u/Smuulie

Literary discussions online often tend to be very anglo-centric, which means that most books tend to be by American, british or irish authors. There are some exceptions of course, like the 19th century european classics. But in general it is quite anglophone.

But the world of literature is so much wider and deeper! So I thought that we can list some books and authors that we think deserve more attention. Positive if they are available in translation.

The works of Robert Walser

An idiosyncratic Swiss writer, who has often been compared to Kafka. This is not entirely accurate, since had more of an childlike innocence than Kafka. He was greatly appreciated by Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, and deserves to be ranked among the literary greats imo.

Insatiability by Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz

A dystopian polish novel about a world threatened by totalitarianism. A mysterious pill removes people’s anxiety and individuality, making them easier to control. It combines dark humor, philosophy, and political satire, and was the basis for one of the chapters in Czeslaw Milosz Captive Minds.

Kalpa Imperial by Angelica Gorodischer

A magical realist collection of short stories, that compose a type of chronicle of the imaginary Kalpa Empire. It is like Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities combined with Jorge Luis Borges's metafictional fantasies.

Gogol's Wife & Other Stories by Tomasso Landolfi.

Landolfi was a wonderfully absurdist Italian author with an excellent sense of comedy. The eponymous story Gogol's Wife is one of my favorite short stories, very funny. But his stories often have a dark side too, which creates an interesting effect. I have never read anything quite like Landolfi.

I have come across this idea quite often in discussions about literature both online and IRL. That men "refuse" to read books written by women, with female characters, whereas women read male authors.

Do you think this is accurate? If so, why is it so?

I can only speak for myself. Personally I, as a male reader, love plenty of female authors who write about female characters. Whether that is Rosario Castellanos, Elfriede Jelinek, Silvina Ocampo, Marguerite Yourcenar, Clarice Lispector, or Dubravka Ugresic, Hertha Müller, Elsa Morante or Angelica Gorodischer. These are, however, almost exclusively modern classics.

When it comes to more contemporary literature written by mainstream female authors, like Sally Rooney, Yaa Gyasi, R F Kuang, Claire Keegan, Jenny Erpenbeck or Ottessa Moshfegh, I often find it mind-numbingly boring. It is too neurotic, detached/ironic, blasé and often weak plotting.

The same goes for classics like Jane Austen and the Brontës.

So may it just be a question of theme, language, plot etc or is it more of a "systemic bias"?. What do you think?

I have come across this idea quite often in discussions about literature both online and IRL. That men "refuse" to books written by women, with female characters, whereas women read male authors.

Do you think this is accurate? If so, why is it so?

I can only speak for myself. Personally I, as a male reader, love plenty of female authors who write about female characters. Whether that is Rosario Castellanos, Elfriede Jelinek, Silvina Ocampo, Marguerite Yourcenar, Clarice Lispector, or Dubravka Ugresic, Hertha Müller, Elsa Morante or Angelica Gorodischer. These are, however, almost exclusively modern classics.

When it comes to more contemporary literature written by mainstream female authors, like Sally Rooney, Yaa Gyasi, R F Kuang, Claire Keegan, Jenny Erpenbeck or Ottessa Moshfegh, I often find it mind-numbingly boring. It is too neurotic, detached/ironic, blasé and often weak plotting.

The same goes for classics like Jane Austen and the Brontës.

So may it just be a question of theme, language, plot etc or is it more of a "systemic bias"?. What do you think?

Är nyfiken på om det finns några verkliga Liberaler kvar idag? Finns det några i den här gruppen? Vad tänker i isåfall om partiet idag, och dess vägval framåt? Hur ser ni på ert egna politiska engagemang?

Jag syftar då specifikt på liberalt sinnade personer som har röstat på, eller varit medlem i, partiet Liberalerna.

Såhär i valtider hör jag ofta folk prata föraktfullt om att människor bara blir politiker för att tjäna mycket pengar, och utmålar detta som ett stort samhällsproblem. Men enligt mig säger det mer om de här människornas egen världsbild, och vad som motiverar dem, än om politiker.

Det finns säkert rena karriärister bland politiker också, men Sverige har runt 40 000 förtroendevalda, varav bara något hundratal uppbär lön för en heltidstjänst. Och då handlar det i första hand om rikdagsledamöter, regionråd och kommunstyrelsens ordförande.

