The Industrial Revolution has changed the face of the modern novel forever. -
- Thread starter Lipitor
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
The REAL 14 words:
Henry Ford did nothing wrong.
Well, how do you define "the modern novel"? Because the Industrial Revolution isn't really what most people casually refer to as "modern." Also, there were multiple forms of novel which waxed and waned before and after the Industrial Revolution: the romance, the detective mystery (that got big in the latter half of the 19th century), the comedy of manners, etc.
But if you must argue that the Industrial Revolution changed the face of literature, you could point to the rise of working-class-centered narratives involving factory girls, mill workers, etc. Look at "North and South" for a prime example of a romantic novel that wouldn't have existed without the industrial aspect. The old romanticism of the near-pastoral peasant narrative ran smack up against the new world where you got hair ripped off by machines and died of phossy jaw, and the result was ... mixed, shall we say. Bosses replaced landlords and nobility as the villain oppressing the salt-of-the-earth working man, and the whole thing fostered class resentment.
Closer to the modern day, industrial means have given us cheap mass production, substantially increasing the amount of literature produced per year and creating the phenomenon of the disposable novel, chiefly found in the romance genre. Literary works are now so much junk, to be consumed and thrown away.
Or I could be lying, and you should just be Wikipedia'ing your homework assignment like every other eejit on the Internet.
But if you must argue that the Industrial Revolution changed the face of literature, you could point to the rise of working-class-centered narratives involving factory girls, mill workers, etc. Look at "North and South" for a prime example of a romantic novel that wouldn't have existed without the industrial aspect. The old romanticism of the near-pastoral peasant narrative ran smack up against the new world where you got hair ripped off by machines and died of phossy jaw, and the result was ... mixed, shall we say. Bosses replaced landlords and nobility as the villain oppressing the salt-of-the-earth working man, and the whole thing fostered class resentment.
Closer to the modern day, industrial means have given us cheap mass production, substantially increasing the amount of literature produced per year and creating the phenomenon of the disposable novel, chiefly found in the romance genre. Literary works are now so much junk, to be consumed and thrown away.
Or I could be lying, and you should just be Wikipedia'ing your homework assignment like every other eejit on the Internet.
All novels written since the invention of the cotton gin have been the output of clockwork monkeys wearing clockwork bowler hats.
It made Bibles cheaper I can tell you that!
so would you say.. that the lower rate of infant mortality rate resulted in more literate individuals ... and another aspect of that was an increased consumer-base for said authors? interested in your thoughts.
True. Prior to the Industrial Revolution when all societies were by necessity agrarian, farming was a 24-7 job and people didn't have time to do much reading, and most people couldn't even read the Bible. Combined with short lifespans, there weren't even that many novels written. But after society invented the separation of work and home life, free time became a thing. People all of a sudden had hours upon hours that they didn't need to spend working or praying, so people started to learn to read and turn to books for entertainment.
...I just wrote your essay, didn't I?
RadicalCentrist
kiwifarms.net
What? Stop. The average peasant had plenty of mandatory vacation time as well as the Sabbath. However books were incredibly expensive and public education was non-existent. They had plenty of free time they spent, usually, drunk on a scale we can hardly conceive of. "Most people couldn't even read the Bible" It was heretical for a Catholic layman to read the Bible. "Society invented the separation of work and home life" Jesus CHRIST this sentence. Before modern appliances, most of a poor family's work hours were spent doing house hold chores. And Christian religious duties did not include mandatory "hours of praying."
The printing press was developed hundreds of years ago and had nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution.
If anything the Industrial Revoultion introduced paper machines which allowed mass production of news and books from all types of stories.
Please let me know if I am missing your point, because it is strange.
If anything the Industrial Revoultion introduced paper machines which allowed mass production of news and books from all types of stories.
Please let me know if I am missing your point, because it is strange.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were any of you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read them. I award you all no points, and may God have mercy on your souls.
Last edited:
So what you are saying you have nothing to say. Congratulations.
Nigga the OP is from Billy Madison.
Not something I would tell people I watched. To each his own.
The only movie that he was great in was Punch-Drunk Love.
I’d say one of the most important impacts was the ease of movement brought by the railways. Characters were no longer limited to their locality. A relatively poor character could travel large distances in a short space of time.
Tolstoy was inspired to write Anna Karenina by the realisation that railways made coincidences more plausible, and coincidences are basically the driving force of all 19th century novels.
Tolstoy was inspired to write Anna Karenina by the realisation that railways made coincidences more plausible, and coincidences are basically the driving force of all 19th century novels.
The OP may be from Billy Madison, but we're on the verge of an actual discussion now.
Are you really surprised that a Kiwi Farms thread is going in directions it wasn't supposed to?I wouldn't say infant mortality had anything much to do with it. Infant mortality remained pretty horrendous up through the late 1800s, after all (Ignaz Semmelweis didn't even make his breakthrough until 1847), but people were having a shit-ton of kids to combat that, so a fair amount of literate individuals were still being produced. But the Industrial Revolution did include automation in printing processes as well, making books increasingly cheap and easy to obtain. With ease of availability came diversification and specialization.
It wasn't just books, either--from the 1700s onwards we see the rise of the news sheet, the debating society, the coffee-house culture, all fueled by the cheap availability of the printed word. Knowledge got less expensive to spread around. Indeed, many of the great English novels of the 19th century were originally serialized in weekly or monthly magazines, and only later issued as books.
Elwood P. Dowd
kiwifarms.net
Was mah nigga Sir Walter Scott the first person to earn his living entirely by writing novels? Or did some filthy Frenchie beat him to that honor?
Similar threads
Or, the tenure-troonure pipeline
He predicted the populist revolt back in early 2016 with this