• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Literature and A Good Book?

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I'm going out on a limb here but, as you probably know, there is a difference between literature and more or less entertaining books. Stephen King is studied in college, but will he be in 100 years? Ditto for writers like Agatha Christie, Dorthy L. Sayers and a whole list of others. So which modern writer do you think, in 100 years, will be an author studied like Dickens, Shakespeare, Doestovesky, Tolstoy, and the rest? I would suggest we limit our suggestions to those of the last, 70 or less years as anyone else is probably already known as a "classical writer."

I'm going to wait and see what others suggest before making my prognostications.

AJ
 

Ailig

New Member
I think Anne McCaffery, J.K. Rowling, and Marion Zimmer Bradley.

McCaffery because of how she took something classically fantasy (dragons) and made them very scifi/maybe not so scifi now: genetically altering a growth hormone to create larger dragonettes utill we have actual dragons. If you can get into the series, I highly recommend Dragonriders of Pern. McCaffery was a huge supporter of fellow women authors of scifi and actively encouraged people to read their books. She had a magazine that prominently featured women authors iirc...

Rowling will be considered a classic soon enough. Mostly because of the cultural phenomenon Harry Potter has become. I feel it will be examined in minute detail (as it is today, though not academically) in much the same way Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are. Given the impact the books have had, and to a further extent the movies, HP will find it's way into many cultural studies classes.

Bradley I feel will be best remembered as a woman who seamlessly wove historical fiction with high fantasy, while staying true to local folk tales. Her Mists of Avalon series is exemplary IMO! She clearly understood L'Mort deArtur when she wrote the first book. The rest are set so convincingly in historical settings (Constantine's Rome, Boudicca's Britain) it's hard to de-tangle facts and fiction. She became a master at weaving in the true stories shared about the fae (not Disney's fairy godmother... blech). Her focus was always on the women in these historical times. Both her protagonists and antagonists were women, and always multidimensional.
 

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
JK Rowling definitely, because she's sold so many books and is just so darned famous.

Other favorites of mine are Tom Clancy, Leon Uris, and Ursula Le Guin. I definitely think all of them will still be famous in 100 years. I think Leon Uris' Redemption, about the Irish fight for liberation from Britain, will be a classic. And Tom Clancy has so many it's hard to say what will last. Ursula Le Guin really took relationships to the edge with her Left Hand of Darkness.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Interesting. I have to disagree about J.K. Rowling though. The style of writing is not complex enough to stand over time. In comparison you might like to read the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, two series which have not stood up well over time, even though they were wildly popular at the time.

Science fiction, in general, does not weather well, except perhaps Ray Bradbury, Orson Wells, and a couple others. I think, in general Rowlings "failure" as an artist is the simplicity of her style and the general tediousness of her plots. She reminds me of Agatha Christie or Dorthy L. Sayers, both of whom, in my opinion, were second tier authors, though quite popular in their time and for decades after.

The Dragons of Pern are a terrific read but, again, they seem to echo the same general themes, characters and plot lines as so many fantasy trilogies. It's almost cliche' to write about some really, really, bad mages trying to take over the world and some young, lost and unaware gifted boy or girl gathering a group of friends from all kinds of biological and social persuasions to battle evil yet again. The whole thing seems to me to be a pale imitation of Lord of the Rings. McCaffery is one of the best of these imitations, but they do strike me as more or less immitations.

If one reads a lot of Victorian novels, as I have done over the years, the same thing occurs. There is, of course Dickens and the the two elder Bronte sisters, (Charlotte and Emily, though Anne is certainly to be remembered), as well as some others, but William Makepeace Thackery (Vanity Fair) will not make the grade, not because he wasn't wildly popular in his day, but because he too, was more imitation and less originality.

Not sure of Tom Clancy. Uris has a better chance, though Exodus and I forget his other great work, might make it. Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness" will still be read and discussed, I think. Again, originality and a sophisticated style (which tends to lend itself to the complex and nuanced interpretations by critics and thus enables them to publish in academic journals and therefore lends the weight of criticism to the idea that the work has value.)

In the end all authors are imitators to some degree and rare is the author who provides a whole new world in the world of writing. William Falkner's "Go Down Moses," James Joyce stream of consciousness in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, and, as mentioned, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings were original in their presentation of a new direction in literature and, perhaps more importantly in terms of literature, sophisticated in their use of language.

