Can you literally show me a book from the past 10 years that can prove that literature isn't completely dead and...

Can you literally show me a book from the past 10 years that can prove that literature isn't completely dead and irrelevant?

Get a time machine and ask this question to some random peasant in the 17th century. Wonder what kind of response you'll get.

What is literature irrelevant to exactly. Something can't just be "irrelevant" full stop you turd. Do you mean it is not relevant to a particular species of ape on the third planet from the sun and if so do you mean all of them because I'm pretty sure it is relevant to some so do you just mean the majority or something

What constitutes something that is dead and irrelevant?

They can't. People will reply and say "b-but you're not LOOKING HARD ENOUGH", but they're wrong. Literature is pretty much dead at this point. It's at a more piss-poor state than it was during the Middle Ages, the 18th century, even the Victorian era. Complete garbage.

Retard.

>Shakespeare is great!
sounds pretty good tbqh

sure

Fucking retards, this is a woman hate thread. The question is just a cover to make it Veeky Forums related, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the picture in the OP

coming right up faggot

Stay buttmad, redditor.

kek

I didn't even look at the picture. don't plan on it either familia

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

>a shitty book released in 2006 by a washed-up 80 year old
wew

>Can you literally show me a book
>literally
Illiterate detected. Anyway, I'm a little more than halfway through this book at the moment. It came out last year. Not the best thing I've ever read, to be honest, but I think it proves that literature isn't "completely dead and irrelevant".

Shakespeare is theater, not literature

a brief history of seven killings

Bolaño
>not completely dead
Waid fug :DDD

good books are coming out all the time but it will take another few decades to actually find them, filter them out from the rest of the shit

Ferrante, Han Kang, Chirbes, Marlon James, Llosa, Ishiguro


Not that it matters, you'll just say whatever I say is shit to prove an incorrect point. Looking forward to Laurus, there been lots of muttering about it lately.

What she did in that book is monstrous. Never have I been so drawn into a book that I despised. Props I guess.

Another worthless thread

Try and improve it by proving op wrong, then I read your suggestion. Your post is worth less than 5000 of these threads.

Reminder that Moby Dick, Ulysses, and The Recognitions were considered garbage when they were first published. You've probably never read the Ulysses of 2016 because it's obscure and will take decades to be taken up by critics and scholars.

You're not as smart and perceptive as you think you are.

He left us 154 sonnets you silly.

Verse is not literature

Yeah, we are talking about a peasant who has definitely heard of his sonnets

>Ferrante

m8 pls

Fuck you, man.

Thomas Pynchon alone has published 3 books in the past 10 years.

Literature will be relevant as long as human beings are relevant.

This is a shit thread.

Hey fuckface.

Veeky Forums published 5 books in the past 3 years.

Where the fuck have you been?

Houellebecq
Knausgaard
Tao Lin, et al.

>Conveniently setting the bar a couple months higher than the answer.

but they're all shit

beside the obvious, evan dara

my struggle series by knausgaaaaaaard

knausgaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard

Hunger Game series is pretty good

Every author you listed is awful

WHEN WILL YOU FUCKING NEWFAGS DIE OFF?

CHECK THE STICKY OR FUCK OFF.

Check the sticky next time, newfag.

...

literally no

is knausgard really good or just a meme? is he old dead white male immortal author tier?

>Clarice Lispector

top fucking kek, a literal meme
I'll just assume the rest of the chart is just as bad

Thanks for admitting you're a retard.

No need to reply.

>selects the only writer he read in highschool

With the rise of newer media, it's harder to justify novels. Every art form has a distinct way of experiencing what's trying to be expressed, so I don't think novels will ever become outmoded, but it's less useful. Movies, video games, VR, etc all have more powerful tools of putting you right into what's going on. There's necessarily a translation going on in your head with books, reading symbol chains and organizing a picture. It just doesn't hit as hard as a movie where you don't translate a thing: the person is right there, the sounds you can actually hear. That translation you do with books is comfy sometimes because you have flexibility to translate how you please, but that's a small plus I'd say. I like books because you can "press pause" at any time and think about what just happened, or go back and re-read something, but you can do that in video games.

I think we've pretty solidly moved to the point where literature is just another form of art that can be good, but it's not "the" thing to do anymore.

You do realize that it is very illogical of you to dismiss an entire chart of 100 books because you dislike one?

And you do realize that the purpose of a chart is to introduce you to literature, not be something perfect for literally everyone because that is impossible?

Lispector is pure unadultered shit

It's the only contemporary brazilian author in that particular chart, so yes

what's wrong with her?

Evolution of Bruno Littlemore.