Knowing our roots doesn't stop us from stretching up our branches to the sky. We can learn from the classics and from modern works. Thank you for raising an interesting topic for discussion, but let's not set up yet another false dichotomy - there are more than enough of those in the world already.
Appreciate the comment, Michael. I think the point I was trying to make is that we give so much reverence to our history of authors that it's difficult for any of today's authors to be placed on the same mountain. I didn't mean to insinuate that writers today aren't trying. I'm super ambitious and speak a lot about wanting to touch the world with my words so I don't believe that it's not possible. What I was laying out was a conversation around the reception of today's authors and if any of us, now or in the future, will be looked at in the same way we look at authors from the distant. past.
This is an interesting discussion, Kern. I do feel like there is a resurgence in remembering and embracing our past at this time. We are in an era that has undergone significant change in the way we share information, so perhaps looking back is a way to tether ourselves to something more known and certain? I read two other articles this week that seem in sync with yours. One explored the idea that we live in an age of conformity and average. The other examined how our information networks have evolved over time, affecting the quality of information and making it more uniform. I really appreciate your newsletter and your inquisitive nature. I think asking questions and having discussions is an excellent antidote.
Thanks Steph. I like your suggestion that we are trying to tether ourselves to something because it does feel a bit like we're floating right now, and not in a way that feels purposeful. Do you mind sharing links to those articles? Or maybe just giving me the titles and I can search them myself?
I think there is a lot of wisdom in your question. I wonder if part of the reverence of these long-gone works is that we can revere them without the messiness of dealing with the authors as people. For example: I have had my mind blown by an author whose work I would absolutely consider modern classic, yet this author as a person is showing themselves to make terrible choices. Since they are alive, it's harder to ignore than someone who is long dead. Also, our modern culture enables comparison to an unhealthy degree, and it affects artists of all kinds, especially storytellers. One last thing (sorry, I have so many thoughts on this!)- is there an affect of having SO MANY BOOKS available? This wonderful thing makes discovery a challenge. The mind blowing work might be buried behind a mountain of really good work. And when we talk about authors of the past, there is more consensus because the pool is smaller. (also because of, you know, the passage of time. Thousands of years of writing and stories versus hundreds).
All great points, especially the passage of time thing. It's just harder to stand out now becuase there is far more literature today. And yes, authors being alive is a huge variable in this because so many of the novels we revere are reflectively. Thanks for your insights, Amanda!
I am an independent author. I have no formal training in creative writing. I no longer read books other than to edit my own work. I know that goes against the grain but that's the way I work. I read other writer's comments and such, but not their books. My characters and places are always totally fictional. I use random photos from internet sites like hair stylist etc, to provide a reference for descriptions. I make up character sheets just to get me started. My work is by default, original. I have written several full length novels and I'm not published but I'm getting close. I'm also quite old, and writing is mostly a hobby, but don't assume I can't write.
I enjoy this thought process. I love reading books by long dead authors because their body of work is complete and I get to understand a different time through their work.
I have read mind blowing works by modern authors and love watching their progression in real time. I do read non fiction as well, but really everything is recycled with new terminology. Our modern stories are like those before because history repeats itself and we have the previous work to frame our current time.
But I give many books 5 star reviews, and I enjoy reading all things. If a book makes me think, I find value. Just another thread in the tapestry of human creation over time.
I believe there is plenty of original fiction, and that there is no end to new ideas, but that you’re more likely to find the unique work in self-published circles. Traditional publishers like what sells, and they know what sells because it already sold. They want “the next ….(name of previously successful title or author).”
That might be why so much of what’s out there (in the trad world) seems familiar.
I believe there is plenty of great writing, but my question is are we even giving ourselves the chance to revere it properly? We're so caught up in comparison to past literary heroes, I'm just wondering if we can fairly judge what's truly great today.
