/lit/ - Literature

We won't know for at least another decade.

You will regret your words.

>>11212706
*blocks your path*

>>11212711
I agree that there are people who will be known 100 years from now that we do not know of today, but I think there are some people today that you can argue will be remembered.

>>11212706

Still waiting on him to die while Trump is president. God, that would be beautiful.

>>11212706
Chomsky's a brilliant analyst. He's gotten a lot of things wrong, but he's also on point a lot of the time, and I say this despite disagreeing with him politically on most things.

David Foster Wallace - he's a decent writer, though overrated, but his cult has grown, and it seems like that's all you need.

JK Rowling obviously - being a popular children's writer counts for a lot more than anyone's willing to admit.

William Gibson, simply for pushing sci fi in a new direction (or at least building on PKD's legacy).

Stephen King, though I predict that the world will completely forget about all but 2 or so of his books (and I hope one of those two is Hearts in Atlantis).

Margaret Atwood

Haruki Murakami, though I think people will see him much more clearly as a populist author in the future.

>>11212706
That was a really bad way to start your thread, OP, which is a shame because I think you were serious.

>>11212712
Never heard of him. Jesus, this guy just goes full Kafka doesn't he?

>>11212744
Lol, I am serious. Whatever, not like I am super invested in this thread. I do not see the reason you say that though?

>>11212744
>>11212755
Do you say that because of reddit's disagreeance with Chomsky?

>>11212724
*pushes him*
*punches him in the face*
*he falls over*
me: Get up, faggot
him: urrgghh, please...
*pulls him up by his collar, lets him fall down again*
*stomps on his neck*
me: Block my path again and I'll end your life faggot
him: *quivering* I-i won't... I-i swear
me: whatever, get out of my way
*kicks him one final time in the stomach and continue on my way*

>>11212738
I agree, but I hate that Rowling is going to be remembered, she's such a cunt. I wonder if there is someone who is alive right now that won't be known until >50 years after they die. That would be fascinating.

To think that there is writing right now that resonates with a crowd 100 years from now just blows my mind.

>>11212706
>I do think the public currently holds him in extremely high esteem which is an indicator as to him being remembered as a great.
historically this doesn't seem to be the case. fame or esteem while someone is alive is often not at all indicative of their long term staying power

Franzen

>>11212706

I unironically believe that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and its associated novels will continue to be read a few hundred years from now, while 95+% of everything else has fallen by the wayside.

>>11212781
A lot of dedicated authors work penniless in their 30s and 40s only to gain notoriety once they’re much older. It takes time to make it as a writer.

Anonymous.

>>11212863

Every period has notable anonymous/pseudonymous authors, ours is not special in that sense. But I do like your intimation that the Chinese paper-cutout pornography fora of today's world are responsible for a certain literature which will be preserved, re-read, evilly snickered with.

Pynchon, absolutely Pynchon. Besides his obvious artistic merit, he'll be studied as a historical phenomenon--a representation of the collapse of the Anglo Saxon race in the face of their runaway systems, financial, technological, political, and otherwise

>>11212843
Ya, I agree, that's what is so astounding. It even happened to Nietzsche and Kant. Two of the Goliaths of Philosophy as we know it.

>>11212765
Mostly people who hardline disagree with Chomsky end up just attacking his character because they can't engage with his actual work and arguments without being blown apart. He is one of the most cited people for a reason.

>>11212712
Is Moving Kings any good? Saw it on my library’s new arrivals shelf

Obviously Chomsky will be remembered for linguistics. Manufacturing consent and a few other books might be remembered

>>11212781

Rowling will, I think, become almost totally forgotten within her own lifetime. Her work is worthless.

>>11212777
Babes walk by
>thanks for clearing the path anon, you're pretty cute

>>11214646
It's because his arguments have twists and turns, and because he is self reflexive meaning he takes into account the lack of verifiability in regards to what he's saying by delegating this task to future technological capacities, and finally because he proudly present the empirical with the speculative in an intricate manner that you get blown apart by Chomsky.
The only Chomsky deserves to be known for is btfo'ing behaviourism, which seems to be making a comeback, and his passionate anti-capitalist/imperialist stance, both of which have led him to say some serious bullshit and defend indefensible positions religiously.

