The article cites the book Everything and Less by Mark McGurl (on the state of the publishing business) that describes how publishers require fiction to be instantly gratifying and "therapeutic" (not presenting challenging ideas, I assume), and calls it "fiction as a service", and this essentially prevents books from being published that could be seen in new light in the future as values on literature change, even if they don't immediately please a group of vocal Internet users today, even sometimes ones who've not even read the book.
It is kind of interesting to me how much the commodification of text per se dovetails with the appearance of generative AI for text. Generative AI excels at producing this kind of pabulum and if you think about how it works, it sort of makes sense - these AI generate what comes next based on statistics in their corpus. They are, fundamentally, backward looking and non-ruminative. Before the AI weirdos pile in, I don't think this is a fundamental limitation on AI, just an interesting reality of the current strategy.
But to respond to your comment in a larger sense, McLuhan once wrote that everyone sees reality in the rear view mirror and only artists look out the window to see what is really happening and what is coming. (I always think of Paul Verhoeven and Robocop when I think about this, since Robocop is uncannily prophetic,or even Die Hard, which in two hours seems to contain the conceptual ingredients of the 2000s in a little over two hours.) The point is that artists are by nature alienated from the public anyway - most truly enlightening messages are the kind of thing few people want to hear. It has always been the trick of good artists to smuggle those ideas into people's brains via one Trojan Horse or another, penetrating whatever guardrails exist at the time to police the mental life of the culture. So, in that sense, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm not sure if its some weird attempt to engage reactionaries or what, but, while I agree with Dillon here that Markets commodify things, this thing with Elizabeth Gilbert and the Ukraine thing is a big nothing burger which, I think, really undermines the whole piece. She voluntarily delayed the publication of a novel because of a war. I happen to think this is a little goofy, but its hardly an outrage against free speech or anything. I like free speech, but just because someone chooses not to say something does not mean an attack on free speech has been made. Decorum is not censorship, peer pressure is not censorship, blah blah blah. As with most things, I think we ought to take free speech most seriously when powerful actors (states, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, others willing to use violence) target the realm of ideas to get or maintain power. If only things were always so cut and dry, but I think delaying the publication of "The Snow Forest" is a pretty weird place to start this essay.
The fact that it is voluntary is kinda beside the point. If you define "free speech" in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech.
Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.
Your comment is sort of self contradictory.
> in such a way that you draw a line somewhere, you're missing out on a way to talk about some of the more insidious ways that our society polices speech
> Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.
Right - we can talk about it as peer pressure. We don't need to group all modulations of the public discourse as "violations" of "free speech" or "failures" to support "free speech."
Comments like these are easily my least favorite kind of comments on Hacker News. Rather than trying to understand the meaning of what people say, in the articles or in the comments, we get caught up in having arguments about what the definition of some particular term is, or what the right term to communicate some concept is.
I think the correct response to seeing a comment that appears "self-contradictory" is to read it again, and see if there is some alternative meaning behind the comment that makes sense--some interpretation other than our first impression. That's what we do with literature, and I don't think we should be lowering our standards for reading comprehension just because we're online.
I think the delaying of the publication of “The Snow Forest”, more exactly, the actions and words of the author about it, was an excellent place to start this essay.
It pretty effectively construct the context to culminate in the sentence:
” How did a heartfelt writer like Elizabeth Gilbert come to adopt the neutered rhetoric of brand management?”
Which is a great summarization of the point that the author is going to discuss in the way they want to discuss it. That artists are not bad, or evil, but they are doing art with the emptiness of corporations’ public relations.
I read it as a brilliant way to start an essay. It introduces the topic with a concrete example that provides context of what the author is going to talk about, in a short, straightforward form (unlike, e.g. how the New Yorker tends do these introductions, with long, writer-centered ramblings).
I saw no intention of fabricating outrage or t baiting in this introduction at all. Not a single drop of it to be honest. Much less that is supposed to be pointing to the fact that this example is something big, strong to any side of the current ideological disputes. On the contrary, it is there just to show how empty it all is. Irrelevant one-Star reviews, about irrelevant concerns of association to the current war, followed by an irrelevant stance, justified with an irrelevant speech, all coming together to become an irrelevant act of pseudo-activism. All so empty. Which is the whole point.