Thank you for this thought provoking essay. I've often thought that our reverence for old literature especially in school secondary curricula is stifling other ways of seeing the world, and therefore learning about it. It feels suffocatingly nostalgic. The times now when I really feel I have read something different is around the margins of science fiction and speculative because I think those authors are also brave enough to envisage multiple genders and relational parameters. So in those books you meet all sorts of different living and loving characters. I think this will become more mainstream over the decades (and centuries) and we might then start to see historical classics as quite limited in range.
So true. Fantasy has always been the genre to push reality, both in the nature of the genre and in the imagination of the authors. They seem to challenge convention the most, but I would still argue they adhere to some of the same nostalgic principles common throughout literature.
You're probably right. I don't know nearly enough. But certainly the obvious ones I think of have a very classic heroic narrative structure so, yeah, they start conforming in that overarching sense of triumph of good over evil etc
"Brilliance" is an objective concept, and one dulled by too many biased and unreliable book reviews and essays. It is also a title awarded retroactively in new time contexts. Among others, "Moby Dick" and "The Great Gatsby" were not received well at the time of their original publication- their revered status was established only by later generations of critics.
In the past the canon was limited to white male and female authors who came from or ascended to positions of affluence; the recent broadening of it to include other races has helped not only to expand but enrich it. Speculative fiction, at one time, was in this position, and I would argue that the current growth of minority perspectives within it has prevented it from becoming as out of touch as it was before.
The reader's opinion as an individual matters most; the history that makes future authors "hostage" to this, as you suggest, is always based around that. All books have intended audiences, but readers from those intended audiences must first know they exist for them to find them.
Yes! And to expand on your last point about discovery, I would also include an opening of the mind to accepting something to be critically "brilliant." And yes, this reverence tends to happen on reflection so maybe we just aren't far enough away from today's authors to have enough perspective on their capacity for greatness.
Knowing our roots doesn't stop us from stretching up our branches to the sky. We can learn from the classics and from modern works. Thank you for raising an interesting topic for discussion, but let's not set up yet another false dichotomy - there are more than enough of those in the world already.
Appreciate the comment, Michael. I think the point I was trying to make is that we give so much reverence to our history of authors that it's difficult for any of today's authors to be placed on the same mountain. I didn't mean to insinuate that writers today aren't trying. I'm super ambitious and speak a lot about wanting to touch the world with my words so I don't believe that it's not possible. What I was laying out was a conversation around the reception of today's authors and if any of us, now or in the future, will be looked at in the same way we look at authors from the distant. past.
This is an interesting discussion, Kern. I do feel like there is a resurgence in remembering and embracing our past at this time. We are in an era that has undergone significant change in the way we share information, so perhaps looking back is a way to tether ourselves to something more known and certain? I read two other articles this week that seem in sync with yours. One explored the idea that we live in an age of conformity and average. The other examined how our information networks have evolved over time, affecting the quality of information and making it more uniform. I really appreciate your newsletter and your inquisitive nature. I think asking questions and having discussions is an excellent antidote.
Thanks Steph. I like your suggestion that we are trying to tether ourselves to something because it does feel a bit like we're floating right now, and not in a way that feels purposeful. Do you mind sharing links to those articles? Or maybe just giving me the titles and I can search them myself?
Thanks, Kern. Sure, here are the links to the articles:
"The age of average"
https://www.alexmurrell.co.uk/articles/the-age-of-average
"Network of Rage: Online information networks"
https://cosmographia.substack.com/p/network-of-rage?triedRedirect=true
Thanks!
After Sappho by Selby Wynn-Schwartz is also pretty original, so much so that she wasn't sure if it was correct to classify it as a novel.
Mind blowing for me was Richard Powers' 'Overstory'. I'm yet to read The Seven Killings but you folks who've read it keep raising my expectations!
And now it just read Overstory. Adding it to tbr. Also, Brief History will not disappoint.