>>11212738
>populist author
What did you mean by this?

>>11212706

>author(s)
Just fiction, or what? Almost every intellectual can be considered an author.

>our time period
How big a period? Obviously, the further back you look, the better your chances of guessing well. "The best critic is time".

FWIW, here's a few vague thoughts about the second half of the 20th century.

1. The real intellectual dynamism was undoubtedly in the hard sciences, in particular computer science. (Psychology, political science, social science and economics do not qualify.)

2. Specialization is making it harder for laymen to give names. Turing's paper on computing machines, Shannon's on entropy in communication, and Hoare's on the Quicksort algorithm are basically unsurpassable in their area. I'm sure experts can give other examples.

3. Modern serious mathematics is mostly so far removed from the average person's understanding it's almost impossible to discuss. Andrew Wiles' paper on Fermat will surely live, because of the combination of historical significance and technical innovation. But probably there are more important figures.

4. Film was the predominant art form by a country mile.

5. Novelists: Cormac McCarthy (US), William Golding (UK)

6. Poetry: If I had to put my money on one book of poetry written in England it would be 'Crow' by Ted Hughes. Modern American poetry I'm less familiar with.

7. Stage drama: Almost totally irrelevant beside film. Waiting For Godot and Under Milk Wood will live. Eugene O'Neill might.

8. Shostakovich was probably the only serious musician who made a sizeable permanent addition to the canon.

9. There was a lot of good light music. Miles Davis, Lennon & McCartney and Bob Dylan aren't going anywhere.

10. As remarked, the modern tendency is towards atomization and specialization. There are intellectuals who try, to a greater or lesser extent, to pull everything together - for example, starting from a scientific or mathematical foundation, Roger Penrose or David Deutsch - but they never give a very convincing impression.
Time for another Aristotle, I say.

>>11212738
>>11212781
>>11214778
Didn't JKR rip off a bunch of other people's work, even the name of Harry Potter from somewhere?

>>11215008
>Time for another Aristotle, I say.
I think so too. But don't you think that any time period would say time for another "ancient ontological restructuring philosopher"

>>11212706
>I do not like him, but I do think the public currently holds him in extremely high esteem which is an indicator as to him being remembered as a great.

>>11215008
>8. Shostakovich was probably the only serious musician who made a sizeable permanent addition to the canon.
Schoenberg?

>>11215008
good post

>>11212706
lol no? linguists dont care about or consider his theories relevant, most wellread leftists consider his theory shit
probably fisher, butler, land, houellebecq, etc. along w/ whoever comes along and succinctly or poignantly writes abt the current social reality (neoliberalism, irony, to the internet, the "new" politics like the alt right and the dsa, #exit movements, etc)

>>11217013
you're delusional if you think Nick Land is an intellectual titan of the 20th century. he's hardly even a footnote in continental theory. Fisher is even less relevant in the big scheme, though I do like him as a cultural critic. he didn't really say anything that Jameson didn't flesh out in greater detail before.

Chomsky meanwhile shaped singlehandedly an entire discipline (and had significant contributions to computational theory as well)

>>11217026
>Chomsky meanwhile shaped singlehandedly an entire discipline
lol no he didnt? have you been in a professional linguistics dept. since the fuckin 90s? his concept of universal grammar has been thoroughly debunked. he just isnt a major player in linguistics, he does dumb shit like have interviews and answer emails and comment on foreign policy now. even anarcho syndicalists / communists know that only edgy youtube teenage leftists actually think his theory is good.

>>11216992

Well, I said 2nd half of century, and he died in 1951. Not sure he's accessible enough either. He might be.

