Future Classics?

[ArcherSnake]

What modern novels do you think will be considered classics in the future?Two books I enjoyed that I think will become classics are The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver and The Five People You Meet In Heaven by Mitch Albom. A few that I hope will become classics, but probably won't, are I Know This Much Is True by Wally Lamb, Fortune's Rocks by Anita Shreve, and The Birth of Venus by Sarah Dunant. What do you guys think of those selections, and what are some of your picks?

[mono]

Strangely, I have contemplated the same question. I have never thought of Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible and Mitch Albom's The Five People You Meet In Heaven, but I can easily see what you mean. :nod:
Others, perhaps:
anything by Arthur Miller, Hunter S. Thompson, Jean-Paul Sartre (including his fiction), Life of Pi by Yann Martel, Harry Potter Series (for better or worse) by J.K. Rowling, The Celestine Prophecy Series by James Redfield, The DaVinci Code (again, for better or worse) by Dan Brown, and Reading Lolita In Tehran by Azar Nafisi.
Only these come to my mind presently, but I might add more later.
Thanks for the interesting thread. :)

[MaskedBeauty]

I don't know if many people will agree with me on this, but personally I see many of Gregory MaGuire's novels becoming classics. Especially Wicked which it pure brilliance, and Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister which is a great take on social postitions among other things. But other books that I could see becoming classics are possibly White Oleander and The Lovely Bones. Just my opinion though.

[nothingman87]

I think that Mark Helprin's works will be considered classics in the future, particularly A Winter's Tale and A Soldier of the Great War.

Also probably McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses.

Some of Philip Roth's recent works, American Pastoral and The Human Stain.

Maybe some of McEwan's forays, Atonement and Enduring Love.

Perhaps lately even Michael Cunningham with The Hours and Speciman Days.

[Jack_Aubrey]

A Million Little Pieces by James Frey.

[mono]

Having incidentally visited a very large bookstore in my city, I remembered that, I think, many novels and short stories by Tobias Woolf many future readers will consider classics. Personally, I would love to see his work called 'classic.'

[baddad]

What exactly is the criteria that must be met in order for a work of literature to be considered a 'Classic'? Are there parameters within which only certain writings will qualify, and what are these limits, or prerequisites?

And yes, The Five People You Meet in Heaven is quite well done, but does it qualify??

Harry Potter????? Does the consumer approval rating dictate whether a book is a classic, or destined to become so?? It this is all the requirement that is needed in order for a book to become a "Classic", then we had better make room for Stephen King, Dr. Suess, Dean Koontz (iiieeeeee!!!!) etc.!!!.....

[baddad]

ON a more positive note.....................Hunter S Thompson is dead.

[Capnplank]

Dr. Seuss's works will be, if they are not considered so already, classics. If not in general then definitely within the realm occupied by the brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, etc.

[RococoLocket]

Hmm .. is Vladimir Nabokov considered Classic yet? If not he will be. Also Margaret Atwood deffinately, and possibly Anne Rice :D

[red leaves]

I have read Cat's Eye by Margaret Atwood，a book with wisdom and imagination,also as peace of mind,hush of heart.I think she will be remembered in the future beacause of her genius.

[coffeestained]

Maybe nothing...literacy *is* dying. Maybe dead.

I can’t see Hairy Potter having much shelf life; it’s a fad and simply a gateway to movies.
Same with most of the other crap listed (da Vinci Code, anything by King).

If pressed, I’d say/hope/think:
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.

[samercury]

... Future Classics-
I don't really know what criteria is required for a book to officially be a classicis, but I think that "The Wheel Of Time" series by Robert Jordan ha a definite possibility of becoming one. Also anything by Lois Lowry- especially "Gathering Blue" =)

[PeterL]

If a classic is something that will be considered great more than two hundred years after the author's death, The I think that some of the classics from this period will be surprises. Harry Potter will certainly not be among the classics, unless Rowling writes a summarized version of the series in about four hundred pages. I think that Nabokov will be considered a great author, but few people will read more than a couple of his novels. None of the post-Tolkein "fantasy" literature will be considered classic, but Lord Dunsany probably will regain high regard. Some novels in the Science Fiction category will be classics; such as "Lord of Light" by Zelazney, but the space operas will be forgotten. Thrillers and Steven King type stories will be forgotten.

