/lit/ - Literature

>>16401079
>pure cringe /r/monarchism user

Do you have a BETTER idea in mind, asshole? Because it sure does fucking seem like every time we try to have a revolution for a better world, a classless world, a world where all men are equal, all men are prosperous, it gets fucked up.

We had the French Revolution. We got Napoleon. We had the Russian Revolution. We got Stalin. Do you have some secret recipe you can add to the formula of revolution that PREVENTS the revolutionary act from being taken over and stabbed in the back by an ambitious, conniving strongman? Do you have some secret plan the rest of us don't know about that will PREVENT a Napoleon or Stalin from coming to power and just reifying all the old pre-revolution hierarchies?

What do you think is the optimum number for the "core" cast of a novel or story? Obviously a good story will have lots of characters, but of course only a few of them will be the "main" characters who will receive the bulk of the narrative attention and who will have the most defined and complete character arcs.

Basically: how big or small should the ideal "core cast" be in a story? Obviously it's going to vary depending on details and circumstances. The Sound and the Fury's core cast is much smaller than Anna Karenina's core cast, for example.

Would better literature be produced under monarchy and aristocracy than is produced under democracy?

I've been thinking about this. What form of government and society produces the best art? If we assume that the system of government, and the model of society, has a profound influence on the kind of art produced by that society, then isn't the quality of art produced a measure of judging how good or bad a social and political system is?

Everybody loves the art that comes from Europe from the 12th through the 19th Century, and this includes the literature. Dante. Chaucer. Petrarch. Machiavelli. Shakespeare. Spenser. Schilling. Goethe. On and on and on. Everybody loves it and wonders why nobody writes like those guys any more. But what if the answer is that their sociopolitical conditions helped generate the art they produced, and the reason we can't produce art like that is because our sociopolitical conditions are different?

Would better literature be produced under a monarchy than under a democracy?

>>13970910
As I've delved more into right-wing, reactionary thought, one of the most persuasive things I've come across, and a thing I've come to believe myself, is that aristocracy of some kind seems to be inevitable. No matter what we try, no matter how many revolutions we wage or social programs we attempt, we always seem to come back to a small amount of people wielding most of society's power and wealth. If they're not an official aristocracy, then they function as one regardless. In fact, de facto aristocracies seem to be worse than de jure aristocracies; at least the aristocracies with actual law and custom behind them have an officially recognized function in society, and have to abide by certain rules and norms. Unofficial aristocracies get to have all the perks of an aristocracy without any of the responsibilities that come with it.

So one of the strongest lessons we might take from the reactionaries is that you need to establish a legal aristocracy and maintain it--or else you'll wind up with an illegal aristocracy that cares for nothing but itself.