I think this board is too obsessed with the classics and other old ass shit. Sure the classics are classic, and the old greats are great, but if we don't look to the future; try and stay on the frontier of this artform, then we'll be a bunch of assholes talking about the same shit over and over again forever. More so then we are now.
So, in the last 5-10 years: What books do you think were instant classics? What authors do you feel represent the best living literary voice?
Other stuff. More words.
so far the best post
Look guys, I get what you're saying, but I'm serious; literature is an art, and art is supposed to evolve and grow with the times. I'm worried it is stagnating. There must be recent books that are pushing the boundaries, and will one day be recognized as being as good as at least some of the classics.
art is also built heavily on tradition and heritage, and new works are, overtly or subtly, consciously or subconsciously, influenced by and in conversation with older works. you can't just discard the classic canon and expect to get everything out of the new stuff since you're robbing it of context
So new works don't stand on their own? I disagree. Relating them to older works may extend the experience, but I think new works should be given the opportunity to be seen outside the context of other things outsiders relate them to.
I'm not discarding anything, I'm just asking where we move on from those classics.
Surely what's already written doesn't represent the absolute peak of human literature?
That this is the best any human being will ever do? Our species is incredibly young on the cosmic scale. This can't be the best we ever do.
Come on, guys. There's gotta be some new authors, new books. I'll extend the time period to twenty years If need be.
well you could make the same argument for classics being read by the vapid as being a worthwhile pursuit as them being read by the informed, but i doubt it would pass muster in that context. is it that you think that new authors are as devoid of context as you?
you could make the argument that by being influenced or based on the clasic newer works improve upon them and must therefore be better
i'm not making that argument, just saying its there
You should learn to state your case without giving into the temptation to make weak insults.
I said that a piece should be viewed in it's own context first, not that they aren't (possibly) related to previous work.
Tell me about your parents so I can understand why you are so insecure.
The anon you're replying to is a different one and not me (>>7572654) btw, just in case it wasn't completely obvious.
Anyways I think you just simply have to read both old and new and you shouldn't discard older works. I probably just value context as a tradition and influence a lot more highly than you do.
In any case I'll just plug Ishiguro's The Unconsoled.
wow, you mad. anon is not all one person, lrn24chan. i didn't even insult you, i just pointed out your inconsistent treatment of "old" and "new" authors, both of which probably want/ed readers who would understand subtlety and reference in their works. if anyone should be insulted, it's new authors who you think need more vacuous readings than works of established canon.
Sorry. OK...maybe too much coffee for me. I agree in not discarding older works, absolutely. I was saying that new stuff should be sure to have their own identity, not exist in too heavy a relation to another. I was talking with someone about the connections between the Alchemist and Siddartha, so...yeah. The Alchemist can barely stand on it's own, and when you put it next to Siddartha it turns to mush, but I thought I'd give that Coehlo a chance.
The Pale King
Okay, sure, whatever; do you have any candidates?
I'd think that something that would one day would be a classic would at least show some promise initially.
So at last count we have Bolano, Houellebecq, Knausgaard, Ishiguro, and to cap it off Pinecone and Dave Wallace.
that sums it up pretty well, some people have said that "A Naked Singularity" was good but that was mostly trash like the NY times so I'm not sure. Some have compared it to DFW, Pynchon and Delillo but if the author tried too hard to emulate their style I would not be impressed with it. Wait to add it until an anon who as actually read it posts their thoughts on it.
The ones that are deserving are posted here regularly. They are potential classics because they don't follow the trend of being the most obnoxious
But will people read these potential classics due to their established fame that they have now?
Say Frankenstein was pretty much unknown work from its publication and the decades followed, what is it that made it into the part of the common imagination. It is the revisit with hindsight
To know what kind of life the author lived and why she wrote it, then this work becomes a testament to her being and her struggle.
So we are blinded by our own immediacy. I would rather not venture to guess future classics
do you actually think nobody can be dull and uninspired and it's elitist to think that there could be such people? man, some shit like wh auden is going to personally insult you so hard i'm not sure you have enough coffee to blame it on when you have to write a letter to his estate.
no wonder you talk about insecurity when someone offers to treat new authors with the same context as they do old authors.
Frankenstein was an immediate success, and the popular edition is considered too conservative for literary use by most scholars (as are Percy's edits).
Barthes would also like a word.
again, smdh, you really need to move somewhere with names
Yes but you can read it in so many ways
dr f is the author and the monster is her aborted child, her work and her development as a writer
it's not just the first sci fi novel, it is rebellion of an unhappy marriage and so forth
Some parts in this book were a little contrived but I thought the overall style was very interesting.
I'm curious to see how Taipei is considering it's talked about a lot more than Richard Yates.
read tai pei but not RY
didn't care for it
prose is alright but seen similar used more effectively. hated the protagonist on a personal level. Got the feeling I would hate tao too.
might still read yates tho
It's Coelho (Rabbit in portuguese), and the Alchemist is the biggest piece of trash to be published in the last 100 years unless: 1- you have less than 10 years old 2- you are a middle aged religious and depressed woman 3- you have some kind of mental retardation to think that "the secret" was also pretty dope.
>wants to write for a living
>hopes others will read his work
>doesnt read any new fiction himself
This is me rn.
Last newish books i read were the Nick Cave books (eg The Death of Bunny Munro - greatly enjoyable) and John Haskell's "American Purgatorio" (2005) which was an easy read.
Problem i have is must new lit seems to me as momcore.
you misunderstand, we are in complete agreement. I said it couldn't stand on it's own. I've ranted about the alchemist here before, especially how it's my kids english teacher's favorite book. the red mist descends when i think of that, but luckily my daughter knew it for the blah blah it is
i don't like to spend much time defending myself here, but i won't stand for someone thinking i enjoyed that book. that is all.
Laszlo krasznahorkai's work is my favorite contemporary fiction. Both pic related and Satantango were translated to English in the past couple years, and both are instant classics for me. His style is unlike anything else in literature in the best way possihle. Wish his stuff got more discussion on /lit/, the cosmic melancholy of it would really resonate with a lot of people here.
DFW is dead, Pynchon, DeLillo and the rest are old, and will be dead themselves in a decade or so. I want to know about new authors, new books. I want to know what the future of literature will be like.
If I didn't make that clearer in the first post then yes, that was my mistake.
I ain't no Houllebecq, girl.