Contemporary Literature

[bluosean]

What I know about literature is what I know about Dickens, Cooper, Kipling, Stevenson etc. I want to read some contemporary Literature though. First off, can someone tell me what this is exactly? Where is the line drawn? Is it, for instance, anything not less than ten years old. I don't mean modernist writers, I mean people who are writing now. I have read some Faulkner, Vonnegut jr, Ray Bradbury etc. The problem for me is time when I start to look at anything newer than that. I know that Dickens is good and well worth my time but I dont really have time to read something new that will probably not be good. How do yall go about picking Comtemporary Literature?
If you know of any specific books or writes that yall really liked I would be happy to hear them.

[jtm2292]

I think that the literature you are referring to literature of the post-1970s era. All of it consists of more diverse literature and literature dealing with assimilation and adversity.

Here's a small list:

The Color Purple - Alice Walker (1982)
Love in the Time of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (1984)
Beloved - Toni Morrison (1987)
The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie (1988)
Joy Luck Club - Amy Tan (1989)
The English Patient - Michael Ondaatje (1992)
Angela's Ashes - Frank McCourt (1997)
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini (2003)

[stlukesguild]

The Color Purple - Alice Walker (1982)
Love in the Time of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (1984)
Beloved - Toni Morrison (1987)
The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie (1988)
Joy Luck Club - Amy Tan (1989)
The English Patient - Michael Ondaatje (1992)
Angela's Ashes - Frank McCourt (1997)
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini (2003)

Now there's a politically correct list! All you need is an Inuit albino dwarf.

[JBI]

The Color Purple - Alice Walker (1982)
Love in the Time of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (1984)
Beloved - Toni Morrison (1987)
The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie (1988)
Joy Luck Club - Amy Tan (1989)
The English Patient - Michael Ondaatje (1992)
Angela's Ashes - Frank McCourt (1997)
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini (2003)

Now there's a politically correct list! All you need is an Inuit albino dwarf.

Nah, no transgendered writers on that list.

[stlukesguild]

You mention Faulkner who is Modernist... but not Contemporary. Modernism loosely refers to the first half of the 2oth century. Post-Modernism would pick up following WWII. Contemporary would seemingly refer to someone writing at this moment. Are you interested in 20th century literature in general... or more with Post-Modernism and Contemporary. As an avowed Bogesian I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend J.L. Borges (Labyrinths, Ficciones, Collected Fictions... hell, anything). Among my favorite Modern/Post-Modern/Contemporary books I'd include:

Italo Calvino- Invisible Cities and The Baron in the Trees
Nabokov- Lolita
Julio Cortazar- Blow Up and other Stories
Pablo Neruda- Residence Earth
Gunter Grass- The Tin Drum
Hermann Hesse- Steppenwolf and The Glass Bead Game
Thomas Mann- Doctor Faustus
Franz Kafka- Collected Short Stories
Hemingway- Collected Short Stories
Faulkner- As I Lay Dying
Cormac McCarthy- Blood Meridian
T.S. Eliot- The Wasteland and other Poems, Four Quartets
Eugenio Montale- Cuttlefish Bones
Rilke- Selected Poems
Mikhail Bulgakov- Master and Margareta
Proust- In Search of Lost Time
Marguerite Duras- The Lover
Samuel Beckett- Endgame
Flannery O'Conner- Collected Short Stories
Saul Bellow- The Adventures of Augie March
Thomas Pynchon- Mason Dixon
Donald Barthleme- 40 Stories, 60 Stories
Phillip Roth- Zuckerman Bound
John Barth- Giles, Goat Boy
Michel Tournier- Friday
S.Y. Agnon- A Book that was Lost
Don Delilo- Underworld

Just a few suggestions.

[JBI]

Why that one by Agnon?

[Madame X]

If you know of any specific books or writes that yall really liked I would be happy to hear them.

If you’re looking for the kind of guy who’s equally at home in the hard sciences as well as the beaux arts, with a self-conscious yet highly penetrative -not to mention frighteningly intelligent- narrative perspective, and who happens to be alive ‘n kicking to this very day, you might find J.M. Coetzee worth a read. He’s most known for his novel Disgrace, but I’d recommend Elizabeth Costello above all else for the scope and singularly dexterous articulation (the humble author’s personal sentiments are not transparent, hence, do not obtrude upon the text; all voices are heard; all angles compellingly, though not necessarily harmoniously, investigated) of the subject matter therein.

[March Hare]

How do yall go about picking Comtemporary Literature?
If you know of any specific books or writes that yall really liked I would be happy to hear them.

Like you I generally stick to the tried and true. But I have been trying to read more current stuff. I read a review of Roberto Bolano's works in some periodical and am hooked on him now. I perused the Booker Prize winners and tried The White Tiger. That was good. Tried the same thing with the National Book Award but couldn't finish Shadow Country.

[wessexgirl]

Good contemporary authors you might want to try

Ian McEwan
Hilary Mantel
Kazuo Ishiguro
A.S.Byatt
Salman Rushdie
J.S. Coetzee
Beryl Bainbridge

And before I get jumped on by JBI and JCamilo, I know that's a very British list, (Coetzee excepted), but so what? They are quality writers, Booker winners on the whole, although I don't think Bainbridge has won it, but she is often on book award shortlists. You could try looking at the different literary awards for some ideas. No doubt whichever one you choose will be slated though, so be prepared for a lecture.

[mal4mac]

Good contemporary authors you might want to try
Ian McEwan...

I prefer the Victorians, but this guy isn't bad. Try "Saturday".

[mal4mac]

As an avowed Borgesian I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend J.L. Borges (Labyrinths, Ficciones, Collected Fictions...

I agree with that choice, and many others (although I haven't read all of them!) Of the few I've read. The ones I'd recommend without reservation for a Dickensian (like me!) are:

Franz Kafka- Collected Short Stories - Metamorphosis is insanely brilliant...

Hermann Hesse- Steppenwolf and The Glass Bead Game - i'd add Siddhartha (the best Buddhist novel by a Westrern author?)

Cormac McCarthy- Blood Meridian - just be prepared to skip or guess the Tex-Mex vocab. and you better have a strong stomach for the gut-churning violence.

Saul Bellow- The Adventures of Augie March - anything by Bellow is worth reading, he's very easy to read and is quite deep, and quite funny.

Phillip Roth- Zuckerman Bound - wot I said about Bellow, though even more so...

Recommended with reservation:

Thomas Mann- Doctor Faustus. This was tough going, read a plot synopsis first to see if it appeals! I'd recommend "Buddenbrooks" without reservation for a first attmept on Mann Mountain.

Nabokov- Lolita - slightly heavy going.

T.S. Eliot- The Wasteland and other Poems, Four Quartets. heavy.

Proust- In Search of Lost Time - Very long. Very involved. I gave up half way through... I may attempt the new Penguin translation though...

John Barth- Giles, Goat Boy He's a bit weird. I read this twenty years ago and it has left a feeling, "I don't want to read that again."