Resten engagerar sig idellt på fritiden - varav många är pensionärer - och får kanske något mindre arvode för förlorad arbetsinkomst om deras nämnd har sammanträde under arbetstid. Men det är kanske 500 kr för ett tillfälle. Knappast storkovan va?

Så jag undrar var den här föreställningen egentligen kommer från.

I want to open up a broad discussion on this topic. Among educators, librarians and readers more generally I often hear this sentiment that it doesn't matter what people read. That they read anything at all is good per se, because reading improves your compassion, ability to imagine what what it is like to be somebody else, thinking capability, vocabulary or what have you.

Say that you participate in "reading challenges" where the goal is to read as many books as possible as fast as possible; or that you skim sections of the book. Say that you only read pulp, genre fiction or self-help books.

The "nutritional value" of that is neglible. You might as well argue that reading can instill delusional beliefs, misinformation, self-absorption etc. I can read a bunch of poorly argued books about, say, conspiracy theories, or sloppy soft porn.

Enjoyable? Sure, depending on your taste. Is it "intrinsically good" for you? Meh.

Edit

Removed the analogy of eating, because it was misconstrued and distracted from the argument.

If an autocratic government commits heinous acts (whether that is war, genocide, infringements on rights etc) the citizens of said country can usually distance themselves from it, by claiming that they have no possibility to influence what their government does.

A democracy, on the other hand, is at least supposed to be representative of the people, it's leaders are popularly elected, and the franchise hinges on the idea that each citizen has an equal stake in their country.

In the latter case, decisions to start wars etc are not just viewed as the choice of a narrow circle around the head of state and the generals, but of a majority of the people in said country.

Whether this is fair or accurate is another issue, but I think this is how it is often perceived. Not least in our hyper-medialized age.

What do you think?

Hi!

Swede here. I posted this in r/AskAnAmerican but it was removed. Idk if it was due to the way I phrased the question, but it is a genuine question.

Whenever a european complains that Americans tend to treat Europe as a homogenous area, the answer is often that the US too is an incredibly diverse country, where the differences between US states are comparable to the differences between entire european countries.

Having visited the US a few times, my question is: is this statement actually genuine?

Because to me it is obvious that the differences between, say, Colorado and Mississippi, is in no way comparable to the differences between Bosnia and Norway, or Latvia and Portugal.

Hi! Swede here.

I posed this in r/AskAmericans, but it was removed without good reason. Idk if that was because of the way I phrased it, but it is a genuine question.

Whenever a european complains that Americans tend to treat Europe as a homogenous area, the answer is often that the US too is an incredibly diverse country, where the differences between US states are comparable to the differences between countries.

But having visited the US a few times, I wonder if is this actually a genuine belief?

I want to preface this by saying that I do not really read contemporary literature, so take my generalizations with a grain of salt.

I also ask you to not interpret this in bad faith.

It seems to me that a very popular genre among women today, and especially young women, is dark romance. Now, this sounds innocent enough, with words like "spicy" and "smutty" used to describe them.

BUT having read excerpts of some of these I can only say...wtf. I mean, some of this stuff (like Haunting Adeline) would make Marquis de Sade clutch his pearls.

Now, considering the strong criticism against depictions of SA and r*ape in fiction, I am a bit perplexed. Because some of these books seem to revel in it, almost fetichizing it.

What do you think makes these books so popular among women? I have seen some commentors say that it is about maintaining a feeling of control if the worst of the worst would happen. But I do not find this entirely convincing.

I am also perfectly aware that entertaining a fantasy is not the same as wanting to actually enact it. But since depictions of SA in fiction/movies has been criticized harshly per se for normalizing or spreading harmful norms and ideas in society, I find myself wondering why dark romance would be exempt from that critique?

Why should, say, the gruesome r*pe scene in Gaspar Noé's movie Irreversible (2002) be criticized then, since that can also be dismissed as pure fiction and not an expression of a genuine desire to cause harm?

I want to preface this by saying that I do not really read contemporary literature, so take my generalizations with a grain of salt.

I also ask you to not interpret this in bad faith.

It seems to me that a very popular genre among women today, and especially young women, is dark romance. Now, this sounds innocent enough, with words like "spicy" and "smutty" used to describe them.