Knausgaard

>>11217055
>lol no he didnt?
are you retarded? regardless of the current standing of UG in the field, it is an objective fact that Chomsky revolutionized (in the very literal Kuhnian sense) the study of linguistics in the late 50s and ensuing decades. i'm not even talking about his politics. what the fuck has Nick Land done? he wrote a few good early essays on kant and trakl and then wrote some shitty cyberpunk fanfic. you're clueless

>>11212706
>No Chomsky meme
Yikes , and I actually like Chomsky too. Looking at his influences/influenced part of his wiki page is a major laugh though because you can tell they are trying bulk it up with nonsense
>Influences Hebrew Literature , Russian literature, George Orwell
>Influenced Bono, Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Steven J Could, Naomi Kleim

>>11217102
>Chomsky revolutionized x
In the same way Hawking revolutionized physics - by being so wrong that everyone learned from his mitsakes

>>11217026
included fisher and land bc they influence a lot of graduate students / college kids, who'll go on to occupy the institutions filled with old people right now. theyre definitely popular w/ young ppl, and they talk about the actual contemporary status of society and the new topics and issues that must be mediated on instead of the sclerotic decrepit shit most papers and journals go on about. people that are prescient like they obviously are tend to become popular with time, regardless of their current relevance in the old gaurd hegemony. i know the idea of a right wing, unorthodox writer finding popularity with time gets you furious with autistic rage

>>11217013
>when your mind doesn't exist outside of the internet

>>11217057
oh, right, forgot this was specific to second half. what about Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis, Cage, Reich?

>>11217123
the internet isnt important and wont have influence. its definitely never had an unprecedented increase in relevancy before, nor has any other new technology of communication historically changed the subject of academic discussion

>>11217121
>included fisher and land bc they influence a lot of graduate students / college kids, who'll go on to occupy the institutions filled with old people right now
lmao. their actual influence in academia is minimal at best, and close to zero realistically. Land has been excommunicated from academia, don't you know? he isn't even allowed to speak at art galleries, and people call Urbanomic a fascist publishing hour for reprinting his book. they may have influenced a few edgy u/acc bloggers but again this is minimal. you seem to be extrapolating their popularity on this board with the academic world at large. Fisher wasn't even an original theorist as I stated, nor was he an academic --- Jameson if anyone in that nexus will be remembered, not he.

>>11217141
>when your mind doesn't exist outside of the internet

>>11215008
Good post, agree with most things.

>Poetry
I reckon Plath's got a better shot of surviving than Hughes, judging by how huge and influential she is right now and has been for several decades. If there's a post war English poet who will last it will
probably be Larkin or no-one at all.

>Novelists
Tricky one to predict here. Golding is a wonderful author who is too well known for one book. Hopefully there is a major revival of his full oeuvre at some point but its been tried before and its never really stuck in any big way. Cormac is a good shout and Foster Wallace I think for sure. Pynchon is a tricky one. He's such a meme author, its hard to tell how much if his popularity is pseudry and PR. He seems to encapsulate a lot of the zeitgeist of post war society so if he makes it at all, it'll be off the back of that.

>Film
Agree with you here, though there was such a glut of filmmaking in the 20th century its going to take at least another century to fully separate the wheat from the chaff. How will (say for instance) Spielberg be remembered by the time all of Generation X and the millennials die off (similar question could be asked of the Beatles and the baby boomers)? Its hard to say.

>theatre
Beckett and O' Neil, bang on. Real question is how musicals will come to be seen. Will we look back on them as we do Operas today or will we see them in the same vein as Victorian music hall acts, obscure and primitive?

>Music
I'd give Glass and Reich a shout too. In terms of popular stuff, I think you're right in your selections, though I feel Hip Hop will be preserved and represented in some fashion by one or two artists (probably Public Enemy, Kanye and Kendrick). I'm saying this as someone who doesn't particularly like the genre - it just feels too important to be lost to history (though that can often be a delusion of the present)

>another Aristotle
I honestly feel like we're heading for a cliff edge in the west. There just feels like this tone in the air of chaos, of some rapid decline and decay just right around the corner. Everything feels too much. We are living in an information glut, a flood of images, sounds and ideas that is drowning us, blinding us, making us angry and afraid. A paradigm shift is coming: either one that orders the chaos or enhances it to destructive levels. I'm not sure which one would be preferable.

>>11217143
>nor was he an academic
He didn't hold a chair or professorship but Fisher did lecture at a relatively good university at the time of his death and did have a fairly orthodox early career in academia

i agree with you about land though

Unironically Zizek.

