "different" books when growing up. But I guess that's how you go to somewhere — gradually. It's a bit like how I read a lot and if it were not for those not so-literary pulp fiction books and cheap action comics, I would have never picked up reading.
A lot has to do with language in those books. They read as kind of "foundational" and well structured (and I am speaking exclusively about English and Hindi classics, two languages I can read and write in). This gradually takes you on a journey of not only enjoying the language but also learning it. From there, different people branch off in various literary directions, and majority just drops off from the literary journey altogether.
A lot has to do with language in those books. They read as kind of "foundational" and well structured (and I am speaking exclusively about English and Hindi classics, two languages I can read and write in). This gradually takes you on a journey of not only enjoying the language but also learning it. From there, different people branch off in various literary directions, and majority just drops off from the literary journey altogether.
I think the first half of the article is the strongest, most plausible part. The argument:
Economic opportunities for professional writers have declined dramatically. The two crucial pathways were mentioned for novel writers to support themselves economically: (1) magazine writing and (2) academia. In the first case, magazine circulation has suffered because advertisers left for the internet, and in the second case, academic job oportunities have declined because of governmental cutbacks to universities, especially in the humanities.
The second half of the article argues that authors have made a tradeoff, deciding to maximize critical praise instead of book sales, thereby turning off general audiences who don't share the obscure and trendy tastes of the critics.
This argument felt weak. As far as I can tell, there's no real explanation of how it supposedly came about. Even the article author seems to admit there are holes in the argument: "There are still some important open questions: the exact role of the critics in moving authors away from popular taste." Indeed.
I'm personally a fan of contemporary literary fiction. My own suspicion is that the problem in literature is the same as the problem in music and movies: corporate consolidation and the ascendancy of data-mongering penny-pinchers with no taste except for profit maximization. Their preference in all the arts is derivative dreck that's easily marketed, ideally with a built-in audience and reproducible, with the goal of spawning an endless series based in the same "universe." The leaders of the industry don't want to take chances on new artists, unless they can guarantee a massive hit.
Economic opportunities for professional writers have declined dramatically. The two crucial pathways were mentioned for novel writers to support themselves economically: (1) magazine writing and (2) academia. In the first case, magazine circulation has suffered because advertisers left for the internet, and in the second case, academic job oportunities have declined because of governmental cutbacks to universities, especially in the humanities.
The second half of the article argues that authors have made a tradeoff, deciding to maximize critical praise instead of book sales, thereby turning off general audiences who don't share the obscure and trendy tastes of the critics.
This argument felt weak. As far as I can tell, there's no real explanation of how it supposedly came about. Even the article author seems to admit there are holes in the argument: "There are still some important open questions: the exact role of the critics in moving authors away from popular taste." Indeed.
I'm personally a fan of contemporary literary fiction. My own suspicion is that the problem in literature is the same as the problem in music and movies: corporate consolidation and the ascendancy of data-mongering penny-pinchers with no taste except for profit maximization. Their preference in all the arts is derivative dreck that's easily marketed, ideally with a built-in audience and reproducible, with the goal of spawning an endless series based in the same "universe." The leaders of the industry don't want to take chances on new artists, unless they can guarantee a massive hit.
Magazines were so flush with cash that Vonnegut was paid $750 for his first story. That's unadjusted for inflation. I'm no expert, but I think a first time author getting $750 from a magazine would be doing pretty well these days. He saw that market fall apart within his lifetime, and blamed it on th audience moving to TV, for what it's worth.
Many well known authors got their start in magazines like Hunter S. Thompson; Where would he be if he was starting out today? Probably doing podcasts and the youtube circuit instead.
My assumption is that many people are trying to break into the podcast circuit and the vast majority basically fail. The winners being those who are best suited for it. My assumption would be that Hunter S Thompson happened to be suited for a different attention market in a different era.
The last time I checked (2022), top-tier lit mags will pay about $50-100 for a story. They pay mostly in "exposure" these days.
> As far as I can tell, there's no real explanation of how it supposedly came about.
Critical awards are a huge boon in getting your book on the very limited and dwindling shelf space (and especially on endcaps and displays, where they're going to be noticed), or on the front page of online book stores.
In a field that is hurting for readers, that's a huge deal. That will get books sold for a *very tiny* number of titles, but not create a stable fanbase. So everyone is competing for those critical awards, causing the genre to spiral.
Critical awards are a huge boon in getting your book on the very limited and dwindling shelf space (and especially on endcaps and displays, where they're going to be noticed), or on the front page of online book stores.
In a field that is hurting for readers, that's a huge deal. That will get books sold for a *very tiny* number of titles, but not create a stable fanbase. So everyone is competing for those critical awards, causing the genre to spiral.
>Economic opportunities for professional writers have declined dramatically. The two crucial pathways were mentioned for novel writers to support themselves economically: (1) magazine writing and (2) academia. In the first case, magazine circulation has suffered because advertisers left for the internet, and in the second case, academic job oportunities have declined because of governmental cutbacks to universities, especially in the humanities.
>The second half of the article argues that authors have made a tradeoff, deciding to maximize critical praise instead of book sales, thereby turning off general audiences who don't share the obscure and trendy tastes of the critics.
I think that the second half of the article seems weak because the first half contains a critical flaw. Academia hasn't declined nearly as much as magazines. Government funding is down, but departments are open and there are still thousands of English professors out there. Meanwhile, enrollment is up and university budgets are broadly still quite healthy. The situation is much worse for traditional long-form entertainment media, which has been squeezed by the blogosphere and the algorithmic feed.
This is not to diminish the argument that the arts have suffered as a whole, but in order to look at changes within the field, we need to consider changes in the relative importance of various factors.
The expected consequence of this is that authors become more dependent on academic jobs, which often react more favorably to critical appraisal than book sales. The second argument in the article then follows.
There is a little more to say here: the old magazine audience was not quite the broad popular audience of the bestseller lists. Rather we have to hypothesize some particular "literary" interest among the magazine audience that creates a market for the writers of literary fiction in a way that today's media does not. But since I have only a passing familiarity with that world and I am not a big reader of literary fiction I do not have any useful insight here.
>The second half of the article argues that authors have made a tradeoff, deciding to maximize critical praise instead of book sales, thereby turning off general audiences who don't share the obscure and trendy tastes of the critics.
I think that the second half of the article seems weak because the first half contains a critical flaw. Academia hasn't declined nearly as much as magazines. Government funding is down, but departments are open and there are still thousands of English professors out there. Meanwhile, enrollment is up and university budgets are broadly still quite healthy. The situation is much worse for traditional long-form entertainment media, which has been squeezed by the blogosphere and the algorithmic feed.
This is not to diminish the argument that the arts have suffered as a whole, but in order to look at changes within the field, we need to consider changes in the relative importance of various factors.
The expected consequence of this is that authors become more dependent on academic jobs, which often react more favorably to critical appraisal than book sales. The second argument in the article then follows.
There is a little more to say here: the old magazine audience was not quite the broad popular audience of the bestseller lists. Rather we have to hypothesize some particular "literary" interest among the magazine audience that creates a market for the writers of literary fiction in a way that today's media does not. But since I have only a passing familiarity with that world and I am not a big reader of literary fiction I do not have any useful insight here.
> departments are open and there are still thousands of English professors out there
Wow, that's a pretty low bar.
Ask newly minted PhDs about the job market. The submitted article even has a chart and a link about the job market, so which part of that are you disputing?
Wow, that's a pretty low bar.
Ask newly minted PhDs about the job market. The submitted article even has a chart and a link about the job market, so which part of that are you disputing?
The answer to your question is just the next paragraph after the sentence you quoted.
To elaborate on lapcat's point, you have to look at this from the point-of-view of a young, would-be aspiring literary fiction writer. From that vantage, it doesn't matter what the steady state of English/MFA professorships is, all that matters is your ability/chances to get one of those stable
professorships. And the odds are very, very low, because lots of new PhDs are being produced, the turnover on those jobs is tiny (they are very comfortable positions, and there are few other job opportunities that use the same skills), and ~no new jobs of that kind are being created. Even if you get into a top-tier PhD program, chances are you will never get a tenure-track position, much less achieve tenure. You will either scrape by on a series of poorly-paid, labor intensive adjunct teaching positions, or abandon academia.
This is all very well-documented, search for "humanities phd job crisis" and you will find lots of information, e.g. [0].
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/upshot/academic-job-crisi...
This is all very well-documented, search for "humanities phd job crisis" and you will find lots of information, e.g. [0].
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/upshot/academic-job-crisi...
Isn't it just math? How many PhD students are "minted" by a professor over their career? A very crude estimate is between 10 and 50. For each PhD to get a professorship, each generation the number of jobs would have to multiply by that number. Does anyone believe that can be possible? If not, you will end up with a "crisis" like this, regardless of the best of intentions or evil influences or whatever. I mean of course if you kept 10x-ing the available jobs, at some point the supply of students would thin out but probably only at a huge number.
No, it's not? Could you please be more specific?
I agree with you that the economic factors are much more persuasive.
I'm curious though, if you're a reader of contemporary literary fiction, do you think that it hasn't undergone a transformation to become more obscure and trendy compared to where it was in, say, the 1960s? Are the critics' favorites now just as accessible and of the same standard as, say, Lolita or Portnoy's Complaint were back then? Or do you agree there was a transformation and just disagree with the vague reasons he gives for it?
Also, do you have any recommendations of contemporary literary fiction for us here on Hacker News? Asking as someone who mostly only reads literary novels by dead people, contemporary sci-fi or speculative fiction, and of course, inevitably, books by Sally Rooney.
I'm curious though, if you're a reader of contemporary literary fiction, do you think that it hasn't undergone a transformation to become more obscure and trendy compared to where it was in, say, the 1960s? Are the critics' favorites now just as accessible and of the same standard as, say, Lolita or Portnoy's Complaint were back then? Or do you agree there was a transformation and just disagree with the vague reasons he gives for it?
Also, do you have any recommendations of contemporary literary fiction for us here on Hacker News? Asking as someone who mostly only reads literary novels by dead people, contemporary sci-fi or speculative fiction, and of course, inevitably, books by Sally Rooney.
I'm not trying to present myself as an expert in the field, and certainly not as a tastemaker. I'm just a regular reader of contemporary literary fiction. My personal taste doesn't match well with the critics, or with the best-seller charts for that matter, so I don't pay a lot of attention to either. The article author is much more familiar with the empirical facts than I am.
My objection was that, from the perspective of a reader of the submitted article, there seems to be a giant plot hole in the author's story. The author claims:
> beginning in the 1970s, authors were willing to optimize for critical praise at the expense of sales to a degree they had not been before.
This may or may not be empirical true, but the question is why? As far as I could tell, the author never explained why.
> It’s easy to see how a vicious cycle could have arisen from the preoccupation with status, not sales:
> 1. Authors start to optimize for critical praise
You can't just start the argument there! Ironically, the author talks about a vicious cycle, but that's actually a circular argument. I want to see 1 as the conclusion, not the first premise.
> How exactly did this cycle start? I think there’s reason to believe it began in the 1970s.
That's an answer to the question of when it started, not how is started.
The author places as footnote at that point and admits at the very end of the article, "Epistemically, this section is the shakiest."
There is a theory presented about mass behavior, the behavior of novel writers as a group. Yet a psychological motive is lacking. Writers all just decided to change their writing fundamentally, for no apparent reason?
My objection was that, from the perspective of a reader of the submitted article, there seems to be a giant plot hole in the author's story. The author claims:
> beginning in the 1970s, authors were willing to optimize for critical praise at the expense of sales to a degree they had not been before.
This may or may not be empirical true, but the question is why? As far as I could tell, the author never explained why.
> It’s easy to see how a vicious cycle could have arisen from the preoccupation with status, not sales:
> 1. Authors start to optimize for critical praise
You can't just start the argument there! Ironically, the author talks about a vicious cycle, but that's actually a circular argument. I want to see 1 as the conclusion, not the first premise.
> How exactly did this cycle start? I think there’s reason to believe it began in the 1970s.
That's an answer to the question of when it started, not how is started.
The author places as footnote at that point and admits at the very end of the article, "Epistemically, this section is the shakiest."
There is a theory presented about mass behavior, the behavior of novel writers as a group. Yet a psychological motive is lacking. Writers all just decided to change their writing fundamentally, for no apparent reason?
You have got it backwards. Why would economic incentives opportunities not exist if there were still demand?
If you suggest that demand reduced because of internet - wouldn’t internet then be the real cause of decline and not some vague reason about wages?
If you suggest that demand reduced because of internet - wouldn’t internet then be the real cause of decline and not some vague reason about wages?
> You have got it backwards. Why would economic incentives opportunities not exist if there were still demand?
Novels can take years to write, and sometimes years to sell. In the meantime, authors need to pay the bills. Only authors who are already famous get substantial advances for unwritten books. Therefore, aspiring novelists need sources of income to support themselves while they write a novel. Magazine writing and academia have been two of the most common sources of income for aspiring novelists. If those sources dry up, then the supply of aspiring novelists dries up too, and thus the supply of novels. Even if there's a demand for novels, publishers have little idea who will write a great novel before that novel is actually written; publishers can't just throw around money to support a bunch of unproven writers.
> If you suggest that demand reduced because of internet - wouldn’t internet then be the real cause of decline and not some vague reason about wages?
Ironically, "because of internet" is the vaguest of reasons. Here's what the submitted article said, specifically: "the internet killed magazines, not because people’s brains turned to mush, but because of the loss of advertisement revenue. U.S. consumer-magazine ad spend almost halved from 2004 to 2024 as brands chased cheaper, better-targeted impressions on Google and Facebook. It was those magazines that didn’t rely primarily on advertising revenue which survived and are thriving today. The New Yorker, for example, is still profitable."
Novels can take years to write, and sometimes years to sell. In the meantime, authors need to pay the bills. Only authors who are already famous get substantial advances for unwritten books. Therefore, aspiring novelists need sources of income to support themselves while they write a novel. Magazine writing and academia have been two of the most common sources of income for aspiring novelists. If those sources dry up, then the supply of aspiring novelists dries up too, and thus the supply of novels. Even if there's a demand for novels, publishers have little idea who will write a great novel before that novel is actually written; publishers can't just throw around money to support a bunch of unproven writers.
> If you suggest that demand reduced because of internet - wouldn’t internet then be the real cause of decline and not some vague reason about wages?
Ironically, "because of internet" is the vaguest of reasons. Here's what the submitted article said, specifically: "the internet killed magazines, not because people’s brains turned to mush, but because of the loss of advertisement revenue. U.S. consumer-magazine ad spend almost halved from 2004 to 2024 as brands chased cheaper, better-targeted impressions on Google and Facebook. It was those magazines that didn’t rely primarily on advertising revenue which survived and are thriving today. The New Yorker, for example, is still profitable."
> My own suspicion is that the problem in literature is the same as the problem in music and movies: corporate consolidation and the ascendancy of data-mongering penny-pinchers with no taste except for profit maximization
Agreed. I think this was a big miss in the article.
Agreed. I think this was a big miss in the article.
I love how this article cuts right through a lot of bad trite explanations for literary fiction’s decline that have been pushed by its adherents (“the internet made people stupid”) to really try and analyze the supply side and demand side factors of why not many people buy contemporary literary fiction anymore.
His point that people still read challenging literary fiction, just by dead people, also seems an important one (see HN’s recent discussions of reading Ulysses) and rather damning for contemporary literary novelists. So is the point that many good writers who wanted to actually earn a living that way ended up writing for prestige TV in the 2000s instead.
I do wish he’d discussed more why Sally Rooney seems to be the exception, in terms of commercial success. What is it about her books that’s different? What did she do (or avoid doing) to appeal to a wide readership?
Finally, he seems to draw a pretty hard boundary between literary and “genre” fiction that I’m not sure always exists. Ursula Le Guin is a good counterexample here.
His point that people still read challenging literary fiction, just by dead people, also seems an important one (see HN’s recent discussions of reading Ulysses) and rather damning for contemporary literary novelists. So is the point that many good writers who wanted to actually earn a living that way ended up writing for prestige TV in the 2000s instead.
I do wish he’d discussed more why Sally Rooney seems to be the exception, in terms of commercial success. What is it about her books that’s different? What did she do (or avoid doing) to appeal to a wide readership?
Finally, he seems to draw a pretty hard boundary between literary and “genre” fiction that I’m not sure always exists. Ursula Le Guin is a good counterexample here.
> Finally, he seems to draw a pretty hard boundary between literary and “genre” fiction that I’m not sure always exists
The litfic people would never agree with this, but litfic is also a genre. It has its tropes, and especially it has its snobbery. I think part of its decline may be exactly that: the social circle which values litfic for exclusionary snob value was always small, but now it has been eclipsed. Apart from specific fandoms like Joyce; the Joyceans are closest to SF fans in the way their fandom operates. They even have conventions.