[promtbr]

I want to read some contemporary Literature though. I don't mean modernist writers, I mean people who are writing now.

Which we have to assume he wants to read living authors...

Which of your suggestions would eliminate all but :




Gunter Grass- The Tin Drum
Cormac McCarthy- Blood Meridian
Thomas Pynchon- Mason Dixon
Phillip Roth- Zuckerman Bound
John Barth- Giles, Goat Boy
Michel Tournier- Friday
S.Y. Agnon- A Book that was Lost ???
Don Delilo- Underworld



And:




Cormac McCarthy- Blood Meridian - just be prepared to skip or guess the Tex-Mex vocab. and you better have a strong stomach for the gut-churning violence.

Phillip Roth- Zuckerman Bound - wot I said about Bellow, though even more so...

John Barth- Giles, Goat Boy He's a bit weird. I read this twenty years ago and it has left a feeling, "I don't want to read that again."

I would agree with most above remaining:

Add:

JM Coetzee (as stated)
I would recommend Sot Weed Factor over Giles Goat Boy (but GGB IS good!)
Of Pynchon I would sample Crying of Lot 49, then V, then M & D.

Much much more contemporary World Lit (literature in translation) Murakami, Marias, Nooteboom, Oz, Kundera, Makine etc. there are at least 3 dozen freaking AMAZING living Latin American writers...there is a plethora of stunning new voices emerging out of India, Africa has some exciting new writers...
It is the ocean to the puddle of anglo-american lit only.
to that end, its much more fun to do your own exploring...

Enjoy!

[Jozanny]

I would second Byatt. She is out there, and making a name for herself, though I haven't read Persuasion.

Alice Hoffman might be an interesting bid.
George Harrar is also an interesting fiction writer, cf First Tiger and Best American Short Stories.

In an off moment I will list more.

[stlukesguild]

Why that one by Agnon?

Just glancing around the shelves at Modern literature that I found to be enjoyable and my eye fell on the Agnon book. Thus... just a whim. Of course this is not to suggest I don't think his tales are worthy of serious consideration. As someone particularly fond of shorter forms of fiction I found Agnon to be a great writer of such short stories. Yet asked for a few suggestions on any other day I might have chosen any number of other writers. Perhaps I might have chosen S.Y. Abrahmovitch, Isaac Babel, Sholem Aleichem, I.B. Singer, Robert Walser, the short stories of Faulkner, Hesse, Mann, Italo Calvino, Tomasso Landolfi, W.S. Merwin's short fictions, the poetry of Wallace Stevens, Frost, Pasternak, Garcia-Lorca, Rafael Alberti, Pessoa, Cesar Vallejo, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, etc... but let's avoid creating a new "canon" here.:rolleyes:

[Jozanny]

Why that one by Agnon?

Just glancing around the shelves at Modern literature that I found to be enjoyable and my eye fell on the Agnon book. Thus... just a whim. Of course this is not to suggest I don't think his tales are worthy of serious consideration. As someone particularly fond of shorter forms of fiction I found Agnon to be a great writer of such short stories. Yet asked for a few suggestions on any other day I might have chosen any number of other writers. Perhaps I might have chosen S.Y. Abrahmovitch, Isaac Babel, Sholem Aleichem, I.B. Singer, Robert Walser, the short stories of Faulkner, Hesse, Mann, Italo Calvino, Tomasso Landolfi, W.S. Merwin's short fictions, the poetry of Wallace Stevens, Frost, Pasternak, Garcia-Lorca, Rafael Alberti, Pessoa, Cesar Vallejo, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, etc... but let's avoid creating a new "canon" here.:rolleyes:

If contemporary means *fresh* my sources are better than yours, Herr art instructor, because I am going to direct the OP to go here (http://www.pw.org/magazine) and look at the classified ads, and then sample Glimmer Train, Indiana Review, and so on. These publications nursed people who are now on their way to being established.

You do not know everything luke, geez. Contemporary has little to do with your lists, really.

[stlukesguild]

Didn't catch the line specifying writers active right now... especially in light of his having mentioned Faulkner... who is most certainly not "contemporary".

If we define "contemporary" as writers working right now the choice is far more difficult... or perhaps I might say limited. There are few translations outside of a number of writers that are assured of some degree of sales, thus your choices are more limited to English-language originals. It is also more of a hit and miss affair as time has yet to edit out the weaker works.

Some books I would recommend:

Gunter Grass- The Tin Drum, Local Anesthetic
Cees Nooteboom- The Following Story
Wislawa Szymborska- Selected Poems
Adam Zagajewski- Mysticism for Beginners (poems)
Bella Akhmadulina- The Garden (selected poems)
Milan Kundera- The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Michel Rio- Dreaming Jungles
Umberto Eco- The Name of the Rose
Alessandro Baricco- Silk
Goffredo Parise- Solitudes
Michel Tournier- Friday
Yves Bonnefoy- The Curved Plank (poetry)
Carlos Fuentes- Terra Nostra, Diana
Gabriel Garcia-Marquez- 100 Years of Solitude, Love in the Time of Cholera
Mario Vargas LLosa- Conversation in the Cathedral, War at the End of the World, In Praise of the Stepmother
Jose Saramago- Bathasar and Blimunda, Blindness
Cormac McCarthy- Blood Meridian
John Barth- Giles, Goat Boy
Philip Roth- The Zuckerman Novels collected as "Zuckerman Bound", Sabbath's Theater
W.S. Merwin- The Book of Fables
Donald Barhleme- 40 Stories, 60 Stories
Don Delilo- Underworld
Thomas Pynchon- V, Mason and Dixon
Geoffrey Hill- Collected Poems
Anne Carsen- Plainwater
John Fowles- The Collector, The French Lieutenant's Woman
Seamus Heaney- Collected Poems
Anthony Burgess- Clockwork Orange, Nothing Like the Sun
V. S. Naipaul- A Bend in the River
Salmon Rushdie- Midnight's Children
Yehuda Amichai- Collected Poems
Kenzaburō Ōe- A Personal Matter
Mahmoud Darwish- Unfortunately, It Was Paradise: Selected Poems

[stlukesguild]

Contemporary has little to do with your lists, really.

Perhaps your sources are more "contemporary"... just off the grill, if you will. But they also represent a real hodge-podge of hit-or-miss with miss being far, far more likely. The same is true of my own discipline. I can pull out any number of publications following the latest trends and the newest rising "stars" of art... but in reality 99%+ will be completely forgotten within the decade (and for good reason).

By the way,,, notice that your source is almost completely limited to poets writing in the English language... and predominantly American poets at that... as if the rest of the world did not exist. Perhaps you might check out this site which at least makes an attempt to explore the poetic efforts around the globe:

http://international.poetryinternationalweb.org/piw_cms/cms/cms_module/index.php?obj_name=international&x=1

[bluosean]

thanks you guys. I mentioned Faulknrer and them because I was not talking about the modernists. I did mean contemporary literature. It dosent matter though...I didnt get any choices like Thomas Hardy...so I am happy. If someone did pick Hardy it really wouldn't have mattered though. What yall wrote was very helpful. And like you said contemporary works are harder to deal with. its just hard to find something that is really good that is not tested by many other people already.

