Best/Worst Modern "Literature" Ever...

[Julie]

Worst: Twilight series; Eragon series

What do you think? Dissidents welcome... thumbs up if you agree, down if you don't!

I agree entirely with you about the Twilight series... Never really got around to reading the Eragon series, but I know my mom and sister like them, yet they like the Twilight series too... so just goes to show how reliable their advice is

[Imma Be]

Of course there's excellent modern music and excellent modern literature. Just as a rule you're not going to find it on the radio or in the Bestsellers. Sometimes, but not very likely.

Especially music, music is thriving.

I agree with you on the fact that most good literature will not be found in a bestsellers list same goes with music. You need to do dig to find anything good.

In my English class we had a discussion about literarture and just books. If you can apply the rules of what lliterature really is (having more than one plot line running throughtout the book, the basic stuff that you can find in How to read Literature like a proffesor) then whatever you are reading is literature. However, I can apply most of those rules to Harry Potter whom I love and people still say it's not literature.

But anyways, Literature needs to have more than just a plotline and it has to be more than just a good read.

[Incorruptible]

Must... suppress... violent... urges...

Mature.

Do you have an argument? I'd love to hear it.

Rarely do I find truly great modern music, that if you were to point out to me something 'great', I'd probably love you for life.

It does leave you feeling a bit thirsty for blood...

Of course there's excellent modern music and excellent modern literature. Just as a rule you're not going to find it on the radio or in the Bestsellers. Sometimes, but not very likely.

Especially music, music is thriving.

Okay.

Although, nothing of today can compare to any of the sounds of the 50s and 60s, or even the 70s and 80s--my personal favourite era of music--just as no writing of today can compare to written works of the Victorian era, or works of the early 20th century. They're different times, so naturally they're going to be different. My argument is simply that the style of music from today really needs to take a page from that of past decades. Sure, music is growing, evolving, branching out, but is it, in doing so, taking a turn for the worse?

I've had this argument with so many of my friends that I'm actually quite bored with it, and nowhere near as passionate about it.

[Grumps]

Okay.

Although, nothing of today can compare to any of the sounds of the 50s and 60s, or even the 70s and 80s--my personal favourite era of music--just as no writing of today can compare to written works of the Victorian era, or works of the early 20th century. T

this is a subjective opinion that you're stating as fact. in fact thats pretty charitable. i dont believe that taste is entirely subjective, there is def bad taste. actually i think you are simply wrong. by what criteria do you deem everything in the past 20 years to be completely inferior? by merit of simply being created in those years? lots of artist do in fact have similar sounds to older music. there are truckloads of 70s throwback bands.

edit: 50s music is ****

Edited January 29, 2011 by Grumps

[Imma Be]

by what criteria do you deem everything in the past 20 years to be completely inferior?

most American music is horrible.

If you have ever had to listen to a bus full of people rap to a Little Wayne song, or a Taylor Swift song, or a Justin Beiber song you would know how I feel.

Music in other countries-in my opinion-is better. I for one can listen to Korean and Japanese music and feel joy and know that the world is not totaly empty of people with musical talent.

So anything I say is based purely on the stuff that i'm surrounded with in my community, city, state, region....

[Sandwich]

most American music is horrible.

If you have ever had to listen to a bus full of people rap to a Little Wayne song, or a Taylor Swift song, or a Justin Beiber song you would know how I feel.

Music in other countries-in my opinion-is better. I for one can listen to Korean and Japanese music and feel joy and know that the world is not totaly empty of people with musical talent.

So anything I say is based purely on the stuff that i'm surrounded with in my community, city, state, region....

Well yeah but that's mainstream trashy music and that's terrible almost everywhere. There was trashy mainstream crap back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's... blah. We remember it being better because we only bother listening to the good stuff still.

There's some truly awesome american music. Some of my favourite bands are american and current, though you'd never really hear them on the radio. At all. It seems sad to have a downer on music just because people on the bus listen to trashy stuff. If anything, that's why they invented headphones, so you didn't have to share in their horrific tastes. That's not specific to your state etc, it's specific to pretty much anywhere and everywhere and exaggerated by the tin-like speakers of chav-tastic mobile phones.

Same with literature. There's beautiful prose lyrical enough to shoot down any 'Victorian' authors, hands down (Amit Chaudhuri?), and people are still writing it. It's just the people on the bus don't read that kind of thing -- and I doubt many kids, no matter what era, were choosing Northanger Abbey (shudder) over their equivalent of Twilight.

I reject shaking-your-head-in-despair attitudes, because there's no need if you dig around a bit. It's still out there

[Grumps]

most American music is horrible.

If you have ever had to listen to a bus full of people rap to a Little Wayne song, or a Taylor Swift song, or a Justin Beiber song you would know how I feel.

Music in other countries-in my opinion-is better. I for one can listen to Korean and Japanese music and feel joy and know that the world is not totaly empty of people with musical talent.

So anything I say is based purely on the stuff that i'm surrounded with in my community, city, state, region....

most is entirely different from all. that is a humongous shift in what you have been saying. this post is far more reasonable than your previous ones, despite the fact that you base an entire country's last 30 years of music on three artists you hear on your bus.

this is also largely subjective of you. I was brought up on beatles and david bowie, i listen to hip stuff like the mountain goats and death cab for cutie. but i also like mainstream stuff like lights and i enjoy the occasional taylor swift or ke$ha. I have listened to a bus full of taylor swift and I dont mind. and like sandwich said its generally the most popular things you will hear on the radio and in public places- from what i gather youre probably not into the current trend of popular music (in america). im sure there are many songs you would enjoy if you didnt simply write off an entire thirty years of a mediums work as "trash"

actually i find it surprising that you would cast a positive blanket over asia. i do listen to a bit of their music (versaille or clazziquai project) however i find that in general their pop music is extremely shallow and insipid, i would even venture to say that it is often much weaker than american pop, with shallow bands like girls generation using their cuteness in an even more exploitative way than american stars often use their ****tiness.

actually id go as far as to say that most of any medium is awful. so i accept that statement entirely.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Grumps

[Proletariat]

Must... suppress... violent... urges...

Mature.

Do you have an argument? I'd love to hear it.

Rarely do I find truly great modern music, that if you were to point out to me something 'great', I'd probably love you for life.

It does leave you feeling a bit thirsty for blood...

Of course there's excellent modern music and excellent modern literature. Just as a rule you're not going to find it on the radio or in the Bestsellers. Sometimes, but not very likely.

Especially music, music is thriving.

Okay.

Although, nothing of today can compare to any of the sounds of the 50s and 60s, or even the 70s and 80s--my personal favourite era of music--just as no writing of today can compare to written works of the Victorian era, or works of the early 20th century. They're different times, so naturally they're going to be different. My argument is simply that the style of music from today really needs to take a page from that of past decades. Sure, music is growing, evolving, branching out, but is it, in doing so, taking a turn for the worse?

I've had this argument with so many of my friends that I'm actually quite bored with it, and nowhere near as passionate about it.

So, what you're saying is that we need to turn back the clock, then stagnate in our grandparent's lives for all of eternity. Pleasant. You go ahead, and the rest of the world can dig you up in a couple million years or so.

There is no such thing as a turn for the worst, because worst is subjective. It's such a dismal outlook on the world if you think that the best is in the past, and anything in the future is just one slow descend to- what? The sound of sticks on rocks? Where does your argument end?

Interestingly enough, Hitler made the same argument that you did. Just as you think 50s and 60s music were the epitome of what is "great", Hitler thought Classical/Romantic pieces were the high point of culture, and that jazz was "degenerate." And you simply cannot stagnate culture like that.

Stating 50s and 60s music were the best is just an opinion. I can equally say that I think Baroque was the best, and be just as justified as you are, because we are both entitled to our beliefs. We can debate the merits of both styles, but it's pointless in the end. That's probably the kind of arguments that you've had with your friends, and that's why you're bored with it. It's unimaginative. It's a dead end. You can't ever win, and you can't ever lose.

What you need to see is the bigger picture. That "good" and "bad" are subjective as a quality, and can be applied to pieces of music in any time period by different individuals. But the one thing that never changes in music - and all art forms - is the point of art itself. Art reflects universal human emotions/feelings, but the form and structure that it takes changes as society progresses. You, as a person, identify most strongly with the forms and structures present in the 50s, for whatever reason. That's fine. That's logical. Where your argument falls down is when you move away from a personal preference ("80s - my personal favourite era") to the assertion that all future music needs to be based on said personal preference ("music from today really needs to take a page from that of past decades.") Now, what you're saying is that the forms and structures of Art needs to stay the same, even as society progresses. At this point, you're arguing one of two things: either that Art structures should not be reflective of society, or that society shouldn't progress at all. Both are untenable positions. The forms and structures of Art must change with society, or else you would see all modern bands still composing for Harpsichords. And society must progress, because every time society has tried to resist it's been put out of its misery.

