Back when Monte Cristo was serialized it was seen as lowbrow cheap entertainment for children, not for any serious bibliophile. Nowadays there has been a revival in interest for Dumas in social media and this novel is now being revered as high literature.Should a piece of writing be "timeless" in order to be considered a classic? Or should a classic stand on the merits given by the people of the time period when it came out/was written?
>>25382171>Monte Cristo was serialized it was seen as lowbrow cheap entertainment for childrenjeets make up the most retarded things
it's proto-genre fiction, of course tiktokkers with ADHD think it's literally peak fiction
Will a millennial who loves Melville and Joyce enjoy Dumas? No, I don't have autism or ADHD.
>>25382172>jeetsSo which one of us gave you the wedgie?
>>25382210It's a good srorty.
>>25382171Who cares? It's better than consuming goyslop.
Count of Monte Cristo was the equivalent to literature back then that comic books and superhero movies are to art and entertainment nowBut because everyone's slowly getting dumber it has been elevated to high artDecades from now, the Avengers will be treated the same
datamining is bad and you should feel bad
if you're going to start hating dumas, you better start hating all that r*ddit ass arthurian garbage, too
the slop of deus ex machina
>>25382171The first paragraph has to be most retarded thing someone has ever said in the history of 4chan. Top ten at least.
>>25382222good enough for me also CHECKED
>>25382234>Decades from now, the Avengers will be treated the sameGod please don't say that, my sanity is on the edge enough already
>>25382171I think a lot of these controversies happen because literature went from being another leisure activity like music, to a mix of self-improvement and the mental equivalent of eating your vegetables. So people started reading old books not because they have sincere interest in them but because they've been told that reading old books is what respectable people do. The truth is that reading for pleasure or curiosity is the only kind of reading worth doing, everything else is performative.
>>25382171>Or should a classic stand on the merits given by the people of the time period when it came out/was written?If this was the case, Shakespeare would be til this day an elizabethan shlock for the masses.
>>25382222>quadsChecked
>>25382172Dumas is certainly a writer of note but much like with Dickens you can't deny that he wasn't above profiteering off of his work
>>25382171The only people calling Dumas "high literature" are beardo faggots on youtube calling it litslop. It's a fun read. The French thought Dumas (who was a nigger) was good enough to put him in the Pantheon. If you want to read something more serious, read Red and Black.
>>25382171>for childrenfor the bourgies.* Children read fairy tales.>any serious bibliophileAristocracy*>as high literature.as a classic.* Classics are influencial pieces of literature, there is qualitative evaluation of them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and popularity ("it stood the test of time", to quote Man Carrying Thing) is a better reason for why you need to teach about this book to the younger generations.>Or should a classic stand on the merits given by the people of the time period when it came out/was written?Absolutely fucking not. Have you ever notice how almost no prized literature stands the test of time? This is because the intelligentsia is 150+ iq filtering the normalfaggots.The normalfaggots need assuring elements to appreciate the highest of arts (literature): "this book has been appreciated by many people before you, you must be wrong to not do the same", "old is gold", etc.The Prisca Theologia is still influencing what is considered worthy of attention, or maybe it's just a cope: the normalfaggot are scared to give opinions on books that are for intellectuals, but don't have the nomea of being "established" status symbols.Personally, I think that's because the masses consume "social glue". They come on /lit/ and will try to consume /lit/ top 100 books, preferably the 10 years aggregate, because it makes them part of this community (or so they think). Same with /mu/core, same with every emo rap fan listening solely to Peep, X and Juice.They don't care about the soul of the community they live in, they just wanna fit in.The intelligentsia, astrology and Booktok have a vibe, a soul, a zeitgeist that they follow. The books they consume and discuss will be forgotten over time, substituted by new ones, but the vibe of these communities remains solid, capable of evolution rather than death and subsequent fetishization (as in the concept of Warenfetischismus).
>>25382234>Decades from now, the Avengers will be treated the sameLolno.
>>25382234And pray tell, what was the high art of that era that is now forgotten in favour of Monte Cristo?
>>25382409There are very few prominent writers who were completely uninterested in turning a profit. That has nothing to do with how they were seen by the literary scenes of their day.
>>25382171>Back when Monte Cristo was serialized it was seen as lowbrow cheap entertainment for childrenI haven't seen convincing evidence that is true.If you have any evidence then please present it and I almost certainly change my mind, but at the moment I don't believe that is true just because some opinionated youtube failed comedian said so.As far as the rest, it legitimately doesn't matter. Something is good or it isn't. Personally I prefer loose adaptations of Count rather than the original book. Mostly because I find the vast majority of the book to be boring. I don't care if something is a classic or not. I don't engage with storytelling for social points or whatever the fuck. Storytelling is about the story and how well that story is told. That is the only thing I care about. The only thing that actually matters.
>>25382895>I haven't seen convincing evidence that is true.NTA, it's not 'for children', but it is for the masses. Newspaper serials weren't exactly highbrow and the rough equivalent would be magazine stories or serials which were still a way for authors to get paid until maybe a decade or two ago. Stephen King level authors writing for Playboy and Penthouse early in his career, later in The Atlantic, NYT, Esquire. The general point that "classics" have an undeserved status where the modern equivalents would be cut down as obvious trash is true.
