Modern Classics?

[DailyRich]

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.

I don't disagree with any of this, but is anybody going to be looking back fondly at Siege of Darkness in 50 years? Widespread popularity does not equate to classic status. Or else Hop is now a classic Easter film.

 

[bigal123]

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.

This is fine with me, and I think this a pragmatic way of getting at the original question I was asking. But most people seem to be framing this as a positive question i.e. what is a classic? or what is "the canon"? I'm asking a more practical, negative question i.e. what books couldn't you get away with not listing? For example, from a philosophical perspective I think Plato got it all wrong but if I was hard pressed to create a canon list of philosophy books I couldn't get away with not listing The Republic. Similarly, a list without a series like Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn would just seem incomplete.

Now there are some debatable books like Name of the Wind because not enough time has passed to be able to gauge its impact or influence. But from a standpoint of quality it's hard to see how you could leave it out. So, to use a double negative, what books could we not not list?

 

[chokipokilo]

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.

You're probly right. I haven't read any of these books, I just figured they had a better chance since it seems that plenty of younger readers who wouln't normally be reading for fun are enjoying these books. Certainly not even close to what Harry Potter has achieved though.

I don't think Memory, Sorrow and Thorn will go down as anything particularly special outside of fantasy readers' circles.

 

[3rdI]

This is fine with me, and I think this a pragmatic way of getting at the original question I was asking. But most people seem to be framing this as a positive question i.e. what is a classic? or what is "the canon"? I'm asking a more practical, negative question i.e. what books couldn't you get away with not listing? For example, from a philosophical perspective I think Plato got it all wrong but if I was hard pressed to create a canon list of philosophy books I couldn't get away with not listing The Republic. Similarly, a list without a series like Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn would just seem incomplete.

Now there are some debatable books like Name of the Wind because not enough time has passed to be able to gauge its impact or influence. But from a standpoint of quality it's hard to see how you could leave it out. So, to use a double negative, what books could we not not list?

Your philosophy example is solid. I feel the same way about Nietzsche but it would be irresponsible of me to leave him off any such list.

As for modern authors to leave off the list I would start with Brooks. While I am not a fan I do acknowledge The Sword of Shannara as a relevant work of fantasy. The reason I would leave Brooks off the list is that he has, in my opinion, repeated the same story over and over again. So while I couldn't argue with someone listing The Sword of Shannara as a classic I would certainly argue against calling any recent Shannara book a classic.

 

[bearcatmark]

I think in some sense people are trying to put their personal favorites and pass them off as classics.

Use of Weapons is in my pantheon of great speculative fiction, but I don't think it qualifies as a modern classic. I think a classic should have a combination of critical and popular appeal and should be uniquely transcendent in some way.

Some books I'd argue are Modern Classics (can we make modern within the last 30 years?).

Ender's Game
Hyperion
ASOIAF
Perdido Street Station
Neuromancer
Wheel of Time
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
Harry Potter
American Gods

 

[3rdI]

I think in some sense people are trying to put their personal favorites and pass them off as classics.

I do not agree I think everyone has been fairly objective. There are a number of works I absolutely despise but I would list them as modern classics.

Some books I'd argue are Modern Classics (can we make modern within the last 30 years?).

I was thinking 30 years as well that would seem a fair time table. What do you think Big Al?

 

[mjolnir]

Daily Rich: Oh, I agree certainly. I think it very unlikely anybody'll be reading Siege of Darkness in fifty years and don't think Drizzt's popularity and the way he's affected reading and readers is comparable to, say, Potter at all. I just thought it was worthwhile to make the distinction: Drizzt may not have sunk that deep into culture, but I'd say he's sunk a sight deeper than other D&D material, and in the event that anyone is still reading Forgotten Realms in fifty years -- stranger things have happened; some swords-and-sorcery classics are really pretty wonderfully schlocky stuff -- Drizzt will head the list, almost certainly.

