Will literature ever regain cultural prominence?
What "prominence" are you referring to?
No.
>>25189100bit faggy innit
>>25189107Obviously the greater cultural impact and influence writers and their work had in previous eras. Are you dumb?
literature in general? maybe but probably not.american literature? impossible.
>>25189312So, the culture of a tiny minority who repackaged it for the masses? That is exactly what we have now and far more trickles down to the masses than ever before.
>>25189341The fact you shifted the point to proportion of the creators versus consumers already tells me you're already here in bad faith.You're talking about repackaging and trickling down when in the past writers were engaged with first-hand.Dickens, for example, was a celebrity and widely read in his own time. His characters like Scrooge have been bywords for what they represent long before any film adaptations. Such was the prominence of literature in the cultural discourse of that time.OP is simply asking if the writer can return to that level of cultural prominence that outshines film and tv and other such modern shapers of discourse.You're making it about something it's not because you're clearly offended by the implication of an increasingly illiterate public.And before you talk about the exclusivity of literacy in the past, remember that unlike today it is not worn as a badge of anti-intellectual pride to not read. It was expected to defer to the well-read and eloquent on matters of culture, and inspire to their level of insight, or atleast accept their importance.
>>25189371I didn't move anything. Vast majority of people past and present have nothing to do with the culture you speak of and have no need to defer to anyone about it, they have their own culture.
>>25189371george lucas didnt make star wars as he proved with his prequels. copyright destroyed writing
I was watching the show madmen, its set in the early 60s, in one scene the secretaries are passing around a risqué book whose name i dont remember.My point is none of that shit would happen todaybooks used to be part of the cultural conversation. even in the 2000s you had harry potter, twilight, 50 shade of grey. Now no one has the attention span to read
>>25189100>he's not the richest or the most famousshouldn't it be "he's not the richest nor the most famous"?
Of course old-school books/authors are not as influential as they were but the creative force is still vital; it just finds its way into other forms (products).Regardless of the modern entertainment, it's genesis is still someone and their ideas (and a desire to express them).I see writing as vital because it is the least meditated of the art forms. Consider all the efforts made, the number of people involved, in adapting an author's work into a film/tv show. So many egos, opinions, constraints and obstacles exist that the writer avoids, snug in his garret, living in their imagination.Consider the struggle for authors to get published in the past, if their themes were heterodox to their culture, race, politics. Many were prosecuted and exiled in a manner that few of us could contextualize or really understand (off the top of my head, see Solzhenitzen).If you have an idea and some ambition, you have a million ways to make that a reality that people in past did not have.When an author achieves mass popularity, they can also become a character/public persona (or even caricature). Nowadays, someone becomes notorious first, or gets some niche attention, then leverages it to get published. Many of the agents I've listened to have made this point.I guess the point is that the forms that lit will take in the future are hard to predict, but that spark will remain.Hit me with your best cynicism and I'll try to defend my dung heap.
>>25189705"Nor" is typically used with "neither."
How do I get started with Franzen?
>>25189923the word typically is doing a lot of heavy lifting for your so-called argument