>>25382904So it's more of assuming serialized publication has always had the negative reputation that it currently holds now in modern day academic literature circles?
>>25382331By this logic putting work into anything you do that isn’t pure enjoyment is performative. Absolutely retarded take.
In a way, all novels and serialised prose were seen as lowbrow when compared to drama and poetry for true literary expression.The focus on social realism in the latter half of the 19th century and then the shift to psychological coherence in the 20th century elevated certain types of novels out of the cultural mire when they became increasingly the subject of academic criticism.But all in all, average people have always enjoyed the novel for its narrative, and a naive engagement with any literature will reorder or toppled any so-called 'top 100 list'.
>>25382865Chateaubriand, Senancourt, and poets
Man carrying thread
An Asian woman rallied against woke women writers. Then Man carrying responded to her video critiquing it. It was crazy to see this exchange of people sticking up for writers against their identity
>>25382234No it fucking isn't, 19th century capeshit equivalent were penny dreadfuls that nobody reads today.If you want something comparable to modern day Monte Cristo it would probably be stuff like Breaking Bad. Popular with the masses, not steering away from genre conventions, looked down by tryhards, yet still well made, having deeper themes etc.
>>25383175This is correct.
>>25383175BB fell off after S2 when it got popular
>>25382171>it was seen as lowbrow cheap entertainment for children, not for any serious bibliophileCitation needed.
>>25382905>assuming serialized publication has always had the negative reputationNo, I think it's more about having a honest rebalancing of what it means for something to be popular vs what has merit. The shorthand, especially on this board, is that popularity = shit quality. That creates a paradox when the canon insists on praising mass appeal writers just because they're old (eg. Dickens, Dumas). Then the goal posts quickly shift to something else so they can try to save a merit argument, forgetting the whole point about popularity.But they would still throw a fit if someone like Stephen King was mentioned as having merit and mass appeal. If needed there will quickly be new goalpost moving. Horror is never literary! Well what of Dracula or Frankenstein? Well that's different, because reasons. Hating "genre fiction" is another big line in the sand. Of course "adventure" books of yesteryear, Ivanhoe, Ben-Hur, Treasure Island, are considered classics, but it's just early genre fiction. Wells and Verne are early sci-fi but gain the halo of age so that they aren't dismissed by the genre fiction haters. Cue more goalpost moving about why it is or isn't "really" genre fiction or different from it in some way, blah blah, more cope.What it boils down to is this; the literary fart sniffer has a canon they can't turn against without facing difficulties, that canon is full of books that would fail the arbitrary decrees they make about modern literature. They can't reconcile this problem to be consistent, either by stripping the halo from age among the canon, or by treating modern books the same as the ones they already accept (that route inevitably just becomes "it's different because the old books are good"). Underlying that in turn, is a lack of brainpower and the fart sniffers not actually having read much to begin with, being unable to genuinely compare anything.
>>25382171>>25382234>>25382904>>25383190Denounce vishnu.
>>25383175Good post
>>25382171Classics are classics because they are quality works, they possess style and substance. It's that inherent quality that allows works to transcend context, public and period. It's completely moronic to think that medium, intended public or distribution dictate its quality. A work being popular or intended for mass consumption doesn't mean it's shit, nor a work intended for a small group of people means it's good.Italo Calvino's Why Read the Classics? is a great work on the subject.
>>25383212>Italo Calvino's Why Read the Classics?Thanks for the rec. Looks good.
>>25383175Maybe more like Euphoria, than Breaking Bad imho.>looked down by tryhardsIsn't it like IMDb's top rated series?What series is not looked down by tryhards then?
>>25382816>there is qualitative evaluation of themthere is no qualitative evaluation in them*
>>25382816>>25383306>>25383309leftroons have the most horrible takes
Are stuff like Ivanhoe and Don Juan in the same ballpark?
>>25383306>What series is not looked down by tryhards then?I don't fucking know honestly, probably something like Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage
>>25383306succession? first two seasons of rake aus?
>>25383340Agreed. All they do is trying to dress classics in a new light (i.e. deconstructivist, critical, etc.), they just can't create anything new. Horseshoe theory proving once again that woketards and chuds must get the rope asap, if we wanna save literature.Modernism ftw.>>25383444>>25383459Thanks for the recs.
>>25383212>Classics are classics because they are quality worksThe trouble is that what's a classic is continually renegotiated and you need only consult lists of the best books of all time from the 1970s, the 1930s and the late 1800s to realize this. Remember what an outlier is before you rebut with exceptions like a woman.>A work being popular or intended for mass consumption doesn't mean it's shit, nor a work intended for a small group of people means it's good.I applaud this general principle you've now laid out and I challenge you to to give us 10 books from the last 20 years that fit the bill for intended for mass consumption and quality. Anticipating your unwillingness I can extend it to 30 or even 40 years, but your point becomes increasingly weak the more you hesitate. If you can't find solid picks that aren't 50 years or older then you're really just defaulting to a variant of "old = good".
reminder that older is always better and humanity is always going downhill in IQ. Real /lit/ chads only keep a copy of the epic of gilgamesh and can speak fluent ancient babylonian on demand. If you really cared about true literacy knowledge you would be trying to learn lost homeric greek to speak to yourself in its most accurate form. Losers make schop/nietzsche/hegel/kant threads while real in the know memorized the homer epics in multiple lost languages.
