I think this board is too obsessed with the classics and other old ass shit. Sure the classics are classic, and the old greats are great, but if we don't look to the future; try and stay on the frontier of this artform, then we'll be a bunch of assholes talking about the same shit over and over again forever. More so then we are now.
So, in the last 5-10 years: What books do you think were instant classics? What authors do you feel represent the best living literary voice?
Other stuff. More words.
Go.
The Pale King
Bleeding Edge
thats about it
Please leave.
Looking for 50 shades of player one was pretty good
We talk about Houellebecq fairly frequently, and a Knausgaard thread pops up every few days.
>top books were infinite jest and blood meridian
classics don't come out every month, you worthless filth. that's what makes them classics. kill yourself.
>>7571336
"I didn't read any of the classics but they're probably not important. Let's talk about the new stuff instead!"
-OP, fresh from Reddit
Can I cry now?
>>7571360
so far the best post
>>7571446
>>7571434
Look guys, I get what you're saying, but I'm serious; literature is an art, and art is supposed to evolve and grow with the times. I'm worried it is stagnating. There must be recent books that are pushing the boundaries, and will one day be recognized as being as good as at least some of the classics.
>>7572645
art is also built heavily on tradition and heritage, and new works are, overtly or subtly, consciously or subconsciously, influenced by and in conversation with older works. you can't just discard the classic canon and expect to get everything out of the new stuff since you're robbing it of context
>>7572654
So new works don't stand on their own? I disagree. Relating them to older works may extend the experience, but I think new works should be given the opportunity to be seen outside the context of other things outsiders relate them to.
>>7572654
I'm not discarding anything, I'm just asking where we move on from those classics.
Surely what's already written doesn't represent the absolute peak of human literature?
That this is the best any human being will ever do? Our species is incredibly young on the cosmic scale. This can't be the best we ever do.
Come on, guys. There's gotta be some new authors, new books. I'll extend the time period to twenty years If need be.
>>7572682
well you could make the same argument for classics being read by the vapid as being a worthwhile pursuit as them being read by the informed, but i doubt it would pass muster in that context. is it that you think that new authors are as devoid of context as you?
>>7572654
you could make the argument that by being influenced or based on the clasic newer works improve upon them and must therefore be better
i'm not making that argument, just saying its there
>>7572691
You should learn to state your case without giving into the temptation to make weak insults.
I said that a piece should be viewed in it's own context first, not that they aren't (possibly) related to previous work.
Tell me about your parents so I can understand why you are so insecure.
>>7572702
The anon you're replying to is a different one and not me (>>7572654) btw, just in case it wasn't completely obvious.
Anyways I think you just simply have to read both old and new and you shouldn't discard older works. I probably just value context as a tradition and influence a lot more highly than you do.
In any case I'll just plug Ishiguro's The Unconsoled.
>>7572645
>art is supposed to evolve and grow with the times
>>7572688
>Our species is incredibly young on the cosmic scale
such reddit
>>7572702
wow, you mad. anon is not all one person, lrn24chan. i didn't even insult you, i just pointed out your inconsistent treatment of "old" and "new" authors, both of which probably want/ed readers who would understand subtlety and reference in their works. if anyone should be insulted, it's new authors who you think need more vacuous readings than works of established canon.
>>7572715
Sorry. OK...maybe too much coffee for me. I agree in not discarding older works, absolutely. I was saying that new stuff should be sure to have their own identity, not exist in too heavy a relation to another. I was talking with someone about the connections between the Alchemist and Siddartha, so...yeah. The Alchemist can barely stand on it's own, and when you put it next to Siddartha it turns to mush, but I thought I'd give that Coehlo a chance.
Hmm...
>>7572727
Nice non-argument
>>7571336
The Pale King
2666
Bleeding Edge
My Struggle
Submission
OK, Im settled down now. But what sort of elitist comment is
>>7572735
>classics being read by the vapid
"The Vapid"? Who are they?
>>7572645
The crux of modernity is the shaming of the classics
I know you want fresh perspective but nothing is a classic until it is proven in time
>>7572744
Okay, sure, whatever; do you have any candidates?
I'd think that something that would one day would be a classic would at least show some promise initially.
>>7572739
>>7572715
>>7571360
So at last count we have Bolano, Houellebecq, Knausgaard, Ishiguro, and to cap it off Pinecone and Dave Wallace.
>>7572769
that sums it up pretty well, some people have said that "A Naked Singularity" was good but that was mostly trash like the NY times so I'm not sure. Some have compared it to DFW, Pynchon and Delillo but if the author tried too hard to emulate their style I would not be impressed with it. Wait to add it until an anon who as actually read it posts their thoughts on it.
>>7572769
The ones that are deserving are posted here regularly. They are potential classics because they don't follow the trend of being the most obnoxious
But will people read these potential classics due to their established fame that they have now?
