Modern Classics?

[KatG]

Every book on my list was put there because it was highly influential in one way or another on fantasy authors and on readers, because it's considered a major work (or series) that is often studied, and because it's seen widely as a contribution to the field in terms of theme, style, writing, or characterization, etc. It was not a conclusive list -- there are many more, I didn't have Tanith Lee on it and certainly she should be. Nor was it a list of purely award winners. I did not include authors' works in the last few years, as that was the suggested parameters.

 

[Randy M.]

Just to confuse things more, we're talking about contemporary fantasy, not modern fantasy. The 'modern' era, at least from a literary perspective, is dated from around the time of the first English novel, Pamela by Samuel Richardson. It is a classic. It is also, by all accounts, one of the most boring books grad students have to read.

Randy M.
(no, I never attempted it)

 

[Randy M.]

I'm not sure why this would confuse anything. I never said "modern literature". I said modern classic; the definition of modern is contemporary. And it's absolutely clear from my original post what I meant.

Sometimes people can be too pretentious.

Yes, I can be. Thank you for noticing. And as further verification, in case anyone doubted, I thought Chabon's The Final Solution was top-notch, one of the best Holmes pastiches I've ever read, and a fine short novel on its own merit.

But I find the word, "modern," problematic. Tolkein was not a contemporary of Shakespeare; he was a modern writer. He was alive and at least some of LOTR published well within the life-time of several members of this forum. And how can Ursula Le Guin be considered anything but "modern"?

I actually like the cut-off date of 1977. I think it works for keeping the conversation confined to a time period that can be usefully discussed in a thread, and it effectively eliminates the confusion caused by readers who define "modern" as "anything written after I started reading," or, among generous young readers, "anything written ten years before I was born to the moment I'm saying or writing these words." Further, there's precedent for viewing 1977 as a pivotal year: According to David Hartwell, if no one else, 1977 pretty much stands as the date fantasy was successfully genrified (for lack of a better word). That's what he argues in the essay included in the anthology, The Secret History of Fantasy, ed. by Peter Beagle.

But consider Beagle and think a moment about that cut off date: The Innkeeper's Song is modern but The Last Unicorn & A Fine and Private Place are not? How about Fritz Leiber: Our Lady of Darkness is modern (just barely) but Conjure Wife is antique?

Let's just recall that calling any time period "modern" can easily skew what came before into "that old stuff that's no longer relevant." It's one of the nastier side-effects of being too loose with our terminology.

Oh, and while I'm here ...

Jonathan Carroll: The Land of Laughs & Voice of Our Shadow & Bones of the Moon

Ramsey Campbell: Midnight Sun and a multitude of excellent short stories

Peter Straub: Ghost Story

Toni Morrison: Beloved



Randy M.

 

[Hobbit]

we seem to have strayed from the topic, albeit entertainingly and in a direction I didn't expect.

'Tis the nature of such threads... but we're all being fairly civil, at least at the moment.

There's the oft-appearing debate over the word 'classic' (in the same way that the words 'good' or 'essential' often are).... though we seem to be fairly happy with the idea of 'modern' working from 1977 or so. To summarise: is it popularist, influential or based on personal preference/reminiscence?

The debate of 'older modern classics' (yes, I know...) has been debated before. (see Rob's links.) Some have even suggested that 'modern' is anything after Frankenstein...

But for those who want to keep to the general remit of the opening post, whilst those other debates rage about, what genre books would you recommend from 1977?

Mark

 

[chokipokilo]

if one sneaks up behind a human and behind a cow, and in each case swats the unsuspecting subject across the rear with a stick, the emotional reactions of the two are probably going to be much alike. But if we walk up to each and say I will show you fear in a handful of dust, their emotional reactions will be utterly incommensurable.

But if one walks up behind a cow and a human and swats the subject across the rear with a handful of dust (or powder) you will probably get fairly different emotional reactions.

