Don’t know what got me thinking about this, and I’m not sure exactly what it is that I’m thinking about, so let me just throw this out there:
There are only a few authors I can think of offhand whose names are used adjectivally – “Shakespearean” is probably the most common. There’s also “Shavian,” usually used in something like “Shavian wit.” There’s “Hemingwayesque,” but no “Fitzgeraldian.” “Faulknerian,” “Joycean” – for modern authors, anyway, it seems to be about a very distinctive prose style. (“Jamesian,” there’s another.) “Thurberesque” I’ve heard, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard “Wodehousian” or “Perelmanesque.”
As I said, I don’t know where I’m going with this – but why is it that only some authors become adjectives? And who’s the most recent author to be so honored? My first draft of a list doesn’t have anyone from the last half century.
Honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with the sound and spelling of the name. Some authors are well-known, distinctive, and imitated, yet just don’t have names that lend themselves to adjectivization. Mark Twain, for example: “Twainian” is an awkward word; doesn’t roll off the tongue like “Dickensian” or “Faulknerian”.
“Perelmanian” only returns a handful–130–and “Perelmanesqu” only 28.
I don’t think there’s any limit on what writers you can adjectate (teehee). Obviously, the more canonical names will be made into adjectives as more and more a) writers are influenced by them and b) the general public is aware of them to understand what one means by the adjectival form of a name.
As for most recent, I don’t know. Just on a lark, I wanted to see if Tarantino was used adjectivally as “Tarantinian,” and, sure enough, there’s even a book on Amazon called The Tarantinian Ethics.
As for authors from the last half century, you can try Rushdian, Vonnegutian, Bukowskian, Mametian, etc. Also, it helps if you have a last name that’s distinct and easy to make into an adjective.
When I saw the thread title, the very first thing I thought of was “Lovecraftian.” Although Lovecraft died before the last half-century mark (1937, to be exact), his work certainly didn’t gain widespread recognition until well within that period.
I concur with the other posters who suggest it’s not just that the author needs to have a distinctive style, s/he also needs a name that lends itself to an adjectival form.
CBCD – I actually used “Proustian” in another thread just this morning.
Baldwin – Dickensian, yes – though that usually refers to a situation, rather than the depiction of that situation (e.g., “She had a real Dickensian childhood”). Definitely in the top three of authorial adjectives, though. As far as Twain is concerned, though – again, what would “Twainian” mean? What might you described as “Twainian” prose?
Another example is “Emersonian” – though again, I’m not entirely clear what the referent is there – essays as a genre? A particular type of prose?
And I don’t think “Wildean” is that common (36.5K hits – vs. 438K for Dickensian), which is interesting, because it does adjectivize nicely. (And the lending-itself-to-being-adjectivized rule is major, y’all are right about that.)
Am I allowed to exert OP’s privelege here and say no? I really am thinking about the referents as being writers qua writers, not as philosophers or intellectuals.
Well, suspense surprise twists are Hitchcockian, although he wasn’t actually a writer per se, so I guess he’s out. In that same vein, though, you’d think there was something other just Agatha Christie-like.
