Modern Classics?

[3rdI]

Amazon's kindlestore has it, if you have a kindle or an android/ios device. There is a program to read it on the pc, but that would be hard on your eyes, I believe.

Yeah I noticed that but thank you I don't have a kindle.

 

[Eventine]

I am not a big fan of Kay either. But again how can anyone have a discussion about modern classics and leave out The Fionavar Tapestry?

By, you know, talking about his good books? But then the conversation turns to what's good or not, about subjective vs objective measures of quality, and we end up with a multi-page thread going nowhere fast. It happens every year or two, so my apologies if I my ennui is hampering everyone's enjoyment of the topic at hand.
Seriously, I could go through your list and passionately argue at least half your selections. Someone else could probably do the same for the other half of the list. Where does that leave us?
Hal Duncan wrote a great blog post a few years ago talking about the two forms of kudos - being popular with fans, and being popular with other authors. We can influence one, and it's not via discussions on a web forum.

 

[chokipokilo]

In my mind, any series would have to be finished before I'd put it on any kind of classic list. I've seen too many failed landings to laud a trilogy after the first two books.

Gormenghast is a classic and was far from finished.

As far as the topic of what will be modern classics, don't underestimate the power of attracting youger readers. It's not the titles known by adults who already read, it's the ones recognized widely by those who rarely read. At this point I'd say Harry Potter would be the number one contender for future "classic" status. I've never read them or seen any of the movies, but Harry Potter has clearly become a household name, and was even before first appearing in film. I knew about these books long before I started reading fantasy, or even reading for personal enjoyment. That kind of popularity is generally a precursor to "classic."

Jordan, Feist, Eddings, Goodkind, Martin, etc...not nearly so much. Maybe Terry Brooks, though his work is so cliche' it will be hard for the so-called "academia" to give it such recognition (also might be a little old to be referred to as modern). At this point Hunger Games and His Dark Materials are more likely candidates. They're the ones that will be recognized by kids who are two steps above illiterate.

 

[3rdI]

By, you know, talking about his good books? But then the conversation turns to what's good or not, about subjective vs objective measures of quality, and we end up with a multi-page thread going nowhere fast. It happens every year or two, so my apologies if I my ennui is hampering everyone's enjoyment of the topic at hand.
Seriously, I could go through your list and passionately argue at least half your selections. Someone else could probably do the same for the other half of the list. Where does that leave us?
Hal Duncan wrote a great blog post a few years ago talking about the two forms of kudos - being popular with fans, and being popular with other authors. We can influence one, and it's not via discussions on a web forum.

You seem to be misinformed. Let me explain so we are clear. I do not give a damn what you think about the books I listed. Hopefully that will clear up any confusion you might be having.

Everyone has been fine. You start yapping about the thread before it ever became problematic. How about either contributing or staying out of the damn thing?

 

[DailyRich]

In my experience, Drizzt wasn't drawing young readers the way Harry Potter did. Most of the people I knew reading Drizzt were already reading fantasy, and simply read Icewind Dale because it had "Forgotten Realms" slapped on the cover. And they were markedly older than the kids Potter got reading.

 

[Eventine]

You seem to be misinformed. Let me explain so we are clear. I do not give a damn what you think about the books I listed. Hopefully that will clear up any confusion you might be having.

Everyone has been fine. You start yapping about the thread before it ever became problematic. How about either contributing or staying out of the damn thing?

So why should I, or anyone else, "give a damn" about your thoughts?

That aside, I'd like to think I'm contributing by discussing the problematic nature of naming classics. You don't seem to think it's a problem, so have fun listing your favourite books in the meantime.

 

[3rdI]

Gormenghast is a classic and was far from finished.

Don't underestimate the power of attracting youger readers. It's not the titles known by adults who already read, it's the ones recognized widely by those who rarely read. At this point I'd say Harry Potter would be the number one contender for future "classic" status. I've never read them or seen any of the movies, but Harry Potter has clearly become a household name, and was even before first appearing in film. I knew about these books long before I started reading fantasy, or even reading for personal enjoyment. That kind of popularity is generally a precursor to "classic."

Jordan, Feist, Eddings, Goodkind, Martin, etc...not nearly so much. Maybe Terry Brooks, though his work is so cliche' it will be hard for the so-called "academia" to give it such recognition (also might be a little old to be referred to as modern). At this point Hunger Games and His Dark Materials are more likely candidates. They're the ones that will be recognized by kids who are two steps above illiterate.

Yeah you are probably right about Pullman. The books did nothing for me as they are YA and as such I found them rather dull but Pullman can write.