Borges and Grass sound interisting though they arent exactly new they are new enough.

anyway thanks again for the replys. How bout essays? and poetry? Any thing yall really like? Again, the newer the better.

[meh!]

Seamus Heaney
Simon Armitage
Edwin Morgan

Three well-regarded contemporary poets. Indeed, one a nobel prize winner.

[bluosean]

Thanks. will look into them.

[Jozanny]

blu: I know you've been offered many suggestions, but the novelist Richard Russo is worth a try for those who want to stay current on the literary scene. He is a humorist with a point to make, and his characters live with you. Google Empire Falls. Wonderful read. I did it with a group on NYT; he is currently promoting another title.

[billl]

This just popped into my head

A Booker-Prize winning stream-of-consciousness novel that really tells a story:

How Late It Was, How Late, by James Kelman
http://www.amazon.com/How-Late-Was/dp/0385315600

I mention it because I was trying to think in terms of someone who explicitly mentioned Dickens in their description of "Where they're coming from." This Kelman book is not at all like Dickens, but I think some contemporary literature might be a bit risky for you, simply because so much of it borders on nihilism, muted emotions, and a typical 20th-Centurian arms-race of deconstruction and taboo-breaking. Look, I don't even know what I'm saying with that, exactly, but I think this Kelman book (despite the off-putting title) would be a good choice, maybe. Depending... You get to know a pretty realistic narrator, the writing is Scottish vernacular but fun to get the hang of, and you could end up crying and optimistic or who knows? It's pretty human, not about 20th-Century information overload, for example, or anything really avant-garde.

If you want to venture out of the real world for some incredible writing, Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude (mentioned above) might be good, too.

There's a lot of other good books mentioned above too, as well as a lot I don't know.

I'd be interested in hearing about:

1. What you enjoy, and what you don't like in Literature in general.
2. What attracts you to contemporary lit.
3. What negative "stereotypes" about contemporary lit might you be particularly wary of.

then maybe I could feel safer in my Kelman recommendation. :wave:

[meh!]

How late it was, How late is excellent. I would also thoroughly recommend that. I would also thoroughly recommend his latest novel Kieron Smith, Boy and many of his short stories. Kelman is excellent.

[stlukesguild]

How bout essays? and poetry?

Essays? Again I'd check into Borges: Other Inquisitions and/or Collected Non-Fictions. Octavio Paz also wrote some intriguing essays. Check into the essays of T.S. Eliot, Umberto Eco, Solzhenitsyn (many of his can be found on line). I quite liked Alberto Manguel's History of Reading, Andre Malraux's The Voices of Silence, Robert Hughes' Shock of the New and Sir Kenneth Clark's The Nude and Civilization (the last three authors all focusing upon art). I also liked Edward Hirsch's The Demon and the Angel, Cees Nooteboom's Roads to Santiago, and peter Ackroyd's London and Albion. Beyond that I've already made a few suggestions for poetry on the earlier posts.

[bluosean]

Ok thank you. I will admit that I didn't check into any of the the authors yet. I just assumed that it was all fiction. I will have to get on that. I went to the library yesterday. The Tin Drum and Local Anesthetic were both quite long. Two of the last books that I read were Little Dorrit and Bleak House which are a little too long so I want to read something short next. I think I will try some of Borges short stories to start. Unfortunatly they didnt have a single Borges volume at my library. I think though there should be something at the University Library or else at a bookstore.

billl: I think that I will try your book sometime within 6 months or so. Dont worry about my maybe hating it. My first books were books like David Copperfield ,Moby Dick , and Hucleberry Finn. I picked them up because I already knew the storys and that they were movies etc. The only real reason that I havent read the books on this thread is that I have never heard of them. I knew intuitively that some newer books had to be good. But I didnt start looking till now because I did not know where to start. This is just about the best place I could have asked because some of yall like you and stluke have read them and can point me in the right direction.

[mal4mac]

Two of the last books that I read were Little Dorrit and Bleak House which are a little too long so I want to read something short next...

My first books were books like David Copperfield ...

Well you've read the best novels in English, so it's difficult to recommend modern novels that are "as good". Certainly none that everyone would agree on! Why modern novels? Why not choose older novels? Austen, Flaubert & Tolstoy wrote excellent shorter novels that are up there with Dickens -- anyone disagree? :-)

[blazeofglory]

Well you've read the best novels in English, so it's difficult to recommend modern novels that are "as good". Certainly none that everyone would agree on! Why modern novels? Why not choose older novels? Austen, Flaubert & Tolstoy wrote excellent shorter novels that are up there with Dickens -- anyone disagree? :-)

You are right. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky are timeless writers.

They can be as modern as any contemporaries

[bluosean]

I have already read some Tolstoy, Dostevsky, and Jane Austen. Of course I havent read all of the good old books, but that is not what I want to read right now. It is newer books that I want to start reading...well anyway I have already decided to read the first Borges book that I can get (whatever that is).

[Manchegan]

It might be a good idea to get an anthology of modern short stories, that way you don't invest too much time with trial and error. I found Stanley Elkin, James Baldwin, and Tobias Wolfe by going that route and really like them. Elkin is hilarious and baldwin is just awesome.

[JBI]

Well you've read the best novels in English, so it's difficult to recommend modern novels that are "as good". Certainly none that everyone would agree on! Why modern novels? Why not choose older novels? Austen, Flaubert & Tolstoy wrote excellent shorter novels that are up there with Dickens -- anyone disagree? :-)

The novel as a real genre is only 200 years old, and as a serious genre, only really 100 years old (this is for English, French is about 250 years old). Certainly the best novels have come within the past 80 years, and even from there, I'd say the past 50 years. The novel, as a genre, probably reached its peak, in terms of the England English novel, and the American novel, in the 80s, but even so, it seems like quite a pointless and dismissive statement. The person asked for recommendations, not quibbles about quality, because, quite simply, one shouldn't make a valuing one's main priority when reading.

As for good contemporary writers,

Wilson Harris,
Austin Clarke
Margaret Atwood
Philip Roth
Salman Rushdie
V. S. Naipaul

and others - those are at least ones who are still trying to do stuff, though I think Rushdie, Atwood, Naipaul and Roth have pretty much settled into a comfortable mold to replicate. Harris to me seems a bit of an eccentric genius of literature.

I'm not going to go into other genres, or non-English textsl sources, as, quite simply, there are far too many to name. But I think this, as well as the great recommendations from other posters, will provide a great start.

[LMK]

Rather than give a laundry list of what I consider good contemporary liturature, I will answer that I choose my reading material by reading.

From bookstores, libraries and on-line source (preferring the two former); shying away from trendy types if and until I can no longer resist.