" In other words, she says as little as possible, passing on the easy opportunity to defend her right to free expression and anyone’s right to read or not read whatever they want, both of which are currently and repeatedly threatened in Russia, Ukraine and the United States."
I'd agree with you except for this sentence, which frames the controversy as about free speech.
I disagree. It just says that the essay author thinks there was an opportunity for the book author to do a real act of activism. Yet, they still chose emptiness. It is just there, in my view, to strengthen the argument that it was not the context that made it empty, it was a choice.
It doesn’t frame the controversy as about free speech at all, in my opinion.
All publicity is publicity. This delay means i now know the title of the book. Yesturday, i did not know that the book existed. Through all the debate, I see a sucessful marketing strategy.
There are more classics from years past than I'll ever have time for, I have no need for contemporary bestsellers nor worsesellers.
Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now if the article is correct and there isn't the 21st century to sample like I can read the 20th, but I think that's hard to judge in the moment, especially when (inherently in the argument) critical 'edgy' unpopular classics-in-the-making aren't getting the attention.
In the meantime, there's a large pool that's stood the test of time to draw from, and if you know what you like and just want more ('instant gratification') of it, it makes sense that that would be churned out contemporarily, as I'm sure it was in the past - especially serialised in magazines and newspapers.
The problem with this attitude is that you're missing out on reading material that reflects in incisive ways on genuinely contemporary issues in ways that Dostoevsky can't. Obviously books from the past can and do enlighten us about the present, and they don't literally have to talk about CNN to be clarifying about the nature of propaganda, but there are limits to what Plato can tell you about a world with 8 billion people in it.
In a way, your attitude is akin to only reading scientific articles from more than 50 years ago because those have "stood the test of time." In science, you can see how silly this is - not only is that material often just wrong, undeveloped, etc, but relegating yourself to only papers older than 50 years would leave you totally blind to contemporary scientific progress, including whatever seeds are presently germinating that will change the world in the future.
Yeah, dude, that's a set of words you can type. It hardly constitutes an argument. Globalized financial markets are new. The internet is new. Machines you can converse with are new. CRISPR is new, Quantum Field Theory is new, RNA vaccines are new. While I agree its true that less is novel than some people believe, the idea that nothing in the contemporary experience is worth meditating on beyond what people in the past have said is, I think, obviously absurd, pithy quotations notwithstanding.
All you're interested in is ephemeral window dressing.
The best literature stands alone, in time and space. The world that created the Epic of Gilgamesh no longer exists and is completely alien to us. And yet the epic is reskinned every century for a new audience. Things change and yet everything is the same.
Maybe you're not old enough to realise. I was a neophile too, once.
I don't disagree per se. But it doesn't follow that therefor all the good literature is in the past.
In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.
The GP comment appears to not be saying anything which opposes the idea that new literature can interrogate our beliefs too. I think they're trying to point out that the new tech you're highlighting is on the object level, whereas the fundamental topics which make good literature stand the test of time are meta level - human nature. Yes, we trade digitally instead of physically, and yet tales of merchants long scattered remain pertinent.
The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted.
Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.
" Obviously books from the past can and do enlighten us about the present, and they don't literally have to talk about CNN to be clarifying about the nature of propaganda, but there are limits to what Plato can tell you about a world with 8 billion people in it." I wrote that in my first post. Nowhere do I suggest that the bed rock of the human condition obtains the contemporary. In almost literally every post I've made I refer to the value of classical knowledge and literature.
Yes, but the classics were new once. Should the crowds that lined up to buy War and Peace have thought better because after all The Song of Igor's Campaign was written some hundreds of years before?
Late XX century onwards is the age of non-fiction. Why would I read fiction set in Somalia or Gaza when I can read genuine-ish journalist reports or plain old Wikipedia?
After all, we know that fiction writers were often clueless about the subjects they wrote on.
Why would you look at paintings instead of photographs? Why would you watch movies instead of documentaries? Why would you listen to music instead of lectures?
Compared to scientific articles though, writers haven't discovered anything new in a long while. Has there been a new archetype or plot in the last century?