 

[kged]

I always have the same two responses to this type of thread, as they are names who seem to be overlooked, unjustly and inexplicably. Owlcroft beat me to it with John Crowley on this occasion - I love the dreamlike quality of his work. So little plot (meaning action), but the books resonate in my mind for days after reading them. They are the real stuff of magic.

The other name I usually throw in is Mary Gentle. Ash is a towering work, deserving of more fame than it has achieved, and I urge every one of you to read it. It's utterly convincing in its mediaeval setting, its initial premise is intelligent and thought-provoking (what happened to the mighty Burgundy?), and the resolution is as clever, as surprising, and as inventive as anything I've read in the genre.

Is it permissible to widen things out to include the remarkable graphic novels we've seen in the last few years? The Sandman series is quite staggeringly good, and drips with the magic of the finest fantasy literature.

And finally, a real stretch; The Road. The most devastating and affecting book I've ever read, undoubtedly; can it be claimed as fantastical, if only in the bleakest possible fashion?

 

[Erfael]

I moved the discussion of various brows and the literary/fantasy divide over here: http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30917

Let's keep this one to the list again.

 

[owlcroft]

"Modern" redux.

I actually like the cut-off date of 1977.

I am in substantial agreement with Randy's post, but I wonder if even that date is far enough back. It excludes, just off the top of my head (and I'm very bad on chronology), The Dying Earth. In what way can we say with conviction that that is not a "modern" work? Poking about almost at random, R. A. Lafferty wrote Past Master in 1968. Going even farther back, Charles Williams' novels began appearing in 1930.

To me, the essence of the issue of "modernity" lies in the question "If this appeared today, in what way would we feel it is 'dated'?" There might, in the older works, be some trivial reference to, say, motor cars or trolleys or iceboxes, but if they are nothing substantive, nothing affecting the tale as tale, are things that could be editorially updated with no consequence at all, is not the work then thoroughly "modern"?

Science fiction has a much higher bar there, exactly because science really does march on; SF from, say, the '50s is usually painfully obviously of its time. But for fantasy, that is not so. The limits for fantasy are, I'd say just offhand, one of two things: changes in writing style so drastic that they make the period plain (few would mistake Le Fanu for a contemporary writer) or changes in social structure that alter the implicit assumptions of the society, whether historical or totally imagined.

Without any attempt to be rigorous, I much suspect that the bar is at least as far back as the end of WWII, and that not a little from even the '30s (as with Williams) could qualify.

 

[Randy M.]

I actually like the cut-off date of 1977.

I am in substantial agreement with Randy's post, but I wonder if even that date is far enough back. It excludes, just off the top of my head (and I'm very bad on chronology), The Dying Earth. In what way can we say with conviction that that is not a "modern" work? Poking about almost at random, R. A. Lafferty wrote Past Master in 1968. Going even farther back, Charles Williams' novels began appearing in 1930.

To me, the essence of the issue of "modernity" lies in the question "If this appeared today, in what way would we feel it is 'dated'?" There might, in the older works, be some trivial reference to, say, motor cars or trolleys or iceboxes, but if they are nothing substantive, nothing affecting the tale as tale, are things that could be editorially updated with no consequence at all, is not the work then thoroughly "modern"?

Science fiction has a much higher bar there, exactly because science really does march on; SF from, say, the '50s is usually painfully obviously of its time. But for fantasy, that is not so. The limits for fantasy are, I'd say just offhand, one of two things: changes in writing style so drastic that they make the period plain (few would mistake Le Fanu for a contemporary writer) or changes in social structure that alter the implicit assumptions of the society, whether historical or totally imagined.

Without any attempt to be rigorous, I much suspect that the bar is at least as far back as the end of WWII, and that not a little from even the '30s (as with Williams) could qualify.