For example, I read Joy Luck Club after the movie hype (I didn't see the movie), but had heard so much in general terms about it. To some it was confusing, to others it was fresh, so many very different views. I finally picked it up and read it. I've read all of Amy Tan's published works, if that gives you any indication of what I thought of it.

But I make the decisions for myself and weigh recommendations with salt. Also, I do NOT read dust covers to find out what someone else thinks the story is about or so they can spoil it for me.

The Secret Life of Bees is another that I avoided for quite a while, but then read before people could tell me much about it and was glad I did. It was a good air flight book and if I read it again may find that it is even better.

The most likely reason one reads Jane Austen (other than just to find out who Mr. Darcy is) Sartre's The Stranger,or other types of liturature that appear on a "classics" list is:

Because so many different tastes seemed to have enjoyed it or in someway found appreciation for it; a wide audience is spoken to, and
So that you can discuss them should you be so inclined with others who have likely read these works, as well, because of that wide audience appeal.
But the main reason I read a work, and how I go about choosing what I read is by reading it. If I like it, or find something that I can appreciate in it, I continue reading, if not, I put it down (or return it to the library unread).

~L

[wessexgirl]

The novel as a real genre is only 200 years old, and as a serious genre, only really 100 years old (this is for English, French is about 250 years old). Certainly the best novels have come within the past 80 years, and even from there, I'd say the past 50 years. The novel, as a genre, probably reached its peak, in terms of the England English novel, and the American novel, in the 80s,

Who says so? Is this your opinion, or is it an irrefutable fact propounded by literary critics, which everyone must :rolleyes: agree with? So we're talking around the 1920s for the start of the best novels ever written.......I see, and here's me thinking there was a wealth of wonderful novels written prior to that date. I suppose all the brilliant writers from the previous eras, which includes a wealth of talent, from Fielding to Dickens, from Defoe to Hardy, from Swift to Austen, from Richardson to the Brontes.....etc., and let's not forget, so I'm not accused of being Anglocentric, de Laclos to Hugo, Dostoevsky to Tolstoy, Flaubert to Zola, etc. And that's just for starters, I could go on, without even going across the Atlantic to America. Your certainty is at best misplaced, at worst ignorant. I think your affection for Modernism is causing you to ignore the bigger picture. As for the novel reaching its peak in the 80's, I would suggest you possibly meant the 1880's, not the 1980s.

[stlukesguild]

Yeah... I sort of thought JBI's head was more than a little ways stuck up his posterior on that one... but I've learned to go with the flow on his proclamations. At least he didn't make the expected declaration that the novel was not only invented by but reached its peak in the hands of the Canadians.:lol:

Does anyone else get the feeling that JBI really wishes he was American, but he got turned back at the border?:D

[JCamilo]

How bout essays? and poetry?

Essays? Again I'd check into Borges: Other Inquisitions and/or Collected Non-Fictions. Octavio Paz also wrote some intriguing essays. Check into the essays of T.S. Eliot, Umberto Eco, Solzhenitsyn (many of his can be found on line). I quite liked Alberto Manguel's History of Reading, Andre Malraux's The Voices of Silence, Robert Hughes' Shock of the New and Sir Kenneth Clark's The Nude and Civilization (the last three authors all focusing upon art). I also liked Edward Hirsch's The Demon and the Angel, Cees Nooteboom's Roads to Santiago, and peter Ackroyd's London and Albion. Beyond that I've already made a few suggestions for poetry on the earlier posts.

Have you read Cortazar eassays? The guy is quite good, almost on pair with Borges (with the advantage when he talks about Borges he is really talking about other). And considering his french ties unlike Borges's english ties, he do talk about writers than Borges prefered not to.
I would recommend to those who are going to follow the latin american lineage (Borges, Marquez, Cortazar) Roberto Bolano, and the little bit older Juan Rulfo which work Pedro Paramo is a little masterwork.
Stlukes you need to find a good Guimaraes Rosa translation to read (altough he maybe as difficult as Joyce to translate).

[JCamilo]

Yeah... I sort of thought JBI's head was more than a little ways stuck up his posterior on that one... but I've learned to go with the flow on his proclamations. At least he didn't make the expected declaration that the novel was not only invented by but reached its peak in the hands of the Canadians.:lol:

Does anyone else get the feeling that JBI really wishes he was American, but he got turned back at the border?:D

Well, maybe there is exageration (Maybe, because I am polite), but not that much... the moderm novel is really new, but then it is modern. For quite while the novel genre was more "light" since poems dominated the literature and the novellino or Dom Quixote were the reference. Not that those novels are not any good and without the moderm structure...
XIX century, maybe after Jane Austen there was a shift. Novels changed their tone and style, indeed great works and the poetic experimentantions started which indeed may had a peak with Faulkner, Joyce, Woolf and their peers. After this the most inovative form of literature was Borges with short stories and while we had very good novels (Still have) there is really little room for inovations, at least if we compared with the modernism crew. And with the digital era coming it is probally time for a new form of novel, so it may be the end... but the american peak of the novel is probally the great american novel quest, it have generated more fiction than the best one written by an american, much before the british, a certain big and white whale... I still like to think that Borges wrote the perfect epitaph for the novels with Pierre Menard (Joyce Murdered then with Finnegans wake of course) but as anything in art, death is not always a decisive event...

[JBI]

Who says so? Is this your opinion, or is it an irrefutable fact propounded by literary critics, which everyone must :rolleyes: agree with? So we're talking around the 1920s for the start of the best novels ever written.......I see, and here's me thinking there was a wealth of wonderful novels written prior to that date. I suppose all the brilliant writers from the previous eras, which includes a wealth of talent, from Fielding to Dickens, from Defoe to Hardy, from Swift to Austen, from Richardson to the Brontes.....etc., and let's not forget, so I'm not accused of being Anglocentric, de Laclos to Hugo, Dostoevsky to Tolstoy, Flaubert to Zola, etc. And that's just for starters, I could go on, without even going across the Atlantic to America. Your certainty is at best misplaced, at worst ignorant. I think your affection for Modernism is causing you to ignore the bigger picture. As for the novel reaching its peak in the 80's, I would suggest you possibly meant the 1880's, not the 1980s.

True, in a sense, there was great stuff beforehand, but if you look at, for example, the treatment of the novel as a genre, it isn't until later periods where it really starts to emerge as an artistic form. In France it certainly emerges earlier, but in England and the US? people weren't even ready to treat certain novels in their own time, because the novel form hadn't developed. That's how I see, for instance, Moby Dick, as a sort of out-of-it's place early American novel, that was too early to be accepted, and needed to later fit in, when the novel had foregrounded.

But in terms of dominance of genre, when did the novel become serious? In English literature, probably around the turn of the century, in French, it became serious before, but it became a serious later - Zola, Dickens, etc. were known as popular novelists, keep and mind, and sort of lower-class in their enterprise, which, seems to have been the attitude toward almost all novels until the 20th century.