The issue of what transcends genre is a good point, and might make for kind of a nice fusion of my influential/popular categories of potential classics: what's been both read widely enough and thought about widely enough to fairly be said to have transcended genre? I don't know Dunsanny well. Borges I've read a little, and like very much indeed, but again I don't know enough to talk really. I'd agree with 3rdI and say it's probably not very productive to try and cram Borges into the progression of commercial fantasy. I think he's more or less classic already, an acknowledged influence on both major fantasists and people who hate the stuff, and so from my relative ignorance I'd say he's managed to transcend the genre and become a classic thereof without ever having been consciously part of it as a commercial movement in the first place.

I do think some authors ought to get a sort of free pass, at least partially, in terms of the whole transcending gig if they've had a really powerful impact within the field. I don't think Martin's transcended genre yet -- he yet may, I dunno -- but he's had an enormous effect on many young writers who've come after him within the field, it seems, and I think that qualifies him. [Vance has been cited as an influence outside sf, by the way, by at least one extremely popular writer in the shape of Dean Koontz. Not exactly an academic trend-setter, but widely read.] On the other hand, I'd say Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell deserves potential classic status for its successful reach outside genre to draw in many readers who don't normally grok this sort of thing and win their respect. It doesn't seem to have sparked too much shifting within the field, remaining very singular in its excellence, but its presence was felt outside the nebulous borders, I think.

In terms of works thought complex when they were written being "considered ya today", I think you seriously underestimate modern ya. Young adult writers like Westerfeld and Lanagan and Bacigalupi in Ship Breaker deal with some very heavy stuff, and they make it accessible but this is to its advantage not its detriment; the complexity's still there. And even if they haven't seeped into the mainstream in even remotely the way Potter / Twilight have, these writers are widely read. Lanagan perhaps not so much, but I believe Westerfeld's books get printed in numbers somewhere in the low six figures -- forget where I heard this so I could be wrong. There are adult spec fic authors, good adult spec fic authors, who would commit crimes for that kind of broad audience. I think you do make a good point that several works that are considered classic -- Beagle's The Last Unicorn, Le Guin's Earthsea -- are often categorized as ya today, but ya is to be embraced and respected not rained on. Many of those older works really do stand up -- The Last Unicorn is a work of considerable genius -- and modern ya is producing some of the field's best material. Ya's a big part of the future of this kind of writing.

Haven't actually gotten around to giving my ill-informed selections. Post too long. More later, perhaps.

 

[bigal123]

I was thinking 30 years as well that would seem a fair time table. What do you think Big Al?

This is also fine with me. Depending on how old you are (how old are you guys? ) I think 1980 would still be considered modern.

 

[Alchemist]

A few thoughts.

First, I would suggest the year 1977 as a good one to start the Modern Era of Fantasy. Why 1977? Well, it was the year that two of the most influential works of fantasy were published: The Sword of Shannara, which was the commercial (if not creative) successor to Lord of the Rings, and its dark twin, Lord Foul's Bane, the first book of the Thomas Covenant series. In 1977, fantasy literature entered the mainstream - that is, it became big bucks. It became both a viable money-maker and literary movement, all in the same year.

So Modern Fantasy begins in 1977, which gives us 34 years. Of course recent fantasy is a different matter. So I would suggest that we look at Modern Classics as being books published within the last 34 years, but perhaps not within the last ten - those could be potential classics. As some have said, The Name of the Wind (2007) might end up being a classic, but it is really too soon to tell, while A Game of Thrones (1996) and its sequels can safely be considered Modern Classics not only based upon their own literary merit but because of how they influenced the genre over the last fifteen years; Rothfuss has only had four years and so far we haven't seen a huge influence.

I would suggest that both Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen and R. Scott Bakker's A Prince of Nothing be considered. Malazan has a longer history and goes back to 1999, so escapes the ten-year "potential" zone that I suggested for not being long enough to be called true classics. A Prince of Nothing (2004) is seven years old, so is entering the discussion.

