100 Years Hence

I heartily agree with Dan on this.

Surely it is true that the books we’re still reading from the past have proven their durability, whereas, confronting the increasing mass of books being dumped onto the market by clueless publishers (the vast majority of which certainly are "a waste of time"), we can’t yet know which ones will manage to be considered a century from now as among "the stuff that has lasted." And, of course, some will. Presumably just as many books published in 2006 will make that list as books published in 1906 or 1806. (It’s even possible that, given the increase in population over the past two hundred years, even more literary talent is being produced than formerly and that the early twenty-first century will be well-represented indeed on those syllabi of the future.) If Patrick means to suggest that this is not the case, that somehow current fiction and poetry are inherently inferior to that which has been given to us by "the past," then I think he’s simply mistaken.

My interest in contemporary fiction comes entirely from a conviction that the best of what’s being written now will in the long run stand quite steadily with the best of the past, and that literary criticism has its role to play in making provisional judgments about which books these might be. (In addition to the more mundane judgments about which books might be worth readers’ time in the here and now.) Some of these judgments might certainly prove to be wrong, but this is so not because some universal standards based on what’s come before will always ultimately prevail (and correct those assessments that sadly failed to observe them) but precisely the opposite: standards will change, and we can’t be at all sure that what we now value in works of literature will be shared by future readers. I don’t see why this fact should be lamented; those books we now believe to be "dependably superior" have been delivered to us through the same kind of critical filter, and some of them will ultimately not survive continued critical scrutiny.

I’ll add to this that for various reasons many, many superior books have been lost to us (something presses like NYRB Classics try to remedy by bringing worthwhile books back into print). If there aren’t people reading contemporary lit and championing authors that deserve to be read, how many more will be lost?

To take one example, what if William Gass hadn’t taken it on himself to champion the work of William Gaddis? Certainly Gaddis’s books might still be in print, but if he hadn’t gotten deseved recognition for JR (something Gass had a huge hand in), he might now be forgotten.

I’ll also add that finding worthwhile authors to champion can be one of the most exciting, pleasurable tasks you’ll ever take on.

You Might Also Like:

More from Conversational Reading:

1. Top 100 Time pickes the 100 best novels written in the English language since 1923. Time to get in touch with your inner wounded pride and excessively...
2. 10 years Congrats to Rain Taxi. ...
3. Katrina Book Deals Frances over at Ghost Word reports on some of the book deals already spawned by the hurricane Katrina disaster. Of course, given the speed with...
4. John Freeman´s Experiments John Freeman reviewing Only Revolutions: The stunning lack of experimentation in American fiction during the past two decades partly explains why [Mark Z. Danielewski´s] 2000...
5. William Gass Wow, an interview with William Gass in The Believer. ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.