Contemporary books will become Literature Classics in the very far future!

[krishna_lit]

There are many many classics in the world of literature as we all know. But if we travel back to those days and look, I don't think all the books written in those times have instantly turned into classics that they are today and those writers had definitely not seen anything in themselves like how we see them today. Those books took their time and as the world moved ahead into the new chapters in its own history, such as the World Wars, fights for independence, other crusades and a lot lot more. The books that were written around those times have become ever living works because they all taught the new generations about how the Mankind was in those days.

So, the books that are being written today will surely join the ranks of those that we see as classics today. Not right away but surely in the coming century, when we will all become ancestors to the generations yet to come in our families. This is very encouraging aspect for all of us, and especially to those who dream and desire to write classic novels in our lives. We can only write by putting our complete hearts and minds into those works and they becoming classics is not for our eyes to see, but only for our souls to feel from the above!

All the best to all of us who wish to create them! :)

[PeterL]

Don't be so sure that contemporary fiction will be looked at in the "very far future". Recently, the best fiction has been ignored, while the popular fiction has lost readership within a rather short time. Very little from the early 20th century is read widely any more, and one important characteristic of literature that has become "classic" is that it never lost popularity. The only significant piece of "classic" literature that was taken from obscurity into fame was "Beowulf". The way things look now The Lord of the Rings is the only 20th century fiction that has a really good shot at becoming a classic.

[JBI]

Don't be so sure that contemporary fiction will be looked at in the "very far future". Recently, the best fiction has been ignored, while the popular fiction has lost readership within a rather short time. Very little from the early 20th century is read widely any more, and one important characteristic of literature that has become "classic" is that it never lost popularity. The only significant piece of "classic" literature that was taken from obscurity into fame was "Beowulf". The way things look now [i]The Lord of the Rings[i/i] is the only 20th century fiction that has a really good shot at becoming a classic.

Not true at all. I can think of over a dozen examples off my head. There have been many "rediscovered" artists over the years, whether it be from recovering through Archaeology (such as the Dunhuang manuscripts in half a dozen languages) or from readers finding them (Zora Neale Hustron, Meliville, Christopher Smart, etc.)

[krishna_lit]

[i]The Lord of the Rings[i/i] is the only 20th century fiction that has a really good shot at becoming a classic.

First things first, Harry Potter series will definitely join (or should I say already joined?) the ranks of Classic fantasy, next to only the Lord of the Rings. Something becomes a classic not just because it has a good century-independent story or resulted in box office blockbusters, but because of what it did to the people of its generation and many that follow. In that case, Harry Potter series has achieved something so very precious. It inspired children, which are many new generations in themselves, to dream and have passion in life and most importantly, it taught them various ethics of life in the best way possible, through a gripping story. Now, that's something the future generations will surely need.


Don't be so sure that contemporary fiction will be looked at in the "very far future". Recently, the best fiction has been ignored, while the popular fiction has lost readership within a rather short time.Very little from the early 20th century is read widely any more
Sorry, but those words sounded very pessimistic to me. Do you mean to say that our generation has produced nothing worth reading for the coming centuries?? Are we so incapable?? Looking at what you opined, I would say your words are implying that the wisdom of the people of 20th century in the matters of literature is dwindling with time. So, do you mean all the previous Mankind's knowledge through infinite literary works has failed to teach us anything that can illumine our efforts in taking it to the next level??


Very little from the early 20th century is read widely any more
You are right about we not reading the contemporary works but only that of previous centuries'. Yes, but by this we can say that the next centuries (22, 23 etc...) also will not read their generation's books but explore that of their predecessors', of which is 20th century. So, our present books will surely have a good chance at becoming classics in the coming centuries.

[mal4mac]

I doubt that Harry Potter will be thought of as a classic 100 years from now. Look at bestsellers from the 1900s:

http://www.kruegerbooks.com/books/best-sellers/1900.html

Certain names crop up year after year, but have you heard of them? (OK, you've heard of Winston Churchill - but that's a different Winston Churchill!)