As for Harry Potter I would say it already is a classic. I personally find it amusing at best but again I am not the target audience for that franchise. In terms of YA it is one of the most popular series of all time.

 

[chokipokilo]

Yeah you are probably right about Pullman. The books did nothing for me as they are YA and as such I found them rather dull but Pullman can write.

But you can see how they could be beneficial to younger readers.

Critics are harsher on works targeting adults, another reason I believe certain YA and children's books have a much better shot at becoming "classic."
Especially in this genre.

 

[Eventine]

listing your favourite books in the meantime.

I'd just like to take this bit back - it was not in line as 3rdI had already explained the inclusion of several books he saw as flawed.

 

[3rdI]

But you can see how they could be beneficial to younger readers.

Critics are harsher on works targeting adults, another reason I believe certain YA and children's books have a much better shot at becoming "classic."
Especially in this genre.

You make an excellent point I cannot find any flaw in your logic. There is an inherent rigidity present in many academic circles. The old classic is classic because it is classic argument.

 

[3rdI]

I'd just like to take this bit back - it was not in line as 3rdI had already explained the inclusion of several books he saw as flawed.

For what its worth I understand the point you are making. I agree that any discussion involving any sort of qualitative analysis rarely ever stays within the confines of the objective. There certainly is a subjective component that will find its way into such a discussion. My only point is that it doesn't mean it is not worth having if the parties involved find it interesting.

My apologies for my abrasive response earlier.

 

[Eventine]

No problem, for what it's worth I understand where you're coming from as well, and have participated in this sort of discussion before in actively arguing the case of works I thought merited the term "classic". However, I think I should retreat and nurse the wounds of earlier battles and leave the younger and more passionate to the latest round.

 

[mjolnir]

We seem to be defining classic a couple different ways here:

We've got classic as qualitative -- examples including the arguments for the excellence of GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire, Guy Gavriel Kay, etc. We've got classic as potentially or definitely influential within the field -- again ASoIaF. And then we've got classic as work broadly diseminated in the mainstream -- Harry Potter, WoT, Salvatore's Drizzt books. A note about Drizzt books: I dig that many of the folk Drizzt got reading back when Icewind Dale and the Dark Elf books were coming out were into Forgotten Realms and the like already. However, I think it's important to emphasize how popular Drizzt has become relative to pretty much all other Dungeons and Dragons tie-in fiction. Salvatore's sales outstrip the rest of Wizards of the Coast's novel sales by orders of magnitude; Drizzt is their most popular property by so much it's not even funny. D&D as a sort of generality -- positive or negative or caricature -- has certainly crept into popular consciousness, but if any single D&D character has managed to do so [and I'm not saying this is the case] then that would probably be Drizzt.

So: when we speculate about modern classics, which of these things do we mean? Qualitative? Influential within the field? Influential outside of it? The first is entirely subjective, of course, though there seems to be a degree of agreement around particular secondary world texts like A Song of Ice and Fire. The second's slightly less subjective, I'd say, based on who authors of the next generation cite as influences and the sort of stuff that gets picked up on in terms of tone and theme etc. But this really does take time to judge, no matter how fervently we believe it'll be the case: Martin's A Game of Thrones has been available to the adoring public for over fifteen years now, and its effects on later authors [Abercrombie] and the kind of fantasy that gets published [the Crombie again, Ruckly, Morgan, Bakker] are there to be seen. I'd argue for a lesser and short-lived version of this effect centered around Mieville's Bas-Lag books, as their critical success was followed by publishers popping out fine novels by authors like VanderMeer and Swainston [though how much Bas-Lag's success really had to do with this and how much was happenstance I've no idea.] But we really can't judge this for a new author like Rothfuss: will as-yet unwritten novels be influenced by the way Kvothe's story is told? Ask us in ten years.

The third metric seems to me the easiest to judge: Harry Potter's a phenomenon known to all. Several other works also have reasonable recognition value. And I think there's some worth to this metric. It's certainly worth recognizing what makes it big -- there's always a reason it does so, something in it that speaks to people, and that's worth noting. And often good selections do come out of this; I don't much like Twilight, but I love me some Harry Potter. But since it's comparatively easy to measure, and all we can really argue about is what's sold more, and what's wormed its way into popular consciousness more despite not selling huge, it's ... well ... kinda boring. Personally, I'm fine with sticking to a wobbly, imprecise mixture of all three forms for the sake of a fun argument. I just think we should be clear on what we're taking our terms to mean. [I know the term "classic" has a definite meaning, but we're applying it differently here.]

 

[Sparrow]

Here we go, some modern classics that might become all time classics...

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
Neverwhere
Perdido Street Station
The Diamond Age

 

[Loerwyn]

Moon's Deed Of Paksenarrion - If it's not considered a classic, it damn well should be. One of the most underrated fantasy books ever.

