21st Century Literature discussion

This is a continuation of a discussion on the current nominations thread about the purpose and objectives of the group, and also whether we should discuss books that are very new. The main thrust of my argument is that we are increasingly seeing nominations of very new books, and in my view this contradicts the stated aims of the group as described in the opening paragraph of the home page:

"For people interested in keeping up with the modern literary classics. We will be reading fiction and fine literature from 2000 to present, with the intent of finding those literary gems of timeless and enduring quality. We are not interested in reading the latest bestsellers, nor in discussing books already well-represented in other groups. Rather, our passion is to explore those works of fiction which stand a good chance of being remembered fifty years from now. ".

There are plenty of other groups here devoted to newly published books. I would be very interested in what everyone else thinks on this whether or not you agree with me.

Hugh, given the previous discussion, your thread title feels ingenuous. It seems to me the answer to the thread question is an easy "Yes," and is thus loaded away from what seems to me the rather more difficult one of what does "FINDING" look like and how is that best accomplished.

I think the title Hugh chose addresses the issue that we were discussing under the October nominations - should we allow books to age a bit before nominating.

I can probably still change the title but it does say what I wanted to say so I may need help coming up with a more diplomatic alternative

Hugh, I think the question covers your intent just fine. And I think it's always a relevant question to ask. And thank you for starting a new topic to move this discussion out of the nominations thread.

Here are some of the things us moderator types have considered amongst ourselves regarding this topic.

- While the latest over-hyped novels may garner extra attention, they also tend to generate more lively discussions with more participants. And more 'literary' novels frequently do win the open poll as well.

- The Moderator Pick is there every month with the intention of helping to keep the group in line with the stated goals.

- The difficulty / cost of obtaining newer books is a recognized issue. So far, we've let the voting sort it out. But there is definitely an issue of people without e-readers or funds to buy hardcovers being locked out of the discussion.

- One of the things posted in the Welcome thread is "This is your group. Have fun". Although we all seem to agree that the nominations are getting a little top-heavy with recent publications, none of the moderators are really inclined to impose new rules and requirements for nominating.

I know there's not really an answer there, just some of the things we've considered. At this point, the moderators are tending towards a 'soft' solution of encouraging people to consider books that have been around for a few years when nominating.

We would like to hear from other people with opinions on the matter. So please, have at it!

[I was typing this post below as Whitney posted her more succinct and wise response above.]

I was curious to see how many new/recent books we actually read as a group, so I went and counted for the two most recent years and how that compared to the group's first year.

New = books published within 13 months or less of being discussed.

2016: 8 new books (out of 22 thus far)
2015: 10 new books (out of 27 total)

2012: 9 new books (out of 33 total)

I'm not sure year of publication really has much of anything to do with the quality of any book, but it's certainly easy to get caught up in the excitement of newer or soon-to-be-published books.

It seems like there are really two key issues here:
1) Accessiblity of the selections
2) How we go about finding the best

I don't think we want to completely rule out new books, but just remind and encourage members to nominate beyond the latest publications. Originally, in the current nominating thread we had 3 of the 7 books nominated as being "new" books (one was then withdrawn in consideration of being so new, but even that one--Stork Mountain--is available as a used hardback through AmazonUK at around £4 total, including shipping). Would it be feasible to come up with some "accessible guidelines"? At bare minimum it might be worth starting a thread about how members acquire their books (cheapest, fastest, easiest, etc.).

As for how we find the best, or the "gems", I think that varies a lot by member. Some of us like to follow the lit prizes. Some of us follow particular publishers. Some of us depend on reviewers. Some on word-of-mouth. And we all nominate differently--some of us nominate what we've already read vs. nominating what we're looking forward to reading (or hoping is a gem).

I do think the longer this group exists, the more recent will be its reads. That's just my personal opinion. How many "future classics" are likely to be published in any given decade?

Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Curious to hear what other members think. I don't think there's any need to change the title and I do think we need to be careful about giving in to the "latest and greatest" (FWIW, 3 of the 10 moderator picks in 2016 have been new books, and 1 of the 11 moderator picks in 2015 was a new book, but I'm betting member participation is higher in the open pick discussions).

Marc wrote: "[And we all nominate differently--some of us nominate what we've already read vs. nominating what we're looking forward to reading (or hoping is a gem)."

What you mentioned there about having already read it was the first category I took the one time I nominated a book. I looked at my shelf at anything I had read that had a past 2000 date on it and nominated it.

