>>3585005 (OP)
>Can we say the same about books?
I know this is a troll, but, goddamn, did you just miss the fact that you just posted this drivel on the Internet, in literary English?

I disagree. Some theater productions duo fall into your description OP, but a lot of them don't. Half of the plays on in my city are musicals or comedies rather than ancient epic. I myself was lucky enough to go to the theater this Monday last in fact, and I was worried about it being too "artsy". It was a production, put on by some Drama students in their final year, of a Spanish play I'd never heard of before. I was enchanted throughout, and it was clear not only from the ticket process, but also the skill of three actors that it was a labour of love, and nothing more. There still is, and will continue to be great theatre. You just need to know where to look.

What you've said about books is poorly constructed so I am not sure how to react to it, but reading has never been seen as a working class pastime.

>>3585010

Isn't it normal that people start a discussion about literature in /lit/ ? It is very sad that instead of contributing with ideas you accuse me of trolling. You've been too long in the internetz, son.

Hopefully somebody will chip in with some original ideas. I hope so, so I may learn something by healthily exchanging points of view.

>>3585020

Re. paragraph 1 - That is an interesting experience. I can say that, indeed, as long as the theater retains that original intent (to bring great works to places where the art would have not reached otherwise) it is a valid and useful art form.

Re. paragraph 2 - I understand you are trying to put me down by assuming I am working class. However, you assume correctly, I am working class. And I am proud of it. Despite my little formal education and my mundane, rather physical work carrying boxes in a warehouse, I do try to compensate for my lack of formal schooling by reading as much as I can during my breaks. And by trying to learn from others using, for example, the internet.

Sadly, it is random that I can do so without being put down by people who consider themselves superior to me. Still, I appreciate your very good insight regarding the first paragraph, as said above. I stand corrected.

>>3585043

I think you misunderstood - I am not the one you are quoting but that does not strike me as directed at you at all.

I'm not sure why you went on a tangent about your working class background..

>>3585036
>It is very sad that instead of contributing with ideas you accuse me of trolling.
You're just an idiot who can't see an idea if it slapped you in the face.

The fucking Internet (including the 4chan corner of it) is essentially a long book. No, books are not dead.

>>3585043
Mate, I'm not putting you down for being working class, and I didn't assume you were either.

Stop embedding clauses in your sentences so much, but keep reading.

>>3585005 (OP)
I always find the way anons can post casual misogyny without the slightest bit of self awareness to be hysterical.

Social justice wankery aside, books are here to stay, bub. Film nor music are capable of giving the same sensation or the raw amount of information that a book can, maybe one day when we can download entire memories and experiences and ways of thought into our brains... Books are here for the next century.

What I am scared of is at we are in closing window of time to actually write a widely acclaimed 'classic' before self publishing swallows the filter that is the publishing industry.

>>3585043

I am a bit perplexed by the way you construct your sentences, but I will give at go anyway since you seem keen on having a discussion:

>Theater was killed by cinema
Not quite, I'd say theather is very much alive as pointed out by
>>3585020
I guess it depends on what theater you have acquinted yourself with, but where I am from the theater scene is very much alive (and has recently seen a rather large increase in popularity).

>Books used to be the abstract representation[...]
While you are correct that literature seems to have surrended certain fields to other art forms, I cannot but see that such is the nature of art, and art adapts to the cultural environment in practically any era (there is a reason why verse was more popular before, and isn't now). It's not like the tradional visual arts died because of photography, per se, it only changed.

It's not like you can define books as an abstract representation of concrete reality - such a definition is way too tight to allow for the multitude and richness among literature.

I cannot see how literature can die before we cease to use the written word to convey stuff - which we are doing right now on this imageboard.

I feel theatre has been somewhat killed by cinema but not completely. It is still going with many fans, just not a popular form of entertainment.

Books are as popular as ever, the reason they haven't been so affected is because they don't offer an experience similar to other mediums.