[mono]

Maybe nothing...literacy *is* dying. Maybe dead.
I have difficulty seeing this happen in my lifetime, or in any soon upcoming lifetime. No matter what type of literature emerges from writers brains, in publication, I would like to think that it will quite frequently persist; the mere quality, however, for better or worse, may change, as it has.

[Aeonna]

Harry Potter will certainly not be among the classics, unless Rowling writes a summarized version of the series in about four hundred pages.

It probably isn't possible to boil down the Harry Potter books without turning them into a great mush. I have to say I too have doubts about it's status in the future... it's possible that people in two hundred years will hear that this was a very popular series back then and read it for that cause and from it draw conclusions about the attitudes and preferences of our time. :eek:
Then again, some books we considder to be rubbish now could reach cult-status in the future, you never know..

[Mark F.]

James Ellroy will be as highly regarded as Hammett or Chandler in 50 years or so. Philip K Dick might also gain a wider appeal than his current cult status.

[Q. Bee]

My personal opinion.. the Potter series will be right up there with The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. I don't think the Potter books are as bad as some literaries think they are. Many are turned off by a book's (or series of books) commercial success, read prior comments regarding Dan Brown's DaVinci code, which I also liked. Possibly now Rowling writes as a "gateway to movies" but I am sure no one could have predicted her success with the series. But alas, I agree it is questionable that we can call these books the future classics. I have quite a few books I love and would put them on my classics shelf and among them The Poisonwood Bible, Life of Pi and yes, The Da Vinci Code.

[PeterL]

It probably isn't possible to boil down the Harry Potter books without turning them into a great mush. I have to say I too have doubts about it's status in the future... it's possible that people in two hundred years will hear that this was a very popular series back then and read it for that cause and from it draw conclusions about the attitudes and preferences of our time. :eek:
Then again, some books we considder to be rubbish now could reach cult-status in the future, you never know..

If J.K. Rowling will write an overview after the series has been completed, then she might be able to boil it down to a reasonable length. If she will do what I think that she will in the last book, it will be easy for her to ignore details.

[coffeestained]

I have difficulty seeing this happen in my lifetime, or in any soon upcoming lifetime. No matter what type of literature emerges from writers brains, in publication, I would like to think that it will quite frequently persist; the mere quality, however, for better or worse, may change, as it has.

You seem to be verb confusing. I stated Literacy, not reading.
Although I question the ability of “reading” by most also.
There may be some “reading” going on, but surely little *comprehension*.

Sorry, when the masses are reading books, supporting ****e writers due to seeing a book advertised on CNN, when kiddie literature is outranking most everything else: literacy may not be dead, but it sure smells funny.


It probably isn't possible to boil down the Harry Potter books without turning them into a great mush.

Condensed mush? As opposed to the insipid, volume’esque “mush” it is now?
It’s kiddie books, people.
It’s Brittany Spears.

Back on-topic:

Years ago I always felt that the novels of John Gardner would be considered ‘literary’ in the future. Most notably The Sunlight Dialogues, October Light and Mickelson’s Ghosts...but due to the literacy crawling toward the grave and people preferring outright, badly written pap like The Lovely Bones, these books have been out of print for many years.
(round of applause for the idiots, please!)
Thankfully they are slowly due to resurface.

Also, Raymond Carver’s short stories will continue to be widely read, I believe.

[subterranean]

To Kill A Mocking Bird, Catcher in The Rye....

[Mark F.]

Aren't those already considered classics?

[mono]

You seem to be verb confusing. I stated Literacy, not reading.
Although I question the ability of “reading” by most also.
There may be some “reading” going on, but surely little *comprehension*.

Sorry, when the masses are reading books, supporting ****e writers due to seeing a book advertised on CNN, when kiddie literature is outranking most everything else: literacy may not be dead, but it sure smells funny.
:lol: I see what you mean now, and apologize for the mistake. I must agree that in the future, there ought to exist classics (that we consider contemporary literature, or "reading"), but perhaps not necessarily the most superior quality in art, understanding, and the like. Well said, coffeestained.

Also, Raymond Carver’s short stories will continue to be widely read, I believe.
I must also agree with you here, and would like to think that his poetry will also gain much credit. In my city, Portland, Oregon, where Carver lived a few cities away, he already seems considered a classic here - very highly respected, for good reason.

[coffeestained]

James Ellroy will be as highly regarded as Hammett or Chandler in 50 years or so. Philip K Dick might also gain a wider appeal than his current cult status.

