Modern Classics

[Frost]

This is just for speculation, and if another thread like this exists, please ignore mine.

I'm curious to know what sort of "Modern Classics" you think will enter our libraries and bookstores, and of those modern (late 20th and post-20th century) writers, how will the Americans compare to the British?

[Tiberuvsky]

You know, I think Gaiman has earned that honor. I know he's still largely relegated to genre fiction (and in America, you haven't made it until Oprah says so!), but I really feel that American Gods had that epic feel that so few modern novels had.

That, and Stephen King, for sure. Again, he's usually considered a genre writer, but he's done so much good work it's baffling. The Stand... I could squee all day on it.

[Agravaine]

The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. It's very well-regarded, but I don't think it's hit classic status yet.

I just don't see Gaiman ever being mentioned alongside guys like Faulkner or Hemingway. American Gods was enjoyable, I guess, but I don't remember it being particularly literary. Who knows?

[Ashpaw]

David Mitchell, for Black Swan Green and Cloud Atlas.

Neil Gaiman, for American Gods and Anansi Boys (though if our collective grandchildren end up reading Neverwhere in English classes, I may lol forever.).

Margaret Atwood, obviously, though I'm not sure that counts since it's far too sure of a bet. (And, ha, how about a Canadian "competing with the British"?)

Again obvious: Thomas Pynchon.

Yann Martel, for Life of Pi.

Mark Haddon--most famous for The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, but his other stuff's quite good too.

EDIT: Oh, and I definitely agree on Eco, though I like Foucault's Pendulum better.
EDIT2: John Berendt, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

[Brock Strongpaw]

No one's mentioned Cormac McCarthy? I haven't even gotten to Blood Meridian yet, but everything of his I've read is fan-freaking-tastic, and Blood Meridian is supposed to be his magnum opus.

American Gods really isn't doing all that much for me, sorry guys. I can tell Gaiman's a great writer, but there's enough unnecessary (imo, maybe not in other's) sex and the like to put me a bit on my ear. I feel like some of it was just for shock value actually. And the story seems okay at best. Maybe that's cause I'm just almost to halfway through, but I don't know.

As for Americans vs. Brits.... American literature (when it doesn't veer into crazy post-modern, what-the-heck-did-I-just-read) seems to be developing it's own feel that I really like compared to modern European writers. It's sort of a "darn all the rules, I can write what I want" attitude almost. Whereas British lit I've read recently seems to be bogged down in the Britishness of it all. Which I guess is good sometime (It's not for nothing that I own the Bloomsbury UK editions of Harry Potter instead of the Scholastic ones) but othertimes I feel like the author spends half his time looking over his shoulder and being afraid to change too much.

[Tiberuvsky]

RE American Gods: Hmm... I can see why the adultness could put some people off, but before you put it down to shock value, remember -- in Good Omens, he graphically describes a demon materializing in a telemarketer's phone as a plague of insects, which then devours the entire room of telemarketers. He can't get much more shocking than that, so... If you think it's unnecessary (and it prolly is), I understand that, but it's prolly not for shock value, compared to a lot of other stuff he's done. (And, I just noticed, you said you like the "toss all the rules" feel, but then complained about shock value. ^.-)

You're right about the plot though. A hypoglycemic snail moves faster than American Gods' plot, for a vast majority of the book. (Then again, I find most classics, be they British or American, slow-moving. Or ridiculous. I could rant all day about Kate Chopin. *grumbles*)

[Brock Strongpaw]

It's not the "adultness" per se, rather what seemed like almost immature handling of the "adultness." How was the scene with the succubus (or whatever you want to call her, closest word I could come up with) or the djinn helpful in advancing the plot at all. It was just (at least, seemed to me like) "hehe, look! They're having sex!" like some 13-year-old. I didn't mind the scene with Bubastis at all, it advanced the plot, was well written, not to over the top. But the other two scenes, were just... I don't know, they jut didn't seem to serve any purpose. I know the succubus shows up again later, but it's still not directly connected to the main plot, anyone else could have been stuck in there, and served the same purpose. That's what I meant by shock value, it just feels a little cheap, and almost like cheating.

Haha, I suppose that is a little hypocritical to praise throwing out the rules, then complain about the results of that. But I was thinking more along the lines of McCarthy's breaking down archetypes and his irrational phobia of the quotation mark than random sex thrown in the book.

I suppose I'll have to finish the book, and honesty I find the concept interesting. And all the praise it's garnered certainly recommends it well.

[Thrush the Bard]

I haven't read the book. For those of us who haven't, these conversations are interesting.