I'm not saying there aren't great isolates - Hardy (though I prefer his poetry) is a great example of one - a truly masterful novelist, and Conrad too was approaching a sort of aesthetic that anticipates what comes after - but when it comes down to it, the novel as a genre of real expression to my reading seems to have grown later - Proust, for instance, is a major stepping stone, since he ultimately creates a breaking point with the novelists before him, by merging a sort of German intellectual voice with traditional novel characteristics to create a new, sophisticated art form. If you compare that with, for instance, Zola's breakthrough novel Therese Raquin, you can see the difference in attitude toward the novel - Zola realized that the best way to get sales was to make his novel as low brow and pornographic as possible, meanwhile maintaining a sort of intellectual snobbery making his works somehow OK, so the fact that his characters have "temperaments" governing their actions somehow makes it scientific, as apposed to just a melodramatic scandal.


But I ask you, in terms of genre, when did the novel start to be taken seriously? It must have been only within the last 80 years, when the genre really started to get cultivated.

I wouldn't go and make a claim that, for instance, the past 50 years have been the best ever when it comes to drama in English, because quite simply, besides a few excellent isolates, I can't think of Drama as flourishing as a major genre in these past 50 years. In the same sense, I can't think of novels really flourishing, well, outside of France anyway, until the 20th century - we have isolates, and some very great writers, but when it comes down to it, I think my claims hold.

[Jozanny]

Now that my memory toggled a bit, luke, one of my favorite contemporaries is this lady (http://www.jayneannephillips.com/). I have a girl's crush on her, and actually published with her in Oxford Magazine, which was thrilling for me, despite the lack of glory in Oxford Magazine. She opened the issue, I closed, and I wrote a poem for her too, like they did back in Shakespeare's day, alluding to each other, though I forget the name of the magazine that published the piece.

I read Black Tickets, but remember the energy over the details, and might buy it if I can get it; not sure where my gut thrall for her comes from. Her novel lagged a little, sorry to say, but her short story voice, when she's on, is like a butter knife on a razor's edge.

I offer her not so much for the OP as for myself.

[Jozanny]

As I may have posted in another thread, long ago, I tend to divide modern and contemporary authors into distinct categories. Pynchon is modern, but to me only barely on the cusp of contemporary, as in current, whereas Jayne Anne is actually my contemporary, more noted than I, of course, but her level of recognition is where I had hoped to be, by now, although if I have another hellish year as this one past I suppose I can kiss my craving for critical acclaim goodbye.

Others less famous but friends of mine:
Laurel Speer
Louis McKee

I will mention more as I rebuild. Promise.

[mal4mac]

I get the impression that most serious critics think the novel peaked at around the time of Dickens and Tolstoy. My very patchy reading experience has not led me to think anything else. I'm not saying JBI is not a serious critic, but he may be in Tolstoy's "Shakespeare is rubbish" territory here - all alone with only Bernard Shaw for company...

[Jozanny]

I get the impression that most serious critics think the novel peaked at around the time of Dickens and Tolstoy. My very patchy reading experience has not led me to think anything else. I'm not saying JBI is not a serious critic, but he may be in Tolstoy's "Shakespeare is rubbish" territory here - all alone with only Bernard Shaw for company...

In the context of this thread, the maturity of the novel as an art is a bit laughable. Novels may have *peaked* by the early 20th century due to the advent of radio and film, but Cervantes can have as many critical complexities as DeLillo, or Byatt. I will gladly debate what may be considered contemporary literature, but I think JBI needs stronger tools for his argument. For me it does not hold, and doesn't belong in this thread.

[meh!]

George Bernard Shaw didn't hate shakespeare and its hard to suggest that dickens was the pinnacle of the novel considering the serialisation of his stories. Excellent writing but, in novel terms, there are flaws.

[JBI]

In the context of this thread, the maturity of the novel as an art is a bit laughable. Novels may have *peaked* by the early 20th century due to the advent of radio and film, but Cervantes can have as many critical complexities as DeLillo, or Byatt. I will gladly debate what may be considered contemporary literature, but I think JBI needs stronger tools for his argument. For me it does not hold, and doesn't belong in this thread.

I'm not actually thinking about it in terms of when was the best literature written, or what are the best books, but on the nature of the novel as a genre.

As for best works, and great works, there is no doubt about the excellence of certain texts - even the most resentful critic cannot really bring about an argument to present for the inferiority of great works. But as a genre, one can look at how the trends have developed, changed, and been abandoned.

As such, as a dominant literary artform, in terms of seriousness, the novel in Scott's time was laughable, in Dickens' time was popular literature, and then sort of continued as the main form of expression, surpassing every other form until this current day, but as development, I would argue, the novel, in its traditional form, peaked in the 80s, in that the development of the genre seems to have siezed up, to the point where the novel, as a form, is starting to decompose into other forms. That's what I meant, there is no need to bicker about how great certain writers are - the novel was not serious literature until modernism in English, as comparable to a form such as verse. There is no real denying that, though some authors were very serious, and Victorian fiction was some of the most superb writing in the language.

But when you are understanding novels, I don't think it is quite possible to call any time period before modernism an age of novel reading, as the novel, though popular, was still a secondary form to poetry. Likewise, the development of cultural tastes up until the second half of the 20th century kept on until the novel seemed to have surpassed all other forms; by the 80s though, the novel itself began to take on a completely anti-novel shape, to the point where you have works like Autobiography of Red, Whylah Falls, and even an earlier Cat's Cradle really challenging the genre as a whole, breaking it apart.


There is no need to point fingers and call certain people less informed, or less well read, or someone who doesn't know anything about literature - you merely misunderstood (I think unintentionally) what I was trying to say. Be that as it may though, there is still no justification as to the perpetuation of a classical superiority, but I won't stand here and argue - it's not a crime to support contemporary authors, and read contemporary fiction, I just wanted to point out, that culturally speaking, the same sort of attitude had been applied years before, in dismissing novelists as pulp writers (there are some very excellent editorials and caricatures of Zola for instance of which I have been privy to seeing which equate him with a pig whoring himself off to the public - a cheap, degrading scumbag, etc). There's no need to close one's mind today.

[Jozanny]

JBI: I think it is an interesting premise, in so far as I *get* what you are driving at--the novel as a dramatic form on par with the most powerful theater--this did take some time, and the realists of the 19th century opened the door for the DeLillo's of the future--but I do not see what it has to do with contemporary authors.

luke would fault me for naming writers at *my* level, but people like Alice Hoffman and Jayne Anne are out of the gate--hence my weak knees at sharing the same space with such a gifted voice, and so is Russo. I lost my reading list in transferring to this laptop, and I may never be able to rebuild it, but if I can I may have more to offer.

[bluosean]

I think it all started when someone reccomend that I read Charles Dickens and Jane Austin. Some one else pointed out that this tread was about good new books and not good old ones. then someone else said that the old books really are better. They warned me not to waste my time if I had not yet read Tolstoy. Well, how does anything happen...