From a solely genre perspective, you could put the bar at the advent of Unknown magazine -- that's not entirely accurate, but it would do. Up to then Weird Tales had been the leading fantasy magazine in the U.S., dishing up octapoidal horrors and slashing sabres and some occult detecting. But John W. Campbell, Jr. insisted for Unknown that the style of writing be more 20th century with a solid slathering on of the then vernacular, and that the stories concern modern men and women (mostly men).

Still, 1977 is a very good year as cut off. That's the year fantasy became a genre unto itself (Del Rey's publication of Donaldson and Brooks were the leading causes), and perhaps more importantly moved from a primarily short story form into a primarily novel-length genre. (SF had done this in the middle- to late-1960s with the advent of Zelazny, Delany, Le Guin and others; horror had made the move in the late 1960s, early 1970s with the publication of Rosemary's Baby, The Other and The Exorcist.) That last is why, when you start listing all the fantasy novels you can think of, the scale starts to tip in sheer numbers when you tally up the novels published in and since 1977.


Randy M.

 

[3rdI]

Anything prior to 1980 is a stretch. 77 is close enough as it encompasses Brooks and Donaldson, although each feels dated at this point. Wolfe's Book of the New Sun is the only work from the 80s that doesn't feel dated which is a testament to Wolfe's talent and imagination.

I would argue the cut off date should be 1988. The Dragonbone Chair was released that year and did not feel dated at all. A nod to Tolkien certainly but it was the beginning of the revitalization of epic secondary world fantasy.

 

[Randy M.]

Anything prior to 1980 is a stretch. 77 is close enough as it encompasses Brooks and Donaldson, although each feels dated at this point. Wolfe's Book of the New Sun is the only work from the 80s that doesn't feel dated which is a testament to Wolfe's talent and imagination.

I'm curious what you find dated in those books. If it's a reference to typewriters or pay phones or Blondie or something of that nature, that's pretty superficial.

I don't mean to be facetious by saying that. One of the knocks against Stephen King from the literary side is his constant referencing of old movies, tv shows and commercial items. Forget for a moment that mentioning someone resembles a then current actor is kind of a cheat (really, couldn't you describe the guy in a way that gets across the qualities you're after, or demonstrate those qualities over the course of the story), once the actor is no longer current, it dates the text -- how many readers under 30 today remember Lloyd Bochner?

Not too long ago I read Graham Greene's A Gun for Sale and I was surprised that it felt so contemporary, even though written and set in the early 1940s. But while he might have pulled a couple of plot punches that writers from later decades wouldn't have, the characters were believable in what they said and did. Meanwhile, any number of thrillers I've read from that time period are firmly set in the 1940s mainly because of the stereotypes they play into.

I would argue the cut off date should be 1988. The Dragonbone Chair was released that year and did not feel dated at all. A nod to Tolkien certainly but it was the beginning of the revitalization of epic secondary world fantasy.

And this just makes me wonder if we're arguing around a generation gap (hoo, boy; I was on the other side of the gap when that phrase was current). Nothing in Tolkein feels dated to me. His diction is British and formal, but not so far removed from the diction of his contemporaries or even some writers who came later. Nothing in Le Guin seems dated to me (somewhat humorless, but not dated); Ged strikes me as a believable protagonist. Maybe I don't find those works or others from that time period dated because I lived through a fair amount of it. So I wonder if you're just that much younger than I am. (I wondered, too, if it had more to do with a certain prose style you favor, but your liking for Wolfe argues against that.)


Randy M.

 

[Randy M.]

Just wanted to second,
Stephen R. Donaldson, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever
Robert Holdstock, Mythago Wood
Anne Rice, Interview with a Vampire
Patrick Suskind, Perfume
Tim Powers, The Anubis Gates
Peter Straub, Koko
Toni Morrison, Beloved
Kim Newman, Anno Dracula
Jane Yolen, Briar Rose
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter
Ursula LeGuin, Earthsea series
Richard Adams, Watership Down

Caveats:
1) I found Rowling's series entertaining, but I'm not sure it's classic. On the other hand, while there are classics that are classics because a significant number of big wigs in the culture hold them so, there are also popular classics -- think the Sherlock Holmes stories and Dracula. It's possible that Harry Potter will be that sort of classic. And the movies will do a great deal to help that.

