Does everybody agree? It just seems unlikely to me. I could mention my own faves, but I have done so before.
20 comments:
Pat McGee
said...
I read a lot of fiction by both dead and living authors. Here's my list of favorites, in roughly order of how much I like them:
Nevil Shute (dead) Lois McMaster Bujold (currently writing) Mark Twain (dead) Andrew Greeley (currently writing) Dorothy Sayers (dead) John D. McDonald (dead) Tom Clancy (living; still writing?)
I've also just discovered Lilian Stewart Carl (currently writing), who is a childhood friend of Lois Bujold and writes with many similar turns of phrases and general outlook. I may well add her to this list.
I'm almost afraid to say anything here, but I'll just grin and sally forth. Michael Ondaatje is a genius, pure lyric, perhaps the best and most difficult- and yet most accessible in the English language, and still writing. Mark Helprin has written some very nice fiction (read A Winter’s Tale). Denis Lehane is on the cusp, I almost hate it when these folks gain fame and readers... but there is a reason why. W.S Merwin has written magnificent poetry for decades. His 'The Folding Cliffs' has preoccupied me for over a year. Of course there are others, there always are.
I've been reading a lot of Arturo Pérez-Reverte lately. Not in Spanish, unfortunately.
Thinking about it I realized that most of my favorite authors are dead, although some only recently. I've been reading the Flashman books by George MacDonald Fraser.
I can't say I read a ton of contemporary writers, but I'm still skeptical of a comment like that. It implies he's read all contemporary writers, and of course, he hasn't. Not to mention it's completely based on opinion.
I'm still skeptical of a comment like that. It implies he's read all contemporary writers, and of course, he hasn't. Not to mention it's completely based on opinion.
The comment is deliberately provocative, of course. Also, worthiness should be understood in terms of return on investment. I.e. as long as there are better books (that you still haven't read) by dead writers, why would you ever choose a worse book by a contemporary writer?
Mmmm... while I admire and enjoyed a work like The Picture of Dorian Gray, I normally find that the modern style and pace fits me better. I am reading Moby Dick too, and it's very well written, but like most books of it time it seems quite ponderous to our more hectic modern minds.
Some would say you just have to slow down to take it in, but that's easier said than done.
Remember what critics said about Shakespeare's plays when he was still "contemporary"? Many literally ran him into the ground! Uhm... OK, maybe not literally, but some would've enjoyed to do jyst that! Or, you coud say that I meant "literally" in a literal way: they ran his LITERATURE into the ground. Or something like that. Like, whatever, man.
The advantage of long-dead authors, is that the bad ones were forgotten, so it APPEARS as if there were only good ones. Anybody remembers the writings of César Lustucru? No? Didn't think so. The story of his life (by Pierre Gripari, contemporary) is far more interesting than anything he wrote himself!
Of course, "worth reading" is in the eye of the beholder... and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye. ;-)
If you insist enough, I *might* grant you that anything by contemporary Josie Pussycat ain't worth the brief time spent reading it. :-P
Jes, Forgive me for correcting, but what you normally f- isn't ANISES. It just sounds very close. ;-P
The Picture of Dorian Gray: I've read it too. Excellent story. But you're right, the "old-fashioned style" can end up feeling rather maudlin today. Hence the rather successful modernized adaptations of some aging "classic" super-hero origins.
"but these days I can barely sit through a Supergirl book." What the...? Et tu, Eolakus? But... butt... SHE is practically bare! Really, man, what does it take to please you? ;-)
I agree with TC: you're starting to sound like snobbish elitist BS when you go "ho-hum" at Supergirl. Heretic! Blasphemy! Hark! To yon stake withst thou, and speedily! And use his own books to light the blaze! Curses! It seems that Kindles burn very poorly. Methinks we may have to Pardon yon apostate.
Good point about the perspective of time. It may also be, in that vein, that some author publishing now will only become really well known and loved in a couple of decades time.