Interesting picks. Ellroy, I think, is a bit of going to the well a bit to often. I can’t see him having a huge shelf-life. When the mainstays (Hammett & Chandler) are _that_ good, and some of the better that proceeded them (Ross MacDonald, Chester Himes, etc) fluctuating to near-out-of-print, I can’t see Ellroy hanging in there.
That said, I’d much rather have Ellroy in the future than crap like Robert Parker, Dennis Lehane, et al.

PK Dick will probably always have a ‘cult’ following and be source material for pretty bloody awful Hollywood films, but if anything takes him over the plateau of being a ‘genre’ writer it would almost have to be soothsayer: some of the guy’s fiction -written decades ago- is happening (and has been happening) around us for years.
Scary.


My personal opinion.. the Potter series will be right up there with The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis.

Religious propaganda cloaked as kiddie fiction?
And here I was think little Hairy Wanker was gay…(joking)


I don't think the Potter books are as bad as some literaries think they are.

They aren’t _that_ bad for those without pubic hair. Beyond that is a whole other story…


but I am sure no one could have predicted her success with the series.

I tend to be labeled as a “pessimist”, but even on my darkest day I could never have imagined that the literacy level of people would plummet to juvenile fiction levels.
So, I agree with you.


I must agree that in the future, there ought to exist classics (that we consider contemporary literature, or "reading"), but perhaps not necessarily the most superior quality in art, understanding, and the like.

Yeah, it’s all a fine line and highly susceptible. Suspect’able too.
Bottom line is: is anyone now writing anything worth preserving.
I’m kinda thinking not. Hence my non use of a question mark.

And once television channels can be viewed on people’s cursed cell phones, those that pick up these mass selling books may not in the future.



and would like to think that his poetry will also gain much credit. In my city, Portland, Oregon, where Carver lived a few cities away, he already seems considered a classic here - very highly respected, for good reason.

Hmmm. I adore Carver’s stories but never enjoyed the poetry too much.
But indeed, his stories will always hold a place in the libraries and in the classroom.

And in case you didn’t know, my above mentioning (post #20) of John Gardner, JG was a teacher of Carver’s.

I was trying to come up with other books that may be deemed as literature. Don Delillo’s Underworld may be able to make it.

[Centinel]

Maybe nothing...literacy *is* dying. Maybe dead.

I can’t see Hairy Potter having much shelf life; it’s a fad and simply a gateway to movies.
Same with most of the other crap listed (da Vinci Code, anything by King).

If pressed, I’d say/hope/think:
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.


Of course, people said much the same thing regarding Shakespeare's plays (which were considered, much like the cinema today, to be low brow entertainment). In 300 years people may very well view Harry Potter as high literatures - you could almost say stranger things have happened :-D

(I do suppose this is my first post here also :p)

[PeterL]

Of course, people said much the same thing regarding Shakespeare's plays (which were considered, much like the cinema today, to be low brow entertainment). In 300 years people may very well view Harry Potter as high literatures - you could almost say stranger things have happened :-D

(I do suppose this is my first post here also :p)

Very good points.

I think that if Shakespeare were alive now, he would be writing soap operas or B movies. Harry Potter has all of the characteristics of epic literature. We will have to wait to learn what future people think of it.

[Mark F.]

It may be regarded as kid's literature, but it probably won't.

[Morten]

What modern novels do you think will be considered classics in the future?Two books I enjoyed that I think will become classics are The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver and The Five People You Meet In Heaven by Mitch Albom.

Are you ****ing serious? Hands down the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. If The Five People You Meet in Heaven is a modern classic, then I'm packing in it now. How silly. Surely, you weren't serious?

A few contemporary-ish novels I think will play a vital role in 21st century literature are Atonement, Saturday and On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan, who is undoubtedly one of our greatest writers. Money and London Fields by Martin Amis, The Moor's Last Sigh and Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie, The Sportswriter and Independence Day by Richard Ford... other writers who will not soon be forgotten I would say to be Aleksandar Hemon, Robert Bolano, Haruki Murakami, Peter Høeg... I'm sure there are many others.

