19th century literature vs. 20th/21st century literature
do you have something to say?
>>7447852
It varies per country, but my vote is for the 20th: you've got giants like Joyce, Proust, Beckett, Crane, Pound, Gaddis, Gass.
>>7447860
yeah, sorry, it's a question, i was just curious what you guys might think, i personally think the 19th century.
>>7447862
Pretty much this. Of course you'd go 19th century for Russian, perhaps French. British is a toss up on what period really grabs you. American, eh the Romantic period had some winners, but so did the Moderns.
>>7447882
With American you have Melville
>>7447852
For starters:
19th cen: Russia, Britain at their best tƅh
20th: America, France
Agreed, 19th century russian is somewhat unmatched I feel.
Will postmodernism be seen by future historians as just modernism with a slightly different aesthetic?
>>7447887
I'd personally go 19th for America, but I'm not huge on the American moderns.
i still don't even understand the difference between post-modernism and modernism anyway. i'm not even sure i care. but yeah, russians are why i'd pick the 19th century, and dumas. that's not to say that the 20th and 21st is useless or anything.
19th Century is obviously Russia and Germany. How ignorant can you people be to not mention Germany for the 19th Century?
>>7447888
France in 19th: Baudelaire, Mallarmé, Flaubert, Villiers de L'Isle Adam, Huysmans, Rimbaud, Gautier, Victor Hugo... etc
>>7447975
>How ignorant can you people be to not mention Germany for the 19th Century?
Germany was not monumental in the way other countries such as Russia were during that time tƅh
>>7448017
>Hegel and Nietzsche
what the fuck are you guys saying
>>7447993
>Baudelaire
>Huysmans
>doesn't even include verlaine or valery
this is some cuk shit
>>7448026
thanks
>>7447975
>Germany for the 19th Century?
kek not even close
here let this big titty bitch sooth your nationalism
>>7448043
Verlaine is great too... and Valéry is from the 20th century.
>>7448043
you're probably a very lazy child.
>>7448075
better than being a lazy mongoloid like you senpai
hey hey, be nice. anyway, let's change it up a bit, who are the single most important authors in each century?
>>7448092
19th Century -> Marx, Hegel
>>7447898
No. The only similarity is in their titles.
>>7448026
and Goethe, and that's about the extent of it. Also Nietzsche's immense nod to a certain Russian
>>7448185
Oh yeah right. who's Marx and Schopenhauer.
Or to take one step downwards from people who are arguably one of the greatest thinkers that mankind ever had.
Feuerbach, Novalis, Jean Paul, Husserl, Schelling, Schiller, Schlegel, Storm, Fontane
And let's not forget a certain Sigmund Freud who already published extensive works which would revolutionize mankind extensively.
Even without the smaller ones, you have, as said before: Marx, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Goethe.
The impact that all 5 of these had is unparalleled. (The least one being Goethe, who has several others in other nations competing with him)
>>7448214
Those are pretty good but not really literature properly speaking, so they make a decent case in a broader discussion moreso than for OP.
>>7448214
Can't you tell the thread is about fiction? Stop sucking your country's dick and fuck off
>>7447898
The only thing future historians will see in postmodernism is shit.
>>7448267
>>7448270
Prove me wrong, faggot.
>>7448272
Borges, Pynchon, Beckett, Robbe-Grillet, etc are all worthless?
>>7448278
I don't consider Borges and Beckett as postmodernists, I see them as modernists. I haven't read Robbe-Grillet.
Pynchon is postmodern. And yes.
>>7448293
>I see them as
I see you as stupid tbqh
>Pynchon is postmodern. And yes.
What's wrong with his work? I shouldn't ask this since the fact that you haven't even read a writer as famous as Robbe-Grillet, but what's wrong with, say, Pynchon and Styron?
>>7448301
First of all, don't be the guy that calls out someone as a pleb because they haven't read a writer you've read. You're better than that. At least I'm not trying to offer my opinion on it without having read anything by him.
Second, Beckett you can't even argue. He's most certainly modernist.
Pynchon is just Pynchon. Nobody "likes" Pynchon. The way he writes just makes people think they should like him. Even Bloom, who notably considers him one of the greatest living writers, doesn't profess his love for him or talk about him at all, really. He's just kinda there because people think they should say it. All you hear is, "he's so smart," "he's a master," "he's just brilliant." This is what dumb people say when they don't understand something. It's all bullshit. Which is basically what I think of postmodernism.
Hell, look at his last two books. Even Pynchon himself is tired of his own bullshit.
So I take back my statement about Pynchon. If postmodernism IS about bullshit, than he's the best bullshitter. So there we are. Pynchon is the best postmodernist. The King of Bullshit.
>>7448293
The Norton Criticals stick Beckett clearly in the Postmodern section.
>>7448301
To add, I could dismiss you just as easily just by the fact that you think Styron was a postmodernist. Like, are you fucking kidding me?
Literature is outdated and it's potential has been reached. Now that literature is unlimited, or limitless, nothing is a product of it's environment anymore.
The limits of film are what made the older films so creative.
The limits of vidya are what made older videogames so creative.
Now that all the artistic mediums are limitless, there's nothing left for art.
>>7448363
>wut?
No.
I do agree it's all about to blend together, though.
the plebs are singing tonight, srsly, dickens has more better good writing than any of those post modernists. and is it weird to think that ol' pynchon hater up there is projecting just a teensy bit?