Feel free to disagree, of course. After all, good literature should be a bit controversial. LOL.

AJ
 

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
Interesting. I have to disagree about J.K. Rowling though. The style of writing is not complex enough to stand over time. In comparison you might like to read the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, two series which have not stood up well over time, even though they were wildly popular at the time.

Science fiction, in general, does not weather well, except perhaps Ray Bradbury, Orson Wells, and a couple others. I think, in general Rowlings "failure" as an artist is the simplicity of her style and the general tediousness of her plots. She reminds me of Agatha Christie or Dorthy L. Sayers, both of whom, in my opinion, were second tier authors, though quite popular in their time and for decades after.

The Dragons of Pern are a terrific read but, again, they seem to echo the same general themes, characters and plot lines as so many fantasy trilogies. It's almost cliche' to write about some really, really, bad mages trying to take over the world and some young, lost and unaware gifted boy or girl gathering a group of friends from all kinds of biological and social persuasions to battle evil yet again. The whole thing seems to me to be a pale imitation of Lord of the Rings. McCaffery is one of the best of these imitations, but they do strike me as more or less immitations.

If one reads a lot of Victorian novels, as I have done over the years, the same thing occurs. There is, of course Dickens and the the two elder Bronte sisters, (Charlotte and Emily, though Anne is certainly to be remembered), as well as some others, but William Makepeace Thackery (Vanity Fair) will not make the grade, not because he wasn't wildly popular in his day, but because he too, was more imitation and less originality.

Not sure of Tom Clancy. Uris has a better chance, though Exodus and I forget his other great work, might make it. Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness" will still be read and discussed, I think. Again, originality and a sophisticated style (which tends to lend itself to the complex and nuanced interpretations by critics and thus enables them to publish in academic journals and therefore lends the weight of criticism to the idea that the work has value.)

In the end all authors are imitators to some degree and rare is the author who provides a whole new world in the world of writing. William Falkner's "Go Down Moses," James Joyce stream of consciousness in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, and, as mentioned, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings were original in their presentation of a new direction in literature and, perhaps more importantly in terms of literature, sophisticated in their use of language.

Feel free to disagree, of course. After all, good literature should be a bit controversial. LOL.

AJ
It has been nearly 100 years since Hardy Boys were first published (1927). And according to Amazon, the first five books in the Hardy Boys series are currently rated at #21 in Children's mystery books. That's now ... at number 21 on the top selling list for that category ... about #2100 overall for all categories of books, which is STILL popular. I know, because my books are ranked at around 100,000, in popularity. I'd die for that kind of rating, haha! So they are still relevant despite being nearly a century old. (I'm not defending the Hardy Boys; I'm just attesting to their popularity not only as personal reading, but even schools have them on their reading lists. So in a way, they do fit the criteria in the opening post)

I agree that Agatha Christie was not top tier. Dorothy Sayers perhaps was a cut above, but not top tier either. However, I do believe both of them were nearly equal to Tolkien as far as actual writing goes. Tolkien was tedious, although I slogged through most of his works. And yet I will definitely agree that he was unique in his concepts. They spawned from his experience with the war machine of WW1 and he really knew how to create good atmosphere. In the hands of his friend, CS Lewis, the books would have been even more powerful. I was so glad when the movies came out and I noticed that they didn't stay faithful to Tolkien. They did Tolkien better than Tolkien did, and I'm a huge LOTR fan. I just wish the director would have done as well with the Hobbit trilogy as he did with LOTR.

