This is definitely something I've thought a lot about in my own writing. I'm strongly influenced by 19th and early 20th century horror, but I'm also aware that I'm writing for a modern audience with very different taste.
This is a fantastic essay. Very interesting: The classic novel was not addressed to the senses but to “memory.” The task of the classic author to “evoke.” Modern fiction has become the equivalent of a “happy meal.” So much to chew on here, and so much more nourishing than a happy meal.
It's occasionally useful to remember how any communications media is influenced by any *other* media in use. Classic example is how residual orality stalled the adaptation of prose to storytelling and entertainment in the West. More recent & poppy examples: how the comic books of the 1930s & 1940s were written as though they were radio dramas with pictures, and then how heavily superhero books books of the early 1990s started taking their visual cues from action movies and music videos.
Should have begun by saying so, but—wonderful piece.
In both of these essays we get a few examples of "classic" literature but, as far as I can recall, no examples of "modern." I'm a little confused. To me, "classic" means the canon, the most influential works studied in literature departments and generally I think of them as books written before the 20th century. That's what classic means to me. "Modern," selfishly I guess, since I was born in the middle of the 20th century, means books that were published since world war 2. I also think there are 19th Century authors who feel quite modern to me. Chekhov and Knut Hamsun are two examples. Note that I say they "feel" modern. I'm no scholar and I do not have any sort of empirical criteria to judge something as modern or classic beyond its date. What I'm picking up from these two essays is that by "modern" you guys are both talking about genre novels. Based on my experience in sending work to publishers, this makes sense in a way. Agents/publishers these days seem more interested in knowing one's "genre" than anything else. Having the wrong genre or, god forbid, no genre can be the kiss of death. But I don't think it's true that ALL modern novels are genre novels, or at least that wasn't true until fairly recently. There are a lot of "modern" books that I've enjoyed and been influenced by that defy labels. Here are a few writers that come to mind: Alice Monro, Denis Johnson, Mary Gaitskill, Debra Eisenberg. Perhaps you might counter by saying, "the genre you're talking about is literary fiction." And maybe that's how the publishing industry categorizes them but I don't think the four I mention here are using the any standard tropes. I think they all have distinct voices. I think their work is interesting on multiple levels, right down to the sentences themselves. There is some true craftsmanship at work here.
In short, I feel like you guys ought to date some dates and name some names. I may not have read the exact authors you mention, but I think knowing which "modern" authors you particularly admire (or hate) will help me understand both of your positions a little better.
Good article.
This is definitely something I've thought a lot about in my own writing. I'm strongly influenced by 19th and early 20th century horror, but I'm also aware that I'm writing for a modern audience with very different taste.
Great work, guys. Look forward to the unfolding. My approach is to sneak (ethical) foie gras into the burgers and watch what happens over time.
This is a fantastic essay. Very interesting: The classic novel was not addressed to the senses but to “memory.” The task of the classic author to “evoke.” Modern fiction has become the equivalent of a “happy meal.” So much to chew on here, and so much more nourishing than a happy meal.
It's occasionally useful to remember how any communications media is influenced by any *other* media in use. Classic example is how residual orality stalled the adaptation of prose to storytelling and entertainment in the West. More recent & poppy examples: how the comic books of the 1930s & 1940s were written as though they were radio dramas with pictures, and then how heavily superhero books books of the early 1990s started taking their visual cues from action movies and music videos.
Should have begun by saying so, but—wonderful piece.
In both of these essays we get a few examples of "classic" literature but, as far as I can recall, no examples of "modern." I'm a little confused. To me, "classic" means the canon, the most influential works studied in literature departments and generally I think of them as books written before the 20th century. That's what classic means to me. "Modern," selfishly I guess, since I was born in the middle of the 20th century, means books that were published since world war 2. I also think there are 19th Century authors who feel quite modern to me. Chekhov and Knut Hamsun are two examples. Note that I say they "feel" modern. I'm no scholar and I do not have any sort of empirical criteria to judge something as modern or classic beyond its date. What I'm picking up from these two essays is that by "modern" you guys are both talking about genre novels. Based on my experience in sending work to publishers, this makes sense in a way. Agents/publishers these days seem more interested in knowing one's "genre" than anything else. Having the wrong genre or, god forbid, no genre can be the kiss of death. But I don't think it's true that ALL modern novels are genre novels, or at least that wasn't true until fairly recently. There are a lot of "modern" books that I've enjoyed and been influenced by that defy labels. Here are a few writers that come to mind: Alice Monro, Denis Johnson, Mary Gaitskill, Debra Eisenberg. Perhaps you might counter by saying, "the genre you're talking about is literary fiction." And maybe that's how the publishing industry categorizes them but I don't think the four I mention here are using the any standard tropes. I think they all have distinct voices. I think their work is interesting on multiple levels, right down to the sentences themselves. There is some true craftsmanship at work here.
In short, I feel like you guys ought to date some dates and name some names. I may not have read the exact authors you mention, but I think knowing which "modern" authors you particularly admire (or hate) will help me understand both of your positions a little better.