Who are today's literary greats?

[Razeus]

All I have are Jonathan franzen. Any others?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cormac McCarthy.

[Drkshadow03]

Philip Roth

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, I forgot two of the true greats: Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown. :nod:

[IceM]

IceM.

I joke, obviously, but I'd throw in Nicholas Sparks and Picoult if MM's authors (Brown and Meyer) mentioned are really considered greats. (Although I know he's being sarcastic.)

[stlukesguild]

Gunter Grass
Gabriel Garcia-Marquez
Anne Carson
Richard Wilbur
Yves Bonnefoy
Charles Wright
Seamus Heaney
Geoffrey Hill

I'll think of more later...

[JBI]

Yu Hua, Han Shaogong.

[lowradiation]

David Mitchell may well be on the way

[Alexander III]

Umberto Ecco, needs to be mentioned

[mortalterror]

Derek Walcott, John Ashbery, Adunis, Tom Stoppard, Edward Albee, Tony Kushner, Haruki Murakami.

[Emil Miller]

J k Rowling

[Seasider]

Edmund White. Doris Lessing.

[Lokasenna]

I'm slightly surprised that nobody has mentioned Ian McEwan and Thomas Pynchon. Not that I'm a fan of either, but... you know...

[mal4mac]

All I have are Jonathan franzen. Any others?

Who says he's a literary great? David Shields in Reality Bites picks him out as a leading 'boring novel writer'. Having read The Corrections, I can only agree...

But, in any case, it's to early to say. There are no literary 'undoubted' greats 'of today', just candidates. Philip Roth would be a much stronger candidate IMHO. His Indian Summer is remarkable, the short novels he is writing now are fascinating.

[mortalterror]

I'm slightly surprised that nobody has mentioned Ian McEwan and Thomas Pynchon. Not that I'm a fan of either, but... you know...

That may just be because while they are relatively good nobody actually thinks they are great. Martin Amis, Doris Lessing, or John Le Carre are certainly known writers, somewhat esteemed writers, though probably not as good as Salmon Rushdie or V.S. Naipaul. They're certainly not giants that in future ages will still be on everyone's lips the way Joyce, Faulkner, or Hemingway still are.

Stephen King's not great literature, but he has dominated his genre for nearly four decades. Some of his works will probably be read the way we occasionally read Lovecraft, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, or H. Rider Haggard. If that makes him great or not is definitely up for debate.

[Razeus]

Who says he's a literary great? David Shields in Reality Bites picks him out as a leading 'boring novel writer'. Having read The Corrections, I can only agree...

But, in any case, it's to early to say. There are no literary 'undoubted' greats 'of today', just candidates. Philip Roth would be a much stronger candidate IMHO. His Indian Summer is remarkable, the short novels he is writing now are fascinating.

Just about everyone. David Shields and Jonathan Franzen have been taking jabs at each other for a while now, so your comment is not objective and obviously biased. Writer talking about another writer doesn't automatically one or the other "boring novel writer".

[fb0252]

possibly someone should define "literary great".

[OrphanPip]

Stephen King's not great literature, but he has dominated his genre for nearly four decades. Some of his works will probably be read the way we occasionally read Lovecraft, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, or H. Rider Haggard. If that makes him great or not is definitely up for debate.

For some reason I think he'll fair better for his influence on horror films. His novels are nothing great, but The Shining, It, and The Green Mile have become iconic American movies.

[sixsmith]

Just about everyone. David Shields and Jonathan Franzen have been taking jabs at each other for a while now, so your comment is not objective and obviously biased. Writer talking about another writer doesn't automatically one or the other "boring novel writer".

Franzen is an author of considerable talent but his need to wax sociological undermines the authenticity of his protagonists. I don't think that he can lay claim to having produced a great novel.


That may just be because while they are relatively good nobody actually thinks they are great. Martin Amis, Doris Lessing, or John Le Carre are certainly known writers, somewhat esteemed writers, though probably not as good as Salmon Rushdie or V.S. Naipaul. They're certainly not giants that in future ages will still be on everyone's lips the way Joyce, Faulkner, or Hemingway still are.