2) Was Le Guin's Earthsea stories post-1977? The second trilogy was, but the first trilogy was published in the 1960s, early 1970s, I think.

3) Watership Down was published in 1972, according to Wikipedia. I suppose its success probably helped lead to more novel-length fantasy, but the big push that way seems to have been Donaldson and Brooks.

Randy M.

 

[Alchemist]

While I put forth the date of 1977 as the modern era of fantasy, like any era or artificial time-frame, there were precursors. Certainly, one could argue that The Lord of the Rings started modern fantasy, which would push the date back to 1954. It is hard to separate A Wizard of Earthsea (1968) or Riddlemaster of Hed (1976) from modern fantasy, but both come just before 1977.

One of my favorite modern thinkers, William Irwin Thompson, speaks of literature as evolving through different phases, formative, dominant, and climactic:

As an adaptation to an [cultural] ecology, literature behaves ecologically in more ways than one. Like a forest moving through the stages of succession to climax, literature unfolds through three stages: formative, dominant, and climactic. The formative work enters into a new ecological niche of consciousness through the work of solitary and shamanic pioneers; the dominant work stabilizes the mentality through the work of an institutional elite; and the climactic work consummates and finishes the mentality for all time through the work of an individualistic genius.

His view is quite nuanced and complex, but I think this idea of formative, dominant, and climactic has some merit in this discussion of fantasy. One could argue that authors such as Howard, Tolkien, and Le Guin were formative pioneers of modern fantasy, whereas Brooks, Donaldson, Eddings, Jordan, and Martin represent the dominant phase. As for what is climactic, it is hard to say - perhaps we haven't seen it. Or you could also say that Tolkien was climactic for the earlier phase of fantasy, with post-Tolkien authors like Beagle, Le Guin, Moorcock, and Delany being the pioneers of postmodern speculative literature. One could say that someone like China Mieville is pointing towards, if not (yet) exemplifying, the climactic phase.

My children are about to burst through the door so I'll end this for now!

 

[DailyRich]

Don't discount the publication of The Silmarillion either. It was the #1 best-seller for five months from the end of '77 to the beginning of '78. In fact, 1977 was sort of a Tolkien renaissance, what with The Silmarillion and the Rankin-Bass Hobbit hitting that year. The renewed interest undoubtedly helped feed the success of the emulators.

Just underlining what a good year 1977 is as a line of demarcation.

 

[phil_geo]

I feel like the spirit of this thread has been subverted. 1977? Are you kidding? The OP wanted a discussion of what books that were written since 1990 have changed the genre or created a new trend. That is very clear and a good topic. No need to wheel out Thomas Covenant or Watership Down. The books are 45 years old - their influence has been proven over 2 generations. It's not even up for debate. If that's the newest book you can think of that you feel broke new ground, start the "I'm super cantankerous and crotchety thread." I'm just kidding, don't get your canes out.

I'll agree with Perdido Street Station, Sandman and The Road. I'll also throw out Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter, which I think launched the urban fantasy genre, or at least was the first popular money maker in the genre, spawning many more in the following decade.

 

[Eventine]

3rdI, I'm curious as to your personal definition of the term dated. I wasn't aware of the large gap in publishing between the first Donaldson and first Williams books, I would've picked them as of an age.

On the topic of '77, it makes sense to me as well, so suggest we use it as a guideline rather than a rule and take pleasure in identifying exceptions

 

[Rob B]

Fair point about the definition of modern as it pertains to this thread. The OP was using 1990 as the defining cut off date, so unless bigal widens the timeframe, perhaps we should stick to that.

However, 1977 is a good date since that's about when Terry Brooks's Sword of Shanarra published and hit the NY Times Bestseller list.