BUT having read excerpts of some of these I can only say...wtf. I mean, some of this stuff (like Haunting Adeline) would make Marquis de Sade clutch his pearls.

Now, considering the strong criticism against depictions of SA and r*ape in fiction, I am a bit perplexed. Because some of these books seem to revel in it, almost fetichizing it.

What do you think makes these books so popular among women? I have seen some commentors say that it is about maintaining a feeling of control if the worst of the worst would happen. But I do not find this entirely convincing.

I am also perfectly aware that entertaining a fantasy is not the same as wanting to actually enact it. But since depictions of SA in fiction/movies has been criticized harshly per se for normalizing or spreading harmful norms and ideas in society, I find myself wondering why dark romance would be exempt from that critique?

Why should, say, the gruesome r*pe scene in Gaspar Noé's movie Irreversible (2002) be criticized then, since that can also be dismissed as pure fiction and not an expression of a genuine desire to cause harm?

A few days ago, user u/Sampleswift asked why the Aeneid doesn't get nearly as much attention as the Iliad or the Odyssey.

I'd like to give my two cents, which I didn't see in the comments, and to hear your opinions. Especially from the classical scholars or literary historians among you, since I am but speculating.

The Aeneid was the preeminent epic poem until the mid-19th century, alongside the Iliad, whereas the Odyssey was more neglected. The reason for its waning status since then comes down to two basic factors according to me.

1. The fall of the British empire. Since the Brits considered themselves successors of the Roman Empire, the study of Latin - where the Aeneid played an important role - had a privileged position in the official curriculum. Especially among the Eton College-educated elites.
2. The world wars and the fascist and nazi regimes which deliberately used roman imagery and considered themselves the embodiments of the roman virtues (celebrated by Vergil in his poem).

These events led to significant parts of the canon being reevaluated. Especially works which were considered to celebrate or glorify war, conquest, nationalism or empire. The Aeneid - which was specifically commissioned to legitimize Augustus as emperor of Rome - was considered a culprit, and thereby become more marginalized. Add to this the declining knowledge of Latin - and the closing of classical departments - and I think we have our answer.

Or what do you say?

I have noticed that people tend to criticize readers for not having "diverse enough" libraries. For example: men for not reading enough books by female or minority authors. Personally, I don't see why the identity of the author should matter. Also, quantity does not equate to quality. Personally, I (Male) confess that my collection skews male. But some of my absolute favorite writers are female authors like Clarice Lispector, Marguerite Yourcenar, Christa Wolf, Anna Seghers, Hertha Müller, Dubravka Ugresic, Efriede Jelinek etc. My assumption is that these are unknown to most (altough Lispector is becoming more well-known).

I do not, however, like the Brontës or Jane Austen, or more contemporary authors like Sally Rooney and Ottessa Moshfegh. This has nothing to do with gender however, but with language, subject-matter, characters etc.

What is your take?

For context: i speak english as a second language, and I am now reading Shakespeare's King Lear (First Folio edition, 1623).

Not gonna lie, I am struggling a bit with the archaic language and convulated syntax, but with some effort it is perfectly comprehensible. I love his poetic metaphors.

Now, with the current discourse around falling literacy rates, I find myself wondering: do native english speakers (high school students/university students) still understand Shakespeare?

Edit Wow this thread gained much more attention than I had anticipated 😅. Thank you for your input! Just to clarify: i am well aware of the differences between Elizabethan english and the contemporary idiom. My question pertained more to whether it is still comprehensible to native speakers in spite of this. Secondly: I wish I could see Shakespeare on stage! But alas! I live in a remote part of Sweden without access to professional stage performances. I also really enjoy READING "the bard." The language is simply fantastic, and I like imagining the scenes for myself.

Hej!

Jag har nyligen blivit utsedd till utredare för en nybildad tankesmedja (Nova Norr) med fokus på Norrbotten och Västerbotten. Vi har bl.a LO, ABF och Folkhögskolor som huvudmän.

Vi har i uppdrag att utforska frågor som handlar om arbetsmarknad, kompetensförsörjning, teknisk utveckling m.m, men är ganska fria i att välja ämnen.

Så min fråga - i huvudsak till er som är bosatta i, jobbar i, eller kommer från Norr- och Västerbotten - vilka frågor tycker ni att vi borde fördjupa oss i?