Almost all the innovation in storytelling and communication is happening in mediums that don't lean as heavily on longform writing as literature. Case in point, if you want to look at the biggest influence on discrediting CNN's propaganda it would probably be ... Trump, on Twitter, screaming "Fake News!" endlessly. That did a lot more to undermine their brand than any academic analysis.
I'm not disputing twitter is writing, though. I'm sure the "I only read the classics" types disdain twitter too. But I also think your comment is roughly akin to someone saying that there hasn't been anything new in theory of gravity research since the publication of GR in 1915. That might appear to be the case for lay people, but the field has made major advancements since then both in refining what is understood about GR and staking out territory on the frontier. Just because literature hasn't produce an archetype or story as durable as the the old standards (which arguably have nothing much going for them except familiarity and an appeal to the lowest common denominator) doesn't mean there hasn't been any "progress" or genuine novelty either.
I think literature (and other arts) is primarily entertainment. You start with easy works and then gradually find that you're interested by deeper and deeper works. And at some point you start noticing that the best modern works are less deep, less able to interest you, than the best past works.
It's a bit of mystery why this happens. Since there are many more creators today, it seems their best output should be above the best of the past, but no. My best hypothesis is that we're in a phase of decline: all Western arts peaked at the end of the 19th century, then the world wars broke something important, and it's not going to recover. Similar to how Rome's decline was accompanied by a decline of art quality.
Once you start claiming that the arts peaked at some point, millions of other informed, erudite people are going to disagree and set it at some other point or not at all. You say the end of the 19th century was the start of a decline? That was before jazz was a thing, and that’s a genre that plenty would defend as high art. It was before plenty of novelists, poets, painters and playwrights that have both popular appeal and have entered the serious canon. Hell, it was before writing fiction even began in some languages, because for whatever reason (such as censorship by a dominating power) speakers of those languages were unable to do so before the early 20th century.
Moreover, claiming such a peak followed by a decline, and drawing comparisons with Rome, is so often linked to a reactionary politics that even many conservatives feel is extremist, your interlocutors are going to be suspicious of your motives.
I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that there are many more modern works than past works and it is much more work to filter the wheat from chaff, especially without the benefit of time. But that doesn't mean dismissing contemporary art is the right perspective either. I don't buy the idea of cultural decline, at any rate. It think the article makes a pretty good case that commodification is the reason for the apparent decline in the average quality of literature.
There are billions of people and thousands of supercomputers working ceaselessly and communicating instantaneously to filter through modern literature to find a kernel in the chaff.
In the past there were only a few thousand people in a few small cities filter through a few hundred books to find the classics.
I disagree with the statement ”the best modern works are less deep, less able to interest you, than the best past works.”.
That might have been true for you, but I don’t think it is a general perception for everyone.
The problem I see is just of filtering. The best current works are a few among thousands of new works coming up every year. While the best past works are the only works that remain from the past. You see a good list of past books from some erudite person with similar perception of the world than you and you are set.
While the same person doing a similar list from current works will be much more hit and miss. No one would have the time to read all that is published everywhere.
While the past has a filter that allows you to be able to read such diverse great works as Kafka, Cervantes, and James Joyce.
I do think it's just a lot harder to find good modern works.
There was plenty of trash written in the early 20th century. We've forgotten about it, for the most part. Anything still in print from 100 years ago is probably the best that the early 1900s has to offer. We've had 100 years to curate the list of the "best literature of the 1910s". Easy to find the good works in there.
>Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now
Doesn't have to be. There are plenty of extremely well read literature lovers who have both the time and the taste to sample works both past and present; these will become the tastemakers of people in the far future.
The 1890s maybe or 1790s. All the trash from back then has been forgotten but there was just as much of it as there is today. This is not a new phenomenon.
I think there's probably a lot more trash today. There's a lot more of everything.
The number of books published each year in the US has grown by something like 300x over the past one hundred years, if you only count traditional publishing (and not print-on-demand).
There’s lots more today. You can go to Amazon and search for any very specific niche subject and find AI generated books that claim to address that subject. The ability to churn out useless garbage with few resources is at an all time high and will continue to increase.