[JBI]

JBI: I think it is an interesting premise, in so far as I *get* what you are driving at--the novel as a dramatic form on par with the most powerful theater--this did take some time, and the realists of the 19th century opened the door for the DeLillo's of the future--but I do not see what it has to do with contemporary authors.

luke would fault me for naming writers at *my* level, but people like Alice Hoffman and Jayne Anne are out of the gate--hence my weak knees at sharing the same space with such a gifted voice, and so is Russo. I lost my reading list in transferring to this laptop, and I may never be able to rebuild it, but if I can I may have more to offer.

It makes no difference, at any rate - how many people here read as passionately in classics and contemporary works? The bulk of posters are contemporary fiction readers - the esteem of the novel, and hence, its success as a genre needs to be considered within the terms of the genre - Rushdie's time was a far more lucrative time in the novel's history than Scott's, because a) more people were writing them, and b) the trends that constructed them solidified into a form where some of the world's greatest fiction was able to flourish.

It isn't even that though - the genre had appeal cross-borders, to the point where there was fantastic fiction written in languages and countries across the world - There are 4 classic novels of Ancient China, but they have nothing to do with contemporary trends in novels (anyone who has really looked into them can attest to this - two of them don't even claim to be, and instead consider themselves as histories, and a third is based on folk legend and history, and the fourth is believed to be intensely autobiographical) but the emergence of the genre has lead to even a country with a strong literary tradition to accept a foreign form of expression, and develop it - this is all within the last century, and more so within the past 50 years - the actual power of the work being written is comparable to a bomb exploding, but nobody really pays it attention - the classics are good, but one needs to look beyond them - one cannot only read the classics.

You can compile a list of master novelists, but lets be honest, once you get down to 30 or so excellent names in English during the 19th century, you run out of room - I am willing to wager, than in terms of development, there are far more in the past 100 years - Faulkner is, arguably, as skilled as an Eliot or Dickens - I would say Rushdie, for his Midnight's Children is also up there, as are others - how can we really know - this dismissal cannot really go through - there has been so much written, because of the development of the genre, that one can only guess at the amount of great texts there.


I merely wanted to prove a point - as I stated before, I do not like valuing texts in this manner, of who is the best and who is the worst, I would rather just recommend a few names, and speak about the texts themselves - as it is, are we to dismiss contemporary lit. because Dickens was a genius? I doubt that.

[mortalterror]

JBI, you mention the Four Classic Novels of China fairly often since you started studying... What is it Cantonese or Mandarin? They are very long books and I was wondering if you yourself had finished them all?

[JBI]

JBI, you mention the Four Classic Novels of China fairly often since you started studying... What is it Cantonese or Mandarin? They are very long books and I was wondering if you yourself had finished them all?

I haven't finished them all, and haven't read them in the original yet. I study Mandarin, but it isn't an issue - it will be some years until I can read them - they aren't exactly easy books either.

It's difficult to get translations of all of them, which has been the biggest hindrance, but as of now, after getting two good translations (thankfully ones using Pinyin instead of Wade-Gilles) I'm trudging through Dream of Red Mansions and Water Margin, though, given my tastes, I neglect them for poetry reading (I'm not to fond of novels as a whole, as you probably know already).

I admit though, that this summer was a very, very dry season in terms of reading, and beyond some poetry, I didn't really read much. It will all wait until next summer, when I formally study the texts (albeit, in translation again) that I will be more fit to comment on the actual complexities and bibliography, but, from reading around them, and reading essays on Chinese literature, and the texts specifically, I know a few things, albeit nothing significant enough to enter into a discussion of the texts themselves beyond a trivial manner.

I merely am trying to get different voices, but, alas, my knowledge of other traditions with strong narrative elements, like Japanese literature, and its novels, is quite lacking. Generally, as you know, I try to mention texts that I think people will benefit from reading, or at least looking up, so perhaps this fascination is an attempt to get others to approach the texts.

[mortalterror]

I know what you mean. Most of my reading is caught up in the western world. But from time to time I like to spice up my reading with small samples from the orient. I'll read Po Chu-i's Song of Unending Sorrow (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/song-of-unending-sorrow/), Kamo No Chomei's My Ten Foot Hut (http://www.washburn.edu/reference/bridge24/Hojoki.html), or continue where I left off in the Shahnameh (http://www.archive.org/details/shahnama01firduoft).

[JBI]

I know what you mean. Most of my reading is caught up in the western world. But from time to time I like to spice up my reading with small samples from the orient. I'll read Po Chu-i's Song of Unending Sorrow (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/song-of-unending-sorrow/), Kamo No Chomei's My Ten Foot Hut (http://www.washburn.edu/reference/bridge24/Hojoki.html), or continue where I left off in the Shahnameh (http://www.archive.org/details/shahnama01firduoft).

Gah! evil Wade-Giles coming to haunt me again! call him Bai Juyi, please. But then again, I'm not out to spice up anything - I'm looking to understand the traditions - like I told you before, I am not part of the West, so my only loyalty to it, in terms of aesthetics, is language based - in the sense that I read in Italian, and a little bit (albeit slowly) in French - but I don't intend to remain shackled to the tradition, so I read whatever I can in translation for the time being (generally poetry, since, as I have said before, I generally don't like fiction.

It's not enough to take an interest for me - when it comes down to it, I get one taste of something I like, and I read around it, I become obsessed with it, trying to get everything I can get.

[WICKES]

I like Ian McEwan, Will Self and Julian Barnes. I have never read any of Martin Amis' work- I keep meaning to read London Fields

[mal4mac]

I really enjoyed Julian Barnes' "Nothing to be Frightened of" recently. Read London Fields more than a decade ago, so can remember little about it, except a 'worth re-reading' feeling and vague memories of 'really nasty underclass character portrayed very well'. Why do we read novels? We just forget them. :D

[sixsmith]

I like Ian McEwan, Will Self and Julian Barnes. I have never read any of Martin Amis' work- I keep meaning to read London Fields

Amis is a very funny and precise observer of the human condition. The vast majority of his novels, however, leave me cold. The grotesque creations of John Self and Keith Talent, for example, are laboured and desperate to amuse. I find the restrained and more sardonic tone of 'The Information' more effective and far funnier. I think Amis is a fine critic; 'The war against cliche' is a favourite of mine.

As for Self, i really enjoyed his rather disturbing but very fine debut. I've tried on a couple of his later works and i always feel he's trying to out Amis Amis. 'How the dead live' was just dire and i haven't been back since.

As for McEwan, i can't believe he still has a career after 'Saturday'.:sick:

[Jozanny]

There is no need to point fingers and call certain people less informed, or less well read, or someone who doesn't know anything about literature - you merely misunderstood (I think unintentionally) what I was trying to say. Be that as it may though, there is still no justification as to the perpetuation of a classical superiority, but I won't stand here and argue - it's not a crime to support contemporary authors, and read contemporary fiction, I just wanted to point out, that culturally speaking, the same sort of attitude had been applied years before, in dismissing novelists as pulp writers (there are some very excellent editorials and caricatures of Zola for instance of which I have been privy to seeing which equate him with a pig whoring himself off to the public - a cheap, degrading scumbag, etc). There's no need to close one's mind today.