The litfic people would never agree with this, but litfic is also a genre. It has its tropes, and especially it has its snobbery. I think part of its decline may be exactly that: the social circle which values litfic for exclusionary snob value was always small, but now it has been eclipsed. Apart from specific fandoms like Joyce; the Joyceans are closest to SF fans in the way their fandom operates. They even have conventions.
> I do wish he’d discussed more why Sally Rooney seems to be the exception, in terms of commercial success. What is it about her books that’s different? What did she do (or avoid doing) to appeal to a wide readership?
I suppose part of the reason is that the Irish have cultivated a strong literary culture.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/20/we-all...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/30/irish-...
I suppose part of the reason is that the Irish have cultivated a strong literary culture.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/20/we-all...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/30/irish-...
Something hinted at in the essay is what I consider a funnel effect. If you have N people starting on some project, N/2 will get distracted after a while, some proportion of those who remain will just suck, some smaller proportion will be OK, and so on until you manage to find a few real geniuses. If you shrink the size of the funnel, you get less geniuses.
An important part of having a large funnel is giving people a way to really spend their time doing the thing. For example, writing short stories for magazines was once a reasonable way to support yourself for a few years as a young writer, and led to a very large funnel. Take away that infrastructure for young writers, and you get a smaller funnel, and an attrition in quality of the best work.
(Now, consider what happens 10-20 years after we stop hiring new grads for programming jobs...)
An important part of having a large funnel is giving people a way to really spend their time doing the thing. For example, writing short stories for magazines was once a reasonable way to support yourself for a few years as a young writer, and led to a very large funnel. Take away that infrastructure for young writers, and you get a smaller funnel, and an attrition in quality of the best work.
(Now, consider what happens 10-20 years after we stop hiring new grads for programming jobs...)
One thing I got from reading Sally Rooney is I can relate to the many of the character's situations, thoughts/opinions and emotions even though I am almost forty years older than they are and her books are easy to read for lack of a better description (though this latter features in much contemporary writing). Is that her secret sauce, I dunno.
>her books are easy to read for lack of a better description (though this latter features in much contemporary writing).
Maybe linguistic evolution is playing a role? Contemporary writing is easiest to read because it's written in contemporary English?
I also think The Elements of Style had a real and positive influence, in terms of e.g. sentences getting shorter: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xYn3CKir4bTMzY5eb/why-have-s...
Maybe linguistic evolution is playing a role? Contemporary writing is easiest to read because it's written in contemporary English?
I also think The Elements of Style had a real and positive influence, in terms of e.g. sentences getting shorter: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xYn3CKir4bTMzY5eb/why-have-s...
Because Rooney writes dressed-up romance novels. They’re mediocre. But to the author’s point, at least they’re readable and touch on real emotion, even if I find them a bit trite. Some balance could be struck between Rooney and the more highbrow experiments the author bemoans. Elena Ferrante is a decent example here, and she does get sales. But even then, I do think the author understates the competition reading faces from new forms of media - yes, there are more people, but the amount of distraction has scaled disproportionately to the number of new people. Massively.
If someone likes Le Guin, they also like the writing of Toni Morrison. Morrison follows a more complex but similar abstract structure in her writing.
[deleted]
To me the signaling-spiral inside-baseball hall-of-mirrors as well as the committee-style decision making seem most salient as reasons.
The whole thing reminds me of the exponential increase in published scientific papers but comparatively little to show for it in terms of big name discoveries. Both are immaterial prestige games and can fly off into a spiral.
The whole thing reminds me of the exponential increase in published scientific papers but comparatively little to show for it in terms of big name discoveries. Both are immaterial prestige games and can fly off into a spiral.
Even the most challenging work of fiction wasn't challenging to an 18 year old contemporary reader of average intelligence. The fact that in order to appreciate these works in present day requires more intellectualism doesn't actually say anything about the works themselves.
I feel like this is a pretty bold statement for a population that depending on what year you're calling contemporary was probably somewhere between 30-50% illiterate.
I really wouldn't expect reading proficiency to be radically different from the distribution we have today which is to say the distribution centers around levels 2/3 which is "can make basic inferences from text."
I really wouldn't expect reading proficiency to be radically different from the distribution we have today which is to say the distribution centers around levels 2/3 which is "can make basic inferences from text."
Yes, and the amount of people being taught to read was a lot lower than "basically everyone" (assuming we're talking about the developed countries where this is measured). Literature being considered a hobby anyone can get into is a relatively recent concept.
In some ways we are 30-50% literate now which means I completely agree with you. I only meant the above about the literate 18 year old. If a 17 year old kid with a 3.2 GPA can't follow the prose without a headache then it isn't the same kind of writing that Tolstoy did. That's not to say that same person would appreciate the content of the novel in its richness.
Charles Dickens was a very popular author. Modern English majors struggle to even "make basic inferences" from the text!
https://kittenbeloved.substack.com/p/college-english-majors-...
https://kittenbeloved.substack.com/p/college-english-majors-...
I think you're confusing critical and analytical reading with narrative reading. It is definitely true that critical reading ability is uncommon but that doesn't mean a typical reader can't follow a story.
Sidenote - Dickens is unreadable to me for two reasons: that version of English is not the same language I speak natively and he uses so much visual descriptions and I'm an aphant.
Sidenote - Dickens is unreadable to me for two reasons: that version of English is not the same language I speak natively and he uses so much visual descriptions and I'm an aphant.
The task wasn't sophisticated. The English majors were being asked to describe in simple terms what the text was saying. If they were unfamiliar with any of the words they were allowed to look them up. This was beyond them.
So as a comparison I asked AI to translate the text as closely as possible to modern English. Which I know is the task given to the students but the text isn't hard once it's in roughly your native tongue, it's just written using unfamiliar prose.
> LONDON. The Michaelmas term recently ended, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Relentless November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had just recently pulled back from the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't be surprising to encounter a Megalosaurus, about forty feet long, waddling like an elephant-sized lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke hanging low from chimney tops, creating a soft black drizzle with flakes of soot in it as large as full-grown snowflakes—gone into mourning, one might think, for the death of the sun. Dogs, unrecognizable in the mire. Horses, barely better; splashed up to their very blinders. Pedestrians, bumping into one another's umbrellas, in a widespread outbreak of bad temper, and losing their footing at street corners, where tens of thousands of other pedestrians have been slipping and sliding since daybreak (if this day ever broke), adding new layers to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking stubbornly to the pavement at those points, and building up with compound interest.
The Feast of St. Michael's just ended. Some guy who is roughly akin to the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court is chilling at what is basically "The Supreme Court Building" (The US was so creative with the name). It's raining, a lot. Everything is muddy. Dickens when writing this clearly had just learned recently what a Megalosaurus is. Oh my god Dickens is so pretentious describing chimneys doing absolutely nothing special. The dogs and horses are covered in mud. The people are struggling to get around and are becoming frustrated at one another. The mud is building up on the pavement because of all the people tracking it.
> LONDON. The Michaelmas term recently ended, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Relentless November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had just recently pulled back from the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't be surprising to encounter a Megalosaurus, about forty feet long, waddling like an elephant-sized lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke hanging low from chimney tops, creating a soft black drizzle with flakes of soot in it as large as full-grown snowflakes—gone into mourning, one might think, for the death of the sun. Dogs, unrecognizable in the mire. Horses, barely better; splashed up to their very blinders. Pedestrians, bumping into one another's umbrellas, in a widespread outbreak of bad temper, and losing their footing at street corners, where tens of thousands of other pedestrians have been slipping and sliding since daybreak (if this day ever broke), adding new layers to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking stubbornly to the pavement at those points, and building up with compound interest.
The Feast of St. Michael's just ended. Some guy who is roughly akin to the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court is chilling at what is basically "The Supreme Court Building" (The US was so creative with the name). It's raining, a lot. Everything is muddy. Dickens when writing this clearly had just learned recently what a Megalosaurus is. Oh my god Dickens is so pretentious describing chimneys doing absolutely nothing special. The dogs and horses are covered in mud. The people are struggling to get around and are becoming frustrated at one another. The mud is building up on the pavement because of all the people tracking it.
Nobody talks the way that text was written anymore. This is a test of a different skill than ability to grok a bit of narrative.
Iain M Banks is another example of "literary sci-fi" or whatever you want to call it.
> What made the fiction literary was it spoke the language of memory, where the reader inhabited the experience of the characters, and this changed how readers experienced the world after.
>
> — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882341
People don't turn to books for this sort of experience anymore. People are not "literary minded". For the average person, interpolating another person's experience against their own through the written word is counterintuitive if not impossible and detached.
It takes a literary mind to feel through text. Electronic media of all sorts, aside from long form text displayed electronically is just that; electrifying.
I think that the quote I pulled from motohagiography applies to all writing and when we go further:
> Writing on the internet is participatory, impersonal, performative, and anti-intimate.
The cultural decline of all writing becomes more obvious.
Anyone who cares about this sort of stuff needs to understand that their brain is rewired but their spirit still craves the same old stuff that it sought out for when the mind could stomach total absorption in a dry block of pulp.
People don't turn to books for this sort of experience anymore. People are not "literary minded". For the average person, interpolating another person's experience against their own through the written word is counterintuitive if not impossible and detached.
It takes a literary mind to feel through text. Electronic media of all sorts, aside from long form text displayed electronically is just that; electrifying.
I think that the quote I pulled from motohagiography applies to all writing and when we go further:
> Writing on the internet is participatory, impersonal, performative, and anti-intimate.
The cultural decline of all writing becomes more obvious.
Anyone who cares about this sort of stuff needs to understand that their brain is rewired but their spirit still craves the same old stuff that it sought out for when the mind could stomach total absorption in a dry block of pulp.
> it spoke the language of memory,
We are living in the tower of Babel. No one speaks the same "language" anymore. I truly believe this was the true metaphor behind that story. Once a civilization reaches a certain level of standard wealth people hyper converge on their personal beliefs to the point where they can literally no longer speak about other forms of personal belief or preference that conflicts with their own. And they no longer are coerced into going along with another belief system (compromise) due to economic need from the majority. At that point the civilization unravels due to lack of coherent direction.
Look at all the arguments about definitions of clearly defined words in modern politics.
We are living in the tower of Babel. No one speaks the same "language" anymore. I truly believe this was the true metaphor behind that story. Once a civilization reaches a certain level of standard wealth people hyper converge on their personal beliefs to the point where they can literally no longer speak about other forms of personal belief or preference that conflicts with their own. And they no longer are coerced into going along with another belief system (compromise) due to economic need from the majority. At that point the civilization unravels due to lack of coherent direction.
Look at all the arguments about definitions of clearly defined words in modern politics.
Even so, mass media today is better posed to present a shared language.
I'd go as far as to think that there is a shared language in society today, but it's more like athletes jawing off amongst each other than something like what we expect the effects of culture and art to be.
I'd go as far as to think that there is a shared language in society today, but it's more like athletes jawing off amongst each other than something like what we expect the effects of culture and art to be.
Tech doesn't change human nature. We are still the same as 100,000 years ago without tech.
In my original comment, I said that I believe that our brains are rewired but our spirits still crave the same things as before.
Tech changes the actions and reasonings behind how our nature is exercised, at the material level.
Now, if you don't believe in the material/immaterial dichotomy that typifies man then what I'm saying may not register.
I'm not sure if this applies to you, but either way I'm curious what made you make the claim that took us in this direction because it's apparent that you've noticed a logical step that I was only aware of subconsciously.
Thanks.
Tech changes the actions and reasonings behind how our nature is exercised, at the material level.
Now, if you don't believe in the material/immaterial dichotomy that typifies man then what I'm saying may not register.
I'm not sure if this applies to you, but either way I'm curious what made you make the claim that took us in this direction because it's apparent that you've noticed a logical step that I was only aware of subconsciously.
Thanks.
Tech changes human culture. The changes are at a population, statistical level.
Asimovs Foundation book described it well.
Asimovs Foundation book described it well.
Except for the thousands of years of civilizational-directed breeding in parts of the globe.
You can share a language and still talk past each other.
> And they no longer are coerced into going along with another belief system (compromise) due to economic need from the majority. At that point the civilization unravels due to lack of coherent direction.
I mean... you think this is _new_? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
Civilisation, you will not, survived a few hundred years of _that_.
I'm not sure that the sort of ultra-conformist society that you seem to be thinking of ever really existed.
I mean... you think this is _new_? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
Civilisation, you will not, survived a few hundred years of _that_.
I'm not sure that the sort of ultra-conformist society that you seem to be thinking of ever really existed.
I'm not idealizing. I'm saying its a cycle so powerful and embedded in our nature that people wrote parables about it that have persisted for thousands of years yet we keep doing it and not learning our collective lesson.
I vaguely recall some sociology and media theory strands that make arguments similar to the quoted post—that we are entering or have already entered an era of post-literacy. Our new language is a language of images, (tiktok, instagram), immediacy, and literalness (does anyone even understand allegory anymore? Does the average piece of media ever express a metaphor?). I don't have numbers on it, but my teacher friends tell me that the typical student's reading comprehension skills have tanked in the past few years.
It's not just reading comprehension, it's the imagination that goes with it.
Text is active. It triggers the imagination. Visual imagery - especially electronic imagery - is consumed passively. What you see is what you get.
Especially with Gen Z, there's been a catastrophic collapse in the public's ability to imagine anything that hasn't been pre-digested by Hollywood movies, video games, D&D, and anime.
It's the same stock imagery over and over and over.
Older culture is "boring" because it doesn't follow the standard tropes, and that makes it incomprehensible.
It's a bizarre kind of deja nostalgia - the only futures that can be imagined are the ones that have been imagined already.
Text is active. It triggers the imagination. Visual imagery - especially electronic imagery - is consumed passively. What you see is what you get.
Especially with Gen Z, there's been a catastrophic collapse in the public's ability to imagine anything that hasn't been pre-digested by Hollywood movies, video games, D&D, and anime.
It's the same stock imagery over and over and over.
Older culture is "boring" because it doesn't follow the standard tropes, and that makes it incomprehensible.
It's a bizarre kind of deja nostalgia - the only futures that can be imagined are the ones that have been imagined already.
> Older culture is "boring" because it doesn't follow the standard tropes, and that makes it incomprehensible.
Hrm, I'm not sure what culture you're thinking of, but many genres are considerably _less_ trope-bound today than fifty years ago. Partly just because there is just _so much more stuff_. It is far easier to publish books. The end of the top-40 system as a curb on what music anyone actually gets to hear has allowed for far more diversity there. Total TV output today must be at least 10 times what it was 50 years ago, maybe more. All of this allows more experimentation.
Hrm, I'm not sure what culture you're thinking of, but many genres are considerably _less_ trope-bound today than fifty years ago. Partly just because there is just _so much more stuff_. It is far easier to publish books. The end of the top-40 system as a curb on what music anyone actually gets to hear has allowed for far more diversity there. Total TV output today must be at least 10 times what it was 50 years ago, maybe more. All of this allows more experimentation.
> there's been a catastrophic collapse in the public's ability to imagine anything that hasn't been pre-digested by Hollywood movies, video games, D&D, and anime.
D&D? How does a book based roleplaying game fit into the argument about lack of imagination.
D&D? How does a book based roleplaying game fit into the argument about lack of imagination.
> Older culture is "boring" because it doesn't follow the standard tropes, and that makes it incomprehensible.
The older culture, where the tropes stem from, doesn't follow the tropes? What?
The older culture, where the tropes stem from, doesn't follow the tropes? What?
Older works often conform less closely to the tropes, because the tropes weren't established at that point. When a medium or genre is new it often goes through a Cambrian explosion phase where there are all kinds of wildly varied pieces, and then things settle down and coalesce on the specific approaches that have proven successful.
I don't think that's what he means.
I wonder if people are downvoting you in good faith because I think you're on to something. My assumption is that denigrating mass media and pop culture comes across as "elitist".
Oh well. I mean, for the person who can look around and feel disdain toward these things, they deserve whatever shred of dignity the allegation subscribes them to.
"Second Order Illiteracy" is precisely what cripples imagination, or the ability to perceive things beyond the immediate senses. Passively consuming electronic media does the heavy lifting that the literary mind achieves.
> It's a bizarre kind of deja nostalgia - the only futures that can be imagined are the ones that have been imagined already.
If we toss the word "capitalism" into the fray of what you're saying I think this is what Mark Fisher meant by the "Slow cancellation of the future".
Oh well. I mean, for the person who can look around and feel disdain toward these things, they deserve whatever shred of dignity the allegation subscribes them to.
"Second Order Illiteracy" is precisely what cripples imagination, or the ability to perceive things beyond the immediate senses. Passively consuming electronic media does the heavy lifting that the literary mind achieves.
> It's a bizarre kind of deja nostalgia - the only futures that can be imagined are the ones that have been imagined already.
If we toss the word "capitalism" into the fray of what you're saying I think this is what Mark Fisher meant by the "Slow cancellation of the future".