Say Frankenstein was pretty much unknown work from its publication and the decades followed, what is it that made it into the part of the common imagination. It is the revisit with hindsight
To know what kind of life the author lived and why she wrote it, then this work becomes a testament to her being and her struggle.
So we are blinded by our own immediacy. I would rather not venture to guess future classics
>>7572743
It's me and you. We're the vapid ones.
>>7572802
Frankenstein kidn of sucks tho. One of the worse "classics"
>>7572809
OK, ok....I can handle this. The Vapid have a role in the world. Hey have you seen Rick and Morty? Anyway, I could use a little more vapidity...brain too much work.
>>7572743
do you actually think nobody can be dull and uninspired and it's elitist to think that there could be such people? man, some shit like wh auden is going to personally insult you so hard i'm not sure you have enough coffee to blame it on when you have to write a letter to his estate.
no wonder you talk about insecurity when someone offers to treat new authors with the same context as they do old authors.
>>7572802
Frankenstein was an immediate success, and the popular edition is considered too conservative for literary use by most scholars (as are Percy's edits).
Barthes would also like a word.
>>7572815
again, smdh, you really need to move somewhere with names
>>7572813
Yes but you can read it in so many ways
dr f is the author and the monster is her aborted child, her work and her development as a writer
it's not just the first sci fi novel, it is rebellion of an unhappy marriage and so forth
E L Doctorow , perhaps ?
>>7572815
I don't watch cartoons.
Tao Lin, duh
>>7572813
actually kill yourself
>>7572899
After you.
>>7572899
You shouldn't tell people to kill themselves. What if one of them actually does it?
>>7572938
i would enjoy the fact that i influenced them to that extend
Some parts in this book were a little contrived but I thought the overall style was very interesting.
I'm curious to see how Taipei is considering it's talked about a lot more than Richard Yates.
>>7573110
Edgelord
>>7573173
read tai pei but not RY
didn't care for it
prose is alright but seen similar used more effectively. hated the protagonist on a personal level. Got the feeling I would hate tao too.
might still read yates tho
omfg i opened thisthread like 6 times and i just noticed the spider and i freaked out
>>7573335
kek
>>7573335
It's just a tarantula.
Fuck off
Saged
>>7573397
Thank you for your contribution.
>>7572735
It's Coelho (Rabbit in portuguese), and the Alchemist is the biggest piece of trash to be published in the last 100 years unless: 1- you have less than 10 years old 2- you are a middle aged religious and depressed woman 3- you have some kind of mental retardation to think that "the secret" was also pretty dope.
>>7573379
I DONT LIKE SPIDERS
>wants to write for a living
>hopes others will read his work
>doesnt read any new fiction himself
This is me rn.
Last newish books i read were the Nick Cave books (eg The Death of Bunny Munro - greatly enjoyable) and John Haskell's "American Purgatorio" (2005) which was an easy read.
Problem i have is must new lit seems to me as momcore.
>>7573547
you misunderstand, we are in complete agreement. I said it couldn't stand on it's own. I've ranted about the alchemist here before, especially how it's my kids english teacher's favorite book. the red mist descends when i think of that, but luckily my daughter knew it for the blah blah it is
i don't like to spend much time defending myself here, but i won't stand for someone thinking i enjoyed that book. that is all.
bumpity bump bump look at posty go
>>7572645
So are these nuts. So no.
>>7571446
Ikr
I made this for all the new redditors
>>7574634
The only one anyone discusses is Catcher. Sometimes BNW/1984....
Read the meme trilogy. It's real literature. Even Endless Fun.
>>7574634
I feel like 120 days of Sodom should be on there too. Just so they can get a feel for 4chan.
Laszlo krasznahorkai's work is my favorite contemporary fiction. Both pic related and Satantango were translated to English in the past couple years, and both are instant classics for me. His style is unlike anything else in literature in the best way possihle. Wish his stuff got more discussion on /lit/, the cosmic melancholy of it would really resonate with a lot of people here.
>>7571336
did she died??
>>7574752
yeah you get a krasz mention every now and then but he goes largely unmentioned. I assume bc >he reads translations etc. But yeah, i agree he is a good author
>>7571336
Lurk more faggot. lit is obsessed with DFW, Pynchon, DeLilo, McCarthy, Hollabeqqcqcqcc, and Gass. These are all considered Contemporary authors
>>7574766
Both George szirtes and ottile mulzet are skilled enough at English prose that idc if they're translations.
>>7574782
DFW is dead, Pynchon, DeLillo and the rest are old, and will be dead themselves in a decade or so. I want to know about new authors, new books. I want to know what the future of literature will be like.
If I didn't make that clearer in the first post then yes, that was my mistake.
I ain't no Houllebecq, girl.
>>7573231
kill yourself memeboy
>>7576287
Quit being a child.