>>25382171Why do you keep posting about this onions-faced redditjak faggot? Buy a fucking ad.
>>25384173thanks for saying what we were all thinking just don't bump the thread unless u buy an ad
>>25382171>Nowadays there has been a revival in interest for Dumas in social media and this novel is now being revered as high literature.High literature is a product and the tastemaker is Random House. Nobody would consider the Count of Monte Cristo literature if it wasn't for it having a penguin reprint.That said very little writing from the 19th century was considered serious literature and very few people read novels as a serious intellectual past time like a lot of people do today. If they wanted to read something serious it would be the Classics, the real, Greek and Roman Classics that is, and philosophy.Serious literary fiction was only really invented in the 20th century.
>>25383190>Of course "adventure" books of yesteryear, Ivanhoe, Ben-Hur, Treasure Island, are considered classics, but it's just early genre fiction.Only if you take an incredibly lose view of what "classics" means. I don't think it's controversial to say that those novels as well as Verne and Wells are really considered the upper echelon of children's literature. Who reads Treasure Island or War of the Worlds as an adult except in the context of "catching up" on reading or revisiting a story?
>>25384405*loose
>>25384108Epic of Gilgamesh is in Sumerian though?
>>25383175The Count of Monte Cristo would actually be closer to something like the Dark Knight, or some of the other Batman films. In fact there are quite a few parallels here>tragic backstory>revenge>vigilantism/personal sense of justice>billionaire detective with a dark streak >cartoonishly evil villains
>>25382171Critics treat entertainment value as if it is inherently opposed to what we might call "artistic value". This is true in literature, film, and even videogames. Popular entertaining media that falls out of fashion is then reevaluated and suddenly critics find it worthwhile.The best example of this in literature is She by Haggard, which was one of the best selling books ever written, and yet many critics gave it scathing reviews. As time has gone on, it has only gotten less popular and more critically favored.
>>25382234>>25382830It's not the most absurd argument. People talk about screwball comedies of the 30s-40s as if they're high art these days. I mean, these films are art whether you personally like it or not, and they should definitely be evaluated, analyzed, and appreciated within the specific context of their genre. No one is asking you to compare it to Citizen Kane or Rashomon, but Spider-Man 2 is a pretty perfect superhero movie - and appreciation of that fact will only hold more cultural value as we drift further and further from the historical circumstances that allowed it to be produced. The same could be said of something like the 2001 Lord of the Rings adaptation.
>>25384826>People talk about screwball comedies of the 30s-40s as if they're high art these daysNo, they don't.>I mean, these films are art whether you personally like it or notSure, if we're using the word 'art' in the most open, retarded way possible. "Everything is art" and "every creation/media is art" and so on, and pretty soon the word loses all its meaning anyway.
>>25382234I believe you. People have been flipping out about the upcoming Odyssey movie like it's a sacred piece of literature when it literally was just an oral tradition passed down from generations to keep people entertained and was altered an innumerable amount of times.
>>25384701no wonder it's popular with the kiddies. doesn't sound all too bad though, batman can be alright
>>25382171This is actual ignorant nonsense. Monte Cristo was serialized in a more prestigious publication than Flobby's Bovary or Zola's Germinal; the only distinction is that it became much more popular with the reading public, which requires the snob to abominate it.
>>25382331>I think a lot of these controversies happen because literature went from being another leisure activity like music, to a mix of self-improvement and the mental equivalent of eating your vegetables. So people started reading old books not because they have sincere interest in them but because they've been told that reading old books is what respectable people do. The truth is that reading for pleasure or curiosity is the only kind of reading worth doing, everything else is performative.There was some news segment years ago on guns, and a gun shop owner was bring interviewed, and one of his comments was that the guns that sell, were the gun models seen in movies. This was back around the time “The Fugitive” starring Harrison Ford was popular, the Glock 19 and 22 models were popular. “The Count of Monte Cristo” has been made numerous times into films and TV series, but two separate TV versions, one an English language version starring Sam Claflin, and a separate French language one, starting Pierre Niney, came out in 2024, and a separate Spanish language version, in a modern setting, starring William Levy, came out in 2023. Usually, a certain percentage of people who see these TV, or film adaptations may actually decide to read the original novel. My mother even decided she wanted to read the book, and I think that might have been due to some article in the New York Times. The current popularity in the moment seems like potential astroturfing.
>>25382222>QuadsOkay whatever ill read the damn thing im pausing naruto shippuden for this shit though
>>25382171>Monte Cristo>this novel is now being revered as high literature>nowOh yeah, it sure is a very recent development! Fucking retard.