>>3585005 (OP)
You say Theatre is obsolete because its sole purpose was
>to depict the great stories written by humankind
But stories are an art form. If the purpose of Theatre is to display an art form, then why should that art be a story and not be The Play itself?
>a cute bourgeois pastime for men to chatter about business in between acts and women can compare other ladies' dresses, jewelry, and nose and boob jobs
I really have no idea what sort of theatre you attended where that goes on, but based on my personal experience (twice, maybe three times a year) that is not often the case.

New art forms do not render old art forms obsolete, in any greater sense than photography rendered acrylic, rendered oil, rendered watercolor, rendered graphite, rendered charcoal rendered clay sculpture obsolete.

Art branches out, it is not progression towards some ideal art-form. People make the same mistake when discussing evolution.

>>3585053

Does it make you feel better to call names to random people behind the safety of your keyboard?

>>3585056

Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I'll keep on reading, indeed. I love it. It is just that I am afraid one day I won't find books but just DVDs, you know.

>>3585073

I guess in my town the theater we have sucks monkey balls and that is where I get such impression from.

The second part is very interesting. Indeed, we're writing right here, right now. Good point!

>>3585092
>>People make the same mistake when discussing evolution.

I am very interested in hearing more about this.

What do you mean?

ITT: hardly anyone knows a thing about theatre's history.

The theatres in London during the Restoration were so UNATTENDED that a hit show in one usually meant an empty house in all the others.

Just because Shakespeare's theater had a spot for the groundlings didn't mean any of them actually went regularly. Most of them thought it was boring shit, no matter how many men died or got their eyes gouged out. They preferred to go next door where dogs were fighting with a bear chained to the floor (called bear-baiting, and referred to heavily in Shakespeare's own work).

Don't like London? Very well, the theatre of Rome had to compete heavily with all the death and gore of the gladiator games in the nearby Colosseum. In comparison, the theatre got mere scraps for audiences.

The only time where theatre wasn't something enjoyed by a select group of aesthetes is probably ancient Greece or ancient Egypt.

The more you know.

>>3585145
I've heard that often the groundlings wouldn't even pay attention to the play, but would rather just look for prostitutes.

>>3585128
>Does it make you feel better to call names to random people behind the safety of your keyboard?
Fuck yes, it does. Go choke on a bag of dicks.

>>3585140
People often assume evolution is a progression towards perfect or "better" species, instead of an adaptation to environment.
This link explains better;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3

>>3585171

I am happy to hear it compensates for your small penis.

>>3585181

Oh great, thanks! I am reading it right now.

>>3585145

This is very interesting, mate. Can you recommend something on history of theater?

>Theater is dead

Someone really ought to tell all the theaters.

>>3585204
>I am happy to hear it compensates for your small penis.
I doubt it. Unmotivated aggression correlates to excessive testosterone, thus larger dick sizes. That's why women love jerks and not 'nice guys'.

Theatre is essentially different from cinema. Partly because it reacted to competition from cinema to bring out the things it could do that movies couldn't (interact with the audience, break the prascenium, improvise, play off physical elements of the arena, etc.) and partly because cinema began diverging from theatre almost immediately because it could do so much more since it didn't have to do it live. Now with special effects and various technological and cinematographic tricks to force the flow, mood, and perspective, it's essentially nothing like theatre.

While you might argue that Hedda Gabler or Hamlet make as good a movie as theatre, Penn & Teller, The Fantastiks, Quite a bit of Cirque de Soliel and a lot of musicals really do do better in the theatre.

>>3585315
Also, books are a weird parallel. Who would want to watch a movie of a cookbook, or a repair manual or a chemistry text? being able to control the flow, pace, context and speed are essential to most of the things people read for. I don't see how you'd ever get that in a movie. As far as fiction goes, it's the same as theatre. That didn't kill books either. Might as well say oral recitation will wipe out literacy because people can just memorize and sing the stuff they need to remember.