Post by Tomas on Jan 4, 2021 18:48:54 GMT
Prompting this post is two Christmas gifts of "book checks" (card valued about £25 to use in some particular book shop). When browsing in such few book shops that we have hereabouts it seems most of the new books for sale, if not so called modern classics, are set in contemporary affairs. The one I was thinking to give a chance now is Michel Hollebecqs (wrong spelling to be sure) Serotonin dystopy. Maybe that would be a choice among the less controversial for "relevance".
Is it possible any books set in today´s world will make it into a wider classical pantheon in the long run, or did the best segments of literature to put it crass get buried more or less around the millennial year? Arguments for that are only spontaneous but would be A) most writers today, wholly shaped by the modern universities, are born and bred reading 19th 20th centuries modern works, and bluntly does not do anything other than emulate the great ones so that even their best works - often as good as the originals perhaps in form, but still not "classics" if they didn't made an impact in their own right so to speak, B) many parts of contemporary works are by their very nature prone to be outdated, and since so many stories tends to be contemporary (my impression is that but I may well be all wrong there) then it could mean more unlikely chances to be counted as classics in a hundred years or so perspective.
The stories that once was contemporary and that still goes as "timeless" are maybe exceptions. Isn´t the most loved classics as a rule rather more imaginative than linked to any real time?
Edit: n.b. this may be only idle thoughts altogether, I am sure there are more brilliant books than ever in circulation even if one would count no other than living authors. Please ripost and debunk if the whole idea of neglect in this art is a stupidly mad one. Listening to a short trailer from Salman Rushdie the other day, it does not at all look like modern literature is any weaker than earlier ages after all. Silly Contradiction was my middle name?
Is it possible any books set in today´s world will make it into a wider classical pantheon in the long run, or did the best segments of literature to put it crass get buried more or less around the millennial year? Arguments for that are only spontaneous but would be A) most writers today, wholly shaped by the modern universities, are born and bred reading 19th 20th centuries modern works, and bluntly does not do anything other than emulate the great ones so that even their best works - often as good as the originals perhaps in form, but still not "classics" if they didn't made an impact in their own right so to speak, B) many parts of contemporary works are by their very nature prone to be outdated, and since so many stories tends to be contemporary (my impression is that but I may well be all wrong there) then it could mean more unlikely chances to be counted as classics in a hundred years or so perspective.
The stories that once was contemporary and that still goes as "timeless" are maybe exceptions. Isn´t the most loved classics as a rule rather more imaginative than linked to any real time?
Edit: n.b. this may be only idle thoughts altogether, I am sure there are more brilliant books than ever in circulation even if one would count no other than living authors. Please ripost and debunk if the whole idea of neglect in this art is a stupidly mad one. Listening to a short trailer from Salman Rushdie the other day, it does not at all look like modern literature is any weaker than earlier ages after all. Silly Contradiction was my middle name?