Perdido Street Station (2000) is a good, solid choice, as is His Dark Materials (1995). I would also mention any number of Guy Gavriel Kay novels, but especially Lions of Al-Rassan (1995) and Tigana (1992).

Beyond that you have some interesting potentials: Bakker, as mentioned, as well as Abercrombie, Lynch, maybe Sanderson (although I think he is somewhat over-rated and if he becomes a classic author it is more in the manner of Terry Brooks than Gene Wolfe). And of course Bakker, Rothfuss, and Erikson.

Someone mentioned the idea that there are those books that receive recognition from the public and those from other authors; a great example of the latter is John Crowley's Aegypt Quintet.

I have focused mainly on recent works, but if we're going to look at the entire 34 years of the post-Shannara/Covenant era, I would certainly include Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun (1980) and David Eddings' Belgariad (1982), although as two very different examples of what "classic" might mean. The first Raymond Feist series, the Riftwar books, might qualify, although more because of their influence and readership than because of literary merit. We must also include The Mists of Avalon (1982) and various other works. The list will, eventually, grow very long.

(Note: the dates given, unless specified otherwise, refer to the publication of the first book of a series).

 

[3rdI]

A few thoughts.

First, I would suggest the year 1977 as a good one to start the Modern Era of Fantasy. Why 1977? Well, it was the year that two of the most influential works of fantasy were published: The Sword of Shannara, which was the commercial (if not creative) successor to Lord of the Rings, and its dark twin, Lord Foul's Bane, the first book of the Thomas Covenant series. In 1977, fantasy literature entered the mainstream - that is, it became big bucks. It became both a viable money-maker and literary movement, all in the same year.

So Modern Fantasy begins in 1977, which gives us 34 years. Of course recent fantasy is a different matter. So I would suggest that we look at Modern Classics as being books published within the last 34 years, but perhaps not within the last ten - those could be potential classics. As some have said, The Name of the Wind (2007) might end up being a classic, but it is really too soon to tell, while A Game of Thrones (1996) and its sequels can safely be considered Modern Classics not only based upon their own literary merit but because of how they influenced the genre over the last fifteen years; Rothfuss has only had four years and so far we haven't seen a huge influence.

I would suggest that both Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen and R. Scott Bakker's A Prince of Nothing be considered. Malazan has a longer history and goes back to 1999, so escapes the ten-year "potential" zone that I suggested for not being long enough to be called true classics. A Prince of Nothing (2004) is seven years old, so is entering the discussion.

Perdido Street Station (2000) is a good, solid choice, as is His Dark Materials (1995). I would also mention any number of Guy Gavriel Kay novels, but especially Lions of Al-Rassan (1995) and Tigana (1992).

Beyond that you have some interesting potentials: Bakker, as mentioned, as well as Abercrombie, Lynch, maybe Sanderson (although I think he is somewhat over-rated and if he becomes a classic author it is more in the manner of Terry Brooks than Gene Wolfe). And of course Bakker, Rothfuss, and Erikson.

Someone mentioned the idea that there are those books that receive recognition from the public and those from other authors; a great example of the latter is John Crowley's Aegypt Quintet.

I have focused mainly on recent works, but if we're going to look at the entire 34 years of the post-Shannara/Covenant era, I would certainly include Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun (1980) and David Eddings' Belgariad (1982), although as two very different examples of what "classic" might mean. The first Raymond Feist series, the Riftwar books, might qualify, although more because of their influence and readership than because of literary merit. We must also include The Mists of Avalon (1982) and various other works. The list will, eventually, grow very long.

(Note: the dates given, unless specified otherwise, refer to the publication of the first book of a series).

Nice post. Great point about 77 and Donaldson. I never really got into the Covenant books but it most certainly belongs in any modern classic discussion.