McEwan and Rushdie are lightweights and Pynchon's bright talent is lately rendered pretty dim by the confines of allegory. Naipaul has a truly great novel in A House for Mr Biswas: I'm not familiar with the rest of his oeuvre.

As far as novelists go, I'd say Roth and Marquez are strong candidates for posterity with DeLillo and McCarthy being slightly less well credentialed applicants. I'd also thrown in Ballard as a possible wildcard. He is, to my mind, one of the most original novelists of the post WWII period. I'm not sure that David Mitchell has written anything essential (as opposed to exceedingly impressive) as yet, though given his vertiginous talent, it is perhaps only a matter of time. I suspect that names like Vargas Llosa, Saramago, Bolano and Bernhard are in the mix as well, though I can't personally speak to their achievements.

[JBI]

Franzen is an author of considerable talent but his need to wax sociological undermines the authenticity of his protagonists. I don't think that he can lay claim to having produced a great novel.




McEwan and Rushdie are lightweights and Pynchon's bright talent is lately rendered pretty dim by the confines of allegory. Naipaul has a truly great novel in A House for Mr Biswas: I'm not familiar with the rest of his oeuvre.

As far as novelists go, I'd say Roth and Marquez are strong candidates for posterity with DeLillo and McCarthy being slightly less well credentialed applicants. I'd also thrown in Ballard as a possible wildcard. He is, to my mind, one of the most original novelists of the post WWII period. I'm not sure that David Mitchell has written anything essential (as opposed to exceedingly impressive) as yet, though given his vertiginous talent, it is perhaps only a matter of time. I suspect that names like Vargas Llosa, Saramago, Bolano and Bernhard are in the mix as well, though I can't personally speak to their achievements.


Meh, this whole notion is ridiculous - you speak almost as if it is objectively, and then you throw this big idea of "literary posterity" out there like that is some discernible criteria.

The whole ridiculous fallacy of "looking to see which are the best works that will survive" is so contradictory to the act of reading, that it ignores the basic act - what is it to read if not read in the present - the future of the text is irrelevant to the present. IF the text is the best available for now, it is the best text, even if it will not last.

Chances are, those will be one and the same, though even then, the whole notion of looking for "classics" out of the contemporary scene is so confused that it kind of negates itself - in general the classics were not thought of the same way in their time - chances are they were just loved for what they were, or ignored for what they were. That is the purpose of reading, not to uncover a canon, but to uncover the present within a canon, or text, or movement.

The whole notion of "what will be relevant tomorrow" has no grounding in evaluating the texts of today. If the text of today cannot hold up today, do not worry about tomorrow. Likewise, if the text of the past cannot hold up today, do not worry about it.

[mortalterror]

As far as novelists go, I'd say Roth and Marquez are strong candidates for posterity with DeLillo and McCarthy being slightly less well credentialed applicants. I'd also thrown in Ballard as a possible wildcard. He is, to my mind, one of the most original novelists of the post WWII period. I'm not sure that David Mitchell has written anything essential (as opposed to exceedingly impressive) as yet, though given his vertiginous talent, it is perhaps only a matter of time. I suspect that names like Vargas Llosa, Saramago, Bolano and Bernhard are in the mix as well, though I can't personally speak to their achievements.

Ballard, Saramago, Bolano, and Bernhard are all deceased. We're talking about living writers.

[mal4mac]

David Shields and Jonathan Franzen have been taking jabs at each other for a while now, so your comment is not objective and obviously biased. Writer talking about another writer doesn't automatically one or the other "boring novel writer".

As I said, *I* read the novel and found it boring. Just brought in David Shields as a wingman...

How can you make an objective comment about Franzen? The novel is too recent, and the critics too ambivalent, to make any kind of clear objective evaluation. I found "the Corrections" boring and uninspiring. I might be missing something - but I doubt I'll ever know 'cause I can't see how I might be inspired to read it again, or anything else by Franzen.

