Chaos Reading discussion

This is kinda fun, it's a pole of book collectors from 1935 about what books they thought would still be read in 2000: Future Classics. I'm sure this has come up multiple times in other groups, but I'd still be interested to hear which contemporary writers people think will still be read in 70 years. Some of my picks would be Salmon Rushdie (an easy choice), Ursula K. Le Guin, Ian McEwan and Cormac McCarthy.

I guess by 'contemporary' I'm thinking authors who are still alive, but judging by other people's responses to the article, that's up for interpretation.

William Gibson (Father of cyberpunk)
Tanith Lee ( Mistress of dark, dark fantasies)
Second on Neil Gaimen for such ecletic work and all great
Tom Wolfe and Truman Capote (20th centurys answer to Samuel Pepys

david brin
china
alastair reynolds
iain m banks
stephen king
tim powers

Hey guys - Can you please use GR author links? [add book/author above the comment box] Thanks!

I don't know who Edward Rutherfurd is, so I'm going to disagree with that one!

Totes agree with: Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, Stephen King, William Gibson though.

Some of the others I'm not sure about. It can be a little hard with the genre writers too - while they might still be being read in the future, it might also be that they're only being read by hardcore genre geeks?

GR links added. I would make a case for Tanith Lee as a modern Edgar Allen Poe.

I think I would further define 'still being read' as 'still in print and their name instantly recognized by most literate people'. I agree about Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, but frequently wonder if Stephen King will really endure. Is Tanith Lee still read that much? And as much as I love Tim Powers, he's not that widely read now, either. I have my doubts about John Crowley for the same reason. Good writing and critical raves aren't nearly enough to guarantee a future.

People who think William Gibson will still be around - how recently have you read him? I agree, he pretty much single handedly brought science fiction into a new era, and most of his 'cyberpunk' (shudder) contemporaries are now largely forgotten it seems. I thought the Neuromancer series was brilliant, but I haven't read it since it came out, and I'm wondering if it seems horribly dated now.

Edited to add: forget the the 'still in print' criteria, as it's rapidly becoming fairly meaningless.

Ruby wrote: "Some of the others I'm not sure about. It can be a little hard with the genre writers too - while they might still be being read in the future, it might also be that they're only being read by hardcore genre geeks?"

This was my thought as well. I usually hate the literary fiction/genre fiction distinction, but I think it applies a bit here. Though authors might be really well known in their genre, and last long enough to be considered classics there, it's much more rare to have mainstream crossover.

I am attenpting to reply to multiple comments so please excuse if this seems somewhat disjointed. First, the question of a writer still being read. Is this a valid question for future classifications? I only ask because many authors, now consided to be great were not that popular when they wrote. Second, is Gibson outdated? Since most of his cyperpunk(not steampunk) novels deal with the ability to reside as an electronic construct, if you will, within computers and that is no where near happening, I would say his writing is not outdated. I will admit I love Gibsons stuff, he is on my top ten list. As to question of genre fiction. All I can think of is Jules Verne and Edger Rice Burroughs, still read, still being used in movies (John Carter -2012) Having said all that, if we can add dead people, I nominate John Cheever.

Whitney wrote: "People who think William Gibson will still be around - how recently have you read him? I agree, he pretty much single handedly brought science fiction into a new era, and most of his 'cyberpunk' (shudder) contemporaries are now largely forgotten it seems. I thought the Neuromancer series was brilliant, but I haven't read it since it came out, and I'm wondering if it seems horribly dated now..."

I read Neuromancer earlier this year and it definitely stands up. I found the ending pretty pretentious, but it's still pretty amazing.

No, Gibson's books all stand up well for me, but I suspect they may not in future. A great fantasy writer will always be a great fantasy writer, but great SF gets dated - and even though I still remember the Verne & Wells stories, not many of them are believable any more (and E.R.Burroughs, perhaps never was!). Gibson's cyberpunk will sooner or later become partly or mostly wrong, and much as I love it all (and wish that much of the technology would be right) I think it will fade.

I love William Gibson, but I don't think his work will stand up for more than another couple decades (if that). Elements of some of his books already seem dated to me. I think he'll definitely be remembered for his contributions to the genre though, whether or not he continues to be widely read.

