I don't want to use the term "gatekeeping" here, but this type of posture on a topic as subjective as personal preferences is quite odd. While the author thinks they're "making a pause while you fail to find any", I'm here coming up with examples of contemporary creators that I can't wait for them to release their new stuff. (In painting, writing, and cinema).

I don't consider we're in a "low state" as described, but I think we may be coming at this from different definitions about what low state means.

And get off my lawn.

There are plenty of new novels. Visit a bookstore. Most of them will be forgotten, but some will be read a century from now. Novels face more competition from other forms of entertainment than they used to. But they still sell in volume. It's not like books of poetry.

Young adult novels have become much better over the last decade or two. Teenagers are willing to read multiple volume novels now. That wasn't the case before Twilight and Harry Potter. Yes, there have been multiple volume young adult series for a century, such as "Nancy Drew and the ...". But they were pretty bad.

Knockoffs are a problem. About fifteen years ago, "Teen Paranormal Romance" filled six bookcases at Barnes and Noble. That didn't include the vampire content in Romance, Fantasy, and Best Sellers. I remarked to one of the store staff goths that if they shelved all the vampire books together, they'd be half the sales floor. She said the Hunger Games knockoffs were starting to come in and would be pushing out the Twilight knockoffs. She was right.

There was a ton of disposable literature in the 19th century. It's when the term "pulp" started to be used for trashy novels.

Wow!

> The twentieth century may have widened the subject matter of the novel, but it has failed to deepen it.

What about Faulkner? Toni Morrison?

I share the sentiment about the magnitude of the loss of the novel, should it occur. Probably the last truly great novel I read was The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, and that's twenty-some years old.

Even if we were to deny artistically creative 20C novelists their depth as a mere retread of the nineteenth century's, whatever that means, I don't think that the same terms of dismissal would apply to comic books, graphic novels, hypertext novels and hypertext graphic novels, or novels written with radio or audiobook dramatization in mind, all of which do allow mature thrills to be expressively enhanced and intermingled -- not only cheap thrills.

Scott Miller had a good idea about the importance of the novel form, however: "Maybe I'm just thick ... but whenever novels run out of simple intrigue, they tend to fall into a sort of formulaic display of personal insightfulness, and beyond the scope of about a chapter, one insightful individual carries on in fiction a lot like the next. That said, I have nothing against intrigue, even porn; if I were honest with myself, I'd probably put INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE on a list of 20." [1]

[1] http://www.loudfamily.com/askscott1997.html

It's hard for me to take seriously a "Where are all the novels?" critique when there is currently a very active long-novel-title-to-multi-hour-anime pipeline running at white-hot intensity. Perhaps the author missed them because they're in Japanese.

Still, there is a huge problem: discoverability of new authors. This is a problem in lots of areas, but I feel like it's particularly bad here. There are many new authors trying new things but how to find them amid a sea of rough drafts that should never have been published? Most of the time when I try a recent new author's work I am greeted with something that reads like fanfic.

Then there's AI slop, which is apparently flooding Kindle thanks to grifting influencers like (apparently) Andrew Tate teaching people how to do this. That's only going to make it harder.

Wondering how people here look for new authors. The best I've found has been to look in certain genres or subject areas of interest, look for up-and-coming works, then read a sample. I can usually dismiss trash within a few pages. But it's still time consuming.

Marathon, by Bungie Studios (and frequently on the composer side the work of Christopher Tin), but who's counting?

More seriously: the nature of art has changed and this article doesn't seem willing to accept that change. Art can be the work of one creative talent, but it can also be the collective work of a whole army of people acting on a consensus goal. And right now, a lot of the resources of art creation are tied up in large-scale, multidisciplinary projects: movies, videogames, studio music.

Saying you're waiting for a movie to come out is precisely as much a statement about anticipating a work of high art as saying you're interested in what Dostoevsky will write.

Sometimes (often) when people get older, they stop listening to new music, reading new books, or going to art openings. Then, slowly, they start assuming that the world is the problem. That art has gotten worse, or there's somehow less of it. But of course the thing that has become boring is the person.