>>11215008
>Shostakovich

Satie? Stravinsky? Reich? Johnston?

I used to think Land was cool in a wanky edgelord way until I heard him speak and all delusions were shattered in an instant.

>>11214829
Cite examples of your claims or get the fuck out basedboy

>>11215008
This posts reeks of burgerism

>>11217267
Don’t forget Sibelius

>>11217143
imagine being this unable to conceive of any dramatic increase in influence or exponential virality. academia totally exists in an eternal statis of deadlines for publishing papers no one will read, theres no more fundamental causal reason the accelerationist bloggers look to the excommunicated and the unorthodox, new technologies of communication never radically changes the way mediation occurs in academia, the threadbare mendacity of the current continental scene will survive forever with no transformation, theres no cultural pushback against the discipline of philosophy that demands new talent, youre definitely laughing, etc
imagine being educated in sociology yet having such an ahistorical conception of change in institutions and thought. what happens when zizek & judith fuckin die dude? will ppl make papers on the ontology of a lacanian critique of feminist blah blah blah fucking whatever forever? land & the u/acc's hyper-aestheticized imitation of real politics definitely isnt the way all politics is headed. such a change in (american/ western european) politics definitely isnt occuring, and from it no new hyper-aestheticized intellectual movements or thinkers will be in vogue

>>11217144
epic own dipshit

>>11217281
this is what happens when you extrapolate your twitter LARP bubble to the world at large

>>11217293
this is what happens when u dont have any arguments and a severe mental deficiency (retardations) prevents u from seeing past ur normative biases to engage in discussion

>>11212731
why?

>>11212706
Chomsky is irrelevant and shit

[physiologoi voice] yikes dude. no socratic revolutions going to occur in greek philosophy ever.
[logical positivists voice] nah my guy its positivism all the way down
[psychanalytics voice] lol. do u think our fields gonna be challenged in any significant way? delueze is literally fringe.

>>11217281
>epic own dipshit
>when someone accuses you of being a internet zombies so you double down on the internet retardation two times in order to prove him wrong
obligated meme to give my post more rhetorical weight aaaaaaand... post!

Z I Z E K
I I
Z Z
E E
K K

God, if any of these posts were true, the future would be unimaginably horrible in literary substance. Imagine meeting someone near the end of the 21st century whose influences, and favorite authors, are Douglas Adams, J.K Rowling, Stephen King, etc.
I hope Land and those accelerationist types are able to garner influence, because most other writers, whether in politics or literature in general, are shitting where they eat.

>>11217319
i love calling ppl internet zombies and then saying "obligated meme"

accelerationism is probably the most brainlet (and self-defeating) political position there is today

>>11217327
im not an accelerationist retard
doesnt mean i dont think nick will garner only more popularity going forward

>>11217325
your mind is so plugged in the machine that you can't even understand when someone is making fun of you

>>11217337
epic trole dude!! god shut the fuck up and go post somewhere else

>>11217335
nick doesn't even have a coherent set of positions. what exactly do you think will gain in popularity, bad schizo cyperpunk poetry? always makes me laugh how u/acc twitter LARPers think they're waging some war of cosmic significance

Hello.

I am brainlet.

Could one you people succinctly sum up what accelerationism is and what its vision of the future is cos I is struggling to make any sense of it.

>>11217327
If we're talking about what is self-defeating, then any common political ideology would have already taken the cake. Besides, I'd wager that there's going to be a terror-based accelerationist ideology down the line (i.e "liberals must be purged for the glory of Gnon", or something to that effect).

>>11217348
already a thread about it, shitbird. although accelerationist faggots and their detractors have already ruined this thread

>>11217342
>hmm maybe this author thats popular pretty much only in online spheres will maintain or even dramatically gain popularity, and will ultimately come to last among the pantheon of generational relevancy, given the trend of the exponential expansion in the relevance of things previously contained on the internet that the 21st centurys marked by
>LOL u literally think that ur waging a cosmic war?? whats that, u think nick lands gonna be more cited than foucault in the next five years???? fucking idiot. go write about the libidinal economy in ur wordpress blog. idiot. retard. im cool and normal.

