[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
literature

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 6881)
Message
File  []
close
Dickens_Gurney_head.jpg
688168816881
>> No. 6881 Anonymous
5th January 2019
Saturday 7:04 pm
6881 Why is British literature so shit?
Dickens literally sucks dick.
Why haven't we had a smash hit since good ol' Willy Shakespeare?
Expand all images.
>> No. 6882 Anonymous
5th January 2019
Saturday 7:07 pm
6882 spacer
>>6881
>Dickens literally sucks dick
Interesting thesis. I eagerly await the preprint.
>> No. 6883 Anonymous
5th January 2019
Saturday 7:31 pm
6883 spacer
This is the second sub-par thread I have seen on this site in the last 3 months. This place has gone to the dogs.
>> No. 6884 Anonymous
5th January 2019
Saturday 10:19 pm
6884 spacer
>>6881

>literally sucks dick
>ol' Willy Shakespeare

Get out, cunt.
>> No. 6885 Anonymous
5th January 2019
Saturday 10:41 pm
6885 spacer
>>6884
Make me

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 6886 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 12:53 am
6886 spacer
I feel that OP's point should still be recognised that Dickens is a terrible author. The point has perhaps been done to death already but he remains a lesson in never paying an author by the chapter and how stories may do a disservice in outliving their purpose. Perhaps it is ironic that one of his most famous works involves a never-ending court case that bounces aimlessly between subjects to nothing but the destitution of the interested parties.

Of course OP is still very, very wrong regarding our lack of 'smash hits' but the young teen in me recognises the frustration driving it.
>> No. 6887 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 1:50 am
6887 spacer
>>6886
Agreed actually. I've tried to read a bit of classic English Lit and it's mostly very very tedious.

Orwell is the only "classic" author I like, and he's a modern young whippersnapper compared to the actual classical ones.
>> No. 6888 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 2:11 am
6888 spacer
>>6886

>one of his most famous works involves a never-ending court case.

Fine use of weasel words. There are at least 5 books of his I can think of off the top of my head I'd consider more famous then Bleak House.

>>6881
>Why is British literature so shit?

I'm yet to see the country that has produced more high quality authors.

this is the wiki for just English significant authors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_writers

It is so big it needs to be broken down again by surname.

This is the list of German writers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German-language_authors

It is so short it needs propping up by non-Germans who wrote in German like Kafka.

>Why haven't we had a smash hit since good ol' Willy Shakespeare?
I'm not sure what your point is, by measuring by the greatest writer who has ever lived? It is 2018 have we not had a better holy man than Jesus yet?

Also more to the point
>Why haven't we

I don't think you're British at all, I think you are an imposter fresh off the boat from the colonies and envious of our culture that has lasted longer than an afternoon.
>> No. 6889 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 2:55 am
6889 spacer
They were catering to people's superior attention spans back then. I think if you tried to submit Jane Eyre or Sunset Song now, they'd be like

>Come on, don't tell me all about your boring childhood first. Where's the hook?
>> No. 6894 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:06 am
6894 spacer
>>6888
>this is the wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DAW

>It is so big it needs to be broken down again by surname.
I don't dispute your point necessarily but quality over quantity.

>>6889
I remember seeing recently that, someone submitted the first chapter of a classic novel like Jane Eyre, to several publishers. I don't know what's worse, that most of them rejected it or that they didn't recognise it was Jane Eyre.
>> No. 6898 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 12:26 pm
6898 spacer
>>6894
It bothers me more that they don't have a policy of doing a cursory google to check it's not plagiarism than that the poor sod reading through the slush pile doesn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every past English classic novel. That's not a realistic expectation.

