Tags
Discuss a book which you think fits the category of ‘modern classics’ and explain why.
Being more a reader of contemporary literary fiction, you’d think I’d have a surefire answer to this question, but I’m afraid I haven’t. The problem with it is that unless you are a psychic, nobody can really say which books will end up becoming full-blown classics and which will be forgotten after the initial mass-media hype. This is especially true when it comes to contemporary fiction. For instance, the general set of rules by which books were judged as classics a hundred years ago, could turn out to be largely obsolete in today’s society. As methods of story-telling have evolved over the years, dividing and sub-dividing like an atom into various genres and linguistic styles, so have the expectations of its modern readers. Today’s book-lovers are different from the bookworms of yesteryear. So the classics that might emerge from modern contemporary fictions another 100 years from now, will inevitably differ from the classics published back in the 18th century.
But undoubtably our current classics would have been long-forgotten if it weren’t for the sagacity of their respective authors and the way they struck the right social and cultural chords that not only extended the longevity of their work, but also caused something of a ‘butterfly effect’ in the future of novel-writing itself. ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley is a great example of this. Here’s a universal classic that asks some very serious questions about creation, evolution, science and religion. These are not easy subjects to write about at the best of times, but the painfully human plight of Shelley’s hideous progeny and the demonic transgression of her scientist have become monstrous themes within modern culture. The novel has fascinated many through its ability to foreshadow the future of surgery and in the ethical issues surrounding the advent of ground-breaking scientific events like cloning and designer babies. ‘Frankenstein’ continues to haunt us as a permanent cultural reference in films, cartoons and comic-books. Famously said to have been born from a dream, it has even gone as far as foreshadowing itself. Many authors continue to be inspired by the original which has spawned countless spin-offs. Notable versions that spring to mind is the Dean Koontz trilogy and Peter Ackroyd’s ‘Casebook of Victor Frankenstein’.
But something tells me that ‘timelessness’ shouldn’t be the only ingredient of a future classic, but that it should also have something of the ‘progressive’ about it, something that sets the standard a little higher. When we look at the history of the novel, it’s always surprising to realise that it is, after all, a fairly new art form. And it is here that I look quite literally to the term itself to realise that it isn’t fuddy-duddy, moth-ridden verses that we should be praising; but another thing altogether.
nov·el 1 // n. 1. A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.
nov·el 2 // adj. Strikingly new, unusual, or different. See Synonyms at new.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin novellus, diminutive of novus; see newo- in Indo-European roots.]
The word ‘novel’ was first coined in the late 18th century from the Italian ‘novella’, a transliteration for popular short stories during the medieval period. The ‘novella’ or novel, was a step towards ‘realistic’ story-telling, where characters and the narrative were firmly anchored in the mundane, everyday world of the reader. During this period, books like ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and ‘Moll Flanders’ demonstrated the break from the fantastical, allegorical romances that came before. Instead, the novel focussed on exploring the moral values of the middle-class through the solitary struggles of a hero or heroine. However it was a little later with Samuel Richardson’s ‘Pamela’, that the character novel was truly born. A type that proved so popular, that it was made all the more famous by Jane Austen and later, the Bronte sisters. The key pattern here lies in the breaking with tradition, not of sustaining or prolonging a certain type of ‘literariness’. And since the novel quite literally means ‘new’, and a classic is a crowning celebration of the unusual or different; then this also has become one of the ingredients for a modern classic.
You may have noticed that the texts mentioned so far are classics that are also a part of the ‘canon’, meaning they are considered to be of outstanding artistic and literary merit. But in a day and age when literary theorists claim that there are in actual fact only 5 types of story in existence, and that all stories are an amalgam or these original five; I find it hard to see how we can continue to have more books added as ‘classics’ to an already mammoth list. This angle again poses a problem: can a re-working of a previous classic be accepted as a classic in its own right? And aren’t we running out of ‘original’ stories? For those who think nay, this thorny question can be answered quite nicely by Graham Swift’s ‘Last Orders’. Winner of the Booker Prize 1996, the novel itself was greatly influenced by Faulkner’s ‘As I Lay Dying’. Whether it will be accepted as a classic later on, only time will tell; but I remember having many a heated debate about the ‘legitimacy’ of Swift’s usage of Faulkner’s plot. To me, it looked like plagiarism; to others it was a work of post-modernist art and proof some timeless stories can be transposed onto an entirely different culture and still retain its original ‘ghost’ (see Suzan-Lori Parks ‘Getting Mother’s Body: A Novel’ for an African-American point of view).