What are you talking about JBI? Exactly who have I accused of being less informed other than admitting to it when it pertained to myself? You keep making certain authoritative statements about the novel's development within the last 200 years, and I can't see the woods through the trees in your argument--but I have stood, or sat, head to waist, with many contemporary writers, and relish the chance to post about that milieu. My error, no doubt.

[Jozanny]

I had previously mentioned two poets; allow me to bring up a third, Joel Oppenheimer (http://www.oysterboyreview.com/archived/16/recommended/BeamJ-Oppenheimer.html). I met him at his last reading, and his stage performance was worthy of envy, but up close, I never forgot the look on his face, cold and hard, in want of no sympathy from the no-name cripple dutifully buying his collection. To this day his face haunts me, though we exchanged no more than polite greetings.

Whether he can be considered contemporary, is, I suppose, a toss up, and he was clean shaven, which made a different impression than the picture of him on this particular book cover.

Can't speak to his work; on paper I am closed to it, but he was, like Creeley, in the Black Mountain tradition.

[JBI]

What are you talking about JBI? Exactly who have I accused of being less informed other than admitting to it when it pertained to myself? You keep making certain authoritative statements about the novel's development within the last 200 years, and I can't see the woods through the trees in your argument--but I have stood, or sat, head to waist, with many contemporary writers, and relish the chance to post about that milieu. My error, no doubt.

I wasn't talking about you, but another poster who I purposely did not quote, as to not perpetuate something that would lead to me getting banned.

[Jozanny]

I wasn't talking about you, but another poster who I purposely did not quote, as to not perpetuate something that would lead to me getting banned.

Okay. Look, if I can offer some advice, I used to go off in my old haunts like a she-devil from Supernatural, not because I was a bad person so much, as my poverty and disability was frustrating, and I resented the able-bodied teachers and writers because I wasn't in this career arc club.

I have learned since to bite my tongue, not because I care about moderators and fine folks like Admin, but because if I want to post about books and poets, I would be sad to lose that by goading, or telling posters why I think they're idiots.

Two: I am not as invested as I used to be, and nursed my wounds for a long time over a community which is no longer what it was, and slowly realized I was wasting my time with guilt and regret.

You aren't like me JBI, and don't rock the boat like I used to, but perhaps, and I am trying to post this in a nice way, it might help if you take a step back when sensitive subjects are a foot. Just a thought, since I recognize how talented you are in our mutual field of interest, and I like discussing topics with you.

[stlukesguild]

JBI- As such, as a dominant literary artform, in terms of seriousness, the novel in Scott's time was laughable, in Dickens' time was popular literature, and then sort of continued as the main form of expression, surpassing every other form until this current day...

But when you are understanding novels, I don't think it is quite possible to call any time period before modernism an age of novel reading, as the novel, though popular, was still a secondary form to poetry.

...it's not a crime to support contemporary authors, and read contemporary fiction, I just wanted to point out, that culturally speaking, the same sort of attitude had been applied years before, in dismissing novelists as pulp writers...

Here your argument makes sense. I remember coming across writings or comments by Pope, Swift, maybe even Johnson that dismissed the novel as an art form certainly inferior to poetry and better left to women... this in spite of the achievements of Cervantes, Fielding, Sterne, Defoe, Richardson, Hogg, Smollett, etc... Comically, Swift's Gulliver's Travels employs many of the same fictive elements of the novel. I do agree, however, that the novel does not become taken seriously as THE central literary form until the twentieth century. In a way this is a sad development for myself as my own preferences are for poetry... yet as much as I admire some 20th century poets, I almost certainly must acknowledge that it is the novel that dominates. As for theater...? Did that ever become the central art form in Britain? Marlow and Shakespeare and Kyd and Jonson and Congreve etc... may be imagined as a golden age of British drama... but they were also largely dismissed as mere entertainment. Perhaps on the continent where Racine, Moliere, Corneille, and opera were taken more seriously. But what does it matter if one form supersedes another in the mind of academia or "serious" art... or in the public favor? There will always be those who continue to achieve something withing the dominant art forms and within those that are marginalized. Each has advantages. I may be a painter, but I would be the first to admit that it may just be that film will be seen as the dominant visual art form of the last century... or at least of the latter half. Painting and other "serious" visual art forms have gone off into an increasingly esoteric realm in which they have become increasingly irrelevant to the larger culture... even to the larger educated culture. Still... many continue to dismiss film as mere entertainment... much as opera or the theater were once dismissed. In whatever form, the art of song, story-telling, music making, and visual imagery will continue on.

[higley]

Bluosean, you might enjoy some of these:

Life of Pi by Yann Martel,
Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi
a personal set of favorites, The Alienist and sequel The Angel of Darkness by Caleb Carr
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon
American Gods by Neil Gaiman
Wicked by Gregory Maguire--not a personal favorite but a lot of people love it
1776 by David McCullough
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke (fun read, but very long)
The Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane

Few of these are modern classics but I enjoyed them all. :)

[bluosean]

ok. Thank you higley.

[mortalterror]

Comically, Swift's Gulliver's Travels employs many of the same fictive elements of the novel.
That is true, but I think that Swift took Lucian's True Story (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/true/tru01.htm) for his model, in this case. He had something of a habit of looking backward, as was the style of the time, and made frequent homage to the satire of Horace and Juvenal. Seeing as how a common education of this period would include Greek and Latin, it seems just as likely that authors would take for their model Heliodorus as often as Defoe, employing Apuleius as often as Richardson, or Longus with the same frequency as La Fayette or Rabelais.

[Jozanny]

Comically, Swift's Gulliver's Travels employs many of the same fictive elements of the novel

If it isn't a novel, what is it? Utopians do not merit exclusion from being fictive simply because they have a didactic aim


That is true, but I think that Swift took Lucian's True Story (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/true/tru01.htm) for his model, in this case. He had something of a habit of looking backward, as was the style of the time, and made frequent homage to the satire of Horace and Juvenal. Seeing as how a common education of this period would include Greek and Latin, it seems just as likely that authors would take for their model Heliodorus as often as Defoe, employing Apuleius as often as Richardson, or Longus with the same frequency as La Fayette or Rabelais.

Do you have a citation which shows Swift used Lucian? I do not think you make your case that ancients had anything up on the Elizabethans, Victorians, or moderns, btw. Roman writing has nearly as much of a patrician cast to it as Peyton Place conceits on the 1950's airwaves.