I wasn't going to reply to the comment about my taste for Tom Clancy, but I found something tonight in one of Mark Twain's books. In 1885 the Public Library Committee of Concord, Mass. expelled Huckleberry Finn as "trash and suitable only for the slums." Samuel wrote, "That will sell 25,000 copies for us sure."
My take on this is that, back in 1885, his literary reputation was a lot like Tom Clancy's today.
I'm serious. I think we, in our view a hundred years later have a hard time seeing things as people saw them then. Since I'm speaking from that same hundred-years-plus view, I don't know either. But I'd guess that Sam's reputation in 1885 was roughly on par with Tom Clancy's today. Huckleberry Finn actually sold very slowly those first few months.
BTW, I don't know what Sam actually said. But on page 10 of the Penguin edition of "A Connecticut Yankee", he's quoted as saying 25,000.
The thing is, Clancy's books are seen as trash because he is, to put it mildly, not exactly the world's greatest prose stylist. Twain's books may not have been that well received in the beginning, but that was never said about him. People objected to the things he wrote about, his use of the slang of his day, etc.
Tom Clancy by comparison won't likely be remembered in a hundred years because while he no doubt writes a good thriller, those never have much below the surface. I enjoy the kind of "trash" - I like Cussler, for example. I just don't pretend it's something it ain't.
"My take on this is that, back in 1885, his literary reputation was a lot like Tom Clancy's today." I think it was actually much WORSE! :-D I think nobody said of Tom Clancy that he was "fit only for the slums". Granted, the word "slum" has become politically incorrect nowadays. ;-)
I gues the question was : what do you like to read ? I've just read Oliver Sacks: The Man who mistook his Wife for a Hat. Short stories. Great writer and scientist.
20 comments:
I read a lot of fiction by both dead and living authors. Here's my list of favorites, in roughly order of how much I like them:
Nevil Shute (dead)
Lois McMaster Bujold (currently writing)
Mark Twain (dead)
Andrew Greeley (currently writing)
Dorothy Sayers (dead)
John D. McDonald (dead)
Tom Clancy (living; still writing?)
I've also just discovered Lilian Stewart Carl (currently writing), who is a childhood friend of Lois Bujold and writes with many similar turns of phrases and general outlook. I may well add her to this list.
So, no I don't agree.
The only one on that list any good is Mark Twain. To put Tom Clancy on the list is a massive insult. He is crap.
I'm almost afraid to say anything here, but I'll just grin and sally forth.
Michael Ondaatje is a genius, pure lyric, perhaps the best and most difficult- and yet most accessible in the English language, and still writing.
Mark Helprin has written some very nice fiction (read A Winter’s Tale).
Denis Lehane is on the cusp, I almost hate it when these folks gain fame and readers... but there is a reason why.
W.S Merwin has written magnificent poetry for decades. His 'The Folding Cliffs' has preoccupied me for over a year.
Of course there are others, there always are.
Thanks. Sally forth to your heart's content.
I'll take a look at those.
I've been reading a lot of Arturo Pérez-Reverte lately. Not in Spanish, unfortunately.
Thinking about it I realized that most of my favorite authors are dead, although some only recently. I've been reading the Flashman books by George MacDonald Fraser.
Oh, I do enjoy Stephen Fry's writing.
I can't say I read a ton of contemporary writers, but I'm still skeptical of a comment like that. It implies he's read all contemporary writers, and of course, he hasn't. Not to mention it's completely based on opinion.
Word verification: anises. What the f-?
I think it's plural of a particularly happy looking flower. As in: "I don't mind gay things, I've had my share of anises in my day."
I'm still skeptical of a comment like that. It implies he's read all contemporary writers, and of course, he hasn't. Not to mention it's completely based on opinion.
The comment is deliberately provocative, of course. Also, worthiness should be understood in terms of return on investment. I.e. as long as there are better books (that you still haven't read) by dead writers, why would you ever choose a worse book by a contemporary writer?
Mmmm... while I admire and enjoyed a work like The Picture of Dorian Gray, I normally find that the modern style and pace fits me better. I am reading Moby Dick too, and it's very well written, but like most books of it time it seems quite ponderous to our more hectic modern minds.