I’ve always wondered about that. Yeah, you can objectively say Shakespeare was a master of the written word based on how many new words and phrases he coined and all that, but who are we to otherwise judge the qualitative merits of Elizabethan writing? How does a modern gauge whether Christopher Marlowe or any other contemporary authors are any better or worse than the Bard himself? What if there were other plays that were superior but simply got lost to history?
The cited plot sounds so bullshit. If you try to interfere with USSR industrialization in 1930s, you're going to GULAG camp very fast and local NKVD are happy that they don't have to invent fake saboteurs this month to fill their plan.
Well, before that, there was no environmentalism at the time in Siberia. At least from talks with my historian friend (who worked in Novosibirsk Institute of History of academy of science), he never mentioned any such cases or that this was on any agenda.
Second, industrialization on large scale in Siberia happened first since 1905 after the Trans-Siberian railway was built, and later only in WWII in the '40s, when factories from the Western part were evacuated.
In '30s, the majority of population were villagers, and for them the biggest concern in late '20s were taxes, in '30s it was the dysfunctional state farms that everyone were forced into, and famine. And industrialization for them was a new American tractor that produced in a licensed factory, and some factory in the district capital, where some people could go become low-skilled workers. IDK, if it tells about rural or urban areas -- but cities were small (Novosibirsk that has 1.6M now, had just 120-150K then) to make a factory or coal heating in individual houses a problem.
Environmentalism in the USSR came to agenda probably in the 70s, but became openly discussed after 1987 with Glasnot policy, when lots of such ideas started penetrating from other countries.
I am moving from the tech world into long form fiction, so I find the intersection of fiction and comments from folks on HN interesting.
Definitions matter. To me, art is emotional impact over time. Good art can impact you emotionally from hundreds of years ago. Bad art doesn't even hold your attention all the way through the presentation. (The impact does not have to be positive or negative; some of the best art can really bum you out)
I was watching an interview with an animator a while back. What did he think of all the new cool animation tools?
He gushed over the awesome tech and the wonderful talent that's out today. It's amazing and incredible compared to just a few decades ago.
Then he said something very interesting. After making sure folks realized he wasn't criticizing all modern animation, he said that he thought it all kind of looked the same. It was all perfect, and all perfect in the same way.
We have seen this happen to fiction over the last 50-70 years. Even when it's good, it's all kinda the same anymore. It's different and excellent, but in the same ways all fiction is. It's not unusual when experiencing a book or movie to get all hyped up by what you expect the experience to be, to gush while experiencing it how awesome it was, and to have no recollection at all even a month later what was so good about it.
If you want to feel sad for art, drop in on a reddit post where somebody asks "What's the best X?" where X can be a book, movie, podcast, etc.
It's all stuff over the past ten years, and it always is. We are in a state of perpetual forgetting and recycling canned emotions. The classics aren't the classics because they're better. They're the classics because they encourage us to create the same level of quality material. Sometimes they do so over our lifetime.
This is all marketing/commoditization at work, of course, and I'm not negative long-term. I think most artists see this. But there's a hella lot of denial going on, mostly from folks looking to pump up the next plasticine marketing special effects kabuki dance.
> ” If you want to feel sad for art, drop in on a reddit post where somebody asks "What's the best X?" where X can be a book, movie, podcast, etc.”
I, in general, agree with your perspective, but this example does not follow in my opinion.
In particular if you add the expression “the best X of all tine”, then I certainly expected the opposite bias. People will ignore what was done in the past 20 years and go to classics.
And if the audience answering the question is people around 20 years old, then I would expect a lot of “I don’t know if all time, but my preferred is…” and then something recent. I.e., I expect humility in the answer and providing an answer from what they know. Which is not, IMO, an effect of marketing or commoditization, but just of the limited time they exist in the Earth.
>This is all marketing/commoditization at work, of course, and I'm not negative long-term.
I think it's more that the principles of competition in capitalism ultimately tend to lead to converging on one or a very few solutions. In some cases that's good. We want things that are cheap and highly abundant, especially in cases where it works for most the population. Having affordable groceries works very well (let's ignore recent trends of inflation).