[ennison]

That is an interesting link to a list of best sellers in the USA at the turn of the 20th century. I read The Crisis when I was about ten and was unaware at that time that it was a different Churchill from the politician. Indeed the book was so heavily ideological that it seemed quite possible that it had been penned by the politician between devising ploys to make the rich richer, the world safer and British military history more bloody. Wister is of course still regarded as a writer of a classic western and if I remember rightly The Virginian was turned into a TV series. Ellen Glasgow is a classic writer and I'm sure her time for "re-discovery" will come. Wharton is a well known writer still. Burnett is recognised as a classic children's author. People, apparently, are still reading the historical novels of Mary Johnston. Most of the rest of these authors I have never heard of but becoming regarded as a classic author is something like the icing on the cake to writers who in their day were more than happy to be successful and make a living. Everyone has heard of The Trail of The Lonesome Pine even if they haven't read it - Blue Ridge Mountains of Virgin-ee-a etc.

[Paulclem]

I doubt that Harry Potter will be thought of as a classic 100 years from now. Look at bestsellers from the 1900s:

http://www.kruegerbooks.com/books/best-sellers/1900.html

Certain names crop up year after year, but have you heard of them? (OK, you've heard of Winston Churchill - but that's a different Winston Churchill!)

I doubt that comparison will be valid with a future list. Those books didn't have film and merchandising to support them, which will no doubt promote the possibility of the Harry Potter books and TLOTR becoming long term classics by the mere virtue of exposure.

[luhsun]

Kruger is a biased list - an american list. Forgive me if i got my history wrong, but go back a few decades, didnt abraham lincoln pirate-copied a dictionary, and john wayne wannabes were still shooting red indians.

[Vota]

That post....../facepalm.

[mona amon]

I doubt that Harry Potter will be thought of as a classic 100 years from now. Look at bestsellers from the 1900s:

http://www.kruegerbooks.com/books/best-sellers/1900.html

Certain names crop up year after year, but have you heard of them? (OK, you've heard of Winston Churchill - but that's a different Winston Churchill!)

At least two of the bestsellers on that list have become classics - The House of Mirth and The Hound of The Baskervilles, and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is a classic of sorts. So, if one or two contemporary bestsellers are going to make it, my money is on Harry Potter, because a large number of people love and re-read these books, they have a wide range of readers, and they're children's books, which seem to have a better survival rate than their adult counterparts. Look at Enid Blyton and Winnie-The-Pooh, for instance.

[OrphanPip]

The demise of the literary classic, whether it happens or not, will be due to the substantial changes in literature marketing. The amount of resources and energy needed to preserve and carry on a work of literature has decreased gradually starting from the Renaissance until the 20th century, until now all you need to do is make a digital copy of a text for it to be cheaply disseminated and preserved for as long as modern technology survives. The idea of a "classic" was in part perpetuated by publishing houses that needed a few sure texts that would always sell. Part of the selection process was the enduring quality of a number of those works. The pressure on anyone to actually do the work of weeding out classics deserving of preservation is pretty much gone, since anyone with the interest can now find any surviving piece of obscure popular fiction from the Victorian era if they actually wanted to. I suspect the move will be towards greater emphasis on genre canons, and literary subcultures where people congregate around movements and shifting reader trends. The stalwart classics will survive but their central position will be displaced further.

[mal4mac]

.
At least two of the bestsellers on that list have become classics


But that's only 2 out of 100. Look at the lists from 2000-2110, I bet the fan base for each of the authors will suggest that they will last. But given 1900-1910 result it looks like only 1 in 50 will!


... children's books, which seem to have a better survival rate than their adult counterparts. Look at Enid Blyton and Winnie-The-Pooh, for instance.

I'm not sure this "better survival rate" argument holds water. For instance:

http://www.scottishbooktrust.com/reading/book-lists/10-forgotten-childrens-books-8-11

I think this shows that "popularity in the time they were written" is a very bad indicator for "classic" status. I'd be tempted to trust serious critics more, one would hope they would have a better knowledge base for comparing modern works to works of classic status. They tend to give Rowling a thumbs down.

Wharton and Conan Doyle were appreciated by the critics at the time they were written (Conan Doyle might always have been thought a bit lightweight, but a character like Sherlock couldn't be ignored! Potter is very lack lustre compared to Mr Holmes.)

[mal4mac]

I doubt that comparison will be valid with a future list. Those books didn't have film and merchandising to support them, which will no doubt promote the possibility of the Harry Potter books and TLOTR becoming long term classics by the mere virtue of exposure.

Will the films survive? I though they were pretty dire. I guess kids might disagree. But aren't there better kids films that are more likely to survive once the dust settles? Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins,...

Do many kids read Mary Poppins or the Wizard of Oz? Just because the film survives, it doesn't mean the book will survive.

[Vota]

I think Harry Potter will survive into the future because of how many kids and even adults have read and loved it. They will likely in-turn suggest their kids read it and so on and so forth. That and the sheer quantity of Harry Potter books around. Go to any thrift shop with a book section, any Value Village, any Goodwill, etc, and you will see at least 1 Harry Potter book.

I've seen all the movies and thought they were ho-hum. I won't judge the quality of the reading experience off that because many of Stephen King's novels have been butchered with film/tv adaptations.

As for whether the books will be considered great because of the quality of their writing and story alone, that remains to be seen.

[PeterL]

First things first, Harry Potter series will definitely join (or should I say already joined?) the ranks of Classic fantasy, next to only the Lord of the Rings. Something becomes a classic not just because it has a good century-independent story or resulted in box office blockbusters, but because of what it did to the people of its generation and many that follow. In that case, Harry Potter series has achieved something so very precious. It inspired children, which are many new generations in themselves, to dream and have passion in life and most importantly, it taught them various ethics of life in the best way possible, through a gripping story. Now, that's something the future generations will surely need.

Pretty much



Sorry, but those words sounded very pessimistic to me. Do you mean to say that our generation has produced nothing worth reading for the coming centuries?? Are we so incapable?? Looking at what you opined, I would say your words are implying that the wisdom of the people of 20th century in the matters of literature is dwindling with time. So, do you mean all the previous Mankind's knowledge through infinite literary works has failed to teach us anything that can illumine our efforts in taking it to the next level??

The 20th century introduced atomic weapons. What more does it need to d to be remembered?

There may be something that will later become noted, but it is very difficult to see classic status at a short distance. So why don't you write something truly great so that the 21st century will have a great classic?


You are right about we not reading the contemporary works but only that of previous centuries'. Yes, but by this we can say that the next centuries (22, 23 etc...) also will not read their generation's books but explore that of their predecessors', of which is 20th century. So, our present books will surely have a good chance at becoming classics in the coming centuries.

Let's take a trip into the future and see what will be regarded as great.

[JCamilo]

The movies may help Ltor a lot more than Harry Potter movies. Peter Jackson changed narratives elements, but was very faithful to the visual, fans still can watch it in the same way they keep the illustrations. And Tolkien movie had a lot of power drawn from imagem and not text. This is not the case of Harry Potter, who will last more probally due the fan-made writtings, etc., sort like Sherlock Holmes who is bigger than all his books.

[luhsun]

The weak chinese emperors were partially kept in check by what the court historians wrote (which were kept a secret even from the emperor). The emperors decided things worried about how posterity and their ancestors would judge them. Very few were successful emperors. Impetuous offspring of feminine canine like shi huangdi burnt books while making history.
Perhaps it is the same with classics. I do not think shakespeare wrote his play to be classics for us. He tried to earn a living, be famous while keeping in the good books of the tudor rulers. I dont see how anyone can confidently write something truly great and be conceited enough to claim so. Even keats on dying had self doubt-his epitaph was here lies one whose name is writ in water.

[JCamilo]

Yes, but Keats doubted himself, not the idea of writting for prosperity. Shakespeare is different, he didnt wrote his play to be a "classic", even because at his time it was almost like writting as Virgil or Ovid, something he never tried. Milton in other hand, as Camões, where aware of the idea of timeless works and tried to achive it. There is not much logic, does not matter much the motivation.

[mona amon]

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme; - Shakespeare, Sonnet 55


there will be books written about Harry - every child in our world will know his name!" -J K Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone


I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita. - Nabakov, Lolita

I'm guessing immortality would be high on any writer's wish list, along with money, glory, fame, appreciation and so on, though it may not have much effect on the way they write. Most writers I imagine would just write in the best way they possibly can, with one eye on the market (like Shakespeare).

