Silkroad Online Forums

Was debating with my friend about literature and he had this notion that contemporary literature was far better than classic literature. So me, being the person I am, questioned him why he thinks that after the un-magnificent, gruesome trepidation we call Twilight was embraced and highly praised as a literary masterpiece by mainstream, contemporary society. So anyway, my question to you is what do you prefer? Contemporary or classic? I would say classic stops at 1970 and contemporary starts at about that point.

If the Classics are everything before 1970, all the way to the Renaissance, to Beowulf, to Plato's Republic, and to the first ever writing we can call a book, then you're bound to have MORE well-written books.

Contemporary usually starts after 1945 - basing it off from the Arts.

Personally, I don't prefer any specific era, region, or even genre. All too subjective...

I should have specified, I'm sorry. Contemporary- pop culture. Our pop culture starts at about the 1970 late 1960s. I'm drawing the line for classic at about the end of the Renaissance in the late 1700s and the beginning of the industrial revolution to maybe 1965 as most people consider literature before that age classical.

Yea, classics are usually referring to the super old books from greco-roman times. I prefer books around ww1 and 2 since it captured the impending doom mood of that time. I enjoyed Orwell's 1984 a lot. Thoughtcrime is a concept I'm always interested in.

From what you listed though, if snobel books are what you're discussin, each era has their best. Beowulf, The Odyssey, Journey to the West, Three Musketeers, Red Fern, Sherlock Holmes, Shakespearean tragedies, etc. Each time period has it's best novel or story. People that say Twilight or Harry Potter are the best of all time are what I like to call, ignant. Every novel was written in different styles.

Comparing Twilight to Classics such as the Illiad or Shakespeare, which are considered Classics, is like comparing a f-16 fighter plane to a Lexus LXR. Seperate things. Sure they can both take you places, but both have a distinct style. We see that Shakespeare is boring and dull, but that is due more in part because we don't live in their time. Our magic duals or vampire battles is just as exciting as the wordplay and sword battles back than.

Literature really shouldn't be compared unless they are from the same period. Once you leave a certain era and go to the next, words, actions, and events will take on a completely different view.

All IMO of course.

Literature from different eras can be compared. They can be compared in terms of content and how masterfully they evoke the higher emotions and how much is involved on the part of the reader. If you say each era has it's own style that is true, but each writer has their own distinctive style and yet we still find ways to compare them.Take Anthem by Ayn Rand for example, I can compare it to Harry Potter in terms of emotional involvement and intellectual content. Take the Cask of Amontillado or The Masque of Red Death both by Poe and compare it to Twilight. It is possible to compare them using elevated diction, tone and mood, careful choice of words that precisely characterize and build suspense, and even use of allegory.

So are you trying to see which is better in terms of story and appeal, or which is better in terms of usage of literary devices?

Emotional involvement and intellectual stimulation is basically what I'm looking for. I have to say that the classic literary works give use more of this.

EDIT- had to change contemporary to classics

Hmm, I would say Classics than. Sure some modern works are emotionally drawing, but I feel like old works have a certain charm about them with their old language. There just seems to be more wordplay and emotion hidden in the lines.

Involvement of the reader and the book is tough to compare when the works in question are not in the same time as you. I'm sure most readers today would attach very easily to modern books like Twilight than the Odyssey.

Contemp.

<- Is reading World War Z atm.

sorry, I meant classical. Ugh, I wouldn't dare say JK Rowling or Meyers was better than Poe or Orwell. Though Goseki I would have to disagree with you about the myths. I don't think that the myths are masterpieces at all because they were aimed at illiterate audiences so the diction was not varied and unvaried diction bores me, although if great myths such as Medea were to be rewritten for a literate audience I have no doubt in my mind that it would be among one of the greatest tragedies ever written. People just consider myths great because they are ancient...

Wait Twilight is even considered a piece of Literature? If so what a horrible example for contemporaryy Literature. Honestly a little piece of me dies whenever anyone compares Twilight to any classics or half decent Literature. I believe as you get older you tend to like the classics more over contemporary.

@Crim WWZ was awesome, felt like a real life account of a zombie doomsday.

I don't like to read classic literature, I like the stories but I don't like to read it.
So as far as reading goes, I much prefer modern literature.

I love the classics. Edgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, etc. Poe's still my fav >.>

From great poems and tales like "The Raven," "A Tale of Two Cities," "The Aeneid," etc. I could go on and on naming them '~,~.

However, contemporary lit can still be good.

CrimsonNuker wrote:Contemp.

<- Is reading World War Z atm.

yesssss, i was about to say, anything with zombies.

cpinney wrote:yesssss, i was about to say, anything with zombies.

Anything? Well, you're in luck: