I dunno. I did not grow up in a culture where novels were read and discussed. People watched TV. My mum complained that I owned too many books. And this was the 80s.
I think some people’s perception of the importance of high culture outside certain social milieu may be a bit wonky.
We have already lost certain cultural forms. A thousand years ago it was all epic poetry. Who mourns the dactylic hexameter? I don’t think the novel will disappear next week. But many people live their lives without novels.
And new cultural forms emerge. Culture goes through cycles of creative destruction as much as economies (or ecosystems) do. But humans gonna culture.
I think for some literati, the world is forever 1991.
I’d say the counterargument here is that even in those “rarefied milieus”, the medium is dying. Novels/literature are fading in academia and we’re seeing fewer and fewer people pursue studies in literature as well as decreasing literacy overall.
Sensationalized as it may be, that viral Atlantic piece really was getting at something—novels aren’t just decaying as a hobby, they’re not even being appreciated by students would should be more than capable of analyzing them.
I know it’s always cool to say that “nothing changes and the youth today are no different”, using those quotes of people saying “the printing press would corrupt” or whatever, but I truly think phones/the internet are different—especially since the generation USING them are the ones complaining. It’s not like TV where parents hated it but kids felt unaffected, in my opinion.
The ability to read long form written content (of which a novel is but one example) is an important skill. It’s a skill we should not abandon but we should not confuse a specific literary form (the novel) with literacy as a whole and we should base our efforts on evidence.
I am not convinced that the Anglophone literary establish have either the skills or the impartiality to do this effectively.
So let me get your argument clear: Unless people start reading more novels, our cultures will collapse as violently as the Western Roman Empire in the next couple of years.
The three examples you mention are all very different but I feel like we’re getting off-topic.
Sure, but there are also centuries of acme and centuries of decline. There's the Golden Era of Pericles and the centuries of decline of Athens and the Greek city states.
There's the height of the Roman Empire, and the Decline of Rome bringing about centuries of massive cultural (and economic and infrastructural) losses.
There's a couple of centuries of Britain as a major global cultural and economic power, and post 1945 Britain as a declined backwater useful mainly as a center for financial exchanges.
Neither the universe, nor History promises to maintain some "win some, lose some" balance. It's up to us to keep it up or lose it.
>I think some people’s perception of the importance of high culture outside certain social milieu may be a bit wonky.
The idea that high culture needs to extend to all milieus and be consumed by a majority to be important (both important in itself, and also important in its role in the general cultural and social life) is also wonky.
A huge part of "mass culture", including TV, is downstream/distilled/etc versions of high culture, and of things originating in high culture after a time delay.
But that aside, the high-culture group also disproportionally affects norms, culture, politics, etc, in the same way that laws are made by a tiny minority but affect everybody, even if they don't write laws, work in that domain, or even care about it.
> We have already lost certain cultural forms. A thousand years ago it was all epic poetry. Who mourns the dactylic hexameter?
Why, people that understand its importance of course! Besides, until quite historically recently (early 20th century) it was still taught to academic graduates (and in most of Europe even to high schoolers). The educated studied the classics for millenia.
I don't think replacing classical education with various bogus "studies" improved our culture, quite the contrary. Not that good of a development for our appreciation of our own cultural heritage, our self respect, the level of discourse, our understanding of history, and many other things besides.
“A huge part of "mass culture", including TV, is downstream/distilled/etc versions of high culture, and of things originating in high culture after a time delay.”
It’s cross-town traffic not a fountain (or a golden shower). High culture picks up elements of low culture. Composers “borrow” folk music. Writers use the work of pamphleteers and storytellers. Creators tend to be promiscuous in their use of sources.
“and in most of Europe even to high schoolers”
I can guarantee that I am the first person in my family’s history to know what the f- a dactylic hexameter is (as well as to be able to calculate a CAGR). My dad came out of school in the 50s barely able to read and write.
“The educated studied the classics for millenia”
The most famous classicist in the UK is Boris Johnson. I’m not sure that this is great evidence for your argument.
“I don't think replacing classical education with various bogus "studies" improved our culture, quite the contrary”
I think being able to write poetry in Ancient Greek is about a useful as being able to deconstruct the semiotics of Starsky & Hutch.
I think basic literacy and numeracy are important. Some knowledge of engineering and finance would be a bonus. Everything else? Sure…
It's exactly right to say Katherine's essay is descriptive, not prescriptive. Ted is a brilliant guy, a great writer, and I'm surprised he missed this. Of course an inevitable background elegiac feeling suffuses her work, but it doesn't help us to spend too long looking backward.
Fair point, but in this case Ted was explicit about criticizing the piece for seeming to accept the situation in a celebratory light. I understand being upset about this seismic change in culture, I certainly am, but there was an element of "shooting the messenger" in some replies to Katherine and I didn't agree with that. It's good to receive an informed perspective on bad news.
are u sure u understand McLuhan here? isnt it less suspension and more does not compute. hes brushing up against the limits of speech like Wittgenstein or davidson talk about. its nonsense to condemn your house as evil, when u cant get perspective on it. you can talk about this or that piece of furniture needing to go. but to condemn the whole is non-sense. it cannot be meaningfully spoken. its this sort of thing wittgenstein hones in on in "on certainty"
Good post! I agree with the need to suspend judgement to better understand that which one wants to judge, but I don’t think a deeper understanding of new cultural forms would do much to change the minds of those wedded to a narrative of cultural stagnation or decline. I think the deeper question is: what is culture for? If culture is merely a vehicle for self-expression, a platform such as TikTok should be celebrated for making it easier than ever for ordinary people to participate in cultural trends. But if culture is supposed to inspire us to strive towards higher (even transcendent) goals, the inherent limitations of the medium become more significant.
I dunno. I did not grow up in a culture where novels were read and discussed. People watched TV. My mum complained that I owned too many books. And this was the 80s.
I think some people’s perception of the importance of high culture outside certain social milieu may be a bit wonky.
We have already lost certain cultural forms. A thousand years ago it was all epic poetry. Who mourns the dactylic hexameter? I don’t think the novel will disappear next week. But many people live their lives without novels.
And new cultural forms emerge. Culture goes through cycles of creative destruction as much as economies (or ecosystems) do. But humans gonna culture.
I think for some literati, the world is forever 1991.
I’d say the counterargument here is that even in those “rarefied milieus”, the medium is dying. Novels/literature are fading in academia and we’re seeing fewer and fewer people pursue studies in literature as well as decreasing literacy overall.
Sensationalized as it may be, that viral Atlantic piece really was getting at something—novels aren’t just decaying as a hobby, they’re not even being appreciated by students would should be more than capable of analyzing them.
I know it’s always cool to say that “nothing changes and the youth today are no different”, using those quotes of people saying “the printing press would corrupt” or whatever, but I truly think phones/the internet are different—especially since the generation USING them are the ones complaining. It’s not like TV where parents hated it but kids felt unaffected, in my opinion.
It is not the case that nothing ever changes.
But let me come back at these points:
- I am not convinced that a reduction in the number of literature students is a societal catastrophe. Except for literature professors.
- Nor is the decline of the novel a catastrophic event. Except for novelists.
- Declining literacy is a problem (as is declining numeracy). Smartphones are a part of this - and some countries manage this better than others: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/05/managing-screen-time_023f2390/7c225af4-en.pdf
- But smartphones are not the only issue impacting literacy and numeracy.
And if we look at wider patterns of literacy, it is the old who tend not to read books (as well as the rural and the uneducated): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/
The ability to read long form written content (of which a novel is but one example) is an important skill. It’s a skill we should not abandon but we should not confuse a specific literary form (the novel) with literacy as a whole and we should base our efforts on evidence.
I am not convinced that the Anglophone literary establish have either the skills or the impartiality to do this effectively.
So let me get your argument clear: Unless people start reading more novels, our cultures will collapse as violently as the Western Roman Empire in the next couple of years.
The three examples you mention are all very different but I feel like we’re getting off-topic.
> It is not the case that nothing ever changes.
Is it the case that things change for the better, and anything new is as good as anything before it?
Generally things are gained and things are lost. Culture is not a museum or a cryogenic freezing unit.
Sure, but there are also centuries of acme and centuries of decline. There's the Golden Era of Pericles and the centuries of decline of Athens and the Greek city states.
There's the height of the Roman Empire, and the Decline of Rome bringing about centuries of massive cultural (and economic and infrastructural) losses.
There's a couple of centuries of Britain as a major global cultural and economic power, and post 1945 Britain as a declined backwater useful mainly as a center for financial exchanges.
Neither the universe, nor History promises to maintain some "win some, lose some" balance. It's up to us to keep it up or lose it.
>I think some people’s perception of the importance of high culture outside certain social milieu may be a bit wonky.
The idea that high culture needs to extend to all milieus and be consumed by a majority to be important (both important in itself, and also important in its role in the general cultural and social life) is also wonky.
A huge part of "mass culture", including TV, is downstream/distilled/etc versions of high culture, and of things originating in high culture after a time delay.
But that aside, the high-culture group also disproportionally affects norms, culture, politics, etc, in the same way that laws are made by a tiny minority but affect everybody, even if they don't write laws, work in that domain, or even care about it.
> We have already lost certain cultural forms. A thousand years ago it was all epic poetry. Who mourns the dactylic hexameter?
Why, people that understand its importance of course! Besides, until quite historically recently (early 20th century) it was still taught to academic graduates (and in most of Europe even to high schoolers). The educated studied the classics for millenia.
I don't think replacing classical education with various bogus "studies" improved our culture, quite the contrary. Not that good of a development for our appreciation of our own cultural heritage, our self respect, the level of discourse, our understanding of history, and many other things besides.
“A huge part of "mass culture", including TV, is downstream/distilled/etc versions of high culture, and of things originating in high culture after a time delay.”
It’s cross-town traffic not a fountain (or a golden shower). High culture picks up elements of low culture. Composers “borrow” folk music. Writers use the work of pamphleteers and storytellers. Creators tend to be promiscuous in their use of sources.
“and in most of Europe even to high schoolers”
I can guarantee that I am the first person in my family’s history to know what the f- a dactylic hexameter is (as well as to be able to calculate a CAGR). My dad came out of school in the 50s barely able to read and write.
“The educated studied the classics for millenia”
The most famous classicist in the UK is Boris Johnson. I’m not sure that this is great evidence for your argument.
“I don't think replacing classical education with various bogus "studies" improved our culture, quite the contrary”
I think being able to write poetry in Ancient Greek is about a useful as being able to deconstruct the semiotics of Starsky & Hutch.
I think basic literacy and numeracy are important. Some knowledge of engineering and finance would be a bonus. Everything else? Sure…
It's exactly right to say Katherine's essay is descriptive, not prescriptive. Ted is a brilliant guy, a great writer, and I'm surprised he missed this. Of course an inevitable background elegiac feeling suffuses her work, but it doesn't help us to spend too long looking backward.
Being descriptive when faced with a bad development as if it's neutral or we just have to "wait and see" is already problematic.
It's not that Ted didn't caught that, perhaps, but more that he doesn't agree that being descriptive is the right choice in this case.
Fair point, but in this case Ted was explicit about criticizing the piece for seeming to accept the situation in a celebratory light. I understand being upset about this seismic change in culture, I certainly am, but there was an element of "shooting the messenger" in some replies to Katherine and I didn't agree with that. It's good to receive an informed perspective on bad news.
are u sure u understand McLuhan here? isnt it less suspension and more does not compute. hes brushing up against the limits of speech like Wittgenstein or davidson talk about. its nonsense to condemn your house as evil, when u cant get perspective on it. you can talk about this or that piece of furniture needing to go. but to condemn the whole is non-sense. it cannot be meaningfully spoken. its this sort of thing wittgenstein hones in on in "on certainty"
loved the debate reference, great post!
Good post! I agree with the need to suspend judgement to better understand that which one wants to judge, but I don’t think a deeper understanding of new cultural forms would do much to change the minds of those wedded to a narrative of cultural stagnation or decline. I think the deeper question is: what is culture for? If culture is merely a vehicle for self-expression, a platform such as TikTok should be celebrated for making it easier than ever for ordinary people to participate in cultural trends. But if culture is supposed to inspire us to strive towards higher (even transcendent) goals, the inherent limitations of the medium become more significant.