I find Roth, McCarthy, and a handful of other modern novelists 'interesting' and would read all their works before reading another Franzen. Also, there are so *acknowledged* classics I haven't read, or re-read. Doubt Franzen will be appearing on my reading list again before the Grim Reaper pays a visit.

[MarkBastable]

I'd say Martin Amis, who is rather gleefully underrated by almost everyone except Martin Amis.

[Seasider]

To whom?

[sixsmith]

Meh, this whole notion is ridiculous - you speak almost as if it is objectively, and then you throw this big idea of "literary posterity" out there like that is some discernible criteria.

It is my opinion JBI and you are welcome to assume that all my future posts pertaining to the merits or otherwise of novels and/or novelists contain my opinion.


The whole ridiculous fallacy of "looking to see which are the best works that will survive" is so contradictory to the act of reading, that it ignores the basic act - what is it to read if not read in the present - the future of the text is irrelevant to the present. IF the text is the best available for now, it is the best text, even if it will not last.

The process of speculating on what works will survive in years to come necessarily occurs after one has read those works. You speak as though prognostication is a drug, which, once ingested, will forever damage one's ability to intellectually engage with the present.


Chances are, those will be one and the same, though even then, the whole notion of looking for "classics" out of the contemporary scene is so confused that it kind of negates itself - in general the classics were not thought of the same way in their time - chances are they were just loved for what they were, or ignored for what they were. That is the purpose of reading, not to uncover a canon, but to uncover the present within a canon, or text, or movement.

The whole notion of "what will be relevant tomorrow" has no grounding in evaluating the texts of today. If the text of today cannot hold up today, do not worry about tomorrow. Likewise, if the text of the past cannot hold up today, do not worry about it.

My contention is that the contemporary novels which one regards as having something profound to say about what it means to human, share, to a greater or lesser extent, a common bond with those preceding novels that are valued and ostensibly endure by virtue of their possessing that same profundity. Literary forecasting is as much about looking to the past as it is to the future.


Ballard, Saramago, Bolano, and Bernhard are all deceased. We're talking about living writers.

Fair enough. My reading of 'today' was not literal.

[mortalterror]

I'd say Martin Amis, who is rather gleefully underrated by almost everyone except Martin Amis.

He is remarkably conceited for such a spectacularly untalented man.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pynchon isn't considered one of today's literary greats?

[Lokasenna]

Pynchon isn't considered one of today's literary greats?

Yes, I was wondering that. The man has been shortlisted for the Nobel Prize quite a few times now...

[MarkBastable]

He is remarkably conceited for such a spectacularly untalented man.

Well, you know - that's an arguable opinion. Just.

[ponty]

Sebastian Faulks: for Birdsong and Engleby
Haruki Murakami: for Willd Sheep Chase, Dance,Dance, Dance and Kafka on the Shore
Roth? - for Jewish glove makers and secretly black professors? maybe
Don DeLillo?
John Fowles- for Frenchies Woman and Daniel Martin

and probably heaps of those Indian subcontinent or Turk writers that seem to always win the Booker (though I did like Life of Pi).

[LostGeneration]

I would have to say Audrey Niffenegger and Alice Sebold.

[metal134]

I too was wondering about the Pynchon comment. He is considered a literary GIANT. He just doesn't have a terribly prolific output.

As far as Franzen, I haven't yet read any of his novels, though both The Corrections and Freedom are on my short list, but while he may or may not be one of today's best, he sure does seem to be the most polarizing. I'll decide for myself once I finally read him.

[dfloyd]

the writers of today .... Rothe, Delilo, Franzen, etc., consider to be mediocre writers at best. When compared to Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, or Steinbeck, they pale and cannot hold my interest

[metal134]

Lately, I've seen David Mitchell's name pop up a lot lately. I may have to give him another read. I tried reading a sample of "Number9Dream", but he lost me at "I see you've met my bioborg."

[Magga]

Derek Walcott, John Ashbery, Adunis, Tom Stoppard, Edward Albee, Tony Kushner, Haruki Murakami.

Haruki Murakami.


Haruki Murakami.

QFT.

God, I love Murakami. And he's great.

[Gregory Samsa]

García Márquez, J.M. Coetzee, Doris Lessing and Haruki Murakami.