But I don't think we always want converged solutions, I think there are many cases where as a society we want a lot of diversity, we want a wide selection to choose from, we want that sort of natural redundancy with some variance that occurs. It both helps make life interesting when it comes to things like the arts and in some cases I think having real choice of selection (not the illusion of choice where there are 10 options that are basically identical for all practical purposes) is very useful.
There are many cases when things dictated by the mass market aren't what I want/need. I still want an easily swappable battery in a flagship phone as a simple example and expandable memory in the form of SD slots but alas the market has spoken and I'm stuck with poor alternatives if I want those functions. Or on a more practical note, I'd love to select from various airlines, there's dozens and dozens of them but the fact is I often ride coach and they're all just as crappy and customer hostile as each other. It doesn't matter if you pay just a little more for a ticket, you're out of luck. The tendency for markets to converge on the same price points to remain competitive makes them also converge on the same or similar solutions and that tends to lead to a lack of choice.
Maybe consumers need to be willing to not always pay the lowest price for everything but I argue the issue isn't just there, it's systematic because the average consumer is also the average person producing the consumables and the way in which they get resources to consume which dictate to some degree what choices they have and so on and so forth. We seem to just be continuously converging on optimal solutions that don't fit everyone and are slowly fitting a handful of people in power more than anything else.
> Then he said something very interesting. After making sure folks realized he wasn't criticizing all modern animation, he said that he thought it all kind of looked the same. It was all perfect, and all perfect in the same way.
Not only animation. How do you tell tv series from each other? They have like 4 themes with different skins.
How do you tell superhero movies from each other?
That's what you get when you're happy to 'consume content'.
When "The Wire" came out, "The Sopranos", "Breaking Bad", "Better Call Saul", I thought "woo hoo! We are in the golden age of television!"
Then I read about the billions(!) being dropped into new productions of classics like "The Wheel of Time" or a spinoff of "Lord of the Rings"
This was a great feeling!
Then all of those billions started delivering. If you were _lucky_, season one was put together with tons of care and picked over. It was also based on a novel series where the author had done the same. If you were unlucky, the TV became like the radio used to be: just background stuff while you do something else. You don't even pay attention to it.
No matter what, season two almost always had the dramatic quality of a baked potato.
And heaven forbid the algorithmic numbers don't work. Then the thing is a dead series walking no matter what the quality.
You can't make quality art by throwing money at it. Very strangely, it actually has the opposite effect: people stop wanting to take risks. You can make a somewhat mathematically-sound four-quadrant marketing pitch hoping to hit the right taste clusters with a guess at whether it'll work or not, but you're not looking at emotional impact over time. Hell no. Hence the current tidal wave of edgy mediocrity.
I leave the TV on in the afternoons when I'm not working and trying to decompress. I have seen a few good series. They are all lower-budget attempts by high-quality artists using a preexisting literary work. Too often, without a solid canon of literary work, season one is great and the rest of it is just doubling down on whatever stimulus was in season one that the algorithm said people liked.
My opinion is that people are going to like "classic" TV the same way they like classic rock. There'll be something about it that they'll argue about endlessly, but there'll also be a lot of derivative work trying to recapture the lightning of actually knowing what the hell you're doing and being lucky.
The best argument for "over the last 50-70 years" is that we've forgotten the poorer products of 70+ years ago. A recommendation: find a copy of _The Best of S.J. Perelman_ and read the "Cloudland Revisited" pieces, middle-aged re-readings of the movies and popular literature of his youth. Not many of them linger in popular consciousness now.
animation today does not all look the same. There’s wider creativity now than ever before. There’s a larger volume of lower quality stuff because it’s cheaper, but art is not defined the median work.
Classics are classics because in an era of limited information sharing a much smaller population of works gained recognition and staying power. It’s cool to see that themes are durable. It’s cool and sobering to watch Citizen Kane today and see the frustratingly obvious parallels. But that’s really more of a novelty. If citizen Kane came out today you’d perhaps just roll your eyes at the direct associations to your present day parallels that are now “too obvious”.