[Kafka's Crow]

Umberto Eco will stand the test of time with The Name of the Rose. I am not sure about anything else. Potter series will be kept alive on marketing and hype as they have to sell the re-makes of movies which will only get more 'awesome' with better special effects as the technology makes more progress. Dan Brown is already a spent force, the flopped movie didn't help his cause either. He has met his future (good riddance!). As our global reach extends, we will find more and more gems from countries other than the English-speaking world. Japanese writers are already making a big splash, so are Indian and Eastern European. The cultural map of future will be very different and we will have better 'classics' in future as the internet sets the writer free from the shackles of the publishing industry. No better time to study literature as within a decade we will have a humongous amount of books on our disposal and we'd better start training ourselves to choose and read the best out of this hodgepodge of 'literatures' that is approaching us at breakneck speed.

[Morten]

I've never read anything by Richard Ford or, I'm sorry to say, Aleksandar Hemon, but I certainly like your other choices and do agree.

I loved Ian McEwan's Atonement, but his other books just leave me cold. That's just personal preference, though, and I do think he's a master writer. Roberto Bolano's By Night in Chile was one of the best books I've ever read.

One of the greatest living writers is, I think, William Trevor. I'm not sure about his novels, but I do feel his short story collections will be considered classics, in line with Chekhov's.

Richard Ford is widely considered to be one of the most eminemt living American novelists. Start off with Women with Men, an exceptionally magnificent collection of stories. To me, a modern classic.

[Morten]

Thank you for the recommendation. I read much more European, Latin American, and African literature than American. I'm woefully behind with that and Canadian.

I think American literature is dominating and will continue to do so for decades to come. Sadly, we Europeans no longer have our Prousts, or Manns, or Kafkas. The British have experiened have a literary revival in the last 20-30 odd years with the emergence of McEwan, Rushdie, Amis, Barnes and now Zadie Smith, Will Self, etc. But the rest of us not so much.

[HotKarl]

I think the people talking about Cormac McCarthy and Thomas Pynchon are dead on. Their bodies of work are already being taught in academia, so I think they'll be around for the next couple centuries. Some of the names I think that'll be remember in the future that no one has mentioned: T.C. Boyle, Robert Coover, Paul Auster, and Don DeLillo. I think Barry Hannah will eventually be mentioned in the southern Gothic lineage. As for the ladies? I think Joan Didion and Toni Morrison, and some of the works of Joyce Carol Oates are destined for anthologies. Perhaps Annie Proulx as well.

On a different note, who are some of the authors currently being ballyhooed who won't make classic status? I say Jon Updike. Anyone else have some suggestions?

[Morten]

On a different note, who are some of the authors currently being ballyhooed who won't make classic status? I say Jon Updike. Anyone else have some suggestions?
Like him or not (and I don't particularly), Updike has already attained classic status. He's been revered by countless writers (McEwan, Banville, Amis), his literary output is phenomenal (22 novels, a dozen+ story collections), not to mention his work as a literary critic, an art critic, and a regular contributor to The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. His 'Rabbit' series are already modern classics, and his short stories are wonderful. Again, I don't much like him - but he is an undeniably talented writer.

[HotKarl]

Like him or not (and I don't particularly), Updike has already attained classic status. He's been revered by countless writers (McEwan, Banville, Amis), his literary output is phenomenal (22 novels, a dozen+ story collections), not to mention his work as a literary critic, an art critic, and a regular contributor to The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. His 'Rabbit' series are already modern classics, and his short stories are wonderful. Again, I don't much like him - but he is an undeniably talented writer.

I agree with what you say there, that his books have already attained "modern classic" status. But lets keep in mind how old his body of work is. Do you think he'll be around 100 years from now? 200? I'm trying to look past right now (and of course, I could very well be wrong). But there are many people who attain "modern classic" status who kind of peter out down the road. For example, Truman Capote used to be highly revered, but his stock has fallen significantly. Ring Lardner was supposedly primed for success, but now he's remembered as a Catcher in the Rye reference. Erica Jong was "destined for greatness" after Fear of Flying. I guess what I'm saying is, I really don't think you can measure an author's greatness until they're dead for a prolonged period. What I'm doing, what you're doing, what we're all doing in this thread is looking into our crystal balls. 500 years from now, the writer of our century may not be Joyce or Faulkner or Hemingway, but some obscure writer that's ignored on bookstore shelves everywhere.

[Simao]

What about Khalid Housini's The Kite Runner? I thought it was a good novel and from what I've seen here, alot of people seem to love it and I think it has the potentials to be one of the future classics.
Also, Paolo Coelho's The Alchemist? Anyone think it is worth to be classified as classic?