[mortalterror]

Do you have a citation which shows Swift used Lucian? I do not think you make your case that ancients had anything up on the Elizabethans, Victorians, or moderns, btw. Roman writing has nearly as much of a patrician cast to it as Peyton Place conceits on the 1950's airwaves.
I did better than that, I included a link to the translation. It's only 40 pages or so and anybody who's read both will have difficulty missing the similarities. You might take my word for it, or this article on MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574506/lucian.html), and if that's not good enough, you might compare the two author's interviews with dead heroes. Lucian travels to the isle of the dead and meets Homer in book 2. Gulliver travels to Glubbdubdrib (http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt3ch08.html) an island of sorcerors which summon the spirits of famous departed men for his amusement. There he also meets Homer.

Lucian got around quite a bit in those days and is an influence on More, Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare, Swift, Fielding, Shelley, Browning, and even H.G. Wells.

[Bergbau]

I've always considered "contemporary" literature to be that which is written by writers who are still living. I realise you could blow lots of holes in this as a definition but it suits my purpose. What I do have difficulty with is defining "literature"! Choice of reading is such a personal thing that I've long since given up thrusting a dog-eared volume at someone with the exhortation that "You must read this!". I did it once with Peake's Gormenghast trilogy and the recipient hasn't spoken to me since; but then it's a bit difficult communicating from a mental hospital.

[Jozanny]

I did better than that, I included a link to the translation. It's only 40 pages or so and anybody who's read both will have difficulty missing the similarities. You might take my word for it, or this article on MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574506/lucian.html), and if that's not good enough, you might compare the two author's interviews with dead heroes. Lucian travels to the isle of the dead and meets Homer in book 2. Gulliver travels to Glubbdubdrib (http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt3ch08.html) an island of sorcerors which summon the spirits of famous departed men for his amusement. There he also meets Homer.

Lucian got around quite a bit in those days and is an influence on More, Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare, Swift, Fielding, Shelley, Browning, and even H.G. Wells.

And I found David Marsh (http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=15864) in about 30 seconds. At some point it may be worth looking into. Thanks.

[stlukesguild]

Comically, Swift's Gulliver's Travels employs many of the same fictive elements of the novel

If it isn't a novel, what is it? Utopians do not merit exclusion from being fictive simply because they have a didactic aim

JoZ... we might surely define the book as a "novel" today... but the "novel" was not defined (at least initially) as any long form of non-poetic fiction. The Decameron, The Golden ***, Tirant Lo Blanc, The Arabian Night's Entertainments, Gargantua, Utopia, etc... were not considered "novels". The 18th century is commonly seen as the the era of the birth of the novel (at least in the English language). The novel was seen as a literary form distinct from the epic or the romance in that it was a fictive narrative written in prose which generally followed a chronological linear development and focused upon events concerning a few major characters. The novel was seen as a "lesser" art form, trivially employing narrative for the sake of narrative. To Swift, the didactic and satiric nature of Gulliver's Travels made all the difference. His fiction was intended as a satire... rooted in Roman examples (as Mortal suggests) as well as upon re modern sources, including Utopia (it is commonly imagined as an anti-Utopia) and the new novels.

Again, the lines between fictive (and even non-fictive... think Borges, Garcia-Marquez, or Norman Mailer) is largely blurred... and probably always was to an extent... but Swift would not have thought of himself as participating in something as trivial as the new historical fictions or novels written for no reason other than for pleasure in story-telling and written with little of no grasp of literary history. He borrows fictive elements of the novel, such as masking the fictive narrative as an autobiographical telling of a historical narrative... but his intention is clearly didactic, satiric, and rooted in a knowledge of literary history. It is, perhaps, akin to Pope's Rape of the Lock which takes the form of an epic only to offer a satire upon the epic... a mock epic.

Again... the lines are blurred and Sterne's Tristam Shandy in many ways deconstructs and satirizes the novel to a far greater extent than Swift... while falling far more obviously within the tradition of the novel... or rather while not rejecting the goals of the novel, per se. To me personally whether it is a "prose satire" or a "novel" is all one and the same. The dispute is as meaningful as the questions concerning whether Shakespeare's plays should be defined as "comedies", "tragedies", "romances", tragi-comedies" or something else altogether considering that they break many of the "rules" of classical tragedy and comedy. "A rose by any other name..."

[stlukesguild]

I've always considered "contemporary" literature to be that which is written by writers who are still living. I realise you could blow lots of holes in this as a definition but it suits my purpose. What I do have difficulty with is defining "literature"!

I would generally follow this definition as well... but then it leaves us with a gap or a lack of terminology for the works of literature post-WWII which is not particularly Modernist or Post-Modernist in sensibility and whose authors were peers albeit deceased of many of the same authors who are living. For example, If Gabriel Garcia-Lorca and John Barth are "contemporary authors" how can Julio Cortazar, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Saul Bellow, or Norman Mailer not be? Again... "A rose by any other name..." The definitions of artistic genre and styles are certainly fluid and really only a necessity for literary critics and historians.

[Jozanny]

I've always considered "contemporary" literature to be that which is written by writers who are still living. I realise you could blow lots of holes in this as a definition but it suits my purpose. What I do have difficulty with is defining "literature"!

I would generally follow this definition as well... but then it leaves us with a gap or a lack of terminology for the works of literature post-WWII which is not particularly Modernist or Post-Modernist in sensibility and whose authors were peers albeit deceased of many of the same authors who are living. For example, If Gabriel Garcia-Lorca and John Barth are "contemporary authors" how can Julio Cortazar, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Saul Bellow, or Norman Mailer not be? Again... "A rose by any other name..." The definitions of artistic genre and styles are certainly fluid and really only a necessity for literary critics and historians.

I agree that in this sense *contemporary* as a bracket term is fluid. Mailer is only very recently deceased and his Hitler novel is still in flux, whereas Styron I am less definitive on, in terms of this discussion. He did not do much after Sophie's Choice, other than rankle me when he told Charlie Rose his worst fear was "dying horribly crippled," and Rose deflected the comment.

[blazeofglory]

Contemporaneousness is a misleading idea, so is modernism, for ideas get obsolete so fast these days. If you really want to listen today contemporary writings have been plagiarized thru copy and paste mechanisms.

[WICKES]

I suppose it depends where you live. If you live in France you want books about the world you know. I'm British, so I tend to go for writers who write about this island. I guess Ian Mc Ewan is the leading British novelist alive today (?) along with Julian Barnes, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, Will Self... Though some Scots or Welsh may think of them as too English?

[Jozanny]

Although I am not as dilligent in my forum discussions as I'd like to be, I am thinking about creating and maintaining a contemporary authors list, with their websites and works. When I am ready to do that I will pm the mods and see what can be managed.

I cannot, apparently, recover my reading list from my old WP8 software, and while it does not affect my clips or publication history, there is no way I can recover those titles I wanted to read eventually, after 13 years of culling them from online reviews. Many were non-fiction and critical historical and academic works, and it is almost enough to make me hire a lawyer against my landlord in and of itself, as this is their fault for damaging my desktop, but I don't know that it would be okay to add those to such a thread too.

When I am ready we'll see.