Discuss
>>5
I agree with this. I hate the beats. But it is far from boring.
Just read good books OP. There are tons of them out there.
Modern literature is absolute shit. Just think, very very few books of any actual lasting importance have been written within recent memory. Ask any librarian out there, they will all descry the lack of good new books. If any good books actually make it out there, its almost by accident.
>>7
Very few books at all have any lasting importance. Do you realize how many books have been published since people started writing them down and publishing them? A hell of a lot. And what, there are, maybe, a few hundred over the last few thousand years that we still read today.
I do believe that for decades to come people will still be reading Hunter S Thompson. And you're over looking the fact that comic books are considered literature to. And many libraries carry them. So, yeah, comics.
>>4
Fail. Modern is late 18th century up to WWII.
Post-Modernism is then 'til now.
pffff, I'm young, so I have the inability to appreciate the crappiness of newer lit.
Uh, the lack of literature? I suppose you guys never heard of Updike or Philip Roth?
>>10
Fail. Postmodernism refers to a cultural movement employing a loosely defined set of principles and values. Basically, pomo is "not modernism".
Literature that's being written nowadays is contemporary literature.
Now, we can resume the original debate of the thread.
>>5
Kerouc puts me to sleep. Ginsberg's poetry is lame.
Now >>8 has the right idea. The sheer volume of books published dwarfs the number of classics. Consider that amazing classics like Catch-22 took a while before they caught on and everything kind of falls into perspective. Ten years from now people will be reading gems published in the nineties that no one has heard of now. Claiming that "all modern/contemporary literature sucks" is short-sighted folly.