Disagree. Paks is a ridiculously invincible character who bounces back from wounds/injuries/nearly dying at a stupendous pace and with no ill side effects - No mental trauma from almost being raped, no trauma from defying death a few times and so forth. Oh, and not to mention that almost everyone talks the same way, no matter who they are.

Jordan, Feist, Eddings, Goodkind, Martin, etc...not nearly so much. Maybe Terry Brooks, though his work is so cliche' it will be hard for the so-called "academia" to give it such recognition (also might be a little old to be referred to as modern). At this point Hunger Games and His Dark Materials are more likely candidates. They're the ones that will be recognized by kids who are two steps above illiterate.

His Dark Materials? Maybe, maybe. The Hunger Games? Nope. Not a chance in Hell. The first book is great, the second is pretty good and the third is a steaming pile (Although some like it), but there's nothing about it that is 'classic' material. It's a cross between Nineteen Eighty-Four and Battle Royale, and it's a series of rapidly declining quality. I reckon it'll just be a phase, a bit like Eragon.

 

[newfiesailor]

Disagree. Paks is a ridiculously invincible character who bounces back from wounds/injuries/nearly dying at a stupendous pace and with no ill side effects - No mental trauma from almost being raped, no trauma from defying death a few times and so forth. Oh, and not to mention that almost everyone talks the same way, no matter who they are.


His Dark Materials? Maybe, maybe. The Hunger Games? Nope. Not a chance in Hell. The first book is great, the second is pretty good and the third is a steaming pile (Although some like it), but there's nothing about it that is 'classic' material. It's a cross between Nineteen Eighty-Four and Battle Royale, and it's a series of rapidly declining quality. I reckon it'll just be a phase, a bit like Eragon.

Well, how about you actually contribute to the thread by forwarding some suggestions of your own rather than bashing everyone's choices? If you are going to critique other people's selections, at least have the courage to give us your list.

Eventine, you certainly called this thread out.

 

[Loerwyn]

Well, how about you actually contribute to the thread by forwarding some suggestions of your own rather than bashing everyone's choices?

I'm not bashing everyone's choices, I'm offering my opinion as to why they're not modern classics. This is a discussion site, is it not? Ergo, I am free to discuss why they should (Or, in this case, should not) be modern classics. Every coin has two sides, right?

 

[newfiesailor]

Well put forward some of your own choices and we can discuss them.

 

[3rdI]

Well, how about you actually contribute to the thread by forwarding some suggestions of your own rather than bashing everyone's choices? If you are going to critique other people's selections, at least have the courage to give us your list.

Eventine, you certainly called this thread out.

Not going to happen. Cheer won't "debate" although that is exactly what she is doing. And according to Erfael this is a "discussion" forum and "debate" is frowned upon. LOL makes you chuckle after awhile once you start to pick out all the inconsistency.

Anyway let's stay on topic. Mjolnir and Eventine both raised interesting points on the subjective/objective nature of any discussion on classics.

I think we are all capable of coming up with logical reasons why we would deem something as a "classic". Let's spend less time trying to pick apart other lists or suggestions and continue on with the discussion. To the OP not trying to take over the thread but I would recommend that everyone list their reasoning behind why they think a book deserves mention. After awhile we can all look for what kind of patterns emerge. Has the discussion stayed objective? Or has it been largely based on subjectivity as Eventine suggested? Let's continue and see where it goes.

 

[3rdI]

Another argument that some might make is that for a work to be deemed classic it must transcend genre. The problem with that is it becomes remarkably subjective. Did Borges, Dunsany, or Vance transcend genre? Borges wrote about many different topics and while he did dabble in fantasy he wasn't primarily a fantasy writer. Of course in his defense the argument could be made that fantasy had yet to become a genre at that point. Vance certainly didn't transcend genre. Influential certainly but not required reading at University.

So who really did transcend genre or shape it for that matter? Dunsany was a big influence to Tolkien and he receives attention in the Academic world. Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland probably qualifies although you do have to ask yourself would it have faded into antiquity had Disney not made it into an animated film?

Of course then we have to ask an even bigger question. Are any of these books good? If someone gave you a choice of reading Carroll's Alice or Abercrombie's First Law which would you choose? Gotta tell you I am going with Abercrombie. Alice in Wonderland is one of the most boring stories I have ever read.

Which story is more advanced? Again that depends on your definition. Most of the older fantasy "classics" that I have read bore me to tears. Intellectually I can appreciate them for their relevance particularly given when they were written but by and large they are too simple. How many of the older classics amount to works that would be considered YA today?