[mic19]

Harry Potter will make into the classic like perhaps, Grimm's fairy tale. It won't be thought of as a great literary classic, but still it will be known, as one of the best fantasy story of our century without doubt. Popularity does help in some ways for a book to become a classic, but works that appeal to the whole of humanity will definitely have a bigger shot in attaining the status, than just being a popular book in a particular genre.

[luhsun]

Asimov's robots series would have a better claim as 'the' product of the 20th century. Harry potter is the result of marketing - it started like enid blyton's school series and became darker and commercialised.

[Paulclem]

Will the films survive? I though they were pretty dire. I guess kids might disagree. But aren't there better kids films that are more likely to survive once the dust settles? Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins,...

Do many kids read Mary Poppins or the Wizard of Oz? Just because the film survives, it doesn't mean the book will survive.

I don't know, but the exposure - the quality aside - will surely help. I know a lot of people like the films. Frank L Baum's books we re-published this year. I've never read him, but you can bet that the film has a lot to do with it.

[Paulclem]

Asimov's robots series would have a better claim as 'the' product of the 20th century. Harry potter is the result of marketing - it started like enid blyton's school series and became darker and commercialised.

That may be the point though. It may well be the factor that gives HP and TLOTR longevity.

[PeterL]

Asimov's robots series would have a better claim as 'the' product of the 20th century. Harry potter is the result of marketing - it started like enid blyton's school series and became darker and commercialised.

I almost agree with you, but H.G. Wells has an similar claim, and few of his works are still remembered; although, rather ironically, The Time Machine may be a long term classic.

[luhsun]

H G Wells, Jules Verne and the likes wrote sci-fi predicting the future and the dark side of humanity.
Asimov 3 laws of robotics and their various permutations continued where frankenstein had left off, exploring how humanity and robots may work together or against each other. The foundation series was my first introduction to asimov- i bought all when i was also a poor struggling undergraduate, all paperbacks, covers now tattered with repeated readings. But foundation ia just one of the many scifi and will be forgotten like earth was during the galactic era. The robots will remain.

[JBI]

The weak chinese emperors were partially kept in check by what the court historians wrote (which were kept a secret even from the emperor). The emperors decided things worried about how posterity and their ancestors would judge them. Very few were successful emperors. Impetuous offspring of feminine canine like shi huangdi burnt books while making history.
Perhaps it is the same with classics. I do not think shakespeare wrote his play to be classics for us. He tried to earn a living, be famous while keeping in the good books of the tudor rulers. I dont see how anyone can confidently write something truly great and be conceited enough to claim so. Even keats on dying had self doubt-his epitaph was here lies one whose name is writ in water.

This is absolute nonsense. First of all, all the major histories except the first were written after not before. Much of the history has been edited and damaged especially the Shi Ji or records of the grand historian, which has extensive textual problems with a good 20% clearly written and faked into the book. The literary inquisitions of Qin Shihuang are therefore overplayed, whereas a more iconoclastic character, Xiang Yu who burned the library of xian yang to the ground is relatively revered. Confucius himself was a Censor who worked hard to purge "decadent music" from the face of the world.

Now, to the next book. Ban Gu was actually very much a regime propagandist, with much of our knowledge of the Zwang Mang chaos bring filtered the old academics however all seem to have been old text school historians, whereas Ban Gu completely glosses over everything and takes out textual issues.

Next set - all the post-Han histories were written post decline showing how the old regime lost their divine rights of ruler ship (Tian Ming) and worked to legitimize the succeeding regime. The Jin History, or even better, Shen Yue's Liu-Song history offer great examples. They emphasize the qualities of the imperial founder, and then describe why it declined.

The Tang dynasty histories (of most of the Northern-Southern dynasties are filled with political propaganda). Historians are pressed to find anything about the rule of wuzetian, because her successors had her purged. Li shimin the most celebrated tang emperor murdered his brother and usurped his father - and was the most celebrated of Confucian emperors.