67 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadBut to respond to your comment in a larger sense, McLuhan once wrote that everyone sees reality in the rear view mirror and only artists look out the window to see what is really happening and what is coming. (I always think of Paul Verhoeven and Robocop when I think about this, since Robocop is uncannily prophetic,or even Die Hard, which in two hours seems to contain the conceptual ingredients of the 2000s in a little over two hours.) The point is that artists are by nature alienated from the public anyway - most truly enlightening messages are the kind of thing few people want to hear. It has always been the trick of good artists to smuggle those ideas into people's brains via one Trojan Horse or another, penetrating whatever guardrails exist at the time to police the mental life of the culture. So, in that sense, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.
> Peer pressure is not censorship, but we still need to talk about it.
Right - we can talk about it as peer pressure. We don't need to group all modulations of the public discourse as "violations" of "free speech" or "failures" to support "free speech."
I think the correct response to seeing a comment that appears "self-contradictory" is to read it again, and see if there is some alternative meaning behind the comment that makes sense--some interpretation other than our first impression. That's what we do with literature, and I don't think we should be lowering our standards for reading comprehension just because we're online.
It pretty effectively construct the context to culminate in the sentence:
” How did a heartfelt writer like Elizabeth Gilbert come to adopt the neutered rhetoric of brand management?”
Which is a great summarization of the point that the author is going to discuss in the way they want to discuss it. That artists are not bad, or evil, but they are doing art with the emptiness of corporations’ public relations.
I read it as a brilliant way to start an essay. It introduces the topic with a concrete example that provides context of what the author is going to talk about, in a short, straightforward form (unlike, e.g. how the New Yorker tends do these introductions, with long, writer-centered ramblings).
I saw no intention of fabricating outrage or t baiting in this introduction at all. Not a single drop of it to be honest. Much less that is supposed to be pointing to the fact that this example is something big, strong to any side of the current ideological disputes. On the contrary, it is there just to show how empty it all is. Irrelevant one-Star reviews, about irrelevant concerns of association to the current war, followed by an irrelevant stance, justified with an irrelevant speech, all coming together to become an irrelevant act of pseudo-activism. All so empty. Which is the whole point.
I'd agree with you except for this sentence, which frames the controversy as about free speech.
It doesn’t frame the controversy as about free speech at all, in my opinion.
Unfortunate perhaps for my counterpart 100y from now if the article is correct and there isn't the 21st century to sample like I can read the 20th, but I think that's hard to judge in the moment, especially when (inherently in the argument) critical 'edgy' unpopular classics-in-the-making aren't getting the attention.
In the meantime, there's a large pool that's stood the test of time to draw from, and if you know what you like and just want more ('instant gratification') of it, it makes sense that that would be churned out contemporarily, as I'm sure it was in the past - especially serialised in magazines and newspapers.
In a way, your attitude is akin to only reading scientific articles from more than 50 years ago because those have "stood the test of time." In science, you can see how silly this is - not only is that material often just wrong, undeveloped, etc, but relegating yourself to only papers older than 50 years would leave you totally blind to contemporary scientific progress, including whatever seeds are presently germinating that will change the world in the future.
The best literature stands alone, in time and space. The world that created the Epic of Gilgamesh no longer exists and is completely alien to us. And yet the epic is reskinned every century for a new audience. Things change and yet everything is the same.
Maybe you're not old enough to realise. I was a neophile too, once.
In fact, rereading your post I'm not even sure where you get the idea that I'm a "neophile." I have no particular interest in the contemporary. My argument is just that the past cannot hope to comment comprehensively on the present or future, which I think the analogy with science makes pretty clear. Things genuinely do change. Our genes change, our technology changes, our philosophies, sciences and religions change. I agree that the past has much to say about the present and a really informed person could not possibly ignore it, but it simply doesn't follow that we don't need any more literature or new ways of telling stories or interrogating our lives.
The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted.
Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.
After all, we know that fiction writers were often clueless about the subjects they wrote on.
Almost all the innovation in storytelling and communication is happening in mediums that don't lean as heavily on longform writing as literature. Case in point, if you want to look at the biggest influence on discrediting CNN's propaganda it would probably be ... Trump, on Twitter, screaming "Fake News!" endlessly. That did a lot more to undermine their brand than any academic analysis.