So you're welcome to try and make the argument. You just have to ignore history, reality and common sense to do it.

[Imma Be]

Well yeah but that's mainstream trashy music and that's terrible almost everywhere. There was trashy mainstream crap back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's... blah. We remember it being better because we only bother listening to the good stuff still.

There's some truly awesome american music. Some of my favourite bands are american and current, though you'd never really hear them on the radio. At all. It seems sad to have a downer on music just because people on the bus listen to trashy stuff. If anything, that's why they invented headphones, so you didn't have to share in their horrific tastes. That's not specific to your state etc, it's specific to pretty much anywhere and everywhere and exaggerated by the tin-like speakers of chav-tastic mobile phones.

Same with literature. There's beautiful prose lyrical enough to shoot down any 'Victorian' authors, hands down (Amit Chaudhuri?), and people are still writing it. It's just the people on the bus don't read that kind of thing -- and I doubt many kids, no matter what era, were choosing Northanger Abbey (shudder) over their equivalent of Twilight.

I reject shaking-your-head-in-despair attitudes, because there's no need if you dig around a bit. It's still out there

I like your reasonable answer. It is true that we can find some good stuff out there still, but the problem for me is that people have to dig for it. I wish that it could be more pronounced in our society. Same things for books I suppose

See (I want to kind of answer something about the original post) a vast majority of people have no idea who Ayn Rand is. But she has written some great books. But, I don’t consider her to be modern. Modern books, to me, are stuff like twilight.

I feel as if some of us don’t understand the difference between literature and just plain old books. Some books are good but if you even try to talk about them as literature they are horrible.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say. We have good music but for me when a person wants to talk about some real, good music it would be musicians like Seal, Lionel Richie, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix. To me, those things equal good music.

actually i find it surprising that you would cast a positive blanket over asia. i do listen to a bit of their music (versaille or clazziquai project) however i find that in general their pop music is extremely shallow and insipid, i would even venture to say that it is often much weaker than american pop, with shallow bands like girls generation using their cuteness in an even more exploitative way than american stars often use their ****tiness.

And Girls Generation is okay, their cuteness is a huge factor in what they market but there is more than just them out there. We are both making the same mistake in our generalities about things, I suppose.

plus there is more to Asia than just Japan and Korea, which are the only two places I stated.

Plus, their cuteness is just part of their style not all bands and groups do that.

also the bus thing was just an example. Try going to a school dance, a party, a mall anywhere without having to listen to honestly bad music. I would blare my own music in my ears but it's not everywhere you can do that. *shrugs* but it is what it is.

[Janz]

Quite honestly, Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, Orhan Pamuk's The White Castle, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as well as Salinger's Catcher in the Rye and Orwell's 1984 are top for me. I'm surprised I haven't seen some of these pop up.

Harry Potter, while I have only read books 1-6, seems alright literature for entertainment, but not an amazing achievement.

I have not even read Twilight or Eragon... Perhaps it is for my own good.

The Inheritance series (Eragon, Eldest etc.) are actually pretty good. But yeah, I have to agree that Twilight really bad.

[Guest]

Do you define Roald Dahl as modern? If so I'd say I like his works (can't help growing up with his books y'kno!)

I agree that Twilight is the worst series, and I haven't read Eragon. Probably don't want to read it either *compares its thickness with Twilight and then runs*

But if you study more than one language, you're gonna say that Malay books are probably the worst literature you've ever seen. Well, apart from a few really good poems from A. Samad Said, the rest of the books that the government forced us to read (yeah, I took the Malaysian system before I took IB) a lot of contemporary Malaysian literature and I think it's crap! The themes are too generic, it's always about a certain historical war that has happened but then adapted it to make it a happy ending, or it's always about perseverance in life. It ALWAYS seem to revolve around these two themes. I haven't bothered to dig deeper into reading but I'm pretty sure a few subterranean ones should be good.

[Guenther]

The books of the Millenium triology are way better than the movies are. I really adore Clockwork Orange and Freakonomics is pretty interesting / funny another good one is the diary of Anne Frank . I wouldnt recommend to read the latest of Jillian Hoffman

[rhaldud]

I can't nobody really said this yet... HARRY POTTER! Those books are literally the best books of all time.

The worst books, are no doubht, of the Twilight series... Seriously horrible. But I must admit to having read them... Luckily I have been spared the chance to watch the movies.

[Center Field]

Depends on what constitutes modernity.

Last thirty or so years? Definitly Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac Mccarthey. You have to have a very mature mind to read it (the pyschological effects are chilling).