[Kafka's Crow]

The way this thread is going, we will have a new 'Western Canon'. Time to move on Mr Bloom, put down your Dostoevsky, forget your Tolstoy! Ours must be the greatest age of literary creativity! More future 'classics' are declared in this thread than I could shake a stick at, many of them quite unknown outside their own countries even in their own time while they are churning out 'bestsellers' for their domestic markets!

[Morten]

I agree with you. Sadly, I don't care for American literature, for the most part. I do love Toni Morrison's work and I agree with the poster below who said she'll attain "classic" status.

The British and the Irish are now writing some of the very best literature to be found. Julian Barnes, Martin Amis, Ian McEwan (personally, I don't like him, except for Atonement, but he's a great writer), Salman Rushdie, John Banville, William Trevor, Edna O'Brien, etc. The British seem to be writing the better novel, more literary and character driven, while the Americans seem to be concentrating on mainstream fiction. I mean that just "in general," not as a sweeping statement of truth. LOL

Even so, that is not a fair statement. American literature, from the 20th Century till now, has proven dominant and thank you for that. Where would world literature be without Sherwood Anderson, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, John Dos Passos, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulknerm Djuna Barnes, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Thomas Wolfe, John Steinbeck, J.D. Salinger, William Styron, Norman Mailer, William S. Burroughs, Saul Bellow, Phillip Roth, Ken Kesey, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, Donald Barthelme, Richard Yates, Flannery O'Connor, Carson McCullers, Ralph Ellison, Harold Brodkey, Raymond Carver, James Baldwin, John Udike, Henry Miller, Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Walker Percy and so on and so forth?

May I also remind you that all the British writers (McEwan, Amis, Rushdie) are in deep, deep awe of American writers such as Bellow, Updike, Roth and others.

[PeterL]

Umberto Eco will stand the test of time with The Name of the Rose. I am not sure about anything else.

Foucault's Pendulum has a more universal theme and is a better story. The Name is a good detective story, but it doesn't have any depth.


Potter series will be kept alive on marketing and hype as they have to sell the re-makes of movies which will only get more 'awesome' with better special effects as the technology makes more progress.

Harry may be a very long term popular item, because the theme is quite universal.

[Morten]

Foucault's Pendulum has a more universal theme and is a better story. The Name is a good detective story, but it doesn't have any depth.
I disagree. The Name of the Rose has incredible depth. Perhaps you could support your statement somehow?



Harry may be a very long term popular item, because the theme is quite universal.
Or perhaps because we don't have a choice; the Harry Potter phenomenon is literally crammed down our throats, no questions asked. Shameless commercialism and merchandising.

[ClickForth]

okokok

[Morten]

I agree with Amis, Rushdie, Ford and Murakami (haven't read the others)...but Ian McEwan? He's really only a step above Mitch Albom's oversentimentality in my book. His prose is so flaccid compared to Amis or Ford, or most other living writers I regard in a good light.
Ah, but then you're a poor reader. I mean, even if you dislike him you should be able to recognize the depth of his works. Where's the oversentimentality? Please do provide some form of example. Because McEwan is admired for his cool, distant narrative angles. He himself attributes it to the 19th century novel, which can hardly be called oversentimental. I've read everything the man's written (except The Innocent) and I deeply admire him.

Amis, on the other hand, though it pains me to say it, has gone overboard on occasion. Many of his latest novels are not very good. I do love him, though.

[PoeticPassions]

I agree with Nabokov... Maybe Jack Kerouac and Kurt Vonnegut.... Perhaps Kundera (if he isn't already... I give him my vote!) and anyone who has won a Pulitzer lately ;)

and I vote for some Bosnian authors like Abdullah Sidran and Krlezha

[Oomoo]

Murakami? Isn't he a commercial writer?

[Kafka's Crow]

I agree with Nabokov... Maybe Jack Kerouac and Kurt Vonnegut.... Perhaps Kundera (if he isn't already... I give him my vote!) and anyone who has won a Pulitzer lately ;)

and I vote for some Bosnian authors like Abdullah Sidran and Krlezha

We will ignore Eastern European, Japanese and Indian literature at our own peril. With the internet collapsing geographical distances, future map of artistic creativity will be very different from the Anglo-centric one that we have at this time. Future classics will be produced anywhere not Just LA or NY or London or Berlin or Paris.