Another thing that I was thinking about in terms of trying to define how we view a work as classic is how truly "classic" books tend to be reference points for the genre. In other words when you read a book who do you measure it against? Does it remind you of something else or does it feel unique and original? Right now the go to is LOTR. When critics seem to love a book that author is automatically hailed as the next Tolkien. What current authors or books do we see becoming the measure of things? I think Rothfuss and Martin have that potential. Martin's ASOIAF is already becoming a measure and with the GOT HBO endeavor is now transcending genre.

Of course that leaves out a writer like Bakker who is creating a story every bit as compelling and important as ASOIAF and KKC. The problem is that Bakker is having trouble reaching a broader audience and as such will only get mentioned as a classic within communities such as these. I hope I am ultimately proven wrong and that Bakker reaches that larger audience but I am just analyzing the situation as it currently stands.

 

[psychefestation]

How about The Once and Future King ? It is definitely a modern classic, imo.

 

[KatG]

34 years? That's a lot of books. Some of the ones that could be on the list are:

Gordon R. Dickson, The Dragon and the George
Stephen R. Donaldson, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever
Michael Moorcock, Elric series
Stephen King, The Stand
Elizabeth A. Lynn, The Dancers of Arun
Patricia A. McKillip, Harpist in the Wind (Riddlemaster of Hed)
Gene Wolfe, Soldier of the Mist
John Crowley, Little, Big
John M. Ford, The Dragon Waiting
R.A. MacAvoy, Lens of the World
Jack Vance, Lyonesse
Robert Holdstock, Mythago Wood
Barry Hughart, Bridge of Birds
Stephen King & Peter Straub, The Talisman
Clive Barker, Weaveworld
C.J. Cherryh, Fortress in the Eye of Time
Neil Gaiman, American Gods
China Mieville, Perdido Street Station
Robert Jordan, Wheel of Time series
George R.R. Martin, Song of Ice and Fire series
Anne Rice, Interview with a Vampire
Patrick Suskind, Perfume
Terry Bisson, Talking Man
Tim Powers, Declare, The Anubis Gates
Robert R. McCammon, Usher’s Passing
Charles de Lint, The Little Country
Peter Straub, Koko
James P. Blaylock, The Last Coin
Jonathan Carroll, Outside the Dog Museum
Terri Windling, The Wood Wife
James Morrow, Only Begotten Daughter
Ellen Kushner, Thomas the Rhymer
Guy Gavriel Kay, Tigana
Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
Stephen Brust, Vlad Taltos series
Stephen R. Boyett, Ariel
Glen Cook, The Black Company
Emma Bull, Bone Dance
Toni Morrison, Beloved
Octavia Butler, Kindred
Kim Newman, Anno Dracula
Jane Yolen, Briar Rose
Kathe Koja, Skin
Michael Swanwick, The Iron Dragon's Daughter
Elizabeth Hand, Waking the Moon
Graham Joyce, The Tooth Fairy
Mark Helprin, A Winter’s Tale
Sean Stewart, Galveston, Mockingbird
Peter S. Beagle, Tamsin
Phillip Pullman, His Dark Materials
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter
Lemony Snickett, A Series of Unfortunate Events
Piers Anthony, A Spell for Chameleon, On a Pale Horse
Katherine Kurtz, Deryni Rising
Robin Hobb, Assassin’s Apprentice
Roger Zelazny, Chronicles of Amber series
Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon
Sherri S. Tepper, Jinian Footseer
Ursula LeGuin, Earthsea series
Richard Adams, Watership Down
William Goldman, The Princess Bride
Tad Williams, Memory, Sorrow & Thorn series
Brian Jacques, Redwall
Michael Ende, The Neverending Story
Diana Wynne Jones, Howl’s Moving Castle

 

[newfiesailor]

Now that's a list.

 

[KatG]

Owlcroft was napping, so......

 

[Hobbit]

Owlcroft's would have been in alphabetical order....

In historical terms, I understand there's a 30 year rule in the school curriculum.

I quite like 1977 as the start date, though, even though it's a little unwieldy (and I can sympathise with anyone who thinks 'modern' is a decade.)

