Downward spiral of literature?

[blissfulMenace]

Do you think that the downward spiral of literature in our comunity today is going to cause a detrimental affect on intellectual and or political society?

By literature I mean, not internet, or magazine, but novels and such. Stories written with a moral.

I think that if everyone stopped reading these forms of art, imagination in society would cease to exist. Nowadays with TV, and video games, and message boards like these, theres nothing left to the imagination. All that is left is books. I also believe that literature leads to common skills needed in society such as problem solving. As a fellow bluelighter, what are your views on this.

 

[Pleonastic]

What exactly is literature? One way of looking at it is: literature = a good book + time. I'm sure there are books being written now that students will study in 50 years - but that's not obvious yet because nobody knows how they'll stand the test of time.

 

[Finder]

I've read plenty of great novels written in the 20th century, so I'm not sure I agree that the quality of literature is in a downward spiral.

 

[blissfulMenace]

I mean that recently the incentive of a person to go home and read a book has fallen down. A study was done, I forgot by who, my teacher told me about it today in English, some American English grant program showed a 10% decrease in the amount of people that have read a book in the last year. This brought the total percent down to 46%. This may be a biased study, I don't know much about it, but my personal experience shows that more people would rather go watch a movie than read a book.

 

[Finder]

Well, that's pretty sad, but I don't see the correlation between those statistics and the quality of literature today.

 

[paradoxcycle]

Originally posted by blissfulMenace
Do you think that the downward spiral of literature in our comunity today is going to cause a detrimental affect on intellectual and or political society?

In actuality it is the downward spiral of society (including ethics) that is going to cause a detrimental effect on literature and politics.

 

[Benefit]

There's good stuff being written. The problem is no one is reading it.

 

[blissfulMenace]

^^ That's exactly my point. So do you think that society will be strongly affected, or do you think that other means of media, such as the internet and televisions will overcome it.

 

[Benefit]

Visual media like television and films will always lack the depth of literature. You cannot compress the complexities of a 400 page novel (or even a short story really) into a three hour movie, or a ten part mini-series. This issue particularly bugs me as the trend in Hollywood is to churn out mindless garbage, because there's a huge market for that kind of crap. This suggests to me that the erosion of society is already at hand; the fact that the studios cater to this demographic shows that the demand for insightful discourse, social commentary and intellectualism is rapidly fading.

Will it ever be totally gone? Hard to say, but I doubt it. Certainly, because of the prevelance of mindless visual media out there these days it seems like it will be gone soon, but that's probably a misconception. The idea that imagination is exclusively linked to literature is false. Creativity is an enduring element of the human condition, and exists in many forms. So even though the number of people that read contemporary literature is dwindling, a trend I think does represent a gradual erosion of our society, imagination and creative endeavours will always be around.

To answer your question directly, the decline of literature is not responsible for the decline of society. It's actually the other way around, since literature and media tend to reflect the state of society, not dictate it. Which is essentially the same thing that paradoxcycle said.

 

[Infinite Jest]

Visual media like television and films will always lack the depth of literature. You cannot compress the complexities of a 400 page novel (or even a short story really) into a three hour movie, or a ten part mini-series.

I mostly agree with this (though: (off the top of my head) Godfather, Trainspotting, Adaptation would suggest that good films can come from books). But books and films are different. They're trying to do different things. Appreciating one doesn't mean you ignore the other, so I don't think that films are necessarily to blame for a 'decline' in written literature.

Anyway, (to answer the original poster) I don't think there's a decline. There are incredibly intelligent, complex novels being written right now. There's Dave Wallace and Neal Stephenson writing books that will be studied in 100 years, the equivalent of the epic Victorian novels by Dickens or Thackeray. There's Rushdie and Garcia Marquez. There's Amis.

I think we're doing OK.

 

[alasdairm]

what evidence is there that there is a downfall in the quality of literature (how do you even begin to measuring this?).

to benefit's point, what evidence is there that nobody is reading it?

alasdair

 

[Benefit]

what evidence is there that there is a downfall in the quality of literature (how do you even begin to measuring this?).

to benefit's point, what evidence is there that nobody is reading it?

alasdair

I don't have the numbers on hand, but statistically book and newspaper sales have been on the decline. Just look at what a well-known author is making compared with what even a moderately well-known movie star makes. The discrepancy in salary alone should tell you that, from a commercial standpoint, the market for literature is not terribly big. Which isn't to say that there is literally nobody reading these days, but figuratively speaking here in America we live in a society where people would rather be visually stimulated than engage a complex text.