The Yongle emperor of the Ming did the same thing, and to this day is celebrated as both Confucian Patron and Historical model - his usurpation of the throne went off historical records until Qing dynasty historians decided to dig it up to legitimize the succession. You will note that under Yongle, Mencius became a central text mostly because it legitimizes usurpation to an extent that Confucius doesn't. The books burned at the time were also extensive.

Now, the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors if the Qing dynasty had a one up. There literally burned half the canon down and edited a complete works of Chinese civilization. The list of burned books is still extant and can be read online if you don't believe me. Still, these emperors are the most celebrated of the Qing dynasty and their reigns are regarded as golden ages - they are particularly revered for their Confucian ethical backgrounds.

It seems from my understanding that there is attend between political controversy and state sponsorship. Much of Confucian and historical research in china happend under emperors with rather controversial backgrounds. The Ming history under Kangxi, the quanshusiku under Qianlong, the great books of the Song and Confucian development on the southern Song, or even the massive scholarship under Li Shimin or the much earlier Han Wudi. There is no correlation here showing emperors feared history, as the more controversial ones had the best reception and the most questionable backgrounds. (Han Wudi even had the court historian castrated).

[Delta40]

I think C S Lewis Narnia will be remembered.

[mal4mac]

I almost agree with you, but H.G. Wells has an similar claim, and few of his works are still remembered; although, rather ironically, The Time Machine may be a long term classic.

H.G. Wells is not forgotten, and more than a few of his works are remembered. (Although, even if only a few works are remembered, isn't that still a positive thing!) I just borrowed "The Invisible Man" from the library, in a new paperback edition, and it's still fresh and exciting. "War of the Worlds" has had several high impact media translations, over many decades, including Orson Welles' radio show and a film starring Tom Cruise. Bloom lists his *all* his science fiction novels as part of the canon, not just "The Time Machine", and he's not unusual in that. The Island of Dr Moreau, The First Men in the Moon, ... that's five I've remembered, I'm pretty sure that's not unusual for anyone who reads classic novels.

[PeterL]

H.G. Wells is not forgotten, and more than a few of his works are remembered. (Although, even if only a few works are remembered, isn't that still a positive thing!) I just borrowed "The Invisible Man" from the library, in a new paperback edition, and it's still fresh and exciting. "War of the Worlds" has had several high impact media translations, over many decades, including Orson Welles' radio show and a film starring Tom Cruise. Bloom lists his *all* his science fiction novels as part of the canon, not just "The Time Machine", and he's not unusual in that. The Island of Dr Moreau, The First Men in the Moon, ... that's five I've remembered, I'm pretty sure that's not unusual for anyone who reads classic novels.

Wells wrote about 100 books about 50 novels. How many have you read, or even heard of? He is mostly forgotten. What did you think of When the Sleeper Wakes or The World Set Free?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells_bibliography#Novels

[luhsun]

Ah.. jdi.. the weak emperors feared history but they also try to circumvent history. Fear among chinese does not mean implacable fear of sin, fear of the omnipotent jewish god who watches and knows everything. The confucian tradition fear shame, fear of being caught. If the emperor were not discovered to change history, they gained face. If they were caught, and managed to bulldoze through brazenly, they gained even more face. They even cheated the kitchen god with sticky glutinous desert so the god's mouth would be glued shut when presenting the yearly family peccadilloes to the jade emperor.

[JCamilo]

Wells wrote about 100 books about 50 novels. How many have you read, or even heard of? He is mostly forgotten. What did you think of When the Sleeper Wakes or The World Set Free?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells_bibliography#Novels

That is like saying Cervantes is forgotten since almost no one read anything about his other works and only read the Quixote.

[JBI]

One could say that the work overtook the author though - the same way that Flaubert is pretty much Madame Bovary. Other authors, such as Byron, seem to be remembered more as the life and not the poet, so there is a clear point between remembering an author and remembering a work. Certainly we do not remember certain authors as well as their works - we have cut the author from the work, in a manner of speaking.

Other critical readers are obsessed with biography, which would force you to read the lesser works of an author (such as letters, and mediocre works, and the such) but that is usually reserved for the most boring of scholars. There is a field here which focuses mostly on spelling mistakes (the chinese equivalent) and researches historical mistakes in depth - that however is not the pursuit of the average reader.