Possibly the idea is just too new / people who haven't seen it think it's just dunking on the young generation again. But for example there's an unexpected trend on social media just within the past month of a large amount of Gen Z not being able to read "third person omniscient" (a term I hadn't heard before but is pretty much just what it sounds like; from examples appears to be how all fiction I've read is written).
Then why is Kurt Vonnegut still so popular?
He’s not that popular, but Billy Pilgrim keeps wandering back and forth in time, buying up all the Vonnegut books, juicing the figures.
What Billy really wants is a good Kilgore Trout book, but the supply of those seems to be dead. So it goes.
What Billy really wants is a good Kilgore Trout book, but the supply of those seems to be dead. So it goes.
He isn't, and I won't be convinced that he is until Supreme puts his face on one of their shirts.
People seem to forget that many of the books we find to be "literary" today were 1800s smut. These were commercial successes in their time, and weren't considered "highbrow," that was just what people read. Dismissing all of the books people read today as "genre" and not literary is the problem.
Interesting idea. Literary fiction never actually existed; it’s an artificial construct.
I’d really love some professors to analyze a furry solarpunk story I wrote and dig through the symbolism like Virginia Woolf wrote it.
It would be interesting to see if a random internet dog’s scribblings can provide just as much content for discussion. From what other people have told me, it does.
I’d really love some professors to analyze a furry solarpunk story I wrote and dig through the symbolism like Virginia Woolf wrote it.
It would be interesting to see if a random internet dog’s scribblings can provide just as much content for discussion. From what other people have told me, it does.
Scifi is somewhere in the transition from "always genre fiction" to "sometimes respectable literary fiction" (people write serious analyses of sci-fi, now!) Granted, furry solarpunk might take a bit longer.
Don't have to go back that far :) - the author mentions Portnoy's Complaint (1969) which contains the big sight gags for the raunchy comedies Something About Mary(1998) and American Pie(1999).
Also Ulysses, of course; it was essentially banned in most English-speaking countries for a decade or so after publication, on grounds of obscenity.
Literary is a genre. Like all genres it has its popular tropes, fandom, cliches, etc.
A long time ago someone on a forum described a new lit fic book as a “TOBADNY” — a “trendy overhyped book about dysfunctional New Yorkers.” I LOLed and then realized this was totally the case and that this was a popular lit fic trope.
A long time ago someone on a forum described a new lit fic book as a “TOBADNY” — a “trendy overhyped book about dysfunctional New Yorkers.” I LOLed and then realized this was totally the case and that this was a popular lit fic trope.
Hrm, not sure I _totally_ buy this; a big part of "is it literary fiction?" is just "it is _proper, respectable_ literature that people write analyses of?", and that tends to shift over time a bit. Some current novels which are not considered literary fiction today will be in 2050.
That's a genre. Genre boundaries always shift and are always a bit fuzzy. Most great works could be put in more than one genre.
I'd say literary fiction is a genre that focuses on the craft of writing, usually through either poetic prose or deep character study. There are bonus points if the topic or style is challenging, so you get tropes that lead in this direction: deep studies of complicated often problematic characters (Lolita), deep studies of society (Pride and Prejudice), unusual plot structures (Cloud Atlas), experimental prose style (Ulysses), etc. These are literary tropes because they're challenging to write -- in terms of the craft of writing itself. The most literary of literary fiction is "writer's writing" in the sense that some experimental jazz is "musician's music."
And of course you can have deliberate genre crossovers. Literary sci-fi has been popular lately, like Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go or the already mentioned Cloud Atlas.
I'd say literary fiction is a genre that focuses on the craft of writing, usually through either poetic prose or deep character study. There are bonus points if the topic or style is challenging, so you get tropes that lead in this direction: deep studies of complicated often problematic characters (Lolita), deep studies of society (Pride and Prejudice), unusual plot structures (Cloud Atlas), experimental prose style (Ulysses), etc. These are literary tropes because they're challenging to write -- in terms of the craft of writing itself. The most literary of literary fiction is "writer's writing" in the sense that some experimental jazz is "musician's music."
And of course you can have deliberate genre crossovers. Literary sci-fi has been popular lately, like Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go or the already mentioned Cloud Atlas.
I mean, maybe that's part of the problem, it's a genre that's just becoming less popular? Akin to Western novels?
Yeah, this is kind of the trouble with this sort of thing. Even ignoring the obscenity issue (_many_ great works of English literature were not originally published in English-speaking countries, but rather in France, which was more laid-back about this sort of thing), it is not that long ago that novels as a form were considered kinda inherently disreputable/low-brow; even into the 19th century, _all_ novels were kind of seen a bit like how we now see genre fiction.
This is something that gets forgotten all the time: the common man could go watch a Shakespeare play for a penny and sip on ale between one dirty joke and the other.
Pride and Prejudice, perhaps the most romance novel to ever romance novel in the history of romance novels, is described as literary fiction (and so presumably not genre fiction) by the author. I think history--and hundreds of entries on fanfiction.net and archiveofourown.org where teenagers gush about their own dark-haired and standoffish but secretly gentle imaginary men--has shown that the reason she's remembered is the substance, not the subject of her writing, as well as the historical significance in her being a pioneer, of course.
I recently watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. A historically and artistically important movie, and then you go check the Wikipedia page and the producer described it to the effect "Yeah from the script it looked like some quick slop which would turn a buck."[1]
I think starting out with the idea of making a "literary" work and creating a genre out of "literary fiction" inherently doesn't work. I think the avenues for greatness are either making something experimental that breaks new ground, or something more conventional but that, in exchange, shows you complete mastery of that well-known material. But you can't be great just by appropriating the superficial qualities you identify in past works you yourself consider to be great, because again, it was the substance and not the mere subject that made those work great.
[1] 'Pommer later said: "They saw in the script an 'experiment'. I saw a relatively cheap film".' Citation [36] on Wikipedia
Pride and Prejudice, perhaps the most romance novel to ever romance novel in the history of romance novels, is described as literary fiction (and so presumably not genre fiction) by the author. I think history--and hundreds of entries on fanfiction.net and archiveofourown.org where teenagers gush about their own dark-haired and standoffish but secretly gentle imaginary men--has shown that the reason she's remembered is the substance, not the subject of her writing, as well as the historical significance in her being a pioneer, of course.
I recently watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. A historically and artistically important movie, and then you go check the Wikipedia page and the producer described it to the effect "Yeah from the script it looked like some quick slop which would turn a buck."[1]
I think starting out with the idea of making a "literary" work and creating a genre out of "literary fiction" inherently doesn't work. I think the avenues for greatness are either making something experimental that breaks new ground, or something more conventional but that, in exchange, shows you complete mastery of that well-known material. But you can't be great just by appropriating the superficial qualities you identify in past works you yourself consider to be great, because again, it was the substance and not the mere subject that made those work great.
[1] 'Pommer later said: "They saw in the script an 'experiment'. I saw a relatively cheap film".' Citation [36] on Wikipedia
To be honest, I suspect that someone reading Pride and Prejudice _after_ reading a bunch of ao3 stuff is going to suffer from https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn... to an extent; part of why was significant was just in establishing a bunch of tropes which have now been absolutely _done to death_.
I've made sure to reference "historical significance" when referencing P&P and the Cabinet for this exact reason. I think every classic undergoes some amount of 'rot', but I've also found a lot of classic to be perfectly enjoyable if you allow them some slack.
And, not to insult fanfiction writers (I've been known to partake), but I would guess Jane Austen still writes a better broody man than most of them... although probably not all of them. That's a secondary consequence of simply having more people partaking in art to begin with: the more millions of artists you have, that many more one-in-a-million geniuses you're bound to find.
And, not to insult fanfiction writers (I've been known to partake), but I would guess Jane Austen still writes a better broody man than most of them... although probably not all of them. That's a secondary consequence of simply having more people partaking in art to begin with: the more millions of artists you have, that many more one-in-a-million geniuses you're bound to find.
> but I would guess Jane Austen still writes a better broody man than most of them...
Whatever about that, she remains absolutely unbeaten in writing awful vicars.
(I assume this wasn't her intention, but the vicar is by far the most memorable character, for me.)
Whatever about that, she remains absolutely unbeaten in writing awful vicars.
(I assume this wasn't her intention, but the vicar is by far the most memorable character, for me.)
I believe you have got it right. How do you think people will talk about half life in a few decades? Would it be considered high brow?
I think half life already is well on its way to be considered high brow. I played it a few years ago and while I did enjoy it part of my motivation to play it was "this is what the people who have more experience than me think is good".
I wonder which genre fiction today will be deemed as 'literary' in 2200s?
Sci-fi may be a slightly obvious answer; I think things like Blindsight would probably get tagged as literary fiction except that they are already genre fiction, say. That’ll probably happen sooner than 2200, tho; it has already started happening in edge cases where everyone kinda pretends it’s not sci-fi (Handmaid’s Tale, say).
I agree it's going to be SciFi, but maybe also some fantasy. So much of SciFi consists of speculative philosophy about the intersection of technology and society. Fantasy is somewhat similar if you abstract technology to include magic.
There are already debates as to whether Lord of the Rings is "literary" when it checks all the boxes.
There are already debates as to whether Lord of the Rings is "literary" when it checks all the boxes.
This was a great read!
I think the analysis of the declining pipeline is spot on. Up until around 2016 or so, I was on track to try my hand at the world of literary fiction—I had participated in several circles in college, sat on the review board of a lit mag, joined a group of writers post graduation, all just to eventually...set it aside.
I always had a "day job" during this time, but other than that I was single and had few responsibilities. This made holding a typical nine to five and actually getting some writing done somewhat tenable.
As my sphere of responsibility expanded (relationships, etc) this quickly became untenable. There's only so much time in a day, unfortunately, and as we continue along a career path, we're incentivized to invest ever increasing amounts of time into that, rather than a far-from-lucrative gamble on literary pursuits.
When you're able to actually make money on your literary work, it establishes a virtuous circle. Writing more makes you a better writer and writing more gets you paid (allowing you to support those other aspects of your life). Contrast this with the modern experience of desperately trying to carve out whatever time you can to make at least a brief writing session happen, amidst being exhausted already by the other demands on your time (your non-writing job being a big one).
From the critical side, I think the situation is pretty much analogous to that of contemporary art. The common person would meet most experimental literary works with a quizzical look, just as they meet most contemporary and conceptual art with the a quizzical look. Artists, however, have had better success with this because their objects are not generally mass produced. This has allowed the critical narrowing and distance from the common taste to be buoyed up economically by natural scarcity and the concomitant transformation of the object into a value-holding asset. That can never happen with literature, which is definitionally reproduced at scale.
I think the analysis of the declining pipeline is spot on. Up until around 2016 or so, I was on track to try my hand at the world of literary fiction—I had participated in several circles in college, sat on the review board of a lit mag, joined a group of writers post graduation, all just to eventually...set it aside.
I always had a "day job" during this time, but other than that I was single and had few responsibilities. This made holding a typical nine to five and actually getting some writing done somewhat tenable.
As my sphere of responsibility expanded (relationships, etc) this quickly became untenable. There's only so much time in a day, unfortunately, and as we continue along a career path, we're incentivized to invest ever increasing amounts of time into that, rather than a far-from-lucrative gamble on literary pursuits.
When you're able to actually make money on your literary work, it establishes a virtuous circle. Writing more makes you a better writer and writing more gets you paid (allowing you to support those other aspects of your life). Contrast this with the modern experience of desperately trying to carve out whatever time you can to make at least a brief writing session happen, amidst being exhausted already by the other demands on your time (your non-writing job being a big one).
From the critical side, I think the situation is pretty much analogous to that of contemporary art. The common person would meet most experimental literary works with a quizzical look, just as they meet most contemporary and conceptual art with the a quizzical look. Artists, however, have had better success with this because their objects are not generally mass produced. This has allowed the critical narrowing and distance from the common taste to be buoyed up economically by natural scarcity and the concomitant transformation of the object into a value-holding asset. That can never happen with literature, which is definitionally reproduced at scale.
I'm a bit of an old timer so I'll throw something out there. Entertainment used to be rare. Albums used to cost $20 back when that used to be a lot of money. TV was 13 channels, and that was if you had cable. People had to read because there was no other option. Now there's absolutely unlimited free/cheap entertainment and literary fiction is highly politicized because of critics. There's no such thing as a controversial novel that gets any mention by anyone post 2008.
The last contemporary literary novel I read was Michel Houellebecq's "Submission" and I read it only because it was controversial, extremely well written and Hourllebecq writes novels that appeal to middle aged men. I'm always up for a novel like that, but it seems impossible to find these days.
The last contemporary literary novel I read was Michel Houellebecq's "Submission" and I read it only because it was controversial, extremely well written and Hourllebecq writes novels that appeal to middle aged men. I'm always up for a novel like that, but it seems impossible to find these days.
Clay Shirky calls it "filter failure": https://mascontext.com/issues/information/its-not-informatio...
> The cost of producing anything by anyone has fallen through the floor, famously, and as a result, there is no economic logic that says you have to filter for quality before you publish.
Moreover:
> What we are dealing with now isn’t information overload, because we are always dealing with information overload, the problem is filter failure.
I think this is a compelling take. It's gotten to the point where I have to use ChatGPT to look for good sources instead of Googling directly. I held out for a while, but had to capitulate in late 2024 when search engines just became a total slopfest.
As a sidenote, I did enjoy Houellebecq's Le sens du combat. :P
> The cost of producing anything by anyone has fallen through the floor, famously, and as a result, there is no economic logic that says you have to filter for quality before you publish.
Moreover:
> What we are dealing with now isn’t information overload, because we are always dealing with information overload, the problem is filter failure.
I think this is a compelling take. It's gotten to the point where I have to use ChatGPT to look for good sources instead of Googling directly. I held out for a while, but had to capitulate in late 2024 when search engines just became a total slopfest.
As a sidenote, I did enjoy Houellebecq's Le sens du combat. :P
Plus what 'social media' has done to our attention span. It takes some to read a book, especially literature.
at least takes away the ability to comprehend substack articles
That’s the old standby argument, and it may be right. I can’t really read John Barth or George Saunders the way I can read Richard Russo or Lionel Shriver or Kurt Vonnegut or Michael Chabon or Barbara Kingsolver. For me the experimental writers are very unpleasant to actually read. David Foster Wallace is just inside that frontier for me, and I can enjoy IJ. Bernard Malamud was pretty dark but I could hang in. But Paul Auster … I love what nonfiction writing I’ve seen, but the New York trilogy is so dark and Spartan it makes Joy Division look like disco.
Nitpick: I finally gave up on Pynchon, but is he really postmodern??
Nitpick: I finally gave up on Pynchon, but is he really postmodern??
The unpleasantness is definitely a problem. It's like the cool writers want to prove they are making something challenging by stripping away all of the sugarcoating that we normally love in narrative (and food!). I realize that the kind of pat endings that are so common in broadly popular narratives are a bit dull and predictable, but they're better than watching the protagonist go through the realities of life. We all have to suffer the worst parts of life each day. No need to do it at night too.
I'm in a sci-fi book club with friends and we decided to read one modern literary fiction book and while I am enjoying it, the prose is beautiful and the deep dive into the characters is interesting, it's literally exhausting to read.
Right. It's just like music. Some people can appreciate noise music, some people view it as just that: abrasive noise. It's a matter of taste. For some, the unpleasantness is of aesthetic interest and they have an aesthetic appreciation for it.
Great example. It is absolutely a matter of taste. Sadly noise music doesn’t support a lot of full-time jobs compared to writing songs more or less the way the Beatles did. Which was all new and stuff, but not completely foreign to what Stephen Foster did.
We can try to reinvent writing, or we can focus on writing. But one may come at the expense of the other.
We can try to reinvent writing, or we can focus on writing. But one may come at the expense of the other.
I also gave up on Pynchon. You should check out A Brief History of Seven Killings, postmodern done right if you ask me.
The time frame for Pynchon fits and, of course, so does the style. He's postmodern.
I really enjoyed this article but the claim of no literary fiction making the Publishers Weekly yearly top 10 lists since 2001 isn't really true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_best...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_best...
It is true that there isn't that much literary stuff that breaks through, and the stuff that does is usually somewhat crossover (e.g., All the Light We Cannot See in 2015 or Song of Achilles in 2021) but it exists. These two books are shelved under literary codes (though also historical). Song of Achilles in particular is beautifully written and a personal favorite of mine, at least among books published in recent years.
Then there are other works like Little Fires Everywhere and The Midnight Library that I might not consider super literary but nonetheless are also often considered so by book shops or libraries (e.g., https://lightsailed.com/catalog/book/the-midnight-library-a-...; the lit fic code is FIC019000).
I was really surprised that Ferrante's Neapolitan series, the best example (I would have thought) of recent work with both high literary acclaim and popular appeal, did not actually make the top 10 list for any year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_best...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_best...
It is true that there isn't that much literary stuff that breaks through, and the stuff that does is usually somewhat crossover (e.g., All the Light We Cannot See in 2015 or Song of Achilles in 2021) but it exists. These two books are shelved under literary codes (though also historical). Song of Achilles in particular is beautifully written and a personal favorite of mine, at least among books published in recent years.