As an English major, I've been contemplating the practicality of my area of study and it is definitely hard these days to find a practical use for an English degree. Which also suggests that literary pursuits are not terribly fashionable in contemporary American society.

 

[Benefit]

I mostly agree with this (though: (off the top of my head) Godfather, Trainspotting, Adaptation would suggest that good films can come from books). But books and films are different. They're trying to do different things. Appreciating one doesn't mean you ignore the other, so I don't think that films are necessarily to blame for a 'decline' in written literature.

Specifically, I'm thinking about the people who would rather get high and watch Pootie Tang than read a book. In that sense, I find film and television detrimental when it clearly contributes nothing but mindless stimulation (television is particularly bad about this). Mindless stimulation is OK, but when it becomes the norm I think that indicates there's a problem.

 

[Infinite Jest]

I see what you're saying, but I wonder: were those people EVER reading books? Back in the 19th or 18th century, or the 1930s, were there a whole bunch of people reading, who all stopped when TV came along? Seems to me like there were always people who didn't read, but back in the day no-one paid any attention to them.

I'm thinking that maybe the middle and upper classes were reading, but there were whole neighbourhoods of factory workers and unemployed who never opened a book back then, either. Many of 'em would have been illiterate. And now, the equivalent of those people are literate, but don't really enjoy reading, so watch TV.

Incidentally, an English degree can be really useful, if you know how to make it useful. The most useful university course I've done, pretty much, was on the Victorian novel. Why? Because we did close analysis of short passages of text, and tried to fit them into the novel as a whole. Now I have really good comprehension skills, I can analyse and understand and summarise complex texts. And that's what I do at my job, which is at a well-respected organisation, reasonably well-paid, and they like what I do. All you need to do is look for work like that, and emphasise how well you can understand the written word - it's a valuable skill. It probably seems less valuable to you because it comes so naturally, but a lot of people just can't do it.

 

[Pander Bear]

The notion that your opinion is particular to our time is ridiculous. If you took the time to read any social commentary from ages we now revere (try oscar wilde), you'd see that this sentiment is as old as books themselves. My field of study is art, and I agree, it is disheartening to see so few people interested in avant-garde art today. Equally disheartening is the feeling that nothing produced today can equal the material of even 30 yeard ago. Just remind yourself that when you're looking at contemporary culture, you're looking at a work in progress, and looking at it from an unidealized, non-historic standpoint. We don't have the luxury of books and people to tell us what is high-art, what is a masterpiece, and what is trash today, because we're still doing it, and we're even farther from trying to make those evaluations.

In regards to the death of the written word: I can assure you, its quite alive and well. I have a feeling that you don't know where to look for it. What literary reviews do you read? How many short story authors can you name off the top of your head who are currently writing? Can you name any of the many many playwrites working today?

Another point: the novel is being slowly supplanted by another form: the screenplay/film. There have been and are wirter/directors who are doing as much in the line of storytelling as any victorian, or any other author, for that matter, could ever hope to accomplish. Talk to a film student, and ask them how watching a film cut by cut, shot by shot changes their outlook.

Ridiculous: go read a book yourself before you bemoan society.

 

[Belisarius]

I don't think there will be any detrimental effects. Think of Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's Russia--what percentage of the population was literate? The same question could be asked of almost any society before the 20th century. Humans got by for thousands of years on only oral culture, and whether a society is lettered, learned, or otherwise, everyday life is still complex. Literature is a bonus, not a necessity IMO.

Also, to echo what some others have said, comparing film/television and literature is somewhat unfair; they're both good at doing certain things. A good movie might make a sh*tty book, and vice versa, and a riveting television program might make an inane movie or book, etc. For instance, I know a few people who think modern music is crap, and only listen to classical. Is society less sophisticated today for liking pop, dance music and electronica as opposed to classical? For that matter, what about experimental musicians (I'm thinking of Cage and Schoenberg in particular), some who might consider their music perfect, however distant it is from popular tastes?

To keep from rambling too long: I don't see any art form as superior to the others, and I don't think popularity should be a factor in determining the merit of one form over another. I mean this totally; if someone can have a spiritual experience watching Jerry Springer rather than Le Chien Andalou, then more power to them (however much I personally dislike the former show ).