[PeterL]

I disagree. The Name of the Rose has incredible depth. Perhaps you could support your statement somehow?



What would you consider as supporting my assertion. The books themselves show the differences, and, in my opinion, there is much more going on beneath the surface in Foucault's Pendulum. If this is simply a matter of personal taste, then we shouldn't continue this discussion; but, if you believe that [The Name of the Rose[/i] is objectively deeper, then perhaps you should explain.

[JBI]

We haven't ignored non-Western authors, our knowledge base is just less attuned, and therefore cannot quite judge those works. Personally, I think the only way to really judge a book is to read the original. And then even after that, we must decide whether it is a universal classic, or just a national classic.

AS for living authors, Rushdie's Midnight's Children I think will go on (I hope it does), but I am skeptical about his other works. Pynchon, DeLelio and McCarthy show all the signs of continuing, as do Morrison and Atwood. Ondaatje perhaps will live on, though I hope not for his dreadful poetry. Zadie Smith, A.S. Byatt, Harold Pinter, and other British authors could perhaps join this group.

A better question however, would be what poets will earn classic status. That is a far more shocking question to me, since poetry is in such an ebbing state.

[Morten]

Saul Bellow is probably the greatest writer of the last 50 years. His work will endure.

[NickAdams]

Saul Bellow is probably the greatest writer of the last 50 years. His work will endure.


Samuel Beckett is that small doubt.;)

[JBI]

Contemporary books. Bellow And Beckett have both already earned a sort-of classic status. Since many of their works were written over 30 years ago, and both are now dead.

[tudwell]

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

[johann cruyff]

...and I vote for some Bosnian authors like Abdullah Sidran and Krlezha

Unfortunately,neither Selimović,Sidran,nor Krleža will be considered classics anywhere outside of the Balkans.Not even Andrić,who has won a Nobel Prize(and rightly so),is well known.

And about writers like Bellow,Nabokov,Kundera,Eco etc.,I thought they are pretty much already considered to be classics?I think of them as the last wave of real literature.("real" literature that ended with the emergence of fantasy "novels",Stephen King,Tom Clancy,Rowling etc.,in other words,all that commercial drivel)

[bazarov]

and I vote for some Bosnian authors like Abdullah Sidran and Krlezha

Krleža is actually Croat, but I doubt he'll ever move from Balkan.

[Morten]

I don't agree at all, which is fine, as literature is so subjective
No way! Really?


...but I'd be interesting in knowing why you think so. It could enhance my opinion of Saul Bellow.

I agree his work, or at least most of it, will certainly endure, but I don't agree that he's the greatest writer of the last fifty years. I daresay, probably all of us on this board would choose a different "greatest writer of the last fifty years."

Have you read Herzog? Augie March? Humboldt's Gift? Mr. Sammler's Planet? The Dean's December? The three first ones in particular are great novels, and no other writer that I know of has managed to chronicle the modern world with all its towering cities, easy air travel and rising commercialism and still managed to keep his work filled with philosophical depth and intellectual insight. And then the language is just so entertaining and fluent.

I'd recommend Ian McEwan's moving tribute: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1454512,00.html

[Jane's Nemesis]

Atonement by Ian McEwan? The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? (Unless that is already considered 'classic')

[Sir Bartholomew]

I saw this movie by Godard and they were quoting ts eliot:

"what is modern is already considered a classic"

or something like that.

[Orpheus]

Some of the writing of Stephen Hawking will most definately be considered classic, at least in the science community.

[HotKarl]

I saw this movie by Godard and they were quoting ts eliot:

"what is modern is already considered a classic"

or something like that.

Knowing Eliot, he was probably connecting the Modern literary movement to classic literature--Greek and Roman lit. I doubt he was referring to modern and classic in the sense we're discussing.

[mortalterror]

McCarthy, DeLillo, Auster, Morrison, Updike, Roth, Amis, Wolfe are not going to make it. A lot of them are writing niche stuff that the academics think makes great literature. There's a big press for originality in so called serious literature these days, but most of the finest classics are firmly rooted in tradition and imitation. These people write books the way they think classics should be written, but they don't have a clue.

If you ask Steven King, he'll tell you he's the next Charles Dickens. But while he is quite a bit better than the James Pattersons of the world, he is still writing below his level for the lowest common denominator. Like the Rowlings, the Browns, the Grishams, or the Clancys of the world King too will be thrown upon the rubbish bin of history.