Then there are other works like Little Fires Everywhere and The Midnight Library that I might not consider super literary but nonetheless are also often considered so by book shops or libraries (e.g., https://lightsailed.com/catalog/book/the-midnight-library-a-...; the lit fic code is FIC019000).
I was really surprised that Ferrante's Neapolitan series, the best example (I would have thought) of recent work with both high literary acclaim and popular appeal, did not actually make the top 10 list for any year.
Yeah, and looking through the lists makes one suspect that there's a problem of incommensurate measurements... There's a lot of 'very hungry caterpillar' in the recent lists, but I'm unsure whether children's books were even in the running in the 1960's. Or else there's been a revolution in buying books for children since the 60's, which, honestly, I wouldn't be sad about...
Affording someone status for being someone with an opinion on cultural artifact X no longer exists. No one is impressed, there's too many people with thoughtful opinions on important books doing absolutely nothing valuable in society.
So it isn't that we become stupid from browsing, it's that the internet has an unlimited supply of critics?
How has that changed since the mid 20th Century?
Self publishing your opinions in a way that is cheaply (freely) accessible to anyone became a thing. Previously if you wanted a book review you had to spend a chunk of time and/or money to even find a review, and when you did there was like a handful of reviews. If the thing was more esoteric, maybe zero reviews.
This is a really good analysis article. Thank you for posting it. I think the critic vs consumer decoupling rings true to me, and this is obviously the worst economy to exist in as a "struggling" anything.
There are a lot of industries that are struggling right now to figure out how to re-monetize independent from large corporations (like magazines/ publishers/ movies/ etc) because those corporations are cutting out anyone not already hugely profitable.
I feel like whatever solution we eventually land on to 'democratize' media funding will also be a good solution to our FOSS funding problem.
There are a lot of industries that are struggling right now to figure out how to re-monetize independent from large corporations (like magazines/ publishers/ movies/ etc) because those corporations are cutting out anyone not already hugely profitable.
I feel like whatever solution we eventually land on to 'democratize' media funding will also be a good solution to our FOSS funding problem.
Science fiction, and related or subgenres like sci-fantasy and sci-horror is just much better these days than literary fiction. The literary snobs won't admit that One Hundred Years of Solitude (which I read years ago and liked) could have been a scifi novel placed not in historical south/central america but instead on a set of planets orbiting a star 100 light years from here. If it had, they wouldn't consider it 'real literature'.
Science fiction is more fun to read, and often more creative - authors aren't limited to the sociopolitical realities of 18th century South America, they can invent whatever systems they like, and then the question is whether their world-building skills are good enough to avoid obvious inconsistencies.
Yes, people are still reading - but they're reading Adrian Tchaikovsky, Iain M. Banks, William Gibson, Susanna Clarke and host of others who aren't limited to scenes of 'historical realism' (which to be honest are often distorted pictures of history that were socially acceptable to the publishing houses of their day).
You can still read the classics - Conrad is my favorite late 19th/early 20tth century author - but Lovecraft is just as worth reading.
Science fiction is more fun to read, and often more creative - authors aren't limited to the sociopolitical realities of 18th century South America, they can invent whatever systems they like, and then the question is whether their world-building skills are good enough to avoid obvious inconsistencies.
Yes, people are still reading - but they're reading Adrian Tchaikovsky, Iain M. Banks, William Gibson, Susanna Clarke and host of others who aren't limited to scenes of 'historical realism' (which to be honest are often distorted pictures of history that were socially acceptable to the publishing houses of their day).
You can still read the classics - Conrad is my favorite late 19th/early 20tth century author - but Lovecraft is just as worth reading.
99% of science fiction settings are historical fiction but now In Space(tm).
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, and some fiction explores forms of government that haven't been tried on earth, and also explores systems of government and commerce that may need to happen on a post scarcity society. That is all good, and arguably those explorations need to happen, but still most sci-fi is just some portion of earth society thrown into space. (Banks explores alternatives, but arguably most Gibson doesn't, though I haven't read anything by him in a decade or more so they may have changed).
This is frequently useful as it allows us to examine our existing biased from an outside view. I am definitely less racist/bigoted for having read science fiction.
As a final point, it has been noted that a lot of sci-fi has an undertone of "wow isn't this benevolent monarchy great!" Which is rather disturbing if you think about the implications too much.
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, and some fiction explores forms of government that haven't been tried on earth, and also explores systems of government and commerce that may need to happen on a post scarcity society. That is all good, and arguably those explorations need to happen, but still most sci-fi is just some portion of earth society thrown into space. (Banks explores alternatives, but arguably most Gibson doesn't, though I haven't read anything by him in a decade or more so they may have changed).
This is frequently useful as it allows us to examine our existing biased from an outside view. I am definitely less racist/bigoted for having read science fiction.
As a final point, it has been noted that a lot of sci-fi has an undertone of "wow isn't this benevolent monarchy great!" Which is rather disturbing if you think about the implications too much.
99% is far overstating it. SF is a wide genre with pretty much every other genre inside it. At this point it’s infiltrated popular culture; just think how many movies and shows are not billed as SF but contain SF ideas or settings.
I'm of the belief that the TV and movie sci-fi are a completely different genre than book sci-fi. There are occasional faithful adaptations, but none of the far out stuff ever gets adapted.
But even discarding cinema (Star Wars famously being a samurai movie set in space), most sci-fi books written after the golden age, are focused on societal changes and people. Stories are metaphors for our world.
That is fine, fiction that cannot be related to rarely gets read.
Bobiverse is a nerd's power trip fantasy. 90% of what Heinlein wrote is just "external observations on sociey".
Even Greg Egan, who writes super hard sci-fi (his books have footnotes linked to actual science papers!) has his novels largely focus around societies and people (or aliens that are easily related to!)
It has honestly been 80 or so years since science fiction was mostly "here are a few poorly fleshed out people, and some really damn good science!"
I've read a lot of those stories, they are cool and I kind of miss them, but honestly almost every major plot point possible was already thought up by the boards of scientists turned sci-fi authors of the 1930s through 50s. An occasional new story of that type makes its way out now and then (some of the SCP stories are actually this in a very pure form), but IMHO that genre of pure science writing with minimal focus on people or society is 99.9% dead.
But even discarding cinema (Star Wars famously being a samurai movie set in space), most sci-fi books written after the golden age, are focused on societal changes and people. Stories are metaphors for our world.
That is fine, fiction that cannot be related to rarely gets read.
Bobiverse is a nerd's power trip fantasy. 90% of what Heinlein wrote is just "external observations on sociey".
Even Greg Egan, who writes super hard sci-fi (his books have footnotes linked to actual science papers!) has his novels largely focus around societies and people (or aliens that are easily related to!)
It has honestly been 80 or so years since science fiction was mostly "here are a few poorly fleshed out people, and some really damn good science!"
I've read a lot of those stories, they are cool and I kind of miss them, but honestly almost every major plot point possible was already thought up by the boards of scientists turned sci-fi authors of the 1930s through 50s. An occasional new story of that type makes its way out now and then (some of the SCP stories are actually this in a very pure form), but IMHO that genre of pure science writing with minimal focus on people or society is 99.9% dead.
The homage and direct copy of shots of Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress nothwithstanding, George Lucas is on record saying the Alliance represents the Vietnamese, and The Empire is the United States of America and the films are partly commentary on the civil war in Vietnam.
Greg Egan's work has its share of humans but also some extremely imaginative aliens. I am not sure who can relate to the aliens in Wang's Carpets.
Greg Egan is a very good example of a novelist who is a GOAT but will be dismissed by most critics of lit-fic because "his characters don't have arcs" or some such.
Greg Egan is a very good example of a novelist who is a GOAT but will be dismissed by most critics of lit-fic because "his characters don't have arcs" or some such.
Sure, aliens are well represented, but that’s a long way from “it’s all historical fiction in space”
I hate when my Science Fiction doesn't have any Science.
Eh, popular sci-fi is zero sci.
Star Trek makes 0 effort to explore the impacts of its technology on people. Some good books have been writing exploring what post scarcity means, but ST in general does nothing with the premise except make tea.
The novels that do explore a world like what ST posits end up going off the rails very quickly. Fun reads, people who live for eternity spend time terra forming planets (why not) cloning themselves into endless bodies and exploring the universe, or just becoming something not human at all.
ST still has people dying, never mind that immortality would be trivial to accomplish with that science level. But that isn't the point of Star Trek.
Star Trek makes 0 effort to explore the impacts of its technology on people. Some good books have been writing exploring what post scarcity means, but ST in general does nothing with the premise except make tea.
The novels that do explore a world like what ST posits end up going off the rails very quickly. Fun reads, people who live for eternity spend time terra forming planets (why not) cloning themselves into endless bodies and exploring the universe, or just becoming something not human at all.
ST still has people dying, never mind that immortality would be trivial to accomplish with that science level. But that isn't the point of Star Trek.
> Some good books have been writing exploring what post scarcity means, but ST in general does nothing with the premise except make tea.
The economics of Star Trek are particularly incoherent; it's not even really clear that it _is_ post-scarcity. Really you only have Picard's word for that, and there's a lot of indication to the contrary.
Pet theory: the Star Trek tv shows are in-universe propaganda made by the Federation, which is a military dictatorship. They should be taken about as seriously as Stalin-era Soviet propaganda, on economic matters.
The economics of Star Trek are particularly incoherent; it's not even really clear that it _is_ post-scarcity. Really you only have Picard's word for that, and there's a lot of indication to the contrary.
Pet theory: the Star Trek tv shows are in-universe propaganda made by the Federation, which is a military dictatorship. They should be taken about as seriously as Stalin-era Soviet propaganda, on economic matters.
I think there is a LOT of sci-fi that doesn't try to sugarcoat monarchy. I'm looking at my book shelf and don't even see any that do.
Yeah, I was trying to think of a "monarchy is good actually" scifi novel, and can't, offhand (it's somewhat common with sci-fi TV shows/movies, however).
Maybe the Dune sequels, if you're willing to really, _really_ stretch the definition of 'good'.
Maybe the Dune sequels, if you're willing to really, _really_ stretch the definition of 'good'.
Part of it, I think, is that genre fiction simply has more tools available. That lets an author do their thing a lot easier, and in the hands of a master, is how you get masterworks. (I decided to check The Left Hand of Darkness off my list last week. Its introduction hits intellectually heavier than the last three books I've read put together. The introduction. And it's about five pages long.)
Of course, 90% of genre fiction is crap. (Bare minimum, I'll not argue with anyone who wants to argue for more.) But we know that. There's enough of it that I can find something interesting to read. I can't say the same for the last 20 years of literary, non-genre works. (I'll take pointers, though.)
Of course, 90% of genre fiction is crap. (Bare minimum, I'll not argue with anyone who wants to argue for more.) But we know that. There's enough of it that I can find something interesting to read. I can't say the same for the last 20 years of literary, non-genre works. (I'll take pointers, though.)
Oh boy, Left Hand of Darkness is a good book. And I always tell people to not skip the introduction, because it is brilliant. “Prediction is the business of prophets, clairvoyants, and futurologists. It is not the business of novelists. A novelist's business is lying.”
I get the feeling Ursula Le Guin could have been a pretty successful realist “literary” writer if she’d chosen to. I am grateful that she chose genre instead.
I get the feeling Ursula Le Guin could have been a pretty successful realist “literary” writer if she’d chosen to. I am grateful that she chose genre instead.
I love that first chapter where the main character meets a politician and says something like "I'd seen his type before, was confident I'd see it again, and would probably see it in hell". I must have reread that line 10x.
A well-known observation!
“Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage stating ‘ninety percent of everything is crap’.”
“Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage stating ‘ninety percent of everything is crap’.”
> authors aren't limited to the sociopolitical realities of 18th century South America, they can invent whatever systems they like, and then the question is whether their world-building skills are good enough to avoid obvious inconsistencies.
To do that authors need to very well versed in the sociopolitical realities of 18th century South America, and ancient China, and moden Europe, and... Most modern authors couldn't be bothered to do even basic research. Or can't afford to, because the pay is shit, and the deadlines are tight, and you have to produce a trilogy a year just to survive.
I've read a lot of scifi over the past few years. Most books are bad rehashes of existing ideas written in an extremely poor language (nouns and verbs with complete lack of adjectives and adverbs, poor and nonexistent metaphors, middle-school-level sentence structure etc.)
Fantasy books fare much better because they can easily borrow and steal "sociopolitical realities" and transfer them to pages wholesale.
To do that authors need to very well versed in the sociopolitical realities of 18th century South America, and ancient China, and moden Europe, and... Most modern authors couldn't be bothered to do even basic research. Or can't afford to, because the pay is shit, and the deadlines are tight, and you have to produce a trilogy a year just to survive.
I've read a lot of scifi over the past few years. Most books are bad rehashes of existing ideas written in an extremely poor language (nouns and verbs with complete lack of adjectives and adverbs, poor and nonexistent metaphors, middle-school-level sentence structure etc.)
Fantasy books fare much better because they can easily borrow and steal "sociopolitical realities" and transfer them to pages wholesale.
What sci-fi books are you reading with a "complete lack of adjectives, non-existent metaphors, and middle-school sentence structure"?
Humanity's Fire by Michael Cobley
Lightspeed Trilogy by Ken MacLeod
Revenger by Alastair Reynolds (the first book started off quite well, but the other two became a boring slog)
Rise of the Jain by Neal Asher. This one is just so egregiously bad, I don't know how I managed to finish. If I ever have to read another "erstwhile ship" I'll barf.
etc. etc.
Since I'm reading a lot of sci fi, I've ran out of top 1% or so of books an authors pretty quickly. Now I feel like I'm running out of middle-of-the-road authors, too.
---
Edit. I'll add that most sci fi is incapable of even writing characters that have more distinction than "she's a woman, he's a man". They all talk and behave the same.
Lightspeed Trilogy by Ken MacLeod
Revenger by Alastair Reynolds (the first book started off quite well, but the other two became a boring slog)
Rise of the Jain by Neal Asher. This one is just so egregiously bad, I don't know how I managed to finish. If I ever have to read another "erstwhile ship" I'll barf.
etc. etc.
Since I'm reading a lot of sci fi, I've ran out of top 1% or so of books an authors pretty quickly. Now I feel like I'm running out of middle-of-the-road authors, too.
---
Edit. I'll add that most sci fi is incapable of even writing characters that have more distinction than "she's a woman, he's a man". They all talk and behave the same.
I liked reading "this is how you lose the time war" recently if you want something that is essentially sci-fi themed poetry. If you haven't already read it, maybe that'll be a fun break.
In recent years I've also enjoyed Too Like The Lightning. It's not sci-fi, but it's complex, and twisted, and the language is used in delightful and brain-breaking ways.
I do like the sound of "language used in delightful ways". Too late in life I realized I didn't hate poetry at all ...just the Emily Dickinson kind I was exposed to in highschool. I guess I should've known as I loved Shel Silverstein as a kid.
It's easier to name the ones that don't.
There are thousands upon thousands of science fiction novels. I can't imagine they're all like that.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is "magical realism" :)
No, you can't say it has fantasy elements. Then it wouldn't be culture.
Marquez is great btw. Blame the critics.
No, you can't say it has fantasy elements. Then it wouldn't be culture.
Marquez is great btw. Blame the critics.
I really like magical realism, but mostly ones where everything isn't so depressing like the Night Circus and the Starless Sea books.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is just too depressing. The closest I got was playing through Kentucky Route Zero, which is kind of like a theatrical play in video game form with lots of references to Marquez. A phenomenal game.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is just too depressing. The closest I got was playing through Kentucky Route Zero, which is kind of like a theatrical play in video game form with lots of references to Marquez. A phenomenal game.
*I meant to say that Night Circus and Starless Sea are good examples of books that are not depressing.
Eh, I think there's a difference that make both terms useful. Fiction set strictly in the real world with mysterious yet mundane magical/supernatural elements, versus fiction in a fantastical world or a "real world" where the existence of magic™ must be extensively explained.
I think the whole "all fantasy/sci-fi is slop" wasn't that big of a thing in LATAM, so the term isn't some euphemism for making it palatable to elitists.
I also disagree with GP, a lot of what makes One Hundred Years of Solitude good comes from the Colombian setting and it's cultural context. True, it wouldn't be impossible to translate that to a alien planet, Mars isn't fully Mars The Martian Chronicles after all.
I think the whole "all fantasy/sci-fi is slop" wasn't that big of a thing in LATAM, so the term isn't some euphemism for making it palatable to elitists.
I also disagree with GP, a lot of what makes One Hundred Years of Solitude good comes from the Colombian setting and it's cultural context. True, it wouldn't be impossible to translate that to a alien planet, Mars isn't fully Mars The Martian Chronicles after all.
> versus fiction in a fantastical world or a "real world" where the existence of magic™ must be extensively explained.
