*Understand *Finnegan’s Wake ? Way too optimistic.
In 300 years, Joycean scholars will still be arguing over how to spell and punctuate the book’s title, in particular the all important apostrophe placement debate.
Looking at my book shelves, a couple of things occur : Lolita, Keneally’s Schindler’s Ark.
Various biographies and historical works will still be read :- Ian Kershaw on Hitler, for example. WW2 will then be as distant as the English Civil War is now : there’s a thriving, albeit specialised market, in factual and non-factual books about that conflict. It seems likely that there’ll be an interest in WW2 in that time frame.
You realize a lot of people still read a lot of books right? Hell, at the library I work at, more books are checked out every month than all the movies, music CDs and books on tape combined.
It’s always in fashion to denigrate the culture of one’s own time. It’s a more popular amusement than professional sports in some circles.
He could also be conflating the death of paper with the death of reading. I point him to the times reading died alongside vellum, papyrus, and clay tablets.
I think thatits unlikely that any 20c books will be read that far in the future except by historical specialists,but I’ll go with Patrick o’briens sea stories and Pterrys Discworld stories.
But I do think that Shakespeare will be read(Who IMO is a total genius)also Jane Austen (Flawed but readable)and Charles Dickens(Over rated dross)
Oh, it’s no wonder they’re so popular. If you set out to write a series of books that was as entertaining and popular as possible, you’d include the ingredients that the Harry Potter books have: wish-fulfillment fantasy (so that the reader thinks “Wouldn’t it be cool to live in that world and be those people?”); plenty of mysteries and unanswered questions to keep the reader guessing; interesting characters that the reader likes, cares about, and can identify with; danger and suspense to keep the reader eagerly turning pages; lots of fun and imaginative details; a writing style that isn’t difficult or dense; a bit of romantic tension; and a good dose of humor.
Whether they’ll still be read hundreds of years from now depends on whether or not they’re supplanted by other books that provide the same sort of entertainment value, and do so as well or better than Rowling does.
He also misses the point that the publishing industry is now larger than it has ever been at any point in history. (Okay, minus some contraction in the past few years…) That’s something that makes it hard to answer the OP. three hundred years ago there were approximately two dozen major new works of fiction published each year. We now number that in the thousands. The only model we can even draw ties to is the end of the nineteenth when there was the same breadth in publishing and really 100 years is peanuts compared to 300.
So it’s impossible to say what will still be read. Some trash like Twilight might still speak to the same audience it does today. And some obscure author might find their audience in the future. I can’t even guess at it.
Stephen King will make it, because of his popularity, wide influence, and quality of his best books.
No one else seems a sure bet in my mind, but if I had to go with a dark horse, it’d be Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The author’s only novel, but one whose characters and use of language are so exquisite that it will be held up as one of the pinnacles of this era’s literary achievements. Why it gets the nod over other beautifully-written books is that it captures the mindset and feel of an authentic, local India on the eve (in the historical timeline) of its rise as a great power. The 24th century crowd will dig it, even though it’ll probably need a crapton of footnotes by then.
Ya know, the list will probably largely be chosen by college professors, as “20th Century Lit” classes will probably be common and even required for certain degrees. Since a novel is a dense thing to teach in 16 weeks, they’re probably only going to pick 1 or 2 from each quarter century or so. So 8 books. Eight books from the 20th century will be skimmed by 24th century ingrateful brats.
Yes, but writing styles change, and old histories are re-written to accommodate changing tastes. Look at any popular history book released lately about, say, one of America’s founding fathers, and if you check the footnotes, it will like as not be based heavily on some history book or books written in the 19th century (beyond copyright protection, of course)-- with the dusty prose of those old books jazzed up for modern readers.
Yes, and I suspect they’ll be chosen as much to provide historical context for the era as upon literary merit. So, for example, a book like The Grapes of Wrath might be chosen because it provides insight to the Great Depression.
Leaving my predujice for current literature aside, I think that’s a good point. The novel adressed social issues, and it was a popular film still show in the 21st century.
This is what I’m resting my hopes of The God of Small Things being picked up by our descendants on. If they need historical context, might as well teach a book with breathtakingly beautiful prose.
Stephen King can also be made to fit the mold, as a lot of his work embodies the worries and fears of the generation, like nuclear power (though I forget which book kept lecturing us about it) and a bio-apocalypse (The Stand), which are both reflections of a still-lingering fear of self-inflicted technological annihilation. He also writes a lot of characters with an exaggerated street-foul-mouth, which future professors will find linguistically fascinating and future students will giggle over.
He fellates with great allacrity. The genre fellates.
He has become so popular among those who don’t know what “As Chaucer is, shall Dryden be” means that his editors are afraid to chide him, and he republishes books hundreds of pages longer than the original crap.