The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, and A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole are all awesome as well. Ringworld by Larry Niven is pretty good.

If you are willing to go back as far as the thirties (The Hobbit, i think someone said), in that case I don't think I could choose just a small number of books!

For bad books...haha Twilight is hackneyed. Inheritance Cycle is good if you don't want to think and just want a fast read. Really almost anything you see in the Teen Romance section at bookstores is going to be trashy! That and there are A LOT of bad books in the Sci Fi section-just look at all the Star War's knockoffs!

[Bouquet of Black Roses]

House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski is by far one of the best books I've read recently (finished yesterday, actually...but after finishing it, how can one really say they're done?). As far as worst...I don't think we could argue against the Twilight series. :| Never got to read Eragon, but I have a friend who thought it was pretty good.

[snarker]

I have never heard of MacDonald, I'll check her out, but I think Atwood is waaay overrated. We are doing her poetry and I don't like her self-satisfied tone. Weird, I thought Oryx and Crake was boring and heavy-handed (i.e. Jimmy=Past vs Snowman=Present? Or the stuff about Crake being dead? Saw it from a mile away) and loved The English Patient. The intentional obtuseness and convolution is, well, intentional... and I think it fits perfectly with the story's topic and tone. Didn't like the movie so much...

Oryx and Crake = boring and heavy handed?! I loved Oryx and Crake I've read a reasonable amount of Margaret Atwood's stuff (admittedly not her poetry) and think that O&C is perhaps my favourite. I find her writing style very appealing -- very spare and easy to read. To be honest outside of English Lit lessons I've always felt epically untroubled by themes, plots etc. and so I suppose I mostly just pay attention to the style and how well the scene is painted. I got really caught up in every Atwood book I read and found their situations and psyches genuinely very interesting. It saddens me that you didn't like them so much!

I'd also agree that the English Patient is too obtuse. Better read as a remarkable and completely beautiful form of poetical-prose than as a novel. I actually found my attention wandering at points whilst reading it and I suppose I paid more attention to its composition than to the plot in the end Except for the revelatory bits, more or less anything could've been happening, in my opinion.

Also I finally read Steig Larsson's trilogy and all I can say is that I'm so gutted the poor guy died before writing more of them! Totally addictive and not beautifully but efficiently written (in translation, anyway). Couldn't put them down My only complaint is that every single character seems to be always drinking coffee...

That's a cultural thing- Swedes drink coffee all the time

Favorite book... tricky, tricky. Does Anne Rice count as modern? I do love her work. Or Naomi Novik. And Brian Jacques is awesome in my modest opinion. Hard to pick something that is terrible that hasn't been mentioned yet... I'll come up with something, I'm sure.

[pink panther]

Hm, I have to agree that Anne Rice is really nice, and if that counts as modern (which I believe it does), it would be one of my favorites. Also, I love Haruki Murakami, C.R.Zafon (his best novel The Shadow of the Wind) and... yeah, obviously Harry Potter was a success of our times.

Worst - Twilight, Marked (Hunted, Betrayed, etc.), Vampire diaries, and all the teenage-vampire-mania stuff. Horrible

[StSilver]

I read all four books in the Twilight series just so I could properly judge it instead of just blindly hating.

It seemed like she completely ran out of ideas to keep the series going. Suddenly in the 4th book half the vampires had superpowers? One could control the elements? What on Earth was that, it was like she was watching X-Men on tv when she was writing her book. What a pile of drivel.

[ninety]

I generally like to read classics so I don't read many modern books (except for non-fiction).

For me, the best of modern literature is probably the books by Haruki Murakami. My first book by Murakami was Kafka On the Shore, and when I first read it, it felt like NOTHING that I had read before. In a good way. I enjoyed it so much I went out to buy his other books.

As for bad literature - I'm not really sure. I have never dared to touch Twilight and Eragon and any other series that teenagers seem to like. I can't say they're bad because I've never read them. But watching the movie adaptation of Twilight has told me more about the series than I needed to know.

Also, I read Harry Potter when I was 10-11 years old. It was a brilliant series in the beginning but I think the story went downhill after the fourth book. I really anticipated the fifth book and I started reading it on the day it was out. I finished it in a week and was disappointed. I never read another HP book after that.

[Guest Soiboist]

It is very pleasuring reading everyone mentioning the Millennium Trilogy, and yet people say that Swedes can't be patriotic. I also like them, though I couldn't really stand Stig's obvious political message of socialism and feminism.

Eragon is indeed just crap, but as Paolini was 15 when he started writing it you can't despise him that much.