Bird Brian wrote: "In nonfiction, this is arguably already a classic-
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24..."

Yes, in the sense that everybody knows of it (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid) but nobody reads it! It's one of a very few books I've tried, and failed, to read more than once. I must have got two-thirds through it before giving up the last time: and I have the mathematics background to understand it! Somehow, in one of my moves, I managed to lose it. Oh, Tragedy!

A Brief History of Time belongs in the same category - though I have read and enjoyed that one.

Derek wrote: "Bird Brian wrote: "In nonfiction, this is arguably already a classic-"

Yes, in the sense that everybody knows of it (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid) but nobody reads it:.."

"Classic"- a Book which people praise and don't read.
--Mark Twain--"

That obliquely brings up one of the points of the original article, namely that books considered 'classics' in their day have frequently failed the test of time. Here's another article that lists a few. Forgotten Classics

As far as non-fiction, does anyone else remember The Making of the Atomic Bomb? Another 'must read' that everyone had on their shelves but few people actually read.

Derek wrote: "I must have got two-thirds through it before giving up the last time: and I have the mathematics background to understand it! Somehow, in one of my moves, I managed to lose it. Oh, Tragedy!"

Skim that beast like there's no tomorrow! You won't regret it :-)

Hofstadter: "This new concept is like the MIU system I introduced all the way back on p215!"
Me: "I didn't understand that bit."
Hofstadter: "You'll recall this concept when we talked about floops and bloops..."
Me: "Dude, I've got a bit of an 'I didn't understand that bit' infinite regression going on here...but these Escher woodcuts are lovely :D"

Whitney wrote: "Derek wrote: "Bird Brian wrote: "In nonfiction, this is arguably already a classic-"

Yes, in the sense that everybody knows of it (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid) but nobody reads it...". I have to admit I never heard of this ..An Eternal Golden Braid.. and after reading an excerpt on Amazon our association may remain remote because I doubt I could follow this to the end. The 'Forgetten Classics' list has some good books Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy and
The Haunting of Hill House. If these books are not getting any attention it is the readers loss not the fault of the book. Along those lines I have come up with a few more writers. I am really enjoying this thread. :-)
Margaret Atwood, Harper Lee and Robert Penn Warren.

I would argue that Stewart's "Merlin" trilogy is not a forgotten classic - and it won't be at least until I'm dead and buried (or eaten by vultures).

Were you including the last three as "forgotten"? Atwood won't be forgotten as long as there's a Canadian school system (if we get absorbed into the US, it's vulture time), and To Kill A Mockingbird will be remembered until there's no more racism. I'd like to think that means it will be forgotten real soon now, but...

Derek wrote: "I would argue that Stewart's "Merlin" trilogy is not a forgotten classic - and it won't be at least until I'm dead and buried (or eaten by vultures).

Were you including the last three as "forgot..."

The Stewart books were on the list that Whitney linked. I'm with you in the sense that I have a hard time seeing these books as forgotten. The other three are not and just more writers that I think could be considered classic authors in the future.

Karen wrote: "The Stewart books were on the list that Whitney linked. I'm with you in the sense that I have a hard time seeing these books as forgotten..."

These aren't really listed as 'forgotten classics', the writer mentions them at the end of the article as other books that he considers aren't getting the readership they deserve. Even so, I think they were out of place in this particular article.

Whitney wrote: "Karen wrote: "The Stewart books were on the list that Whitney linked. I'm with you in the sense that I have a hard time seeing these books as forgotten..."

These aren't really listed as 'forgotten..."

Thanks for the clarification,,,reading too fast again :-)

Khaled Hosseini
Jodi Picoult

Margaret wrote: "Khaled Hosseini
Jodi Picoult "

I'm not sure of your point. The critics seem to love Hosseini (I confess to not have read anything of his), and Picoult is still routinely showing up on bestseller lists—her own site says "Her last 8 novels have debuted at # 1 on the New York Times bestseller list", so she can hardly be writing "forgotten" classics.

It's all shit. It all deserves to burn.