[conartist]

I think Pynchon's the standout, at least among Americans. McCarthy is at his best when he's channeling Melville and Faulkner into genre fiction. At his worst he can only create grey characters and has no psychological or philosophical individuality. He's still a great evocative and realistic writer. Blood Meridian is amazing. The Road sucked.

Carson and Ashberry are already in the pantheon. So is Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I've not read any Murakami, though he seems to get a lot of love. I wanted to see Norwegian Wood, largely because Jonny Greenwood was scoring, but I don't think they released it anywhere here in Australia.

Others like Peter Carey and Don Delilo are harder to assess. They've written a few good books, but you can wonder whether anyone will be interested in them in a few decades.

[Mr.lucifer]

Marquez is undeniable. 100 years of solitude has been called the greatest latin american novel of all time by the most acclaimed spanish american writers.

[OrphanPip]

and probably heaps of those Indian subcontinent or Turk writers that seem to always win the Booker (though I did like Life of Pi).

I'd be surprised if any Turk writers have won the Booker, since only writers from Commonwealth countries are eligible :p.

[JBI]

the writers of today .... Rothe, Delilo, Franzen, etc., consider to be mediocre writers at best. When compared to Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, or Steinbeck, they pale and cannot hold my interest

That is such an old fart comment :p. Roth, if that is who you mean, who isn't a "Today's writer," as he is very much a writer of one or two generations ago, is easily the equal of either Steinbeck, or Lewis, or Fitzgerald, and perhaps can compete with Hemingway.

As for Franzen, I have heard mixed things but am not too familiar with his work, and Delilo has his moments, perhaps.

Roth though so much captures the Jewish American experience that perhaps for a non-Jew certain elements are lost, or interpreted differently - I am not sure. Either way, he is very much the Yankee American historian of a more positive America, the continuation of the noble against the undertone of the ugly, that gives a sort of strength in individuality, yet tragedy in failure which is so much the immigrant, and children of immigrant's experience of the new world.

Like I said, his time is over, in the sense that he is a writer of the previous generation. But he has a lasting contribution - take the new film (I say new because it did not come to China and I only just saw it) The Social Network as an example - is that not a continuation of the narrative? Does that narrative not, perhaps only obliquely and at moments, and often in a racist tone, bring the Roth narrative together with the narratives of "Asian Americans" (perhaps better to say Chinese Americans, though the actress portraying an "Asian American" is of Hmong descent) and begin to see the merge. It is there for a reason, which is best explained by looking at the Roth generation, and the generation before him.

Sinclair Lewis, and Steinbeck are almost forgotten by now, I would argue, Roth is still now - Roth is my parents, he is also my parent's parents - his world is so much connected to the genius of cultural identity, that it becomes impossible to ignore him if nothing but for his genius wit.

It isn't just a Jewish thing either, it is really from my experience, a dialog on identity within an identity, the same way Mordecai Richler's The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz is so much the experience of new minorities.

Like I said, he is, to the Jewish culture of America, the voice of generations past, but from there, he is still the strongest voice I can find for understanding the nature of being a minority within the system of a majority. He is still relevant, and will be so long as their is a discussion of identity trapped in a suffocating sphere of identity and individualism.

[mortalterror]

That is such an old fart comment :p. Roth, if that is who you mean, who isn't a "Today's writer," as he is very much a writer of one or two generations ago, is easily the equal of either Steinbeck, or Lewis, or Fitzgerald, and perhaps can compete with Hemingway.

Roth is definitely one of the very best living writers. As for him not being one of "today's writers," I think that as long as you're alive and kicking you are still in the running. He's still publishing.

Also, Steinbeck is not at all forgotten. He's still almost as popular as Faulkner, or Hemingway, and if I may add, almost as good. The Grapes of Wrath, East of Eden, Of Mice and Men, and The Pearl are some of the best works of prose literature ever written. Roth is good. He's really, really good, but he's not Steinbeck good.

