Does litterature still evolve?

[Kasper Hviid]

Is a novel written i 2015 in any way different from a novel written in, say, 1965? I have noticed that modern novels has mobile phones in them, but are there other changes?
It's old news that whodunnits aims for social realism. Cyberpunk is rather vintage too. So what's new, if any?

[Quexos]

I suppose style evolves with the new generations, also on average there seems to be less censorship in literature now than there was before.
If say, J.D. Salinger had written The Catcher in the Rye now, it would probably contain certain words he did not dare write back when he did his book and it is too bad he did not dare because it would have made his character Holden Caulfield all the more realistic.
I mean the kid was all rebellious and stuff and he doesn't once say the F word, come on!

Hopefully forums will evolve in the same manner and 50 years in the future people will be able to use any words without being censored.

[crich70]

I think it is. different styles are used today than 100 yrs ago for example. By the way Literature has 2 t's not 3.

[pidgeon92]

I figured when the OP said "litterature" they were talking about Fifty Shades of Gray.

[GERGE]

Slipstream?

[Kasper Hviid]

Heh, it's actually 'litteratur' in danish - guess I got it mixed up!

Here's what I can come up with of (relative) new use of the written word:
Flash Fiction
Slash Fiction
Text adventures
Depresion Quest
Visual Novels

[crich70]

Ah I see. I didn't know that. Very interesting. Flash Fiction itself isn't new. It's been around for a long time. The name might be fairly new though.

[Lin2412]

True, besides the technology and the lessened censorship, the things that are deemed important to society has a different pattern compared to before. Even if I don't usually utter profanities or f bombs, I don't mind reading them in books (or overhearing it in personal communication).

[Nancy Fulda]

On the whole, novels tend to devote less words to description than they did a hundred years ago.

I've always assumed this was related to the widespread use of photography and film. Once upon a time, the average reader had never traveled or even seen photographs of distant parts of the world. Now, all you have to do is say "downtown Tokyo" and everyone already has a mental image.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

On the whole, novels tend to devote less words to description than they did a hundred years ago.

I've always assumed this was related to the widespread use of photography and film. Once upon a time, the average reader had never traveled or even seen photographs of distant parts of the world. Now, all you have to do is say "downtown Tokyo" and everyone already has a mental image.

This is one big pet peeve with me is how less and less descriptions are being made into books. Not everyone knows locations and I love to read about places through others eyes. Paint me a picture with your words. I am finding more and more authors writing becoming more simple and less polished. It reminds me of books a middle school kid would read for fun.

I have no idea what Downtown Tokyo looks like. I could Google it but what if I am reading a book where I have no WiFi. I know of one author going back and re-editing her books to remove descriptions just for the reason you said before releasing her backlist. I for one was very disappointed and have no plans to buy her backlist now.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Blossom

This is one big pet peeve with me is how less and less descriptions are being made into books. Not everyone knows locations and I love to read about places through others eyes. Paint me a picture with your words. I am finding more and more authors writing becoming more simple and less polished. It reminds me of books a middle school kid would read for fun.

I have no idea what Downtown Tokyo looks like. I could Google it but what if I am reading a book where I have no WiFi. I know of one author going back and re-editing her books to remove descriptions just for the reason you said before releasing her backlist. I for one was very disappointed and have no plans to buy her backlist now.

Wait for the movie to come out?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

On the whole, novels tend to devote less words to description than they did a hundred years ago.

I've always assumed this was related to the widespread use of photography and film. Once upon a time, the average reader had never traveled or even seen photographs of distant parts of the world. Now, all you have to do is say "downtown Tokyo" and everyone already has a mental image.

You don't even have to go back that far. It seems to me that even in the last 20 or 30 years there has been a big emphasis on "keep it moving"; books aren't allowed to dally around setting up scenes and characters. For a long time the all-action approach to story writing was considered a bit cheap and trashy, but now it is the norm, and those writing slower paced stories are considered unusual. There are a great many classics, that many still enjoy, that would have trouble finding a publisher these days.

Movies and photography may have reduced the need for description, but I have my doubts if that is a cause of the change. I think all media has been evolving along these lines - cutting things back to the lowest common denominator in attention spans. That sounds more derogatory than I really mean, fast paced stuff can be a lot of fun, but the commercial side of things keeps pushing things further that way so that much that could be very good (movies, books, whatever) never sees the light of day because it's not fast enough.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

On the whole, novels tend to devote less words to description than they did a hundred years ago.

I've always assumed this was related to the widespread use of photography and film. Once upon a time, the average reader had never traveled or even seen photographs of distant parts of the world. Now, all you have to do is say "downtown Tokyo" and everyone already has a mental image.

At least in literature aimed at kids, a lot of simplification has to do with television. When the Hardy Boys books were rewritten, for example, in the late 50's/early 60's, in addition to removing racist bits and anachronisms (running boards, etc.), the books were also simplified quite a bit.

Simplification, of course, includes a lot more than descriptions...and I don't think that the books were ever really known for their descriptions even in the old days.

"Behold Bayport, Frank!" Joe Hardy said as he drove the black Dodge down the familiar coastal road to their home, "the sky, it seems, would pour down stinking pitch, but that the sea, mounting to the welkin’s cheek, dashes the fire out."

[Ghitulescu]

Literature publishing is exactly what the name says a business.

When an art is overridden by business, it ceases to be an art and it's business. Like Frenchmen says A drop of pee in a barrel of wine ...

[Penforhire]

As gmw noted, I see a huge change in pacing in thriller novels of the last 40 years or so. When I read older books, for example "The Day of the Jackal" from 1971, I am often struck by how much slower they are. Aside from sparser descriptions, modern writing drops us into the action.

When I look at SF, good modern works use much better characterizations than classic 1950's and 1960's stories. The genre is no longer ashamed of itself. More stories are character driven.

Some genres evolve strong subgenres that did not really stand alone before. I am thinking of urban fantasy (e.g. The War for the Oaks or The Hollows series) and cyberpunk SF (e.g. Neuromancer or Snow Crash).