(untitled)

I was reading the thread questioning if literature was a defunct art form and some thoughts came to mind on the idea of the purpose, delivery and use of literature. Consider for a moment the nature of a democratic government. Ostensibly for and by the people, this is not often the case thanks to various forms of inequality, notably financial, but often as some other form of resource. Usually, democracies have some mechanism for speech and expression to enable information exchange and critique of those with power. This is the part I'd like to discuss. Almost 350 years ago, a playwright going by the name of Moliere made his name satirizing the powerful. At that time the powerful happened to be the clergy and thus when he died, several clergymen had to be approached before one was willing to perform the proper rites and rituals to put his soul at peace. Around the same time there was a writer going by the pen name of Voltaire who wrote satires so scathing that he had to flee the country because the King of France at the time ordered his arrest. Both writers benefitted from a time where there was little competition against the written word or the performed work. Still, for those who wonder at the value of literature, these authors and others highlight the last stronghold of literature: the use of literature to afflict the powerful. If we accept this idea, and I admit it's an arguable point, then it becomes a question of which powerful to afflict and the best medium through which to do so. That's another discussion in itself, but I wanted to get the ball rolling on the other ideas presented here. Donald Trump has been something of a boon to the book industry thanks to everyone trying to explain, boost, or undermine him. The poetry world seems to have been boosted by Instagram poets. YouTube seems to be the place for literature critique and analysis (such as it is). Perhaps literature in the classical sense just needs to evolve a bit to incorporate new venues of delivery? Once the media of delivery are decided upon, the question becomes how to land the most impact. There at least seem to be more things to distract a potential audience today than ever before. Can a single author create the intended result or would it take multiple authors sharing, critiquing and responding to each others work in a way that drums up interest (a sort of literary webring)? To have to same impact as in centuries past, what new tactics would have to be employed? Anyway, this post is already far too long. I'd be interested to read any discussion on these topics. If you've made it this far, thanks!

If a combination of prose and playwriting and poetry exists that produces some equivalent of the king in yellow, then no such finagling is necessary, it is simply a matter of iterating through all possible combinations of syllables fast enough to produce a copy of the king of yellow in polynomial time. If the king in yellow is produced, no further books or plays or poems need be written, as this singular work encompasses all one ever needs to know of all literature. It tells the only story ever to be told in the best way possible to tell it.

>>2974 Nothing will catch a publishers, or a readers attention better than madness and death. It will be the last work one ever needs to read. Because it will be the last work one ever reads.

Is it even possible to afflict the powerful through literature any more? Through what venue does literature influence culture and to what extent has social media, blogs and the like taken its place instead of just crowding it out?