I hear what you are saying about Roth and Jewish identity, and I can respect that, but I think all the things you said would ring a little more true if you had said them about Saul Bellow, who is clearly a better writer, and the equal to Steinbeck and those others. Bellow, Marquez, and Calvino are the only ones I feel really confident about after the sixties.

[Eltimas]

I'm surprised as I don't see Paulo Coelho name anywhere here. His greatest book, The Alchemist, is one of the most marvelous books I've read.
His writing style is very lenient and easy-to-follow. Definitely worth mentioning.

[mal4mac]

Roth is definitely one of the very best living writers. As for him not being one of "today's writers," I think that as long as you're alive and kicking you are still in the running. He's still publishing.


My local librarian (happily!) seems obsessed with Roth and the new hardbacks appear on the shelves as soon as they are published. That happens often! He's not only still publishing, but he's kicking like mad. Still, I think JBI's comment has some validity, "Nemesis" is set in the second world war, and "Indignation" in the Korean. So Roth's focus seems still to be mostly on a generation or two back. "The Humbling" is a partial exception. That's set in the present, although the "hero" thinks about the past a lot...

[JCamilo]

I'm surprised as I don't see Paulo Coelho name anywhere here. His greatest book, The Alchemist, is one of the most marvelous books I've read.
His writing style is very lenient and easy-to-follow. Definitely worth mentioning.

Paulo Coelho is a shame for brazilian literature. Saying he is worth to mention is like saying Dan Brown is worth to mention.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As someone who lives in the midwest and has interacted with maybe two or three Jews in his entire life, and someone who is quite ignorant when it comes to Jewish culture, whether it be orthodox or everyday, will Portnoy's Complaint be lost on me? It seems like things concerning Jewish culture go right over my head. When I see a Jewish comic or comedy sketches on SNL about Jews, I scratch my head, confused. I just read Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union and felt like I had missed a lot of the humor.

[Drkshadow03]

As someone who lives in the midwest and has interacted with maybe two or three Jews in his entire life, and someone who is quite ignorant when it comes to Jewish culture, whether it be orthodox or everyday, will Portnoy's Complaint be lost on me? It seems like things concerning Jewish culture go right over my head. When I see a Jewish comic or comedy sketches on SNL about Jews, I scratch my head, confused. I just read Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union and felt like I had missed a lot of the humor.

To be honest, I've only read Goodbye, Columbus, Operation Shylock, and The Human Stain. So there are major Roth novels that I haven't read yet.

Roth's novella, Goodbye, Columbus, was my first foray into Roth's work and would be where I recommend you start. Since it's his first published book and for me it was the first literary novel I ever really that I genuinely connected with and really demonstrated to me how powerful good literature could be.

What's interesting is despite being an American Jew myself, I connected more with the "love"/lust story in the book at the time. I read it during my first year of college for an honors English class and I had just broken up with my first long-term girlfriend like a week beforehand and had started dating someone else. A large part of the plot is about a summer relationship between Neil and Brenda that fizzles out when Brenda goes back to college. I really connected with this part of the story on a personal level; it's the first time I really ever had an emotional reaction to literature, which opened my eyes to the fact that literature can do more than just entertain. On this level, the story is a rumination on the difference between lust and love, and our motivations for engaging in relationships (does Neil pursue Brenda with the hopes of social climbing?), and how quickly our feelings can change. I think this is a story line and theme(s) that most people can relate to without having to be Jewish.

Nevertheless, there is also more going on in the text: it explores class differences (universal theme), but on particular level it explores class differences between Jews and Jews rising up economically and what that means to their adherence to Jewish traditions versus assimilation (a commentary on something actually happened historically and one that is of a particularly Jewish issue). It's about social climbing. It's about hopes and dreams in general.

I once raised the point that I feel one needs to be Jewish to fully appreciate Roth on the blog of literary critic D.G. Myers and he had an interesting response about Roth's universality in regards to Portnoy's Complaint (http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2009/09/form-of-modern-degradation.html) (link goes to the blog entry). If you're planning to read Portnoy's Complaint you should definitely read his entry.