Well now if we're drifting, I don't consider "fantasy" has to explain everything like it were an AD&D manual.
Take Glen Cook's Black Company series where magic just happens without explanation. Compare with something like Brandon Sanderson who describes "magic systems" in great detail always. I find the former enticing and the latter boring.
Lord of the Rings didn't explain anything either.
Well now if we're drifting, I don't consider "fantasy" has to explain everything like it were an AD&D manual.
Take Glen Cook's Black Company series where magic just happens without explanation. Compare with something like Brandon Sanderson who describes "magic systems" in great detail always. I find the former enticing and the latter boring.
Lord of the Rings didn't explain anything either.
> Lord of the Rings didn't explain anything either.
Yeah, and LOTR is in Middle-Earth, a fantastical world that isn't Earth. The point of the term "magical realism" is that there is still "realism". It's about what happens when something impossible or absurd happens to you and you have to deal with the ramifications in the real world. No one would read The Satanic Verses, think about the themes involved and compare it to LOTR.
Yeah, and LOTR is in Middle-Earth, a fantastical world that isn't Earth. The point of the term "magical realism" is that there is still "realism". It's about what happens when something impossible or absurd happens to you and you have to deal with the ramifications in the real world. No one would read The Satanic Verses, think about the themes involved and compare it to LOTR.
Sorry, I meant that fantasy usually is in a unrelated-to-our-own fantastical world or it's in the real world (e.g urban fantasy), but the fact that magic exists and the reader "didn't know" about it must be explained (e.g Harry Potter, Dresden Files).
What's the alternative to not explaining here? Is it making the magic subtle/weak/uncommon enough that the answer is "you didn't notice, and this is plausible to claim"? If the magic is blatant enough and there's no explanation, the story becomes even less attached to reality than "there's a lot of magic but it's deliberately kept hidden".
It's comments like this that remind me I'm on HN. Let's be honest for a minute - take a sci-fi book of the shelf, any of them, current (Weir, Pierce Brown, etc) or classic (Asimov, PKD, etc). Almost always, you will find paper-thin characters and themes, written with the crutch of 'worldbuilding'. Here's the lineup - a downtrodden nerd, usually the protagonist, some stereotypical caricature of a woman, like a nagging wife, or ditz, or hag. A few archetypes for a boss, and some equally stereotypical villain. You won't find a Karamazov in sci-fi.
This is the problem with sci-fi in a nutshell, the characters fall flat in even the most seminal works. They are nor memorable at all and somewhere between uninspired and just downright bad. It's the status quo.
Sci-fi and fantasy fans talk about worldbuilding like it is some esoteric art. In the end worldbuilding is literally just plot, and it's well understood that plot is not the most important part of literature, not compared to deeper themes and characters. Is that because of "literary snobs"? No, it's because when you come back to a book in 20, 50, or 200 years you don't remember whether the protagonist's third neural implant was made of vibranium or aluminum, you remember how that book tackled incredible subject matter with layered characters, and pushed the limits of language in a way only possible in prose. When's the last time you heard of a sci-fi author that wrote like Woolf, or Joyce? Never.
Even in more literary sci-fi, for example Dune, the appeal is because it's basically just a medieval story transplanted into space. The focus is on politics and the human experience, not "what if storms lasted longer".
It's so obvious that sci-fi stories are generally better suited to the medium of film, they can capture the unreality in a more believable way, visually, and take less advantage of the ambiguity of text. It's not like sci-fi novels are pushing boundaries in prose anyways. It's much more pretentious to say they are by calling them equally "literary" than to just accept that novels which exemplify the medium are instead.
This is the problem with sci-fi in a nutshell, the characters fall flat in even the most seminal works. They are nor memorable at all and somewhere between uninspired and just downright bad. It's the status quo.
Sci-fi and fantasy fans talk about worldbuilding like it is some esoteric art. In the end worldbuilding is literally just plot, and it's well understood that plot is not the most important part of literature, not compared to deeper themes and characters. Is that because of "literary snobs"? No, it's because when you come back to a book in 20, 50, or 200 years you don't remember whether the protagonist's third neural implant was made of vibranium or aluminum, you remember how that book tackled incredible subject matter with layered characters, and pushed the limits of language in a way only possible in prose. When's the last time you heard of a sci-fi author that wrote like Woolf, or Joyce? Never.
Even in more literary sci-fi, for example Dune, the appeal is because it's basically just a medieval story transplanted into space. The focus is on politics and the human experience, not "what if storms lasted longer".
It's so obvious that sci-fi stories are generally better suited to the medium of film, they can capture the unreality in a more believable way, visually, and take less advantage of the ambiguity of text. It's not like sci-fi novels are pushing boundaries in prose anyways. It's much more pretentious to say they are by calling them equally "literary" than to just accept that novels which exemplify the medium are instead.
Great comment. Even lots of sci-fi shows and movies suffers from the "talking heads" trope you describe, where a paper thin character mouths dialogue that makes no character sense in order to push the plot forward or to dump a ton of lore onto the watcher/reader to introduce the world.
The first few Asimov Foundation novels were notorious for talking heads.
The first few Asimov Foundation novels were notorious for talking heads.
> Even in more literary sci-fi, for example Dune, the appeal is because it's basically just a medieval story transplanted into space. The focus is on politics and the human experience, not "what if storms lasted longer".
Yeah well if you dismiss more literary SF because it focuses on human experience rather than vibranium or whatever, it's not surprising that what remains has flat characters. Don't you see the circular logic?
It reminds me of Sturgeon's law.
Yeah well if you dismiss more literary SF because it focuses on human experience rather than vibranium or whatever, it's not surprising that what remains has flat characters. Don't you see the circular logic?
It reminds me of Sturgeon's law.
A related (counter?) point - OP's article talks about the demise of literary magazines.
I feel like SF magazines have the same problem? Ut looks like all the SF magazines are on the downward slope, to quote Wikipedia:
>[Asimov's] Circulation declined steadily over the life of the magazine and as of 2020 it was below 20,000, more than half of that coming from online subscriptions.
If people would still read SF, why do these magazines fail just like the literary magazines?
I feel like SF magazines have the same problem? Ut looks like all the SF magazines are on the downward slope, to quote Wikipedia:
>[Asimov's] Circulation declined steadily over the life of the magazine and as of 2020 it was below 20,000, more than half of that coming from online subscriptions.
If people would still read SF, why do these magazines fail just like the literary magazines?
I think the magazine thing is just _wrong_, tbh; serialisation in magazines, as means of distributing novels, is dead. As you say, sci-fi, which used to be particularly heavily dependent on serialisation, has survived this. Litfic's problems lie elsewhere.
I think I agree with you: in the age of the internet, where you can 'sample' SF fiction on every corner, you may not need a middle-man (the SF magazine) going around collating those samples for you. You can find them on your own now! for free!
Even before the internet, the magazine serial was dying, tho; its heyday was probably the 60s or so.
Yeah, I can't for the life of me see why Regency/Victorian fiction or US civil war fiction wouldn't be "genre".
Honestly I think that some sci-fi has been somewhat accepted at this point; people write serious analyses of sci-fi these days, and you no longer really see sci-fi pretending not to be sci-fi (notably, Atwood did this with Handmaid's Tale, and _at the time_ you can see where she was coming from, because contemporary sci-fi was mostly pretty narrowly trope-bound...)
I wonder if the same thing is happening in genres like sci-fi. These trends sound familiar: Publishing books to appeal to critics, more prestige fiction published, less published white male authors, less published books on best seller lists (by published I mean published by a professional publishing firm). I am not sure that big authors of the 80's and 90's such as Iain Banks, Neil Stevenson, Peter F Hamilton would get published now days. I've noticed the big sci-fi awards seems to have a lot more books with social justice themes than I remember.
I find I don't like a lot of the newly published sci-fi. I'm reading a lot more self published books amd, at least judging by best seller lists on amazon, so are a lot of other people. It is a pity, I think professionally published books are generally better written, perhaps it is the pipeline of authors writing about themes I like being broken?
Pretty much all the best stuff is self-published first weekly basis on sites like Royal Road, and then some mainstream publisher will pick it up when it gains momentum.
I assume you're joking, but hopefully everyone will be aware that Ian (M) Banks was woke as fuck, and Neil Stevenson and Peter F Hamilton continue the noble struggle of publishing through such minor imprints as HarperCollins and Random House.
This is a bad faith response. Of course publishers aren’t going to drop established best-selling authors; alexitorg’s point is that these authors would not get the same chance if they were starting out today.
Also, I think Banks was more of an old fashioned utopian socialist, which is very different from “woke as fuck”.
Also, I think Banks was more of an old fashioned utopian socialist, which is very different from “woke as fuck”.
I guess it's at least some comfort that Banks didn't have to live to see a world where a white man couldn't publish a series about gender-bending space communists.
I read books to have fun, and litfic isn't really fun for me. I absolutely acknowledge that I read schlock -- mostly progression fantasy these days -- because it's immediately fun and engaging to me. If I wanna think harder, I read about politics and current events, or work on side projects, or maybe play a strategy or puzzle game.
Yeah, this is basically the argument of the op. That somewhere in the 70s, that whole genre started to target critics as the audience instead of the general population and sales have been dwindling since that alienation.
I don't see it. For one thing, the classic creative pieces of literary fiction continue to sell and be read (and we don't even know how many other people read pirated or freely available copies of them every day), while more new fiction than ever in human history is being published constantly.
About the vast majority of that new fiction, we really have no easy way to tell which of it will one day be considered literary fiction too. Many of the books and other pieces of creative fiction we consider "greats" and literary today, were at some point just, fiction. Tehir future reputation wasn't yet known.
Not quite literary fiction, but Shakespeare's plays were their era's versions of Hollywood films for the masses, but look at them now. Similar applies to many books.
About the vast majority of that new fiction, we really have no easy way to tell which of it will one day be considered literary fiction too. Many of the books and other pieces of creative fiction we consider "greats" and literary today, were at some point just, fiction. Tehir future reputation wasn't yet known.
Not quite literary fiction, but Shakespeare's plays were their era's versions of Hollywood films for the masses, but look at them now. Similar applies to many books.
I'll toss two theories into the pool:
The rising tide of anti-intellectualism.
The decline of humanities education in favor of stem education. This has both economic drivers and national security drivers.
The rising tide of anti-intellectualism.
The decline of humanities education in favor of stem education. This has both economic drivers and national security drivers.
This remind me of something. In music criticism there are two terms, Rockism and Popism.
I feel like the intial drive against "Rockism" was to embrace different subcultures, like punk and post-punk, but later the result was "Popism", which became its own kind of orthodoxy, pushing critics into treating label-engineered chart pop as deep just because it’s popular or polished.
Back when I was a journalism student wanting to work in music in the early 2000s I used to frequent early internet hangouts for critics and it was interesting to see the change happening progressively, with critics increasively and progressively adopting a certain air of superiority over anyone who couldn't conflate popularity with genius.
For me the big chasm was over brazilian funk music. Sure I could see it a few times as somewhat interesting, and I could understand the appeal as dance music, but the old guard was trying to use old arguments to push it as "descendants of Kraftwerk" while the new guard was using socio-anthropological arguments to defend it. The music rarely stood for itself, and when it did was often on the back of previous music. I'm not saying it's automatically "bad" but its positive qualities were blown out of proportion by critics for me that it become grating.
Today the internet made it all even worse, lots of "pop culture centric" communities are 5% about music and 95% about the personal life of artists, the TMZ-level gossip, the memes, the constant fighting virtual wars with other pop-music fandoms, the metacircular discussion around the fandom itself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism_and_poptimism
I feel like the intial drive against "Rockism" was to embrace different subcultures, like punk and post-punk, but later the result was "Popism", which became its own kind of orthodoxy, pushing critics into treating label-engineered chart pop as deep just because it’s popular or polished.
Back when I was a journalism student wanting to work in music in the early 2000s I used to frequent early internet hangouts for critics and it was interesting to see the change happening progressively, with critics increasively and progressively adopting a certain air of superiority over anyone who couldn't conflate popularity with genius.
For me the big chasm was over brazilian funk music. Sure I could see it a few times as somewhat interesting, and I could understand the appeal as dance music, but the old guard was trying to use old arguments to push it as "descendants of Kraftwerk" while the new guard was using socio-anthropological arguments to defend it. The music rarely stood for itself, and when it did was often on the back of previous music. I'm not saying it's automatically "bad" but its positive qualities were blown out of proportion by critics for me that it become grating.
Today the internet made it all even worse, lots of "pop culture centric" communities are 5% about music and 95% about the personal life of artists, the TMZ-level gossip, the memes, the constant fighting virtual wars with other pop-music fandoms, the metacircular discussion around the fandom itself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism_and_poptimism
Maybe anti-intellectualism, novels that nobody wants to read, and a move to STEM might be three symptoms of the same root cause: the cutting edge of the humanities moving so far away from popular taste that academics are no longer legible to ordinary people.
I think these are factors to the extent that one sort of needs formal training and schooling in the historical development of the form to appreciate experimental and more contemporary work. The same can generally be said about visual art.
Because of that, yeah, hyper-specialization in schooling and a general movement toward stem means that a lot of people don't actually acquire the requisite background to engage with and appreciate modern work in a sufficient way—just like someone untrained in computing probably would not have an easy time understanding or appreciating significant breakthroughs in computer science.
Because of that, yeah, hyper-specialization in schooling and a general movement toward stem means that a lot of people don't actually acquire the requisite background to engage with and appreciate modern work in a sufficient way—just like someone untrained in computing probably would not have an easy time understanding or appreciating significant breakthroughs in computer science.
There are better ways to tell stories now; good story tellers are doing fine.
The only ones left holding the bag are people who wanted specifically to be 'literary fiction writers' because they have some conception of what that is and why it's important to have a story physically printed on paper.
The only ones left holding the bag are people who wanted specifically to be 'literary fiction writers' because they have some conception of what that is and why it's important to have a story physically printed on paper.
Is the author using Drury, Michener, and Morris West to beat up on 2023? I haven't read Colleen Hoover, but I have read the others, and they haven't made my must-reread list.
Honestly, if one takes the best-seller lists of a few arbitrary years, one will find an awful lot of dross.
Honestly, if one takes the best-seller lists of a few arbitrary years, one will find an awful lot of dross.
My own issue with modern literary fiction is the pretension. It’s been shoved in my face from middle school through college. Everyone writing “genre fiction” is not a Real Author.
Writing to be like one of the great writers of the past is completely missing the point. It’s one thing to follow a tradition. It’s another to think that tradition makes you great.
Writing to be like one of the great writers of the past is completely missing the point. It’s one thing to follow a tradition. It’s another to think that tradition makes you great.
This is my issue with it too. If you’re a good student, then you’re done with any book that even hints at its own self-importance by the time you graduate high school.
"A good deal of literary criticism serves only to reinforce a caste system which is as old as the intellectual snobbery which nurtured it. No one can be as intellectually slothful as a really smart person.”
— Stephen King
— Stephen King
Sour grapes. I've read enough of Stephen King in my youth to know that he is a very skilled writer, but he only produced large amounts of popular genre literature. The literature equivalent of enjoyable but forgettable popcorn movies. He wasn't taken seriously by literature criticism because he didn't produce anything sophisticated.
I don't know if that's entirely accurate.
I just read The Body (basis for Stand By Me) and it was as personal and emotionally complex as any literary-approved fiction. It reminded me a lot of The Things They Carried, actually.
I think the biggest issue is that once he was pidgeonholed into being a "trope-master, scary fiction guy", no one would look at his writing any other way. And to be fair, MOST of his writing is overwrought genre stuff, but he has certainly developed into a fine craftsman at his best.
The reality is that most "literary" fiction is terrible and navel-gazing, seemingly written to land tenure somewhere or push some stupid literary trend that is just as vapid as any other publishing trend, only less fun. Historically, most fiction (or art in general) that persists was wildly successful in its time as a prerequisite.
I just read The Body (basis for Stand By Me) and it was as personal and emotionally complex as any literary-approved fiction. It reminded me a lot of The Things They Carried, actually.
I think the biggest issue is that once he was pidgeonholed into being a "trope-master, scary fiction guy", no one would look at his writing any other way. And to be fair, MOST of his writing is overwrought genre stuff, but he has certainly developed into a fine craftsman at his best.
The reality is that most "literary" fiction is terrible and navel-gazing, seemingly written to land tenure somewhere or push some stupid literary trend that is just as vapid as any other publishing trend, only less fun. Historically, most fiction (or art in general) that persists was wildly successful in its time as a prerequisite.
> The reality is that most "literary" fiction is terrible and navel-gazing, seemingly written to land tenure somewhere or push some stupid literary trend that is just as vapid as any other publishing trend, only less fun.
I think that's just prejudice. Literary fiction simply has artistic or intellectual value beyond entertainment, and beyond using familiar tropes.
