Why is Victorian literature so relentlessly boring? I'm about to give up on Nicholas Nickleby. Dracula was a good 50 pages and then 300 pages of almost fuck all. Dorian Gray was just ten trillion aphorisms thrown in to a book and I gave up on that as well.
dont talk shit about the picture of dorian gray
but granted, dickens is pretty dull
Like anon said. Dorian Gray is excellent and you ought to revisit it.
Dracula's boring though
Because Victorian people were boring. All culture from before 1945 needs to be burned, and the people responsible are worthless.
>>8005594
>Because Victorian people were boring
Pretty much. Back then they didn't have action movies or the internet. Shit like Dickens novels was literally the most amazing thing they had.
It's because only like 5 people could write so the publishers would print anything since the plebs didn't have the option of watching television or shitposting on an obscure literature forum instead. Literally a lack of superior options. Look at pulp magazines etc. Now that video games and the internet and television etc have been created reading has quite rightly been ignored in favor of these superior mediums.
>>8005521
dickens got paid by the word, so he shit out rambling 300,000+ word novels that lonely housewives read in serialized format while their husbands were at the whorehouse.
One day the play commenced, continuing throughout eternity, performed with varied skill.
>>8005658
>mediums
>>8005521
it's because you're an idiot, anon
just stick to reading twitter. that's probably about your level of concentration.