Basically I think anyone can appreciate Roth's works and some of the universal issues he raises through Jewish characters, but I think you'll have a deeper appreciation if you understand some of the specific Jewish issues that are also being explored. It's like with a comic book movie where most non-comic fans will be able to follow the plot, the characters, and basic action, but the hardcore comic book fan will notice little winks (fan service) placed in the film that would probably go over the head of someone not a dedicated reader of the original comics.

If you want more info about Jews you could always start by reading this website (http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm). Like really just knowing the difference between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism, as well as the basic beliefs of Jews and where they differ from Christianity would take you a long way as far as reading someone like Roth.

[mortalterror]

To be honest, I've only read Goodbye, Columbus, Operation Shylock, and The Human Stain. So there are major Roth novels that I haven't read yet.

Roth's novella, Goodbye, Columbus, was my first foray into Roth's work and would be where I recommend you start. Since it's his first published book and for me it was the first literary novel I ever really that I genuinely connected with and really demonstrated to me how powerful good literature could be.

What's interesting is despite being an American Jew myself, I connected more with the "love"/lust story in the book at the time. I read it during my first year of college for an honors English class and I had just broken up with my first long-term girlfriend like a week beforehand and had started dating someone else. A large part of the plot is about a summer relationship between Neil and Brenda that fizzles out when Brenda goes back to college. I really connected with this part of the story on a personal level; it's the first time I really ever had an emotional reaction to literature, which opened my eyes to the fact that literature can do more than just entertain. On this level, the story is a rumination on the difference between lust and love, and our motivations for engaging in relationships (does Neil pursue Brenda with the hopes of social climbing?), and how quickly our feelings can change. I think this is a story line and theme(s) that most people can relate to without having to be Jewish.

Nevertheless, there is also more going on in the text: it explores class differences (universal theme), but on particular level it explores class differences between Jews and Jews rising up economically and what that means to their adherence to Jewish traditions versus assimilation (a commentary on something actually happened historically and one that is of a particularly Jewish issue). It's about social climbing. It's about ethnic relations to black to a lesser degree. It's about hopes and dreams in general.

I once raised the point that I feel one needs to be Jewish to fully appreciate Roth on the blog of literary critic D.G. Myers and he had an interesting response about Roth's universality in regards to Portnoy's Complaint (http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2009/09/form-of-modern-degradation.html) (link goes to the blog entry). If you're planning to read Portnoy's Complaint you should definitely read his entry.

Basically I think anyone can appreciate Roth's works and some of the universal issues he raises through Jewish characters, but I think you'll have a deeper appreciation if you understand some of the specific Jewish issues that are also being explored. It's like with a comic book movie where most non-comic fans will be able to follow the plot, the characters, and basic action, but the hardcore comic book fan will notice little winks (fan service) placed in the film that would probably go over the head of someone not a dedicated reader of the original comics.

If you want more info about Jews you could always start by reading this website (http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm).

What's a Jew?

[Drkshadow03]

What's a Jew?

People who aren't supposed to eat bacon and shrimp, but usually do so anyway.

[JCamilo]

That is the deffinition of jew? What? Hmmm? Well? :D

[Drkshadow03]

That is the deffinition of jew? What? Hmmm? Well? :D

Ha, I just changed the definition on you!

[JCamilo]

Are you going to change again, before Mortal replies? :D

[mortalterror]

People who aren't supposed to eat bacon and shrimp, but usually do so anyway.

Oh, just like in the encyclopedia!

In all seriousness, I don't think Jewish people are like some mythical beast the average reader will need heavy footnotes to comprehend. And Roth doesn't try to confuse his readers by being intentionally obscure, and referencing fifth century heresies or schisms. Even the goyim should be able to follow his books.

[Drkshadow03]

Oh, just like in the encyclopedia!

In all seriousness, I don't think Jewish people are like some mythical beast the average reader will need heavy footnotes to comprehend. And Roth doesn't try to confuse his readers by being intentionally obscure, and referencing fifth century heresies and schisms. Even a gentile should be able to follow his books.

