The Golden Age Revisited.

 I think that in the past, twenty years or so, "modern literature" (as it is often
cruelly termed) has received "much ado about nothing," (pardon me dear
Bard for slaughtering one of your finest Metaphors.) Primarily due to the
oversimplification of Symbol, Theme, and (overall) Content.

Or perhaps I am being unduly harsh/unfair? And allowing my own subjective
bias to interfere with a more rounded analysis of what is truly Art?
(who am I after all to declare what "Art" is? (hell that debate has raged senselessly
long enough).

Of course there will always be Subjectivity involved due to the nature of
Aesthetic Preference itself. But, still even that goes only so far and good
literature seems to stand the test of time. Something this modern drivel doesn't
do at all. (doesn't "age well" as the youngsters say.)

I realize that during the Golden age of what was termed Pulp Fiction,
that particular style of writing was deemed low-brow by many an allegedly
educated Critic. Yet, in those times writers were forced by necessity to
produce quick, cheap fluff to casually entertain the masses. They were not
actively TRYING to create literary masterpieces. They were writing to eat
and pay the bills. (and ironically several of those "low-brow" works are
still seen in some mediums today as pathetic imitations and even shittier
remakes, so..yeah.)