As for not wanting to publish Dickens or Eyre today, that's totally reasonable. Times change, it's no longer impressive or worth anyone's time to re/produce something old fashioned like that. There are hundreds of thousands of people now who can draw and paint as well as da Vinci could but their work will never be as important as his because of the lack of historical context. At the time, he was the only one who was that good maybe not the only one but it wasn't a long list and he helped push the boundaries. May as well get upset your handprints on your kitchen walls don't get as much attention as the Lascaux caverns.
>> No. 6899 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 12:36 pm
6899 spacer
>>6898

Publishing is a business. Their job isn't to publish what's good, but what will sell.
>> No. 6900 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 1:16 pm
6900 spacer
>>6898
it's not like da Vinci was famous for being an illustrator or painter, more like illustrator AND painter AND sculptor AND engineer (ie. a polymath)
>> No. 6901 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 1:49 pm
6901 spacer
On a similar note, I just looked at Michael Caine's IMDb page. His featured films are... well, one of them's batman and I've never heard of two of the others. This from the man who was in Zulu, Get Carter, the man who was Alfie. No, he's now known for The Prestige, The Quiet American and Cider House Rules whatever the fuck that is.

>>6900

Such a great engineer. Who could forget how he invented the helicopter and kicked off flight way back then.
>> No. 6902 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 5:36 pm
6902 spacer
>>6894
Is this what you're talking about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6906799.stm
>> No. 6903 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 7:50 pm
6903 spacer
>>6902
Yes
>> No. 6904 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:57 pm
6904 spacer

Don't_abbreviate_as_Wiki_(English_version).png
690469046904
>>6894

>this is the wiki

>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DAW

Wiki can protest however it likes it isn't an authority on how language is permitted to evolve, or as the kids used to say regardless of what was seen as the 'correct' use of language, FAIL.
>> No. 6905 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:07 pm
6905 spacer
>>6904

Surely you'd want your brand to become synonymous with the entire field?
>> No. 6906 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:38 pm
6906 spacer
>>6905

Well that is really what this is about isn't it, if you read the fine print on Alphabet's website there will be a page that says 'don't use the term 'Googling' if you read Adobe's website they will protest the use of the term 'photoshopping' or 'shopped'
(even though they really want people to use them as that is great for the brands, but if these things fall into common usage they lose control of the terms legally, so they need to feign an effort at stopping people).
>> No. 6907 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 12:33 am
6907 spacer
>>6906
There has been an attempt within the past couple of years to assert genericide for the Google trademark in court, but it didn't go anywhere, but all it's going to take is for Alphabet to sue someone for infringement (assuming they don't retaliate by fucking the target over via their control over their products).
>> No. 6908 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 12:42 am
6908 spacer
>>6905
I'd say the risk of becoming a generic trademark probably offsets it, even though I can't imagine any other wiki big enough to have it made officially official in court.
>> No. 6910 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 7:14 am
6910 spacer
If you amass a collection of 80,000 ebooks, including people's vanity-published dreck, I think that must be somewhat similar to the experience of attacking a slush-pile. You have two pages to get my attention. If not, next.
>> No. 6911 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 8:22 am
6911 spacer
>>6901
The Quiet American is a very good film. It's based on a work by Graham Greene, who, incidentally, is a superb British novelist.
>> No. 6912 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 3:25 pm
6912 spacer
>>6911
I've only read his Our Man in Havana. Midly amusing and just had some bits I could relate to.
>> No. 6913 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 5:26 pm
6913 spacer
>>6912

The Travels With My Aunt film was decent. I have the book but didn't get around to it yet.
>> No. 6914 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 6:53 pm
6914 spacer
>>6898
Fair points.
>> No. 6959 Anonymous
24th February 2019
Sunday 6:11 pm
6959 spacer
Dickens isn't a great example of prime British literature. IIRC, Orwell said that he (Dickens) was out of touch with real life because he'd done nothing but write for a living. So he needed to fill pages with melodrama and conversation in lieu of description, which is what I, and probably plenty of others, dislike about him.

I personally will look at a book by a British author before anything else. Not that there aren't plenty of stinkers out there, but other writers don't ever reach the same level of proficiency with their language. I'd even argue that they exceed the best writers in non-English languages, although of course I'm biased.

>Why haven't we had a smash hit since good ol' Willy Shakespeare?

That would be Harry Potter, whether you want to admit it or not.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password