It's a bit of mystery why this happens. Since there are many more creators today, it seems their best output should be above the best of the past, but no. My best hypothesis is that we're in a phase of decline: all Western arts peaked at the end of the 19th century, then the world wars broke something important, and it's not going to recover. Similar to how Rome's decline was accompanied by a decline of art quality.
Moreover, claiming such a peak followed by a decline, and drawing comparisons with Rome, is so often linked to a reactionary politics that even many conservatives feel is extremist, your interlocutors are going to be suspicious of your motives.
That might have been true for you, but I don’t think it is a general perception for everyone.
The problem I see is just of filtering. The best current works are a few among thousands of new works coming up every year. While the best past works are the only works that remain from the past. You see a good list of past books from some erudite person with similar perception of the world than you and you are set.
While the same person doing a similar list from current works will be much more hit and miss. No one would have the time to read all that is published everywhere.
While the past has a filter that allows you to be able to read such diverse great works as Kafka, Cervantes, and James Joyce.
There was plenty of trash written in the early 20th century. We've forgotten about it, for the most part. Anything still in print from 100 years ago is probably the best that the early 1900s has to offer. We've had 100 years to curate the list of the "best literature of the 1910s". Easy to find the good works in there.
Doesn't have to be. There are plenty of extremely well read literature lovers who have both the time and the taste to sample works both past and present; these will become the tastemakers of people in the far future.
The number of books published each year in the US has grown by something like 300x over the past one hundred years, if you only count traditional publishing (and not print-on-demand).
Heck, do you think Homer was the only poet to ever don a toga way back in the day?
Second, industrialization on large scale in Siberia happened first since 1905 after the Trans-Siberian railway was built, and later only in WWII in the '40s, when factories from the Western part were evacuated.
In '30s, the majority of population were villagers, and for them the biggest concern in late '20s were taxes, in '30s it was the dysfunctional state farms that everyone were forced into, and famine. And industrialization for them was a new American tractor that produced in a licensed factory, and some factory in the district capital, where some people could go become low-skilled workers. IDK, if it tells about rural or urban areas -- but cities were small (Novosibirsk that has 1.6M now, had just 120-150K then) to make a factory or coal heating in individual houses a problem.
Environmentalism in the USSR came to agenda probably in the 70s, but became openly discussed after 1987 with Glasnot policy, when lots of such ideas started penetrating from other countries.
https://archive.org/details/thirdtruth0000boro
Definitions matter. To me, art is emotional impact over time. Good art can impact you emotionally from hundreds of years ago. Bad art doesn't even hold your attention all the way through the presentation. (The impact does not have to be positive or negative; some of the best art can really bum you out)
I was watching an interview with an animator a while back. What did he think of all the new cool animation tools?
He gushed over the awesome tech and the wonderful talent that's out today. It's amazing and incredible compared to just a few decades ago.
Then he said something very interesting. After making sure folks realized he wasn't criticizing all modern animation, he said that he thought it all kind of looked the same. It was all perfect, and all perfect in the same way.
We have seen this happen to fiction over the last 50-70 years. Even when it's good, it's all kinda the same anymore. It's different and excellent, but in the same ways all fiction is. It's not unusual when experiencing a book or movie to get all hyped up by what you expect the experience to be, to gush while experiencing it how awesome it was, and to have no recollection at all even a month later what was so good about it.
If you want to feel sad for art, drop in on a reddit post where somebody asks "What's the best X?" where X can be a book, movie, podcast, etc.
It's all stuff over the past ten years, and it always is. We are in a state of perpetual forgetting and recycling canned emotions. The classics aren't the classics because they're better. They're the classics because they encourage us to create the same level of quality material. Sometimes they do so over our lifetime.
This is all marketing/commoditization at work, of course, and I'm not negative long-term. I think most artists see this. But there's a hella lot of denial going on, mostly from folks looking to pump up the next plasticine marketing special effects kabuki dance.
I, in general, agree with your perspective, but this example does not follow in my opinion.
In particular if you add the expression “the best X of all tine”, then I certainly expected the opposite bias. People will ignore what was done in the past 20 years and go to classics.
And if the audience answering the question is people around 20 years old, then I would expect a lot of “I don’t know if all time, but my preferred is…” and then something recent. I.e., I expect humility in the answer and providing an answer from what they know. Which is not, IMO, an effect of marketing or commoditization, but just of the limited time they exist in the Earth.