It's possible that King has some of these qualities somewhere. I have only read ten to fifteen of his novels. But that was enough that I could e.g. predict the ending of The Shining after about 50 pages.
I think that's just prejudice. Literary fiction simply has artistic or intellectual value beyond entertainment, and beyond using familiar tropes.
It's possible that King has some of these qualities somewhere. I have only read ten to fifteen of his novels. But that was enough that I could e.g. predict the ending of The Shining after about 50 pages.
Calling Stephen King enjoyable but forgettable I don't think works as an argument because I think it's pretty rare for an author to have 5+ novels that are so influential as to be cultural touchstones for multiple generations. The amount of fiction that he directly inspired or can trace their ideas back to one of Stephen King's novels is overwhelming.
Of all the criticisms I expected to be leveled at the man forgettable was perhaps the last one on my list.
Of all the criticisms I expected to be leveled at the man forgettable was perhaps the last one on my list.
My car magazines have all disappeared other than Hot Rod Magazine.
Wood-working magazines. I subscribed _because_ of the advertising.
I can't afford Fesstools, but that doesn't mean I don't love seeing / reading their ads.
I dropped my very long time subscription to Maximum Computing when they went digital. The end of an era...
I can't afford Fesstools, but that doesn't mean I don't love seeing / reading their ads.
I dropped my very long time subscription to Maximum Computing when they went digital. The end of an era...
To be fair, those were fun, but extremely information sparse. You'd have a main story or two, some mail inbox stuff, a listing of a selection of cars you probably could never afford, and 35 pages of advertisements.
The car magazine has been replaced by forums and other online tools that are likely free and vastly superior. I do miss physical magazines though.
The car magazine has been replaced by forums and other online tools that are likely free and vastly superior. I do miss physical magazines though.
I knew where to get the upgraded speed parts I wanted from the advertisements. The advertisements were the main attraction.
Some magazines in the olden days were literally nothing but ads - like Computer Shopper.
Some magazines in the olden days were literally nothing but ads - like Computer Shopper.
I used to wait for dad to come home each Thursday because that was the edition of the paper with quarter-page ads that were just price lists of refurbished computer equipment. I'd sit there with a highlighter and go through them, trying to figure out a way to afford my own Pentium 3 on $10/week of pocket money, or get my Pentium 1 to run a little faster.
It was also the edition of the paper with a new TV guide, which I'm sure made my habit very annoying when the rest of the family wanted to see what was on.
It was also the edition of the paper with a new TV guide, which I'm sure made my habit very annoying when the rest of the family wanted to see what was on.
I can still sort of remember that in the 90s, but was mainly reading magazines in the late 90s and early 2000s, so I probably missed out on some of that. I did go back and read a lot of old magazines on microfiche at the library a few years ago (I think Byte magazine) and yeah...a lot of ads, but I guess they would have been super useful pre-internet. Did you use the BBS as well? I was too young when that was common.
I ran a BBS for a while. Still have it on a hard disk, but no way to read it.
I'll add it to the Dlang roadmap;)
It's not hard copy, but you might like The Autopian (ex-Jalopniks David Tracy and Jason Torchinsky are among the editors/writers/founders).
I’ve noticed my reading habits changing too. I used to read a lot of literary fiction in my twenties, but now I mostly go for nonfiction or short-form stuff. It’s not that I think fiction is less important, it just feels harder to make space for slow, quiet stories that don’t offer an immediate payoff.
Maybe it’s not just a cultural decline, but a deeper shift in how we deal with time, attention, and meaning.
Maybe it’s not just a cultural decline, but a deeper shift in how we deal with time, attention, and meaning.
[deleted]
I have noticed this too. I spent my childhood immersed in fantasy and dystopian fiction, but nowadays, all I do is read nonfiction. Granted, part of it is probably because I realised that reality is typically much stranger (and therefore often more interesting) than fiction.
Whenever I look at some award list of contemporary "serious" literature it's filled to the brim with variations on "semi-fictional biography of a 20th century human". I have no idea why this is. Why is this the only type of story that is "taken seriously"?
What is "literary fiction"?
Is it possible that the word "literature" just refers to fiction which has had time to accumulate gravitas, in part due to being old?
If that's true, "literature" production will always appear to be in decline ;-)
Is it possible that the word "literature" just refers to fiction which has had time to accumulate gravitas, in part due to being old?
If that's true, "literature" production will always appear to be in decline ;-)
Many years ago, I was in Foyles in London, trying buy A Portait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce.
I scoured the fiction section, surprised that they didn't have it. Then I asked a staff member. He told me to look in the Literature section....
I scoured the fiction section, surprised that they didn't have it. Then I asked a staff member. He told me to look in the Literature section....
Wtf is “literary fiction?” Sounds like a genre invented by snobs. Same old [people from past generation complaining that x medium art made by the current generation is worse/lacks a soul/etc/etc] that has been happening since the beginning of art. There is a wealth of extremely artful, literary written works being made by young people today. Just like there’s a wealth of extremely artful, boundary pushing music being made by young people today. You’re not gonna run into most of it if you only listen to top 40 radio but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Even so, with the “top 40” songs/books/what-have-you, I feel like these things are always framed as “cultural decline” when in fact it’s “cultural change” and you just don’t like the thing it’s changing into currently.
Even so, with the “top 40” songs/books/what-have-you, I feel like these things are always framed as “cultural decline” when in fact it’s “cultural change” and you just don’t like the thing it’s changing into currently.
On the other hand, music is demonstrably becoming more self-centred and narcissistic: https://brainfodder.org/song-lyrics-simpler-repetitive/
Christopher Lasch talks about this in The Culture of Narcissism, but essentially it's a response to greater levels of emotional insecurity due to atomisation and social disconnection.
Christopher Lasch talks about this in The Culture of Narcissism, but essentially it's a response to greater levels of emotional insecurity due to atomisation and social disconnection.
The medium changes. People communicate differently now.
The other day I was thinking about how absurd it seems from today that in the 19th century culturally cherished people wrote poems on the political situation (at least in Central Europe, think 1848, coffeehouse culture etc.), with rhymes, correct syllable count etc. Not just politics, but anything relevant, like love (romanticism) etc. Totally unironically, as a serious form of the social conversation. The closest we may have to that today is hip hop.
The other day I was thinking about how absurd it seems from today that in the 19th century culturally cherished people wrote poems on the political situation (at least in Central Europe, think 1848, coffeehouse culture etc.), with rhymes, correct syllable count etc. Not just politics, but anything relevant, like love (romanticism) etc. Totally unironically, as a serious form of the social conversation. The closest we may have to that today is hip hop.
Book sales figures are so private that I don't know how to validate this, but my intuition is that this is just the mirror of the rise of genre fiction. It was never unpopular in the first place, and there's little if anything left of the 1960s-era consensus that genre fiction is fundamentally lesser. I read a lot, and it's just never occurred to me that I have to find literary fiction if I want something deep or thought-provoking.
"Poets lie too much"
What is the goal of fiction? Escapism. What does it matter if its deep or shallow? The deep ones arent entertaining enough?
If you are expecting a character to enlighten you on a new problem, you are being corrupted by lies.
From Nietzsche to Plato, its agreed, fiction corrupts. Using it for anything outside entertainment is horrifying.
What is the goal of fiction? Escapism. What does it matter if its deep or shallow? The deep ones arent entertaining enough?
If you are expecting a character to enlighten you on a new problem, you are being corrupted by lies.
From Nietzsche to Plato, its agreed, fiction corrupts. Using it for anything outside entertainment is horrifying.
[deleted]
If it's true that lit fic started leaving the best seller lists around the early 70s, could that also be due to people finding other media to express themselves? Like experimental music, film, and other fiction genres?
when has litfic ever been relevant to the wider culture? There are exceptions of course but those are remarkable specifically because they are the exception. The average reader has always wanted Peyton Place, not Proust
I wonder if part of it is that culture is more fragmented. There is lot more of it and it is often in other mediums. Like say TV-series. So there is no need to read certain type of fiction to stay on top of the recent thing...
I had no idea that literary fiction was a genre rather than a generic term for fictional literature until I read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction
There is a very simple explanation for the decline. The books are garbage that only masochists enjoy and that sadists force children to read in school. The description “Literary fiction may involve a concern with social commentary, political criticism, or reflection on the human condition” is full of antipatterns that are largely the mark of bad literature, since they miss the core purpose of fictional literature, which is to entertain. This is why “light novels” out of Japan and adaptations of them are popular while literary fiction is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction
There is a very simple explanation for the decline. The books are garbage that only masochists enjoy and that sadists force children to read in school. The description “Literary fiction may involve a concern with social commentary, political criticism, or reflection on the human condition” is full of antipatterns that are largely the mark of bad literature, since they miss the core purpose of fictional literature, which is to entertain. This is why “light novels” out of Japan and adaptations of them are popular while literary fiction is not.
Literary fiction is not a genre. It’s disjoint from genre fiction, which contains SF, fantasy and so on.
it doesn't help that the craft of writing is being forgotten, even if you don't read you can see the same issue in film and television.
My problem with books is that it takes a lot of time to read a book, and it's very difficult to tell beforehand if I'll like the book.
Isn't this easily solved by reading part of the book and then deciding whether you like it enough to continue?
The typical novel takes no longer than watching a season of a serialized TV show... and because it is written as a coherent whole rather than piecemeal, it is much less likely than a TV show to suffer from a bad ending that undermines everything that came before it.
The typical novel takes no longer than watching a season of a serialized TV show... and because it is written as a coherent whole rather than piecemeal, it is much less likely than a TV show to suffer from a bad ending that undermines everything that came before it.
it's quite clear to me that the author, and peers of the article dont get out enough.
the issue is not the decline of literary fiction, it is rather the fact of fiction it lself is no longer possible, which is quite evident when listening to the surreal, harrowing, epic tales to be told by the people all around the edges, haltingly, and reluctantly told, but everywhere.
we no longer live in a "golden age" where we can mull over the causes and effects of human lives lived large and bold, as the inescapable reality is serving you coffee, in a 3d printed sci-fi setting, the furnishings hard, the light eminating from an incomprehensable device operating at frequencys absent from any literary narative, a high whine wavering beween revelation and impending doom, more in line with some mythical description of the advent of deamons and spirits than anything a civilised and literate culture would ever allude to.
Cervantes and Hobbs stand as proxy's for two possible paths, Hobbs bieng the overwheming choice, all of the impossible to reconcile inconsistansies, simply ommited from our narative, and twisted into a booming(pun.acknowedged) busniess of exporting our conradictions.
cuil story, bro.
>Literary fiction, serious fiction,[1] high literature,[2] or artistic literature,[2] and sometimes just literature,[2] encompasses fiction books and writings that are more character-driven rather than plot-driven, that examine the human condition, or that are simply considered serious art by critics.
Same reason new christmas carols dont land. And people dont listen to new classic music styles. It has to meet arbitrary rules regarding art, seriousness and get past critics to even be added to the category. I say category because anyone can write fiction, its just magical fairy dust better than you wankery when you add literary to the front.
Much easier to instead simply write good fiction and let idiots clutch pearls over its literariness.
Boils down to "This arbitrary category with a bunch of great nostalgia based entries doesn't have modern competition"
Meanwhile genre fiction printer goes brrrrrr which contains a lot of shit, but due to sheer quantity contains so many gems you never even need to worry about critics or "literary" fiction.
Actually I feel like this is yet another example of how stupid it is to gatekeep art as higher than process. Art comes from process. It isnt a single part of the process that can be separated from it. People complained video games could never be art. People complain that genre fiction cant be art. These days its AI image generation. Its all art, or can be art.
Same reason new christmas carols dont land. And people dont listen to new classic music styles. It has to meet arbitrary rules regarding art, seriousness and get past critics to even be added to the category. I say category because anyone can write fiction, its just magical fairy dust better than you wankery when you add literary to the front.
Much easier to instead simply write good fiction and let idiots clutch pearls over its literariness.
Boils down to "This arbitrary category with a bunch of great nostalgia based entries doesn't have modern competition"
Meanwhile genre fiction printer goes brrrrrr which contains a lot of shit, but due to sheer quantity contains so many gems you never even need to worry about critics or "literary" fiction.
Actually I feel like this is yet another example of how stupid it is to gatekeep art as higher than process. Art comes from process. It isnt a single part of the process that can be separated from it. People complained video games could never be art. People complain that genre fiction cant be art. These days its AI image generation. Its all art, or can be art.
[deleted]
Don’t forget rise of audible.
If I or anybody else publishes a novel about LLMs taking over the world, it would be classed as science-fiction, not as social commentary.
We suffer the same vices and the same diseases of one hundred years ago, and by then we had already invented capitalism and “enjoyed” it for quite some time. So I recon nobody would be able to write something like Les Miserables or David Copperfield and expect to have the same impact.
Our technological world and the nature of our collective miseries are constantly changing, and IMO are fertile ground for literary creation, but writers trained on the classic literary fiction works would not be prepared to handle the intricacies of our broad technology sectors and its social implications, and if they did were prepared and did write on those topics, they wouldn’t be recognized by their peers and the New Yorker as literary fiction writers… Think about The Martian, and a long list of wonderful works that have never made it to any of the high-brow lists this article refers to.
We suffer the same vices and the same diseases of one hundred years ago, and by then we had already invented capitalism and “enjoyed” it for quite some time. So I recon nobody would be able to write something like Les Miserables or David Copperfield and expect to have the same impact.
Our technological world and the nature of our collective miseries are constantly changing, and IMO are fertile ground for literary creation, but writers trained on the classic literary fiction works would not be prepared to handle the intricacies of our broad technology sectors and its social implications, and if they did were prepared and did write on those topics, they wouldn’t be recognized by their peers and the New Yorker as literary fiction writers… Think about The Martian, and a long list of wonderful works that have never made it to any of the high-brow lists this article refers to.
I agree with what seems like the article's main point, namely that literary fiction has declined because it's not actually good anymore, it's just targeted at a tiny subculture of critics with weird tastes. In a way this is prefigured by the whole idea of "literary fiction"; the article never explains what this is, but it seems to mean something like "fiction that intends to be something other than pure entertainment".
> after postmodernism a kind of MFA minimalism came to dominate literary fiction
I totally agree with this and it more or less sums up why I hardly read any contemporary literary fiction. (And I'm one of those people the article talks about who does read a lot of novels, just not many new ones.) Although it's contrasted here with postmodernism, in a way I see a contiguity between them, as the irritating background sensation I get from most such writing, is a deliberate attempt by the author to create a distinctive "voice". Some of the postmodernist stuff does it by being very weird, but the new stuff can be even worse because so many writers are trying to create "their own voice" within this tiny range of the style space. I make an effort to sample this sometimes when I'm in a boosktore, but I'll pick up a book and read the first page or two and a wave of ennui washes over me.
Around 20 years ago, in college, I went to a talk by a classics scholar (as in, ancient Greek classics), who made an offhand reference to "The sort of story you read in the New Yorker, you know, one everyday American preaching a gentle sermon to another." I've always remembered that line and it still rings true today.
The article seems to talk about the "wokeness hypothesis" on this issue in terms of attributes of authors (e.g., their race or gender) rather than of stories. I don't know much about that. But if there's a way that wokeness or something like it has influenced writing, I'd say it's from a different angle: I just get the sense that there's a lot more risk today in writing about characters very unlike the author. It can be perceived as trying to "tell [insert group name here]'s story" without their involvement or consent. I think the severity of this is overstated by right-leaning reactionaries, but it's hard to argue that it's not a genuine shift in societal mood and values.
I think this is somewhat unfortunate, because it has a chilling effect on the role of imagination in writing. When we assume that a writer writing about some character is "telling the story" of people in the real world who are somehow similar to that character I think we sometimes close ourselves off to interesting stories that can potentially speak to many readers across cultures and categories. Like I say, this effect isn't decisive, but it's real.
When reading the article I also kept thinking about "classical" music, which seems like the musical counterpart to "literary" fiction. I've met people my age, younger, even kids, who respond with visceral enjoyment to Beethoven, Chopin, etc. I've met people who genuinely like stuff like Debussy and Ravel. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who unironically liked contemporary classical music on that level. Like literary fiction, it's become an inside game for people who want to push boundaries and move beyond conventions, and making something that sounds nice is secondary. There are exceptions to various degrees (Philip Glass comes to mind) but on the whole I get the sense of the same phenomenon mentioned in the article, which is that everyone seems to take it as given that no one is writing any music today that is even in the same league as Beethoven or Bach.
In the realm of fiction, that kind of connects to this:
> For the last twenty years American literary culture has been unable to produce a writer we can describe as great without at least feeling a tinge of embarrassment about. We should be worried.
That feeling of embarrassment feels connected to the rise of irony in art in general, and I wonder if it's another reason literary fiction has suffered. It's hard to write in the modern world without working in a significant wink-wink-nudge-nudge about how stupid and banal things are, not in the sense of satire or even witty commentary but just a kind of devil-may-care acceptance.