[luhsun]

A question, jdi. Do you students of arts/literature subscribe to thomas kuhn's theory of scientific revolution or paradigm shift? Namely, that all paradigms (substitute with the chinese culture/language in your case) have plenty of underlying unwritten assumptions. A literal or logical reading of chinese literature/culture in your case may not unearth the real confucian culture.
I also wish to enquire about your exposure to the chinese students/bureacrats/common folks. Are they able to be really open and share with you, a gwailo, all the unwritten underlying assumptions?

[JBI]

Who would want to unearth a truth? That isn't my goal, and never has been - I merely think that one should work to try and get a general understanding - scholarship is more or less an art anyway, rather than a science. I do not need some pseudo-scientific philosophy to tell me that 99% of the people involved in the study and teaching of the arts are more or less mentally masturbating. But like masturbation, it gives a kind of release.

As for the locals here, they are all are more or less brainwashed. I don't exactly need them to open up to me, since I am one of the few people in this world who actually is in favor of much of government policy here. In fact, I think the only thing keeping most people here in line properly is the government system. Then again, this isn't like Burma where everyone cries to you how miserable they are and how you should give them money.

As for the students here, they are worthless. They are so proud of their achievement of "going to the best schools" or whatever that they don't realize that they are worth nothing, and upon graduation, with no life or work experience, will be serving me a burger, and being yelled at by their boss. In terms of economy I make more than my professors here, so I have no real reservations about the actual value of people - the study of literature is no real determiner of anybody's actual value in or to society. Simply put, the philistine who builds buildings contributes significantly more than the scholar who nobody reads.

The best people here are the sort of local-rural-small city folk who invite you into their homes like a guest. They are more curious than they are either racist or fearful, as I am unimposing and overtly honest - my political affiliations are not condescending, unlike the sort of American standard you get abroad that looks down on people here as "those poor imprisoned oppressed sufferers".

My general understanding is that students here are a world disease, and the university is the stuff large scale wars are made of. It's these jingoists in the academy that provide the propaganda required to mobilize an army. The government has always been "60+ years of rapid growth and development" which is not true, but a fine myth, better by far than "5000 years of best in the world" which is the promotion of such students I meet here. They don't criticize the tradition - but the people, and government criticize them to an extent, by simply not employing them or respecting them in society as they are the grease on top of the pot.

[luhsun]

Second time i read your admiration of those who invite you home as honoured guest.. oh you ruth.. sick for home, wanders amid the alien corn

[JBI]

Not quite. I miss normal people. People who exist outside of a classroom. It's not Canada I miss, but interacting with people who have jobs and don't read all day.

[luhsun]

And conversely, to think that i, by day, the hearer of the weariness, the fever and the fret actually ache to be among the leaves i have never known.

[ennison]

The link to the "forgotten" children's" books from the Scottish Book Trust was another interesting one. The Hill of the Red Fox is still a text used in Scottish schools - in the Highlands anyway. The market for children's books has been and continues to be pretty huge with an enormous throughput of texts and authors. There were many brilliant writers of children's fiction from Victorian times who are now totally forgotten. There are obvious practical reasons for that. The target group grow up and a text that is great for a child of ten is seldom as enjoyable for an adult mind. There are some prolific writers of children's fiction who produce one or two works that transcend the genre so that the book remains readable for an adult or for a different generation of children. Who among us here can now recall the fantastic novel Blackadder by John Keir Cross ?

[kev67]

I wonder whether Ian McEwan's Solar might not become his best remembered book. At the moment it seems to be one of his less regarded books, but I think it has some things going for it: 1) It recalls the state of concern in the early 20th century about climate change; 2) it recollects the earnestness of some people with regards to climate change and contrasts it with the cynicism of others; 3) its technology is quite well researched, almost to qualify as science fiction, 4) it is the only book I have read that reflects on the tension between natural scientists and social scientists. Natural scientists and social scientists do not really get on. Social scientists think natural scientists are naive. Natural scientists think social scientists are barking. Apart from almost qualifying as as science fiction, the book almost qualifies as a campus novel.