I think it's more that the principles of competition in capitalism ultimately tend to lead to converging on one or a very few solutions. In some cases that's good. We want things that are cheap and highly abundant, especially in cases where it works for most the population. Having affordable groceries works very well (let's ignore recent trends of inflation).
But I don't think we always want converged solutions, I think there are many cases where as a society we want a lot of diversity, we want a wide selection to choose from, we want that sort of natural redundancy with some variance that occurs. It both helps make life interesting when it comes to things like the arts and in some cases I think having real choice of selection (not the illusion of choice where there are 10 options that are basically identical for all practical purposes) is very useful.
There are many cases when things dictated by the mass market aren't what I want/need. I still want an easily swappable battery in a flagship phone as a simple example and expandable memory in the form of SD slots but alas the market has spoken and I'm stuck with poor alternatives if I want those functions. Or on a more practical note, I'd love to select from various airlines, there's dozens and dozens of them but the fact is I often ride coach and they're all just as crappy and customer hostile as each other. It doesn't matter if you pay just a little more for a ticket, you're out of luck. The tendency for markets to converge on the same price points to remain competitive makes them also converge on the same or similar solutions and that tends to lead to a lack of choice.
Maybe consumers need to be willing to not always pay the lowest price for everything but I argue the issue isn't just there, it's systematic because the average consumer is also the average person producing the consumables and the way in which they get resources to consume which dictate to some degree what choices they have and so on and so forth. We seem to just be continuously converging on optimal solutions that don't fit everyone and are slowly fitting a handful of people in power more than anything else.
I keep seeing this phrase again and again on HN. "The market has spoken".
Here's the context to which I responded to it earlier [0].
I literally don't think "The Market" exists in the same way that Margaret Thatcher said "There's no such thing as Society".
"The Market" has come to represent a conveinient abstraction if you want people to stop thinking and asking deeper questions.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38048995
Not only animation. How do you tell tv series from each other? They have like 4 themes with different skins.
How do you tell superhero movies from each other?
That's what you get when you're happy to 'consume content'.
Then I read about the billions(!) being dropped into new productions of classics like "The Wheel of Time" or a spinoff of "Lord of the Rings"
This was a great feeling!
Then all of those billions started delivering. If you were _lucky_, season one was put together with tons of care and picked over. It was also based on a novel series where the author had done the same. If you were unlucky, the TV became like the radio used to be: just background stuff while you do something else. You don't even pay attention to it.
No matter what, season two almost always had the dramatic quality of a baked potato.
And heaven forbid the algorithmic numbers don't work. Then the thing is a dead series walking no matter what the quality.
You can't make quality art by throwing money at it. Very strangely, it actually has the opposite effect: people stop wanting to take risks. You can make a somewhat mathematically-sound four-quadrant marketing pitch hoping to hit the right taste clusters with a guess at whether it'll work or not, but you're not looking at emotional impact over time. Hell no. Hence the current tidal wave of edgy mediocrity.
I leave the TV on in the afternoons when I'm not working and trying to decompress. I have seen a few good series. They are all lower-budget attempts by high-quality artists using a preexisting literary work. Too often, without a solid canon of literary work, season one is great and the rest of it is just doubling down on whatever stimulus was in season one that the algorithm said people liked.
My opinion is that people are going to like "classic" TV the same way they like classic rock. There'll be something about it that they'll argue about endlessly, but there'll also be a lot of derivative work trying to recapture the lightning of actually knowing what the hell you're doing and being lucky.
Themes, setting, tone, art direction, plot, characters, etc.
animation today does not all look the same. There’s wider creativity now than ever before. There’s a larger volume of lower quality stuff because it’s cheaper, but art is not defined the median work.
Classics are classics because in an era of limited information sharing a much smaller population of works gained recognition and staying power. It’s cool to see that themes are durable. It’s cool and sobering to watch Citizen Kane today and see the frustratingly obvious parallels. But that’s really more of a novelty. If citizen Kane came out today you’d perhaps just roll your eyes at the direct associations to your present day parallels that are now “too obvious”.