I like Bellow, and Kerouac, and Vonnegut, and Marquez. Thompson will occupy the place De Quincey occupied in a former era.

Younger guys? I guess it's hard to call. Most writers don't mature enough to write classics until they're in their thirties or fourties. Then you need to wait at least twenty years, for the books to stand the test of time and catch on. A writer's in his sixties before you know if he's any good.

Rushdie is alright, but he's not on a level with Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Joyce, Woolf, Lawrence, Kafka, Proust, etc. and I don't think he'll stand. Palahniuk probably won't last, but his Fight Club might.

I really don't feel confident to judge modern works, which is why I mostly read ancient literature, which time has sifted for me until only the gold remains. I mean why waste time reading something that might be good, when the news is already in on Shakespeare and Homer?

I disagree with the people who say that modern letters are suffering. I think that most ages tend to be comparable, but that emphasis sometimes changes. The majority of mainstream literature is written for people with an eighth grade reading level, which is the level of universal literacy publishers can count on to mass market their product. We may be going through a golden age of sonnets, or short stories, or epics, right now and not even know it because the novel is king. Or possibly our best talent has been lured away to television and film. If you look for it, you can find some top knotch writing there. But literacy is higher than ever, there are more people alive now than ever, the odds of probability are on our side.

[mortalterror]

I mentioned Marquez as one of the very few who will last. You read his stuff and he's up there with Hemingway and Faulkner.

Morrison probably got the Nobel Prize for the same reasons that Doris Lessing did and it didn't have anything to do with them being the best writers around. I heard people saying that Toni Morrison was the best living American writer and Beloved was the best novel in thirty years so I decided to check it out. I started laughing right in the bookstore. How melodramatic do you have to get? She has sex with the tombstone chiseler to engrave one word on the headstone of her dead baby girl. Then you have this baby ghost haunting her and pressing it's hands in a cake. I'm sorry, but War and Peace that is not. When you pour it on that thick, you're not touching, you're being maudlin and ridiculous. Harming children and small animals is cliché and what manipulative writers do who don't want you to actually think about the material you're being presented with. It's beat the puppy writing, and I don't stand for it.

As far as Cormac is concerned, I've read Blood Meridian. I've seen No Country For Old Men, and read snatches of other things he's written. He's decent, but he doesn't warrant comparison to Faulkner.

[Hank Stamper]

with any luck, absolutely nothing by Martin Amis

[_Shannon_]

How about writers? Ian McEwan, Richard Russo, Cormac McCarthy.

Certainly, book wise- stuff like Snow Falling on Cedars, The Things They Carried, A Prayer for Owen Meany already shows up on school reading lists

[_Shannon_]

And I agree with Marquez--I just kinda thought of him as having "classics" already... which is how I view Vonnegut, Kerouac, and the like. They are all routinely assigned as required high school reading lists.

My argument for Richard Russo is that he is one of the best living American writers nobody reads....but that as with many of his many predecessors- he will gain popularity posthumously. He is a darn fine writer.

[_Shannon_]

And I dunno- I can't see Updike enduring-- he's not that unique...and his subject matter is just so trivial....

Toni Morrison I think will endure for the same reason people are subjected to Edith Wharton--simply because she's a woman to add to the canon--futhermore- a woman of color.

I don't think Alice Walker wil endure The Color Purple is nearly unreadable for it's dialect--or it will endure as important, but mostly unread- like Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I was just thinking-- I wonder what effect the film industry and movies which "endure" as clasics will have on the literature which survives???

[_Shannon_]

I'd like to think that people are beyond that- but the world of academia can be a strange and political and agenda-ed place. The reality is that among modern fiction considered as literature, men still far out number women and whites still far outnumber non-whites...and so I think that there will be works which will be taught and included in the canon specifically to be representative of women and non-white people.

I think the canon is specifically formed as books which are taught, as opposed to that which is read popularly- and as such the academic world is, to my thinking, inseperable with the choice of what will become classic literature.