I could probably go on and on listing things that need to be taken into consideration when choosing a modern contemporary classic. Having it win a handful of awards is always a step in the right direction, but not always a necessity. It must transcend time and space (not an easy feat!) and be eco-friendly in that every once in a while it should be recyclable. Then it should also be new. Not just new, but ‘unusual’ or ‘different’ even. So what can my nomination be for a modern classic?
“They were with us before Romeo and Juliet. And long after too. Because they’ve forever around. Or so both claim, carolling gleefully:
We’re allways sixteen.
Sam & Hailey, powered by an ever-rotating fleet of cars from Model T to Lincoln Continental, career from the Civil War to the Cold War, barreling down through the Appalachians, up the Mississippi River, across the Badlands, finally cutting a nation in half as the try to outrace history itself.
By turns beguiling and gripping, finally worldwrecking, Only Revolutions is unlike anything ever published before, a remarkable feat of heart and intellect, moving us with the journey of two kids, perpetually summer, perpetually sixteen, who give up everything but each other.”
To be honest, it was a toss-up between ‘Only Revolutions’ and Danielewski’s previous monster ‘House of Leaves’. But I didn’t want to make another reference to Gothic fiction, so I chose this amazing time-juggling literary word-play as one I’d like to see as a modern classic.
Parts of the book were constructed with the help of Danielewski’s online readership on his blog and alternates between two different narrators Hailey and Sam who are lovers on opposite sides of the US. If that’s not enough, they are also living in different centuries. One side of the book tells Haileys story (green eye with the golden flecks) and the flip side gives you Sam’s story (golden eye with the green flecks). Loosely based on the American ‘road novel’ made famous by Jack Kerouac, ‘Only Revolutions’ is a vast cacophony of many genres. Told in a poetic narrative after the fashion of ancient Greek epics, Sam and Hailey’s stories travel towards each other where they collide in the middle of the continent (and the exact middle of the book) only to go back or forward in time again respectively. Hailey’s story begins on Nov 22 1963 while Sam’s starts on Nov 22 1893. Being a century apart makes their love story a unique one. Other notable oddities is that it’s exactly 360 pages long (one full revolution) with colour-coded words representing aspects of the narrators.
Another thing I discovered by accident is that something very cool happens to the page numbers when you flip the pages of the book. But I still haven’t figured out the meaning of the black dots on the upper page. If anyone has read it and knows what I’m talking about, please let me know!
That’s an end to my rambling… now it’s your turn! What are your opinions? What would you vote as a modern contemporary classic?
In part it depends on how far we go back with the term “contemporary lit”, in does it mean only say in the last 20 years-then I see only two answers-Against the Day (I know this is not a widely read book at all) and 2666 and Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano-if you push it back to WWII then Gravity’s Rainbow (which I see as the best American Novel of the 20th century (at least this) comes to mind-
I enjoyed and profited from your very well done post
Hi Mel. Thanks for your response. Time is such a issue with a question like this; though I do like your answers. I discovered Bolano last month and enjoyed his work. I can’t wait to read 2666. Pynchon is also high on my list of contemporary lit. I really should read more from those two authors. But Pynchon scares me. In a good way.
Great post, with lots to think about there. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Having read around the hop a bit now, I’m beginning to think that modern classics need to be cutting edge, to be difficult reads, because they tell us things about our society we can barely stand to hear, or because they use experimental formats. So in other words, they are a bit ahead of their time, and will last into the future because of it.
“because they tell us things about our society we can barely stand to hear…”
I like that. That’s bang on the money. When I take a look at the majority of novels that become successful in this way, it’s usually because they don’t beat around the bush. They get straight to the issue.
Well written. Loved reading this.
Here are my thoughts: http://readerbuzz.blogspot.com/2010/11/literary-blog-hop-contemporary-and.html
Wonderful post!
Here is my Literary Blog Hop post!
Love the sound of this book & will have to check it out, although i agree with mel u concerning Bolano & Pynchon.
Loved your view, thanks
Parrish
Glad you think it’s worth it. Danielewski is a gem of a writer. He really does put his all into a novel to make it as special an experience as he can for his readers. It goes to show that he takes his art seriously.
Excellent post. I agree with you about Frankenstein, brilliant novel that was before its time.