Mark

 

[DailyRich]

1977 works too because of Star Wars. That film helped push sci-fi (and by extension fantasy) further into the mainstream (for good or ill is up for discussion). But I knew plenty of kids who had never picked up an Asimov or a Clarke before Star Wars sent them off to the bookstore.

 

[owlcroft]

Well, let's see.

I think I'll organize this by author, rather than work. Not all of these have the recognition they deserve, but I think quality is more important that contemporary fame. In random order:

John Crowley; Little, Big is 1982 (though I'd still be inclined to call it "modern": but his "Aegypt" quartet ran 1988 through 2008, so that's definitely "modern".

James Blaylock arrived in 1982, but remains active; All the Bells on Earth, a fine specimen of his work, is 1995.

Michael Chabon's Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay was 2000; not everyone agrees on classing it speculative fiction (I obviously so class it), but there's always Summerland or The Yiddish Policemen's Union to establish credentials.

M. John Harrison has been published since at least 1971, but remains active; his masterly work The Course of the Heart is 1992, which surely qualifies for "modern".

Gael Baudino, writing as G. A. Kathryns, produced The Borders of Life in 1999.

As to Jack Vance, i don't know how far "modern" stretches--the "Lyonesse" series is from the1980s.

We mustn't forget Terry Pratchett.

Peter S. Beagle continues to produce--The Unicorn Sonata, for example, is 1996.

Tanith Lee is another master who continues to produce, with--among other things--more "Flat Earth" work forthcoming, not to speak of her two "Secret Books of" quartetes, works of the '90s and beyond.

Matt Ruff is assuredly "modern"; though Fool on the Hill is marginal by date (1988), Sewer, Gas, and Electric (1993) fits well.

Steven Millhauser is another clear modern master of the fantastic; Martin Dressler was only 1996, and Dangerous Laughter is 2008.

Neal Barrett, Jr. has been going for, it seems, ages, but remains classable as "modern"--what is probably his masterpiece, The Hereafter Gang, only dates to 1991, and the nearly as good Interstate Dreams is 1999.

Russell Hoban spans quite some decades, but Linger Awhile is as recent as 2006.

Though Italo Calvino--a master's master--was published mainly before 1990 (which, from the other posts here, I am taking as the arbitrary cut date for "modern", though I think that silly, because it is really defining "contemporary", not "modern"), he did write Numbers in the Dark and Other Stories in 1995, and so may be said to belong.

Jonathan Carroll should need no introduction; and most of his output is post-1990.

Richard Adams' best-known works pre-date 1990, but The Outlandish Knight is as recent as 1999.

Then there's Michael Cisco, very solidly "modern" and a major power in modern fantasy (though probably not a big seller); The Divinity Student was 1999, and The Great Lover is this very year.

Mark Helprin's Winter Tale is too early, but his "Swan Lake" trilogy is 2/3 1990s.

Expanding the time scale back from 1990, which, as I said above, is much closer to "contemporary" than to "modern" and a lot more authors and works fit. Where one might draw the line for "modern" is hard to say. Post-war? (Younger readers probably have no idea how huge a wrench WWII was to so many aspects of life, including literature)? The "New Wave" in the 1960s? Post-Tolkien? Ya makes yer cherce an' ya takes yer chances . . . .

(Looking back, I notice a distinct paucity there of sword-swinging; I think only the Vance, though Lee's Flat Earth might marginally be included.)

 

[Winter]

Glad I am not the only one who had Michael Cisco come to mind. I am currently reading last year's The Narrator, so he was the first I thought of.

 

[3rdI]

So far Mieville's Perdido Street Station has been mentioned fairly often. Fantastic book.

A bit surprised Gaiman hasn't dominated the lists. I am not a fan but I know he is extremely popular.

 

[3rdI]

Who pays attention to the Hugo Awards? I certainly do not. Reminds me of the Oscars and the Academy and quite a bit of high brow nonsense. Seems like that is a metric some members rely on heavily when determining a book's worth. Thoughts?