I don't think I can fully agree with this. What the reader gets out of the piece depends on many factors, including experience and a willingness to engage the material. Given the subjectivity of literature, I don't think we can call works from one time period more educational than works from another period. I'm sure there are readers who've learned a great deal from Harry Potter, for example. This is, of course, just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. (The best conversations often come from disagreements.) I agree that the modern reader is different from the reader 100 years ago. With the invention of the radio, TV, internet, etc., the way we think about and read literature has changed. I don't know if I'm willing to go as far as to say that the modern reader prefers certain things over others, but there's certainly a difference in, say, the type of conflict found in 19th century literature and contemporary literature.
Nothing I say is meant as a hard fast absolute. I wasn't so much stressing what readers will take away as much as how the takeaways are presented in the literature. I may not be the best one to explain this, although It may make fun, if not interesting, research topic in the future: the evolution of literary style (or something to that effect). Not that it hasn't been done, but who knows what I might find and learn in the process. I'm a lit major, after all. It's funny that you mention Harry Potter, as I believe I mentioned that series in my following post. In fact, I mentioned it as well as The Hunger Games and To Kill a Mockingbird as examples of how more modern lit. can, and often is, pretty intelligent, carrying varying levels of intellectual value. The argument, though is that how the readers experience the themes and ideas--more appropriately, how writers present them-- has changed to be more character- and story-driven. That is not to imply that older pieces weren't only that they had more time and space for narrative speculation, as I call it. From my experience, older literature tends to be a bit more explicit about the ideas, occasionally having characters do the actual contemplation, often leaving readers to ponder on further implications. Contrarily, modern/contemporary lit. tends to coax readers in the direction of it's themes, allowing readers to reach more conclusions on their own. Of course I am totally open to corrections and counterarguments.
Can you provide any specific examples? I'm not sure I buy your argument that there's something intrinsic in literary technique/style or in the way writers handle ideas that leads to the things you mention in your post. But I'm willing to be persuaded.
Consider the titles I've mentioned in my previous posts. They may not be the most convincing, or perhaps you meant you'd like a textual example, but I don't have the time to dig for a couple of good one. Sorry Although, I think perhaps you're reading more concretely into this than I had intended. I was speaking in generalities, not absolutes. I was speaking on things I've noticed and discussed with my professors. If I had the time and determination, I'm sure I cold build a solid paper around this discussion.
Actually, now that I think about it, I find myself agreeing with you a bit more than I did before. Literature has become more abstract in modern times. There are a variety reasons for this, which I won't get into, but I do think this is the case. So, like you said, the message is sometimes buried deep within the piece. Of course, the reason why older pieces may seem more accessible is that they have been studied and discussed a lot; there are tons of resources available in the form of essays, journal articles, blogs, etc. Newer works/writers don't enjoy the same kind of privilege.
Sorry my reply's taken so long. I've been pretty busy. Still hunting for a job, you know ha ha. I'm also trying to stay on my reading schedule so I can get through all of my books. Anyway, you don't have to agree with me ha ha. I like that you mention how much older works have been discussed. That may very well be why their themes and messages are more easily accessible. It doesn't take many key strokes to find someone's take on a certain piece. Maybe in a few decades, more recent works will have similar levels of analysis and discussion--not the same amount, but similar type of consideration. I concede it is a reaching statement to say that older literature was more overt. It was just my take. It would be appropriate, at least to say that there are differences between classical and modern literature.
