I fucking hate 19th century literature. Black and white morals, dumb ass frame narratives and main characters on the periphery of the action, proto-metafictional junk like the pretense that someone is writing a diary or blanking out street or character names with -----, everyone overreacting to everything and being melodramatic, man what a shit century.
>>7887467
desu i never read anything pre-1900
>>7887467
SHIT MY EYES ARE ON FIRE FROM THIS HOT TAKE
>>7887467
That's a pretty sweeping generalization anon, a century is a pretty long time.
pretty much everything from the 19th century is total shit. they took themselves so seriously because they thought they had everything figured out but looking back you can see how naive they were
>>7887511
How does this differ from /lit/ honestly
>>7887515
it doesn't which is probably why so many people on 4chan like the 19th century so much. wait for an art thread to pop up somewhere and see how much of it is 19th century oil painting
>>7887467
>blanking out street or character names with -----
i hate this and posted about it earlier today
>>7887467
Melville tho
2BH 19th century american literature was pretty fucking dope ie emerson, melville, thoreau
>>7887519
what century would you recommend and why
>>7887467
You're naming a lot of 19th century English literature tropes but you're totally failing to explain why any of them are bad.
Moreover, disliking a novel because you disagree with its morality is incredibly lazy criticism. You should judge writing on how it presents its morality, not on how closely it adheres to your preferences
>>7887546
its not just english lit
see: La Vie de Marianne
>>7887467
>tfw dorian gray is literally a satire on the time period it was written.
>tfw all the 14 year old shit posters are having a circle jerk over how shitty books from the 19th century are, even though they haven't read even one of them.
>tfw lurkers are face-palming but still too lazy to point out how shitty this thread is and its discussion.
isn't dickens 19th century? he's the GOAT
I fucking hate 22nd century literature. Multivariate Quantum morals, liquid narratives and protean characters that all turn out to be virtual avatars of each other, pretend microcode, nobody speaks or even THINKS - they just consult their lookup tables and react, man what a shit century.
>>7887467
It's truly some of the best literature that will ever be written.
here's a little gif file for you, literature reader
>>7887467
Sterling as aesthetic poetry, but it's no wonder that it's his only 'novel'... It's far too meandering.
A strong concept doesn't always need much plotting... but we can see the reversal from miles off.... What Wilde really needed was a supporting character to experience a reversal of equal power.
William Archer talks about how when a person's case suddenly collapses, another person's fortune could be regained... In 'Picture', there is only a sense of inevitability to Dorian's loss.
>>7887530
1st century BC is where it's at
remember that a thread died for this
>Melville
>Dickens
>Balzac
>Stendhal
>Tolstoy
>>7887467
>I fucking hate 19th century literature.
Back to tumblr
I always thought this book was called The Portrait for Dorian Gay, because Oscar Wilde was gay. But no, it's called The Portrait of Dorian Gray. Mind blown.
I miss Dickens'-tier characters to be honest... say what you want about the man but damn could he write characters
Also, Dostoyevsky would like to speak with you on the subject of black and white morals
>>7887511
why does that make it shit. it just makes it what it is, and you should appreciate it for what it is. there's no contest here
>and main characters on the periphery of the action
what does this mean?
>>7887579
I honestly opened up this thread thinking this was some low quality b8 or pasta but it seems there is actually a group of people who think this is true.
I'm not lazy about telling people why this is wrong, If someone can come online and bash on one of the most prolific centuries in literature of all time with little to no fundaments besides a couple of quirks he thinks he understands, why should I be bothered to tell him he's wrong? Not gonna waste my time at that lol.
>>7887519
>comparing 19th century painting techniques to 19th century literary techniques
Lmao
Though I disagree with your sentiment OP, I'm a tad sympathetic towards it.
19th century literature, by and large, could have done with a strict editor.
>>7893174
The things I enjoy the most out of 19th century literature are actually its repetitiveness, thematic ambition, adherence to strict narrative rules and feverish characters. I am especially fond of all those descriptive passages and philosophical interludes that slow down the action and are, for most people, a chore to read.
19th century doesn't need editors, it needs worthy readers.
>>7891223
looks like you're the fag, anon. you couldn't even get the title right on your second try!
>>7887515
/lit/ doesn't get published
>>7893186
>>7887467
cool story bro
>>7887511
>pretty much everything from the nth century is total shit. they took themselves so seriously because they thought they had everything figured out but looking back you can see how naive they were
said every generation ever