I think there is a lot of wisdom in your question. I wonder if part of the reverence of these long-gone works is that we can revere them without the messiness of dealing with the authors as people. For example: I have had my mind blown by an author whose work I would absolutely consider modern classic, yet this author as a person is showing themselves to make terrible choices. Since they are alive, it's harder to ignore than someone who is long dead. Also, our modern culture enables comparison to an unhealthy degree, and it affects artists of all kinds, especially storytellers. One last thing (sorry, I have so many thoughts on this!)- is there an affect of having SO MANY BOOKS available? This wonderful thing makes discovery a challenge. The mind blowing work might be buried behind a mountain of really good work. And when we talk about authors of the past, there is more consensus because the pool is smaller. (also because of, you know, the passage of time. Thousands of years of writing and stories versus hundreds).
All great points, especially the passage of time thing. It's just harder to stand out now becuase there is far more literature today. And yes, authors being alive is a huge variable in this because so many of the novels we revere are reflectively. Thanks for your insights, Amanda!
I am an independent author. I have no formal training in creative writing. I no longer read books other than to edit my own work. I know that goes against the grain but that's the way I work. I read other writer's comments and such, but not their books. My characters and places are always totally fictional. I use random photos from internet sites like hair stylist etc, to provide a reference for descriptions. I make up character sheets just to get me started. My work is by default, original. I have written several full length novels and I'm not published but I'm getting close. I'm also quite old, and writing is mostly a hobby, but don't assume I can't write.
Well that's an interesting way to stay "original" Timothy. Would be interesting to know what your books are about.
I enjoy this thought process. I love reading books by long dead authors because their body of work is complete and I get to understand a different time through their work.
I have read mind blowing works by modern authors and love watching their progression in real time. I do read non fiction as well, but really everything is recycled with new terminology. Our modern stories are like those before because history repeats itself and we have the previous work to frame our current time.
But I give many books 5 star reviews, and I enjoy reading all things. If a book makes me think, I find value. Just another thread in the tapestry of human creation over time.
I believe there is plenty of original fiction, and that there is no end to new ideas, but that you’re more likely to find the unique work in self-published circles. Traditional publishers like what sells, and they know what sells because it already sold. They want “the next ….(name of previously successful title or author).”
That might be why so much of what’s out there (in the trad world) seems familiar.
I believe there is plenty of great writing, but my question is are we even giving ourselves the chance to revere it properly? We're so caught up in comparison to past literary heroes, I'm just wondering if we can fairly judge what's truly great today.
Thank you for this thought provoking essay. I've often thought that our reverence for old literature especially in school secondary curricula is stifling other ways of seeing the world, and therefore learning about it. It feels suffocatingly nostalgic. The times now when I really feel I have read something different is around the margins of science fiction and speculative because I think those authors are also brave enough to envisage multiple genders and relational parameters. So in those books you meet all sorts of different living and loving characters. I think this will become more mainstream over the decades (and centuries) and we might then start to see historical classics as quite limited in range.
So true. Fantasy has always been the genre to push reality, both in the nature of the genre and in the imagination of the authors. They seem to challenge convention the most, but I would still argue they adhere to some of the same nostalgic principles common throughout literature.
You're probably right. I don't know nearly enough. But certainly the obvious ones I think of have a very classic heroic narrative structure so, yeah, they start conforming in that overarching sense of triumph of good over evil etc
"Brilliance" is an objective concept, and one dulled by too many biased and unreliable book reviews and essays. It is also a title awarded retroactively in new time contexts. Among others, "Moby Dick" and "The Great Gatsby" were not received well at the time of their original publication- their revered status was established only by later generations of critics.
In the past the canon was limited to white male and female authors who came from or ascended to positions of affluence; the recent broadening of it to include other races has helped not only to expand but enrich it. Speculative fiction, at one time, was in this position, and I would argue that the current growth of minority perspectives within it has prevented it from becoming as out of touch as it was before.
The reader's opinion as an individual matters most; the history that makes future authors "hostage" to this, as you suggest, is always based around that. All books have intended audiences, but readers from those intended audiences must first know they exist for them to find them.
Yes! And to expand on your last point about discovery, I would also include an opening of the mind to accepting something to be critically "brilliant." And yes, this reverence tends to happen on reflection so maybe we just aren't far enough away from today's authors to have enough perspective on their capacity for greatness.