do people tend to read new writers or old writers?

[jikan myshkin]

i personally tend to read books that are classics that i wish to read after being underwealmed by a lot of contemporary lit.

[wilbur lim]

Literature classics are eclectic in subjects,in literature there are discernibly modern and old writers.Recently my classmates are reading old writers' works and they cited that they were more intuitive of writing,and this perception came into my mind-'Shakespeare is in the history of poetry while Henry James is is in the history of the novel'.No one could have the precise same knowledge as the luminaries of old writers,no one can likewise beat Shakespeare.

In this modern world,fiction is more cited than literature,indeed a enigma.You can see fiction books all around the world,likewise in bookshops.Fiction is the simplest subject that a writer can perceive of because that is his/her great imagination.

Fiction had surpass Literature.

[kelby_lake]

I like to read older books (20th century) because I find they are written nicer.

[JBI]

Where are we cutting the line? The bulk of what I read is 20th century, but I would say most novels I read are older (unless they are Canadian, in which case they are newer). Poetry I read both current and classic, though still the bulk from passed 1800, and half from post-1940.

[mayneverhave]

Agreed JBI. My expertise is in early 20th century modernism - there is a 50% chance that whatever I read comes from the 1920's.

I wouldn't consider this contemporary by any means though. I believe he means more like Tim O'Brien or that type of ilk.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Agreed JBI. My expertise is in early 20th century modernism - there is a 50% chance that whatever I read comes from the 1920's.


Hey, I know who to turn to when I start my modernism module later this week then.:)

[stlukesguild]

Looking casually over at my book shelves it appears that about 40% of my books are from 1900 onward. This is not because the 20th century was such a well-spring of brilliant literature, but rather because the older works are far more weeded out. Only the very best has survived... the second-rate stuff is relegated to period specialists. This has not yet happened with the Modern and Contemporary work. It is still in the process of being digested. Add to this the issue of the increase in population and the communication and transmission between cultures (so that today we may have access to the latest great Japanese, Chinese, or South African writer) and we find we have far, far more writing of some real merit being produced. Again... how much of it has the staying power of a "classic" only time will tell. I am admittedly quite fond of a great many Modern writers... but if I were to create a list of my 20 favorite writers I somewhat suspect that it would be dominated by older works. Again it is a numbers game. The period from Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible through the 20th century is a huge span of time in comparison to the last century and as such has assuredly produced a far greater number of unquestionable masterpieces.

[Etienne]

I seem to have a bigger proportion of pre-20th books, not going to count though.

[Cellar Door]

I was the "I don't really care" voter. And it's true. I will read anything that appeals to me, on any level. Be it good or bad, I never regret reading it, though some of it (both classic and contemporary) can leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't see why it matters what people read, as long as they are reading, hence, thinking.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I read everything. I can't really say I stick to one era of literature...it really just depends on what interests me. I work at a bookstore and I always keep a small notebook so that whenever a book catches my eye I'll jot it down. It tends to be a pretty good mixture of new/old writers.

[Virgil]

I try to balance it. I haven't completed all the classics but I don't want to pass on contemporary either.

[JBI]

That being said though, prose fiction didn't really pick up (I am talking English only here) until really Jane Austen in my opinion, and not fully until modernism where it sort of fused with poetry to some extent allow a more defined "impressionist" prose styles. That being said, I don't mean that prose fiction before said dates is bad, by no means I wouldn't go that far, but the truth is, omniscient narrators tend to sound rather similar.

What the 20th century and onwards did to verse however, well that is completely different. I wouldn't call it as much of a breaking of the rules, as a transfer over to a newer set of rules. Poetic free verse is hardly that, it merely just functions from other points than metric adherence.


I think however though, that the interesting question is on classical authority. As of now, I think it is rather difficult to run into young people who have had the "classical" education that people went through for so many years. By that I mean, how many people learn Latin or Ancient Greek, and how many people are made to compose verses in those languages? One of my professors was, and actually read us a list of rules regarding scanning Horace, and line-types of which my mind cannot recall very many (the only one I remember well is a Paeon, because Yeats uses a 1st Paeon in Under Ben Bulben), but that sort of education is now rather uncommon. The writers today will be hard pressed to continue with such classical reverence.

To what extent then can we take it? Well, up until the 19th century, the ancient world seems to have been the idealized form, revered and mimicked, studied and honored. Yet now, who are we revering? Certainly we have our canon, but not so many Greek or Latin poets are held as models. I think our reverence must have shifted now towards the 19th century, and modernist movement, with the introduction of literary prose, and free verse.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Interesting points JBI, I would love to have a grounding in Greek and Latin, truth is there is very little of that being taught on a standard literature degree. One of the problems with studying the new canon is that they obviously relate heavily to Greek and Latin literature and without at least a little knowledge in this area much is lost to the modern reader.

I would also totally agree with your take on the development of the novel.

[bazarov]

If book is really great, then it will outlive the writer. Therefore, NO to modern literature. And propaganda, commercials, human stupidity...No, thanks. Sorry Grass, Murakami or Marquez, but you will have to die first :D

[Nossa]

I have lots of classics in my bookcase, but I'm always looking for new writers and new books. I'm more interested these days in new Egyptians writers, but in general I do try to find out more about the modern literature, since we don't really study that many modern works in college.

[Petronius]

Most of the books I read were written in the second half of the 20th century, although there are a few exceptions (and when I was a child it was the other way around).

It's disappointing, even though - or especially because - in our age of comercialized creativity cheap fiction reigns supreme, that "good literature" aficionados hide behind old prose. Art, culture, and implicitly literature are at their best when alive - and I would much rather take a living crow or sparrow over a stuffed bird of paradise, with the yellow glass eyes of academic praise.

Not that, by any means, older works are without merit, but we must realize that their longevity doesn't derive from pure quality, but from a larger set of unique circumstances that we like to call chance. Furthermore, the greatest of themes and styles can be "inhereted" by future writers and be experienced beyond the bounds of their original creators.
Sadly, as it stands, if the circumstances for modern and contemporary literature are "I'm not touching it until it's dead and on display in a museum", we can only have small hopes for new literary masterpieces. I think educated readers should concern themselves more with discovering and promoting fresh quality literature. Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are already safe.

[mercymyqueen]

I only rarely read modern lit, because I am rather elitist with these things, but I'm often rewarded when I do. I just have very little patience with the crap out there, old or new.

[hhc]

I'm taking literature with a chronological order, preferring to start from the 19th century and stop reading books past the middle of the 20th century. I have one good reason: the true value of books emerges at least 50 years after they have been published. Reading everyhting the NYTimes describe as "unforgettable" is just wasting my time... There's been too much scum lately.

[Etienne]

I have one good reason: the true value of books emerges at least 50 years after they have been published.

Unless you read every scholar paper written on that book in these 50 years, it does not matter how much time was spent between the publication and your reading of the book. The value of a book emerges as you read it.


Reading everyhting the NYTimes describe as "unforgettable" is just wasting my time... There's been too much scum lately.

Because you think the NY Times represents today's literary criticism?