Oh, I agree. I can't imagine anyone having too much trouble following it. I was just trying to address MM's concerns that he wrote in the post before mine:


As someone who lives in the midwest and has interacted with maybe two or three Jews in his entire life, and someone who is quite ignorant when it comes to Jewish culture, whether it be orthodox or everyday, will Portnoy's Complaint be lost on me? It seems like things concerning Jewish culture go right over my head. When I see a Jewish comic or comedy sketches on SNL about Jews, I scratch my head, confused. I just read Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union and felt like I had missed a lot of the humor.

I certainly wasn't trying to patronize anyone not Jewish; I was just trying to help someone who admitted confusion.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In all seriousness, I don't think Jewish people are like some mythical beast the average reader will need heavy footnotes to comprehend. And Roth doesn't try to confuse his readers by being intentionally obscure, and referencing fifth century heresies or schisms. Even the goyim should be able to follow his books.
I don't think they are, either. I just don't know much about their religion.

Oh, I agree. I can't imagine anyone having too much trouble following it. I was just trying to address MM's concerns that he wrote in the post before mine:

I certainly wasn't trying to patronize anyone not Jewish; I was just trying to help someone who admitted confusion.
Which you did, quite well, so, thanks!

[JBI]

Oh, I agree. I can't imagine anyone having too much trouble following it. I was just trying to address MM's concerns that he wrote in the post before mine:



I certainly wasn't trying to patronize anyone not Jewish; I was just trying to help someone who admitted confusion.

Meh, it is minority literature to an extent, and the trouble of being Jewish is still an issue. Let us not get carried away with the limitation of things as "universal". There is still an element that relates to a particular audience, the same way Alice Munro's texts are said to hit small town people, especially small town women much harder.

[OrphanPip]

As someone who lives in the midwest and has interacted with maybe two or three Jews in his entire life, and someone who is quite ignorant when it comes to Jewish culture, whether it be orthodox or everyday, will Portnoy's Complaint be lost on me? It seems like things concerning Jewish culture go right over my head. When I see a Jewish comic or comedy sketches on SNL about Jews, I scratch my head, confused. I just read Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union and felt like I had missed a lot of the humor.

You really find those skits that hard to understand?

I didn't grow up completely isolated from Jews (since they make up about 20% of Montreal's Anglo population), but even with daily contact with Jewish people I'm not up on all the finer details of Judaism. That being said I don't find the comedy all that hard to understand, I think those depend more on an understanding and awareness of the cultural stereotypes more than actual knowledge of Judaism.

[Veho]

What about Jon McGregor? I haven't read anything by him yet but I've heard good stuff about his work. Isn't his If Nobody Speaks... in the top 100 LitNet list?

I think Kazuo Ishiguro is good in comparison to a lot of the standards that are set today.

[WyattGwyon]

I think Pynchon's the standout, at least among Americans. McCarthy is at his best when he's channeling Melville and Faulkner into genre fiction. At his worst he can only create grey characters and has no psychological or philosophical individuality. He's still a great evocative and realistic writer. Blood Meridian is amazing. The Road sucked.

Others like Peter Carey and Don Delilo are harder to assess. They've written a few good books, but you can wonder whether anyone will be interested in them in a few decades.

You don't mention McCarthy's best work. Suttree and The Orchard Keeper, for example, have in abundance all of the qualities you think he lacks. Delillo's Underworld and White Noise will be remembered.
David Foster Wallace may be dead but since he is still publishing, I think he should be considered.


I too was wondering about the Pynchon comment. He is considered a literary GIANT. He just doesn't have a terribly prolific output.

Not prolific? Not so many titles, perhaps, but have you done a page count?

[ladderandbucket]

I think Marilynne Robinson is one of the best living writers. Shame she hasn't written more.

[Aurora]

For me Kazuo Ishiguro and Carol-Ann Duffy

[hampusforev]

Personally, it's definitely Cormac McCarthy, I also love Sam Shepard's plays. Shaffer's Equus made a real impact on me, but I haven't digested enough of his stuff to label him a great.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You really find those skits that hard to understand?
I "get" them, to an extent, as in the stereotypes they are poking fun at, but I usually fail to see why it's supposed to be funny. I rarely laugh.