A few months ago, I wrote an insanely rambling piece about the crappy state of contemporary literature.
In that post, I mentioned a conversation I had with an NYU prof (Elayne Tobin) and an author/critic (David Gates) about what novels since 1980 will become “canonical.” We had slim pickings, supporting my thesis that we live in a crap-era for fiction.
Well, now the NYTimes has asked a “several hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages” to name “the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years.”
I don’t think my claim is contradicted at all.
I’m waiting for this weekend’s follow-up, “the single best work of American fan-fiction published in the last 25 years,” as
1) My own “Harry Potter and the Klingon Padewan as told to Gandalf by Starbuck Who is Dating Spike” figures to be a major player, and
2) Philip Roth has multiple entries on that list, too.
As I said in a ‘cultural studies’ class back at my alma mater, “If you’re writing it for yourself, that’s fan-fiction. If you’re trying to sell it, it’s copyright infringement.”
They tried to call it ‘cultural poaching.’
In other news: Considering the techno-dance band and the Kate Beckinsale movie, I don’t think Delillo is even the second-best Underworld-titled thing of the past 25 years, much less the second-best American novel.
Don’t poachers get shot, too? They should steal themselves better terminology.
Is Delillo the #1 Don know that Don Knotts is dead? Or is that Don King?
I’d go with Don Vito.
I’m so embarrassed: I don’t think I’ve read a single book named in the article. I do know a lot about Anna Karenina, Heart of Darkness, and Hamlet however.
You ever read Beloved? I liked Song of Solomon but not enough to pursue her other works
You’ve probably read a whole bunch of them; if you could only recommend one, which would it be?
I tried Beloved, but conked out after 50 pages. I liked some of Roth’s later books. Sabbath’s Theater might be the best of them. Updike? Maybe WASPs get him, but I don’t. I’ve heard that Tim O’Brien’s good, but haven’t read him.
Amy’s reading Winter’s Tale right now, and enjoying it.
A Confederacy Of Dunces might have made NO,LA a little more explicable to you last March.
I’d recommend that or Sabbath’s Theater, I guess. Or just stick with Tolstoy, Conrad and Shakespeare. And the Sopranos.
Tony Soprano is like Captain Stubing compared to the awesome Jack Bauer in 24
I hated Confederacy of Dunces, found Mating barely tolerable, and think Morrison’s early work was more compelling than Beloved. (Try Sula or The Bluest Eye.) Couldn’t get through either of Jonathan Franzen’s books, The 27th City or The Corrections, and sorry Gil, I couldn’t get through Gould’s Book of Fish – it’s damn depressing. Roy’s God of Small Things depressed me also, since I came to the end of it and thought, I’ve learned nothing new about human nature, so what’s the point? I did enjoy Lahiri’s The Namesake. I pretty much stick to non-fiction these days – thank goodness for the Adam Gopniks and Malcolm Gladwells of the world, popular as they may be. Could good book sales actually be a sign of a good book?
That would mark The Da Vinci Code as the best book of all time.
Sorry you didn’t like Gould’s Book of Fish. I really enjoy that book, for all its grotesqueries and joyous apocalypticisms.
(and “found Mating barely tolerable” solicits a “no comment”)
If you haven’t before, read Anthony Lane’s New Yorker piece (available in his collected works Nobody’s Perfect) in which he, like Gore Vidal in the ’70s, reads a week’s worth of books on the NYT bestseller list and reviews them. Vidal got to read Mary Renault and Isaac Bashevis Singer, while Lane was stuck with Judith Krantz and The Bridges of Madison County. So you have a point about your bestsellers.
I really did try with Gould – perhaps I’ll give it another go another time.
I realized the rather unfortunate phrasing of my comment about Norman Rush’s book after I posted it. Laugh away.