The phrase ‘contemporary classic’ is an oxymoron. It’s a contradictory definition because a classic is a novel which has been popular for generations, while contemporary means recent or new, therefore there can be no such thing as a contemporary classic except in the mind of an advertising executive for marketing purposes. A bit like the abuse and over-use f the ubiquitous term ‘iconic’, another misuse of language.
The first novel is generally considered to be ‘Don Quixote’ written 400 years ago, so the novel can hardly be termed a new genre, the orchestral symphony and ballet are far more recent genres.
To Rachel above – how can Frankenstein be before its time? Surely you mean it debates and anticipates future scientific and ethical issues, it is of its time being written when it was written, not before or after its time, as part of the romantic era’s fascination with gothic and the morality of scientific discovery!
It would have been useful for your reader to state when Frankenstein was first published and in what context than presuming everyone knows those facts! Otherwise I quite enjoyed reading your fairly informed post attempting to square the circle on a non-existent term.
Hi Kevin, welcome to ‘Wordly Obsessions’ and thanks for taking the time to comment. You made some very valuable points. I can’t argue with you about Don Quixote. I hold my hands up to that one. But the 18th century is generally what we are taught at school as the ‘birth’ of the novel. I wish they wouldn’t state it like that (goes to show how the English speaking world yet again goes ahead and claims something for itself when two centuries back the Spaniards were already doing it, and doing it rather well I might add!)
As for my reader Rachel, maybe she just didn’t have time to respond as detailed as yourself – but maybe that’s something I might have to do later myself as a post in it’s own. The theories grounded in Shelley’s novel are VERY much part of it’s time. But what Rachel is trying to say is that these concerns still exist, on a much grander scale I might add. Back in the day the thought og drinking a greenish potion and turning into a monstrous ‘other’ was purely a ‘what if’ scenario. It was I suppose the Romantic mind taking a possibility and running with it towards the absurd.
Science and religion are still battling it out somewhere. People are still torn between creationism and evolutionary theories. The background to Shelley’s novel touches on a lot of different issues; most of it being her own personal struggles with her father’s, mothers and husbands beliefs. There are a lot of influences in Frankenstein that would take me many, many posts to cover. It’s definitely food for thought.
Oh and in closing, thanks for thinking that I’m ‘fairly informed’. I’d love to see your full response to this question.
Seeing that the “progressiveness” of a novel raises its chances of becoming a classic, I’ll say you made a logical pick with Danielewski. House of Leaves seemed to me a flagship for a whole new genre of fiction. Even more promising is the fact that it already has imitators.
Following that same line of thinking, I want to say David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, but I know it’ll only become more difficult to read for future generations.
Funny thing is, unlike Frankenstein, I can’t imagine the novels we’ve mentioned so far being effectively taught in schools (length, mostly)…
Amen. Glad to see someone familiar with Danielewski. Though I’ve never heard of these imitators. Care to share? I’d like to make comparisons.
Of course: you kind of want to know what sort of spectacular mess a *bad* House of Leaves would look like. This information I get from others, but Stephen Hall’s Raw Shark Texts is often compared to HoL, and not all that favorably.
Only Revolutions, by the way, is on my shelf. Thanks to your mention, it’s about to be pulled down…
This was a very well-written post–I appreciate the way you really chose to grapple with the question.
Thanks Lisa! I enjoyed your response too. I really liked the question, it made me think harder than I normally do!
Interesting post!
I consider Frankenstein as such an important book: so grounded in its time and the issues it raises are still of concern today.
I’m currently reading House of Leaves (well I have been for a while). It’s not that I don’t enjoy it, but I think that the fact that it takes me so long to read it ruins it. I think it’s a book you need to read in big chunks and not in little bits as I do. It’s a bad choice for a bed time book! I have put it aside and I’m hoping I’ll get a few free afternoons to finish it during the Christmas period. You make Only Revolutions sound very good, but I’m not sure I would have the energy after House of Leaves…
A true classic should have something in it that not only transcends time but makes it easy for readers many years in the future to relate to.
What I mean by this is that when it is written, it is written in a humble, clear, and moral way that has never been seen before. In its pages there is something different than in any pulp fiction, something that the reader can take away to use in his\her life from then on. For example The Chronicles of Narnia, Pride and Prejudice, and At The Back of the North Wind etc. When a reader can consciously take something away from a story it will stay in his mind. And in time will embed itself into the conscious mind of generations.