But there may be hope for us yet. According to a story that may be apocryphal, around 100 years ago someone asked Andre Gide who the greatest French poet was and he answered: "Victor Hugo, alas!"
> after postmodernism a kind of MFA minimalism came to dominate literary fiction
I totally agree with this and it more or less sums up why I hardly read any contemporary literary fiction. (And I'm one of those people the article talks about who does read a lot of novels, just not many new ones.) Although it's contrasted here with postmodernism, in a way I see a contiguity between them, as the irritating background sensation I get from most such writing, is a deliberate attempt by the author to create a distinctive "voice". Some of the postmodernist stuff does it by being very weird, but the new stuff can be even worse because so many writers are trying to create "their own voice" within this tiny range of the style space. I make an effort to sample this sometimes when I'm in a boosktore, but I'll pick up a book and read the first page or two and a wave of ennui washes over me.
Around 20 years ago, in college, I went to a talk by a classics scholar (as in, ancient Greek classics), who made an offhand reference to "The sort of story you read in the New Yorker, you know, one everyday American preaching a gentle sermon to another." I've always remembered that line and it still rings true today.
The article seems to talk about the "wokeness hypothesis" on this issue in terms of attributes of authors (e.g., their race or gender) rather than of stories. I don't know much about that. But if there's a way that wokeness or something like it has influenced writing, I'd say it's from a different angle: I just get the sense that there's a lot more risk today in writing about characters very unlike the author. It can be perceived as trying to "tell [insert group name here]'s story" without their involvement or consent. I think the severity of this is overstated by right-leaning reactionaries, but it's hard to argue that it's not a genuine shift in societal mood and values.
I think this is somewhat unfortunate, because it has a chilling effect on the role of imagination in writing. When we assume that a writer writing about some character is "telling the story" of people in the real world who are somehow similar to that character I think we sometimes close ourselves off to interesting stories that can potentially speak to many readers across cultures and categories. Like I say, this effect isn't decisive, but it's real.
When reading the article I also kept thinking about "classical" music, which seems like the musical counterpart to "literary" fiction. I've met people my age, younger, even kids, who respond with visceral enjoyment to Beethoven, Chopin, etc. I've met people who genuinely like stuff like Debussy and Ravel. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who unironically liked contemporary classical music on that level. Like literary fiction, it's become an inside game for people who want to push boundaries and move beyond conventions, and making something that sounds nice is secondary. There are exceptions to various degrees (Philip Glass comes to mind) but on the whole I get the sense of the same phenomenon mentioned in the article, which is that everyone seems to take it as given that no one is writing any music today that is even in the same league as Beethoven or Bach.
In the realm of fiction, that kind of connects to this:
> For the last twenty years American literary culture has been unable to produce a writer we can describe as great without at least feeling a tinge of embarrassment about. We should be worried.
That feeling of embarrassment feels connected to the rise of irony in art in general, and I wonder if it's another reason literary fiction has suffered. It's hard to write in the modern world without working in a significant wink-wink-nudge-nudge about how stupid and banal things are, not in the sense of satire or even witty commentary but just a kind of devil-may-care acceptance.
But there may be hope for us yet. According to a story that may be apocryphal, around 100 years ago someone asked Andre Gide who the greatest French poet was and he answered: "Victor Hugo, alas!"
> The article seems to talk about the "wokeness hypothesis" on this issue in terms of attributes of authors (e.g., their race or gender) rather than of stories. I don't know much about that. But if there's a way that wokeness or something like it has influenced writing, I'd say it's from a different angle: I just get the sense that there's a lot more risk today in writing about characters very unlike the author. It can be perceived as trying to "tell [insert group name here]'s story" without their involvement or consent. I think the severity of this is overstated by right-leaning reactionaries, but it's hard to argue that it's not a genuine shift in societal mood and values.
People in general don't take as much risk anymore. It's been variously documented by Byung-Chul Han in The Palliative Society, Jonathan Haidt in The Coddling of the American Mind, and even The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch. Generally, it's a response to increasing complexity, atomisation and declining social ties, all of which contribute to a state of emotional insecurity. On a related note, Chris Hedges remarks in The World as It Is:
> But in the game of American journalism it is forbidden to feel. Journalists are told they must be clinical observers who interpret human reality through their eyes, not their hearts—and certainly not through their consciences. This is the deadly disease of American journalism. And it is the reason journalism in the United States has lost its moral core and its influence. It is the reason that in a time of crisis the traditional media have so little to say. It is why the traditional media are distrusted. The gross moral and professional failings of the traditional media opened the door for the hate-mongers on Fox News and the news celebrities on commercial networks who fill our heads with trivia and celebrity gossip.
I talk about this more in my essay here, if anyone is interested, although it's quite long: https://jakehpark.substack.com/p/epistemic-telos-god-as-sadi...
People in general don't take as much risk anymore. It's been variously documented by Byung-Chul Han in The Palliative Society, Jonathan Haidt in The Coddling of the American Mind, and even The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch. Generally, it's a response to increasing complexity, atomisation and declining social ties, all of which contribute to a state of emotional insecurity. On a related note, Chris Hedges remarks in The World as It Is:
> But in the game of American journalism it is forbidden to feel. Journalists are told they must be clinical observers who interpret human reality through their eyes, not their hearts—and certainly not through their consciences. This is the deadly disease of American journalism. And it is the reason journalism in the United States has lost its moral core and its influence. It is the reason that in a time of crisis the traditional media have so little to say. It is why the traditional media are distrusted. The gross moral and professional failings of the traditional media opened the door for the hate-mongers on Fox News and the news celebrities on commercial networks who fill our heads with trivia and celebrity gossip.
I talk about this more in my essay here, if anyone is interested, although it's quite long: https://jakehpark.substack.com/p/epistemic-telos-god-as-sadi...
Got too politcal
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
While I disagree that “the publishers went woke” is a salient reason (or even true in any real sense), I give the essay props for resisting the urge to reduce a very complicated problem down to a single causal factor.
Some better versions of this take might be “In the culture war many people are only willing to consume media that perfectly signals their virtues, so even innocuous content can seem antagonistic.” or “Our culture changed and I don’t like it anymore, get off my lawn.”
For the most part I think this culture war is a figment of the media's imagination/desire. I think people just don't want to read for the most part—even those who purchase the books.
I find the culture war to exist primarily in the minds of the terminally online.
Maybe if you include "terminally watching the news on TV". But either way, it's a lot of people.
Most TV news now is talking about stuff in Twitter and I Can't Believe It's Not Twitter.
It seems to me pretty clear that the article is arguing that "wokeness made fiction crap" is really just the most current result of "authors are optimizing for critics and editors, who are competing for status, and neither are interested in producing stuff readers like".
Just pointing out that publishers simply won't publish what doesn't cater to them, so we really can't measure what authors actually want to publish.
My issue with the wokeness is that it makes the stories very predictable. One race of characters is pretty much bad. The other race needs some saviorism. It's not the message of wokeness that is boring, but the repetitive and insistent manner in which it is delivered.
Not the message, but the fact there's little else besides the message to keep you interested.
As opposed, for example, to Richard Morgan's A Land Fit for Heroes. Where the main character is gay. He was persecuted for being gay. There are gay sex scenes.
However this is not what the book is about. Stuff is happening in that series. He's the hero of a decent story.
But then I'm talking about a fantasy series so it's not "literature" :)
As opposed, for example, to Richard Morgan's A Land Fit for Heroes. Where the main character is gay. He was persecuted for being gay. There are gay sex scenes.
However this is not what the book is about. Stuff is happening in that series. He's the hero of a decent story.
But then I'm talking about a fantasy series so it's not "literature" :)
> One race of characters is pretty much bad. The other race needs some saviorism. It's not the message of wokeness that is boring, but the repetitive and insistent manner in which it is delivered.
This doesn't seem to be "wokeness" (whatever that means) so much as "shallow writing pandering to an editor somewhere who is obsessed with race but has no education to grapple with it".
This doesn't seem to be "wokeness" (whatever that means) so much as "shallow writing pandering to an editor somewhere who is obsessed with race but has no education to grapple with it".
Was Tolkien woke? I wonder.
Tolkien was super woke. He had men holding hands without wanting to fuck.
Those repeated allusions to how _we all know how publishing has gone woke_ really made me cringe.
To produce a good work of fiction its important to both 1) have a story to tell and 2) tell it masterfully.
By the time people collect enough life experience to satisfy (1) they've aged out of the demographic that's willing to put in the work to learn (2). This is why great writers are and will always be rare. People who write slop in their 20s will either fail and give up or be a victim of their success and produce more slop to satisfy their audience.
By the time people collect enough life experience to satisfy (1) they've aged out of the demographic that's willing to put in the work to learn (2). This is why great writers are and will always be rare. People who write slop in their 20s will either fail and give up or be a victim of their success and produce more slop to satisfy their audience.
I've never been able to give myself a good justification for why I should be reading any of that stuff.
The reason you read literary fiction is because you're curious about the outer edges of human thought or experience.
But does it have to be inaccessible to be so? It's easy to write something incomprehensible that says nothing. Is the writer writing about something that is inherently complex, and that's why it is inaccessible? Not typically in a novel. The prospective reader may then ask, why should I bother? I'm also curious what Pynchon has to say, but not enough to justify the investment.
Is it inaccessible? Some books are, but there is a huge amount of literary fiction that follows traditional narrative and is comprehensible to anybody with a high school education. There are more than enough such books to fill a lifetime.
I don't mean every work of literary fiction; only those commonly regarded as difficult, like Pynchon's.
It's not inaccessible. Its just that you don't have the reading skills from lack of use.
Don’t be a d**k. Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. I’m happy to debate … but only using specific examples. Authors and titles.
The example of noise music came up elsewhere in the discussion. It’s an important example. Most people won’t ever like it. You fill the pipeline with noise music, 99% of us will literally listen to anything else, or to nothing. I like a little bit of it, but in general I’m simply not going to acquire that taste.
The example of noise music came up elsewhere in the discussion. It’s an important example. Most people won’t ever like it. You fill the pipeline with noise music, 99% of us will literally listen to anything else, or to nothing. I like a little bit of it, but in general I’m simply not going to acquire that taste.
>Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody.
The PIAAC surveys, while imperfect, indirectly address what percentage of adults can read and appreciate "literary fiction."
The first part of the definition of level 3:
>Adults at Level 3 are able to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. They can identify, interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information, often employing varying levels of inferencing.
The first part for Level 4:
>At level 4, adults can read long and dense texts presented on multiple pages in order to complete tasks that involve access, understanding, evaluation and reflection about the text(s) contents and sources across multiple processing cycles. Adults at this level can infer what the task is asking based on complex or implicit statements. Successful task completion often requires the production of knowledge-based inferences.
The full definitions can be found here: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp
Based on the full definitions, understanding the use of metaphor in a longer text probably sits in Level 4. A simple metaphor might sit in Level 3.
Based on the recent survey results, only half of US adults read at Level 3 or above. Around 15% read at Level 4 or above.
I invite you to look at this PowerPoint of sample questions for each level: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ...
Based on that, what level of literacy do you think indicates someone capable of reading and enjoying literary fiction? I think the hypothetical cutoff is somewhere between Level 3 and 4.
Based on all of this, let's use Sally Rooney's book "Normal People" as an example. If we're being super charitable, at most 50% of people would be able to read and comprehend that book. If we're being less charitable with our definition of "comprehension," I think we're probably looking at closer to 30% of people really understanding it.
The PIAAC surveys, while imperfect, indirectly address what percentage of adults can read and appreciate "literary fiction."
The first part of the definition of level 3:
>Adults at Level 3 are able to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. They can identify, interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information, often employing varying levels of inferencing.
The first part for Level 4:
>At level 4, adults can read long and dense texts presented on multiple pages in order to complete tasks that involve access, understanding, evaluation and reflection about the text(s) contents and sources across multiple processing cycles. Adults at this level can infer what the task is asking based on complex or implicit statements. Successful task completion often requires the production of knowledge-based inferences.
The full definitions can be found here: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp
Based on the full definitions, understanding the use of metaphor in a longer text probably sits in Level 4. A simple metaphor might sit in Level 3.
Based on the recent survey results, only half of US adults read at Level 3 or above. Around 15% read at Level 4 or above.
I invite you to look at this PowerPoint of sample questions for each level: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ...
Based on that, what level of literacy do you think indicates someone capable of reading and enjoying literary fiction? I think the hypothetical cutoff is somewhere between Level 3 and 4.
Based on all of this, let's use Sally Rooney's book "Normal People" as an example. If we're being super charitable, at most 50% of people would be able to read and comprehend that book. If we're being less charitable with our definition of "comprehension," I think we're probably looking at closer to 30% of people really understanding it.
Yes, I'm sure it all our faults, not that of the product.
Yep, skills need to be practiced before you engage with harder material
Or, authors need to be subservient to the needs and desires of the customers.
Around 54% of adults read at a 6th grade level or below: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
Based on this, you could reach both of these conclusions:
1. Most literary fiction is inaccessible to the average adult.
2. It's a big problem that even moderately complex novels are inaccessible to the average adult.
The first statement (which I think is where you're coming from) is absolutely true. If you want to write a very popular book, it should be easily readable at a 6th grade level.
The second statement is more a statement of values. Some people (such as myself) find it problematic that the average adult can't read/understand a book that is more complex than Harry Potter.
You don't have to agree with the second statement. A lot of people don't. But I think understanding why someone might find that problematic is important. Personally, I think there are a lot of things worth knowing that can't be written at a 6th grade level.
Based on this, you could reach both of these conclusions:
1. Most literary fiction is inaccessible to the average adult.
2. It's a big problem that even moderately complex novels are inaccessible to the average adult.
The first statement (which I think is where you're coming from) is absolutely true. If you want to write a very popular book, it should be easily readable at a 6th grade level.
The second statement is more a statement of values. Some people (such as myself) find it problematic that the average adult can't read/understand a book that is more complex than Harry Potter.
You don't have to agree with the second statement. A lot of people don't. But I think understanding why someone might find that problematic is important. Personally, I think there are a lot of things worth knowing that can't be written at a 6th grade level.
>In the US
If their goal is to write bestsellers, sure. That's where the €5 leisure novels come from. OTOH, if their goal is to push boundaries or be original, being subservient to the desires of the customers is counterproductive.
This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature.
This is like saying to a musician: I like the melody but you chose all the wrong instruments.
Obviously, the entire character of a song depends not only on the melody (idea) but also on the instruments chosen, the performance, etc. (material).
For literary fiction, the words are the material. What distinguishes literary works is not merely the "ideas" they present but the way in which they are presented. The words are the author's instruments, his paints. This is the difference between writing/reading for information and writing/reading as an aesthetic experience. Literary fiction of course imparts information and ideas, but it is predominantly about the latter experience insofar as the point is the evocative expression of those ideas.
This is why just reading the cliff notes for a literary work is missing the point.
This is like saying to a musician: I like the melody but you chose all the wrong instruments.
Obviously, the entire character of a song depends not only on the melody (idea) but also on the instruments chosen, the performance, etc. (material).
For literary fiction, the words are the material. What distinguishes literary works is not merely the "ideas" they present but the way in which they are presented. The words are the author's instruments, his paints. This is the difference between writing/reading for information and writing/reading as an aesthetic experience. Literary fiction of course imparts information and ideas, but it is predominantly about the latter experience insofar as the point is the evocative expression of those ideas.
This is why just reading the cliff notes for a literary work is missing the point.
“This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature”
No it is not. It is a central and vital part of literature.
Wound you like to have a friendly debate, each of us using quotations from any fiction writers we like?
No it is not. It is a central and vital part of literature.
Wound you like to have a friendly debate, each of us using quotations from any fiction writers we like?
Actually, I'd agree that "fundamental misunderstanding" is too strong. Obviously there is a certain threshold of comprehensibility one needs to achieve regardless of whether one is pursuing aesthetic ends or informative ones.
That said, I would stand by the assertion that reading literature only for the information it imparts is missing much of the point. We esteem authors not solely for their plots and characters, but also for their stylistics—the difference between a great writer and a passing one is often little more than the well considered phrase. The arrangement, use, and rhythm of words are a major component in a literary work.
My point is that asking a writer to "express it more simply or more accessibly" may in many cases amount to asking them to butcher the stylistics that they felt achieved the highest aesthetic quality for the kind of work they wanted to produce.
If one is given a business briefing it is probably the apex of reason to ask a writer to simplify. Are there cases in which this or that phrase in a literary work would benefit from simplification? Yes, but to ask an author to simplify their entire aesthetic approach generally, really seems to me to fail to have appreciated a large part of what distinguishes literature from basic expository writing.
That said, I would stand by the assertion that reading literature only for the information it imparts is missing much of the point. We esteem authors not solely for their plots and characters, but also for their stylistics—the difference between a great writer and a passing one is often little more than the well considered phrase. The arrangement, use, and rhythm of words are a major component in a literary work.