The film of A Color Purple is fantastic! Someone earlier mentioned Tobias Wolfe--and again I wonder if a book like This Boy's Life will go unread, because the film is just so darn good. Or even things like The English Patient. It's a curious thing, I think--since more than ever, the past 60 years or so movies are so widely consumed. An example is Lawrence of Arabia...so,so many people have seen the movie and precious few will ever pick up and read Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

[Janine]

An example is Lawrence of Arabia...so,so many people have seen the movie and precious few will ever pick up and read Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

Shannon, I love the film "Lawrence of Arabia" and I am one of the 'guilty' who have never read the book; I heard it is mega long, but it is figured on my 'to read someday' list. I long to have the time to read it. There is never enough time to get to all the books and certainly not all the ones that have been made into films which I have viewed. I am lucky to have found the time to read some of those books. Movies are well done now and so people are reluctant sometimes to wade through the book, especially if it is a long book. Some people are readers and some are not, too. My son never was, but he is a big movie buff. I have been periodically a reader over the years but I have had dry spells with no reading at all. I guess everyone is different.
I certainly hope the this century will turn out some very good classic authors. Is that what this thread is about? I need to go back and read the first page. It is the first time I saw this thread listed.

[_Shannon_]

I wonder if it's laziness, necessarily, or just that with the onset of the digital world- people are often more inundated with the audio/visual world; therefore, are actually patterned to feel a deeper connection with audio/visual media. In a world where children watch television form a very early age and have ready acess to vast amounts of digital information and connection with others is as simple as the press of a single button on a cell phone, I can see how reading might present a challenge to a brain formed on audio/visual input from the very earliest. Heck even most babies' toys are light-up electronica.

There are some darn good movie renditions of books out there--but I think that a real knowledge of an author's intent can almost never be fully captured through film. It's too difficult to portray interior dialogue and description. Films are also influenced by the crew's interpretation of the work of literature, and so it is often impossible to distinguish without having read the book- just whose version of the story one is experiencing.

I think this audio/visual world view accounts for the rapidly expanding genre of the graphic novel. I think it also accounts for poetry's decline, at least in part...as poet's are replaced with songwriters.

How strange it is to think that our future generations might not read books at all- but experience literature soley as digital media. *sigh* To think that they'll not know that wonderful smell of a yellowed book....

[_Shannon_]

Shannon, I love the film "Lawrence of Arabia" and I am one of the 'guilty' who have never read the book; I heard it is mega long, but it is figured on my 'to read someday' list. I long to have the time to read it. There is never enough time to get to all the books and certainly not all the ones that have been made into films which I have viewed. I am lucky to have found the time to read some of those books. Movies are well done now and so people are reluctant sometimes to wade through the book, especially if it is a long book. Some people are readers and some are not, too. My son never was, but he is a big movie buff. I have been periodically a reader over the years but I have had dry spells with no reading at all. I guess everyone is different.
I certainly hope the this century will turn out some very good classic authors. Is that what this thread is about? I need to go back and read the first page. It is the first time I saw this thread listed.
LOL! :blush: SOrry-- I totally hijacked the thread....

(I haven't read Lawrence, either....but the movie is just so, so stunningly beautiful --as is Dreamy Eyes O'Toole....and the film has the flow of a stroy that Seven Pillars does not.)

[mortalterror]

It's too difficult to portray interior dialogue and description.

I think it also accounts for poetry's decline, at least in part

Interior monologue doesn't really come into vogue until the mid-19th century. People would soliloquize but the psychological novel is a relatively recent trend. Besides, there are plenty of ways that movies can telegraph characters thoughts to the audience. If anything, there are probably more ways due to the number of mediums being utilized.

Also, it's not the film which killed poetry, it was the novel, which around the time of Sir Walter Scott made writing an economically viable career independent of the patronage system. Poetry is elitist and it was superseded by a populist literary form, which in turn has been superseded by a still more populist medium.

[_Shannon_]

I think movies can do a great job at those things- but I do not think that they can do it as well or as thoroughly as books. I have nothing against movies--in fact I love film as a media. I just think that there are certain limitations when one is choosing to adapt a book to film.

I don't think film American killed poetry- but rather the advent of the singer songwriter and the explosion of the music industry. Not entirely--but in part. It's obvioiusly more complicated than that. There was a pretty strong poetry tradition in America up through around the 1970's...

[Joreads]

I love movies to but I prefer to read the book. Once I have seen the movie I can not (usually) bring myself to read the book. Maybe it is lazy I am not really sure why. I really cannot imagine a world where people do not read books but who knows things are changing and I guess they always well. Long live the book is all I can say.

[Seant018]

Don Delillo and Vladmir Nabakov have my vote for future "classics".