>>11217368
>and will ultimately come to last among the pantheon of generational relevancy
this is completely delusional though

>>11217342
>u/acc twitter LARPers think they're waging some war of cosmic significance
from what I've seen they're basically a bunch of dunningkrugered retards who like the marxist/freudian stimmung but can't accept that history has no knowable eschaton so they create apocalyptic visions of schizophrenic paranoia and machines killing everyone and project their impotency on cosmic scales in order of not having to deal with the fact that their life is, in fact, banal. The situationists of the internet age.

>>11217375
u can be totally sure accelerationism is at its peak of relevancy, just like ppl on /new/ here were totally sure after the defeat of ron paul that the political relevancy of 4chan (& the content/ideas it disseminates) was over, how weird twitter ppl in 2010 were sure theyd never be politically or socially relevant, etc.
the products of the corners of the internet massively spilling over into real life? huh huh. never hearda that. that very process perpetually continuing as the internet becomes even more ubiquitous? nope. its a one time change and then its over.

>>11217388
the thing is that accelerationism is really just neoliberalism with a different coat of paint. it's a convenient sleight of hand that allows for justification of the status quo. it's hardly a politic

>>11217388
>the products of the corners of the internet massively spilling over into real life
are the five star movement and t-shirts with rage comics printed on them, not accelarationism which is basically unheard of

>>11217403
with the common parlance no, but quite a few ppl that r involved with online meme politics shit have at least heard of it (maybe not r/acc, l/acc, u/acc etc). iirc chapo trap house references nick land recently, and chapos unironically semi relevant to centre-left us politics
u seem incredibly narrow minded in being able to visualize how things have worked out in the past, and how that could work now (with the effect intensified given that the internets even more all encompassing). the 5 star thing is happening right now in italian parliamentary politics. this stuff still happens, and its not like that parties not going in the italian history notebooks at least as a footnote.

>>11217428
>u
>r
>ppl
stop typing like a fucking retard

>>11217442
no dork

>>11217428
>Chapo referenced nick land
what exactly did they say?

Stig Larsson will be remembered as one of the greats in Sweden.

Also Nikanor Teratologen will be seen as influential to all edgy teens that will publish works on killing stuff and having anal sex that will surely be popular soon.

>>11217013
> linguists dont care about or consider his theories relevant, most wellread leftists consider his theory shit

This is just patently false on both accounts. There are plenty of working linguists who work within the domain of Chomsky's theories, and there has never been some grand refutation showing that he's wrong except from people who largely misinterpret him.

With regards to "leftist activism" he completely correct, for instance, to remark on the stupidity of modern Antifa and the kind of people who advocate that 'serious' anarchists shouldn't vote, as both involve deliberate ignorance of the reality they work in and are actively counterproductive.

>>11219043
lmao retard name 5 *orthodox*, relevant linguists w/ frequently cited bodies of work & positions w/in mainstream academia (like tenured professorship, a job at a research institute, etc)

>>11219066
not the person you're replying to, but even if it were the case that his theories are no longer relevant, this does little to dispute his impact (in the same way that Freud undoubtedly shaped his field despite his theories not holding much water in contemporary psychology)

>>11217253
this

>>11217306

You know why.

>>11219364
you're right, and i'm not disagreeing with anyone on that front. but he isn't relevant.

>implying we still live in a homogeneous, low frame rate culture interested in recognizing 'greats'

Oh, come on, nobody's posted him yet? He'll be remembered a lot longer than fucking Margaret Atwood will.

>>11212706
pretty sure we won't get anyone better than knausgaard for at least 20 years

>>11212706
Comsky is the type of imbecile who would whip his grandkids before reasoning with them because his head is so far up his ass and he thinks he’s so intelligent that that’s the best way to accomplish his goals.

>>11219527
This statement kind of speaks for itself.

>>11215262
I mean, it's a pretty generic name. There was some guy name Harry Potter in a Monty Python sketch iirc

>>11212724
>>11212712
*blocks own path*