My point is that asking a writer to "express it more simply or more accessibly" may in many cases amount to asking them to butcher the stylistics that they felt achieved the highest aesthetic quality for the kind of work they wanted to produce.
If one is given a business briefing it is probably the apex of reason to ask a writer to simplify. Are there cases in which this or that phrase in a literary work would benefit from simplification? Yes, but to ask an author to simplify their entire aesthetic approach generally, really seems to me to fail to have appreciated a large part of what distinguishes literature from basic expository writing.
I’d agree with your original assertion. Liking the content but not the form is like looking at a Turner and wishing the ship were closer and he’d chosen a clearer day, or thinking that Monet had some nice flowers in his garden but you’d like him to have painted them more clearly to be sure.
Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. You got specific works and authors? That would help a lot.
Sure, here are some of my favorites:
Faulkner, Thomas Bernhard, John Barth, Henry James, Herman Melville, Fleur Jaeggy, Dostoyevsky, Marguerite Duras, Poe, Hawthorne, Rosemarie Waldrop, Kraznahokai,
These are just a couple that came to mind. Among them, probably Waldrop, Jaeggy, and Bernhard are the most experimental, but I would argue that none of them aesthetically speaking write books that are simple, and I don't think I could argue that any of them should have simplified their themes or style or general employment of language to be more accessible.
Kraznahorkai and Bernhard are great examples. Are walls of text without paragraph breaks harder to read? Yes. But this is an important aesthetic choice. In both cases (all of bernard, melancholy of resistance for Kraz) it speaks to an overbearing oppressiveness that ties directly into their thematics. If you missed this I think you missed out an essential point of their aesthetic and what they were trying to say. We cannot sever form and content. This is why I think it's absurd to complain that someone's work is "not accessible" —its really silly to demand any sort of aesthetic capitulation on the part of any artist, literary or otherwise, in the first place.
Edit: Faulkner is another good example that's less experimental. I'm sure some readers would have found As I lay Dying or The Sound and the Fury more accessible if a narrator mediated between the various first person voices he presents, but this would so drastically change the aesthetic character of these works that I doubt you'd be able to claim they aren't essentially different and would not be equivalent pieces of art.
Faulkner, Thomas Bernhard, John Barth, Henry James, Herman Melville, Fleur Jaeggy, Dostoyevsky, Marguerite Duras, Poe, Hawthorne, Rosemarie Waldrop, Kraznahokai,
These are just a couple that came to mind. Among them, probably Waldrop, Jaeggy, and Bernhard are the most experimental, but I would argue that none of them aesthetically speaking write books that are simple, and I don't think I could argue that any of them should have simplified their themes or style or general employment of language to be more accessible.
Kraznahorkai and Bernhard are great examples. Are walls of text without paragraph breaks harder to read? Yes. But this is an important aesthetic choice. In both cases (all of bernard, melancholy of resistance for Kraz) it speaks to an overbearing oppressiveness that ties directly into their thematics. If you missed this I think you missed out an essential point of their aesthetic and what they were trying to say. We cannot sever form and content. This is why I think it's absurd to complain that someone's work is "not accessible" —its really silly to demand any sort of aesthetic capitulation on the part of any artist, literary or otherwise, in the first place.
Edit: Faulkner is another good example that's less experimental. I'm sure some readers would have found As I lay Dying or The Sound and the Fury more accessible if a narrator mediated between the various first person voices he presents, but this would so drastically change the aesthetic character of these works that I doubt you'd be able to claim they aren't essentially different and would not be equivalent pieces of art.
But that’s new. Until ca 1970-2000, people read literary fiction because it was high quality, much more than because it was unrelateable. O’Hara, Salinger, and Franzen were not writing about the outer edges of human experience.
Interesting. That’s exactly why I read science fiction.
This is HN, they may be looking to put a monetary value on it.
I can give one.
As far as I can tell, as far as your entertainment options go, literary fiction is THE best option to exercise your mind.
Ranked, in order, it's: literary fiction, nonfiction, computer games, movies, TV.
"Meta-analyses show fiction reading has stronger associations with cognitive skills than nonfiction, with medium-sized benefits for verbal abilities and general cognition. Fiction enhances social cognition by exercising the brain's default network involved in theory of mind. Reading fiction increases brain connectivity, particularly in language areas and sensorimotor regions, with effects lasting beyond the reading session."
As far as I can tell, as far as your entertainment options go, literary fiction is THE best option to exercise your mind.
Ranked, in order, it's: literary fiction, nonfiction, computer games, movies, TV.
"Meta-analyses show fiction reading has stronger associations with cognitive skills than nonfiction, with medium-sized benefits for verbal abilities and general cognition. Fiction enhances social cognition by exercising the brain's default network involved in theory of mind. Reading fiction increases brain connectivity, particularly in language areas and sensorimotor regions, with effects lasting beyond the reading session."
Literary fiction is a category of fiction. Why read literary fiction over other fiction?
What's the source of that last quote? I Googled it but got no results....
It's probably AI but you can find the studies here and in the related links below
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38602788/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38602788/
Simply put, these are some of the greatest stories ever told and can teach about the world, its history, and the fundamental questions of the human experience.
"Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth." - Albert Camus
"Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth." - Albert Camus
There's nothing more effective than a piece of fiction at transmitting the subtle complete world-view ideas of an author directly into your brain.
I mean that in the sense that non-fiction is still very much fictionally presenting a world view of the author or the subject, but in a way that's bounded by real facts. Literary fiction doesn't have that constraint.
Human history and society is actually made up of ideas and by taking 2-300 pages to digest a set of ideas you come away with a new perspective you can't get any other way.
I mean that in the sense that non-fiction is still very much fictionally presenting a world view of the author or the subject, but in a way that's bounded by real facts. Literary fiction doesn't have that constraint.
Human history and society is actually made up of ideas and by taking 2-300 pages to digest a set of ideas you come away with a new perspective you can't get any other way.
Fiction is alive and well. This article is specifically about the decline of literary fiction.
I think people simply realize how boring and pretentious much of contemporary literary fiction is; many choose to go pick up a science fiction, or thriller, or even romance novel that can convery all the same ideas in more interesting and accessible ways.
I think people simply realize how boring and pretentious much of contemporary literary fiction is; many choose to go pick up a science fiction, or thriller, or even romance novel that can convery all the same ideas in more interesting and accessible ways.
I think it's pretentious too, but I also think it's a useful distinction in the sense that the category aspires to deeper and broader ideas than a lot of fiction- Harry Potter, Hyperion, Dennis Taylor, We Are Legion, Twilight.
Not to say that the distinction itself, literary vs non-literary fiction, isn't extremely pretentious. But we all recognize that some book's ideas are more shallow than others.
Not to say that the distinction itself, literary vs non-literary fiction, isn't extremely pretentious. But we all recognize that some book's ideas are more shallow than others.
It's fun
What is that stuff? Is Kurt Vonnegut that stuff?
Folks, downvoting the comment above is literally destroying what you claim to support.
Folks, downvoting the comment above is literally destroying what you claim to support.
I’ve been wanting to buy a copy of Flowers for Algernon. It’s easy too, my local Barnes and Noble has it in stock. But it’s $19 (in paperback!) for a book published almost 60 years ago.
Take a slow and steady look through every second-hand book store within travelling distance.
You might find it or you might not. But the search will be far more interesting than browsing any website.
You might find it or you might not. But the search will be far more interesting than browsing any website.
Keep an eye out for library sales in your area. The selection is usually very good and you can buy books/CDs/etc. by the pound.
Mass market paperback is $6 on Amazon
Video killed the radio star.
I remember listening to that as a kid and thinking it must be wrong because we still had radio, we even had books everywhere as far as I could see. Of course we still do, but it's not just literary fiction suffering; book sales tend to go down (pandemics excepted) while the numbers being published goes up.
Anecdotally, I followed an interesting ex-MI6 bod on Tiktok (@theenglishspy) who had ~50k followers and admitted, maybe a few months after publishing a book he'd been pushing, that he had sold less than 100 copies. I had my own go [1] at narrative non-fiction for a cause and also didn't manage to break 100 copies.
Perhaps it's a good thing; the market's saturated, while overall demand for books is falling it's because there are more instant, engaging formats that people are seeking to invest in finding stories. If the internet ever goes down, those books will still be there, we'll just have to find a way to order them.
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DVC8XG1X/
I remember listening to that as a kid and thinking it must be wrong because we still had radio, we even had books everywhere as far as I could see. Of course we still do, but it's not just literary fiction suffering; book sales tend to go down (pandemics excepted) while the numbers being published goes up.
Anecdotally, I followed an interesting ex-MI6 bod on Tiktok (@theenglishspy) who had ~50k followers and admitted, maybe a few months after publishing a book he'd been pushing, that he had sold less than 100 copies. I had my own go [1] at narrative non-fiction for a cause and also didn't manage to break 100 copies.
Perhaps it's a good thing; the market's saturated, while overall demand for books is falling it's because there are more instant, engaging formats that people are seeking to invest in finding stories. If the internet ever goes down, those books will still be there, we'll just have to find a way to order them.
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DVC8XG1X/
According to the author this isn't the case, but the take is complicated:
> People don’t read books or short stories in magazines anymore because they’re too busy scrolling? There’s data on this: according to the National Endowment of the Arts, the number of Americans who “read literature” has fallen from 56.9% in 1982 to 46.7% in 2002 to 38% in 2022. I’m not even going to bother pulling data on the percent of time people spend on their phones or on the internet. So the internet means people spend less time reading books and (presumably) less time reading literary fiction in particular because it’s weighty, boring, dense, etc. There are two problems with this theory: one is that the facts are wrong — the actual size of the fiction reading population has not shrunk a meaningful amount (population growth), and the second is that even if the facts were right, it couldn’t be correct: in 1955, the number of Americans who even read one book a year (39%) was lower than it is today (53%).3 And the 1950s and 1960s were supposedly the golden-age of American fiction. What’s actually going on?
Most easily digestible evidence submitted by the author is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/DRBKRA3A086NBEA showing that actual per capita expenditure on reading material has increased indexed to 2017 dollars...
> People don’t read books or short stories in magazines anymore because they’re too busy scrolling? There’s data on this: according to the National Endowment of the Arts, the number of Americans who “read literature” has fallen from 56.9% in 1982 to 46.7% in 2002 to 38% in 2022. I’m not even going to bother pulling data on the percent of time people spend on their phones or on the internet. So the internet means people spend less time reading books and (presumably) less time reading literary fiction in particular because it’s weighty, boring, dense, etc. There are two problems with this theory: one is that the facts are wrong — the actual size of the fiction reading population has not shrunk a meaningful amount (population growth), and the second is that even if the facts were right, it couldn’t be correct: in 1955, the number of Americans who even read one book a year (39%) was lower than it is today (53%).3 And the 1950s and 1960s were supposedly the golden-age of American fiction. What’s actually going on?
Most easily digestible evidence submitted by the author is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/DRBKRA3A086NBEA showing that actual per capita expenditure on reading material has increased indexed to 2017 dollars...
Lies, damned lies and statistics, but I'm not sure any of that contradicts my view. Print sales are down since the pandemic bump, they're back at ~2008 levels when the US population was >40m fewer.
That the percentage of people who can read (and do read one book per year) is higher, clearly isn't translating to more book sales, so people are reading, or at least buying, fewer print books.
That the percentage of people who can read (and do read one book per year) is higher, clearly isn't translating to more book sales, so people are reading, or at least buying, fewer print books.
I don't know what could possibly make me read books. Reading is a chore, and not very efficient at the best of times. There's also the eye strain and the neck pain, and comfort in general. Best would be to read from bed, but bed is for sleepy time, a hard earned lesson.
But that's just me. Here's why I think books are no longer being read in general.
It's simply a format that time has moved on from. First came the radio, but radio wasn't gonna compete with books. Radio was succeeded by television though, and that sure could, but television is presently being succeeded by the internet, with TV companies desperate for any remaining attention, attention that they keep bleeding.
All this time the format has failed to find a foothold, and carve out its stay. You may discover that this is not universally true across the world, such as in Japan, where light novels are decently popular. It has its own place, but in the Western world, the only reliable place books have is in the classroom. I stipulate that the reason you see a prominently female readership is for the same reason: girls are (were?) taught in school that they're the more artsy type, that humanities should interest them more, and so they proceed(ed) to take that on the chin. Fast forward a few decades, and there you go.
The same applies for all other foregone forms of art. Theater? Opera? Ballet? Classical music performances? You'd have to pay or coerce me to attend these. Where I live, all the institutions hosting these are living off of government money, as they're simply unable to sustain themselves otherwise. People just don't care. The shows put on are basically live-action museum exhibitions. Although I guess even museums should be included in this list. Modern audiences are simply completely out of tune with these, they are an exercise in anachronism. And until the communities behind these continue to hammer in their formal position in art over their actual one, rather than try to connect with said modern audiences, this trend will continue. That is assuming such a connection is even possible still at this point.
But that's just me. Here's why I think books are no longer being read in general.
It's simply a format that time has moved on from. First came the radio, but radio wasn't gonna compete with books. Radio was succeeded by television though, and that sure could, but television is presently being succeeded by the internet, with TV companies desperate for any remaining attention, attention that they keep bleeding.
All this time the format has failed to find a foothold, and carve out its stay. You may discover that this is not universally true across the world, such as in Japan, where light novels are decently popular. It has its own place, but in the Western world, the only reliable place books have is in the classroom. I stipulate that the reason you see a prominently female readership is for the same reason: girls are (were?) taught in school that they're the more artsy type, that humanities should interest them more, and so they proceed(ed) to take that on the chin. Fast forward a few decades, and there you go.
The same applies for all other foregone forms of art. Theater? Opera? Ballet? Classical music performances? You'd have to pay or coerce me to attend these. Where I live, all the institutions hosting these are living off of government money, as they're simply unable to sustain themselves otherwise. People just don't care. The shows put on are basically live-action museum exhibitions. Although I guess even museums should be included in this list. Modern audiences are simply completely out of tune with these, they are an exercise in anachronism. And until the communities behind these continue to hammer in their formal position in art over their actual one, rather than try to connect with said modern audiences, this trend will continue. That is assuming such a connection is even possible still at this point.
Plenty of people still read and read a lot. I also have other hobbies, but I don't think it's going away. There are more books being published than ever before. There are also genres like science fiction and fantasy that are HUGE now and were once much smaller.
I mean happy for you, but that's a bit of a non sequitur, isn't it? The thread we're in is literally called "The cultural decline of literary fiction", and none of what you say is actually mutually exclusive with that.
Indeed, it's about the decline of literary fiction - a very specific subset of literature that comprises a tiny part of fiction, nevermind the totality of all literature. People still read books, just not these particular books.
Agreed. Sorry for getting off topic. I interpreted some of the comments as veering off into talking about the decline of literature as a whole.
Comfort can be improved by using a dedicated ebook reader. It's lighter than a paper book, makes it easier to turn the page, and the text can be configured so that every book uses identical typography (the most legible typography is the typography you're used to).
Eye strain suggests you probably need corrective lenses of some type. If so, fixing this will improve your quality of life in more than just reading books. Good lighting is also important. E-paper has the advantage that it can be used in bright lighting, e.g. outdoors. For indoor reading you might want a desk lamp positioned to shine extra light on the ebook reader.
Eye strain suggests you probably need corrective lenses of some type. If so, fixing this will improve your quality of life in more than just reading books. Good lighting is also important. E-paper has the advantage that it can be used in bright lighting, e.g. outdoors. For indoor reading you might want a desk lamp positioned to shine extra light on the ebook reader.
For a supposedly moribund institution, live theater (esp Broadway) makes a ton of money.
Younger people don't read books as frequently as they did when I was young (pre-internet). Bookstores are flooded with junk, with the SEO-equivalent of publishing spam having won out on the bookshelves. Libraries are as bad or worse. Students do not pursue Greek and Latin and classical literature, and have no reference point of high culture apart from the distracting now.
And the English language has declined. English has always been a scraped-together, something-of-everything tongue. But jargon and abstractisms have killed expression. Meanwhile, French and German have eaten so many Americanisms that they're in terminal indigestion, and now the whole planet thinks and talks like a slightly below-average bumpkin American with a college journalism degree.
And the English language has declined. English has always been a scraped-together, something-of-everything tongue. But jargon and abstractisms have killed expression. Meanwhile, French and German have eaten so many Americanisms that they're in terminal indigestion, and now the whole planet thinks and talks like a slightly below-average bumpkin American with a college journalism degree.
I think the author skips past the real answer right here. The old books haven’t gone away. Even if we assume there are good new books, they have to compete with the supply of existing books, which grows without bound - unlike the time and attention of consumers.
Every form of media has this problem. A human lifetime can only consume so many books, so many films, so many hours of music. A new movie comes out: what are the odds of it being more worth your while than one on the existing IMDb Top 1000? Decreasing.
Books are no different. What are the odds that something new is going to displace something existing off the shortlist of greats that you already don’t have time to read?