Some would say you just have to slow down to take it in, but that's easier said than done.
I'd love to read Proust's great work too, and the Russians, but these days I can barely sit through a Supergirl book.
It's snobbish elitist BS.
EOD
Remember what critics said about Shakespeare's plays when he was still "contemporary"? Many literally ran him into the ground!
Uhm... OK, maybe not literally, but some would've enjoyed to do jyst that!
Or, you coud say that I meant "literally" in a literal way: they ran his LITERATURE into the ground.
Or something like that. Like, whatever, man.
The advantage of long-dead authors, is that the bad ones were forgotten, so it APPEARS as if there were only good ones. Anybody remembers the writings of César Lustucru? No? Didn't think so. The story of his life (by Pierre Gripari, contemporary) is far more interesting than anything he wrote himself!
Of course, "worth reading" is in the eye of the beholder... and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye. ;-)
If you insist enough, I *might* grant you that anything by contemporary Josie Pussycat ain't worth the brief time spent reading it. :-P
Sally Forth? Hey, I've read her books! They're *GOOD*.
Jes,
Forgive me for correcting, but what you normally f- isn't ANISES. It just sounds very close. ;-P
The Picture of Dorian Gray: I've read it too. Excellent story. But you're right, the "old-fashioned style" can end up feeling rather maudlin today.
Hence the rather successful modernized adaptations of some aging "classic" super-hero origins.
"but these days I can barely sit through a Supergirl book."
What the...? Et tu, Eolakus? But... butt... SHE is practically bare!
Really, man, what does it take to please you? ;-)
I agree with TC: you're starting to sound like snobbish elitist BS when you go "ho-hum" at Supergirl.
Heretic! Blasphemy! Hark! To yon stake withst thou, and speedily!
And use his own books to light the blaze!
Curses! It seems that Kindles burn very poorly. Methinks we may have to Pardon yon apostate.
Good point about the perspective of time.
It may also be, in that vein, that some author publishing now will only become really well known and loved in a couple of decades time.
It's snobbish elitist BS.
*rolls eyes*
I wasn't going to reply to the comment about my taste for Tom Clancy, but I found something tonight in one of Mark Twain's books. In 1885 the Public Library Committee of Concord, Mass. expelled Huckleberry Finn as "trash and suitable only for the slums." Samuel wrote, "That will sell 25,000 copies for us sure."
My take on this is that, back in 1885, his literary reputation was a lot like Tom Clancy's today.
My take on this is that, back in 1885, his literary reputation was a lot like Tom Clancy's today.
Are you serious, or was that a joke? Btw, Twain said five thousand copies.
I'm serious. I think we, in our view a hundred years later have a hard time seeing things as people saw them then. Since I'm speaking from that same hundred-years-plus view, I don't know either. But I'd guess that Sam's reputation in 1885 was roughly on par with Tom Clancy's today. Huckleberry Finn actually sold very slowly those first few months.
BTW, I don't know what Sam actually said. But on page 10 of the Penguin edition of "A Connecticut Yankee", he's quoted as saying 25,000.
The thing is, Clancy's books are seen as trash because he is, to put it mildly, not exactly the world's greatest prose stylist. Twain's books may not have been that well received in the beginning, but that was never said about him. People objected to the things he wrote about, his use of the slang of his day, etc.
Tom Clancy by comparison won't likely be remembered in a hundred years because while he no doubt writes a good thriller, those never have much below the surface. I enjoy the kind of "trash" - I like Cussler, for example. I just don't pretend it's something it ain't.
"My take on this is that, back in 1885, his literary reputation was a lot like Tom Clancy's today."
I think it was actually much WORSE! :-D
I think nobody said of Tom Clancy that he was "fit only for the slums".
Granted, the word "slum" has become politically incorrect nowadays. ;-)
I gues the question was : what do you like to read ?
I've just read
Oliver Sacks: The Man who mistook his Wife for a Hat.
Short stories. Great writer and scientist.
Post a Comment