Yes, Exodus will be remembered as well as Herman Wouk's Winds of War. And yes, all good literature should be a bit controversial, LOL!
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
@Darielle I certainly didn't realize the Hardy Boys were still popular. Still, popularity may be sustainable for a long time, but art tends to stay popular over at least a couple hundred years. It's interesting to note in the "is it art or just pulp fiction?" question, that on one side it is the intelligentsia who "snobbisly" say what is art and what is not, while the "masses" just keep buying what they like and, eventually, that too, becomes art. Sci-fi is certainly in this category as are horror stories like Dr. Frankenstein (by Mary Shelly the wife of the more well known romantic poet Percy Byssje Shelley and friend to the equally known other Romantic poet Lord Byron). The professional critics, though, often put some kind of approval on a work and it becomes "art" long after it has faded in popularity. Williams Shakespeare -- you may have heard of him -- was relegated to the dust heap of forgotten authors until Alexander Pope in the late 1700 started bringing him to light. Due mainly to Pope's enthusiasm other critics picked up the dusty volumes of Shakespeare and, as they say, the rest is history. In fact, many very famous authors have followed the sad path of being poor starving artists all their lives, dying poor, and finding lasting acclaim when it was too late to enjoy it or the fruits of it.

As for Tolkien being laborious, that it true. But Dickens in the first half of any of his works is also difficult -- then he takes off and the plot comes rushing in to carry you off into that wonderful place of character and imagination that makes him worth reading. You just have to slog through the first few hundred pages saying to yourself, "I believe this will get better, I believe...." And Falkner and Joyce take a lot of "getting used" to as well.

It's interesting but the best selling book of all time and one that tops every list every year and has done so long before the New York Times started tracking the price of eggs in colonial New York, is the Bible. The King James Bible, 1609 edition, is still in print and still outsells most other books -- and if you combine it with the thousands of other translations and paraphrases, annotated versions, study versions, etc....etc...etc., you have a very, very "popular" work. However, is it art? Certainly some parts of the KJV are exactly because the translators intended it to be so. They actually, consciously determined it should be translated with "art" or "poetry" in mind and thus, in more than a few places, the reading is not quite the orginal, though anyone interested can find this out easily. But some parts, even in the original, can hardly be considered "artistic," let alone "poetic." And as for influence of the Western culture, Northrup Frye, a Marxist Critic teaching at Harvard in the 1960's and 1970's was said to have asked on the first day of his freshman Western literature classes, "How many of you have read the New Testament?" Then, after getting a show of hands, added, "Those of you who have not need to go home this weekend and read it. You can't understand Western Literature if you haven't." In the end though it's popular, it's been around forever (some would stay, literally) and it contains passages of sublime art. But it's, overall, a rather rough and tumble affair in which you get a whole lot of variance and an even more difficult time figuring out what it all means. And, as the source of "wars and rumors of wars" both figurative and real, it is also controversial. And seldom, compared to it's popularity, read. One cannot imagine plunking down $30 for a J.K. Rowling book and NOT reading it, but most people receive $30 Bibles and use them to measure the dust that has fallen in the room between now and the last dusting. Sometimes in inches!

Well, enough of this missive. Keep up the good reading and we'll sort it out in the end, right? LOL.

AJ

Corrections: Northrop Frye was NOT at Harvard in the 1960's and 1970's but was in 1976 only as a visiting guest lecturer. He was at, Victoria College, Toronto most of his career. And while he was considered a Marxist he was also an ordained minister in the United Church of Canada. Sorry for counting on my memory. AJ
 
Last edited:

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
@Darielle

As for Tolkien being laborious, that it true. But Dickens in the first half of any of his works is also difficult -- then he takes off and the plot comes rushing in to carry you off into that wonderful place of character and imagination that makes him worth reading.


.....One cannot imagine plunking down $30 for a J.K. Rowling book and NOT reading it, but most people receive $30 Bibles and use them to measure the dust that has fallen in the room between now and the last dusting. Sometimes in inches!

Well, enough of this missive. Keep up the good reading and we'll sort it out in the end, right? LOL.

AJ

Oh, gosh, you made me laugh with that first one. I love The Christmas Carol, but I hate the intro and keep screaming at it, "YES, I KNOW HE'S DEAD. QUIT TELLING ME HOW DEAD HE IS!!" LOL

Most Christians (myself included for the first 40 years of my life) have never read the Bible cover to cover over the course of a week, as they would any other large book that they bought. Cherry picking is a way of life with the majority, I'd say. I was already a Christian Ed director and a long-time (a dozen years) Sunday School teacher by the time I did that. It changed me .... not overnight but slowly. I'm now a Buddhist. I wonder how many others it would affect that way. Ah well ... we'll never know because most will never do it. And some might go the opposite way; we're all different. :)
 
Top