I don't have a lot of money to throw around so I get my books from the library. I have the Sympathizer and the Vegetarian now as they finally came in so I'm hoping to add to those old discussions. I am also getting some of your past reads through a book swapping club so I'm looking forward to adding to those past discussions as well.

Because of my lack of funds I don't really get to be in the front line of discussion which I guess was part of the reason I wanted to help you guys out so bad with all those past dissusions (also thank you for letting me help you and continuing to let me to do so :) )

And your help is MUCH appreciated, Luella!

For those who didn't notice that past books are now conveniently linked to their old discussions, you have Luella and Hugh to thank for doing all the hard work that made it happen.

As I said in the other thread, I would be happy if nominations were for books older than 12 months. However, I can see the moderators' reasons for not wanting to impose this as a rigid rule per se.

From a personal point of view, I will try to be mindful of accessibility when nominating or voting.

And as a newish member of this group, I really appreciate the work you guys do to make this such a great place to discuss books.

Some very interesting thoughts there, particularly from Whitney and Marc - your great work as moderators does not go unnoticed!

Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad I asked the question, since it is useful to know where we stand, and it is welcome to have a certain amount of democracy. I am also aware that literary merit is a very slippery concept, and that we all have our own opinions on what may or may not qualify. I don't want to be seen as too negative since on the whole I am happy with most of the choices the group makes.

There have been some interesting borderline cases this year - the UK paperbacks of both The Sympathizer and The Vegetarian came out just in time for the discussions, and those discussions were very lively and enjoyable. It can also be interesting to look back at previous nominations - there have been some very good books (Anne Enright's The Green Road being an obvious example) that I couldn't vote for at the time because I couldn't commit to reading them soon enough, and which I read subsequently and greatly enjoyed.

OK, I have created another discussion thread to cover how we get hold of the books we read, and what constraints this imposes in our ability to participate in discussions:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Viv wrote: "As I said in the other thread, I would be happy if nominations were for books older than 12 months. However, I can see the moderators' reasons for not wanting to impose this as a rigid rule per se...."

Perhaps we are conflating a number of issues, however. Accessibility is separate from overhyped/current-buzz, which is separate from literary value. To play devils advocate, I am part of two other groups where one of the nominating values is availability of paper, ebook along with HB, and it is treated as a factor along with keeping page count under 400 pages. I nominated a paperback book published this year with zero marketing hype, but by an established, well-regarded, prize-winning author. One year in circulation does not a classic make. If we are truly looking to read items that have stood the test of time, is that at odds with a group focused on 21st century works, e.g. Would we need five or ten years to assess that lasting significance?

Just asking. I hope we add accessibility as a nominating factor or consideration and let voting sort the rest out.

One more thing to consider: I am not persuaded that paper is generally a proxy for affordability. Quality paper prices are outrageous. In terms of affordability when it comes to hot books like the Sympathizer, it is often less expensive to obtain the heavily-discounted or used HB than it is to obtain the almost-never-discounted quality paper version. Mass paper prices at retail offend my soul.

Carol, that is a fair point! Nobody ever really knows what will stand the test of time, and sometimes books that do were not even published until many years after they were written. So although the original aims of the group are laudable, it is at least arguable that they were always too idealistic to be achievable, and this may explain why some of those who were heavily involved in the early days no longer contribute.

I still count myself as a newcomer after just over a year in the group, but it has become my favourite group on GR and I am intrigued by the mechanisms by which it evolves.

Hugh wrote: "Carol, that is a fair point! Nobody ever really knows what will stand the test of time, and sometimes books that do were not even published until many years after they were written. So although the..."

I agree and am glad you raised this question,
I also weary of the same several well-known books, even good ones and even worthy-prize-nominees, being read by group after group and .i look to this group for something different on the literary front. Those prize winners and nominees may turn out to be classics or may not, but I prefer to place my bets and allocate my reading time on under-the-radar works of literary fiction without the big US or UK marketing budget, please. They may not win the poll, though.

I think the focus should be on finding books that may well be in the 'classic' category in the future. I think the post 2000 date is rather arbitrary, but it still gives ample options so I'm ok with that. I think requiring nominated books to be at least a year from publication date will increase the ability of everyone to participate and minimize the effect of 'buzz' influencing the nominations, and I believe avoiding that was one of the stated objectives of the group.

I'd also like us to consider book length. I certainly don't mind reading a 500+ page book. I just can't always fit one in every month. "Slim volumes," a term one of my English profs taught me, can be just as rewarding as multi-page tomes. I read Another Brooklyn on Tuesday and put it on my "To Read Over and Over" list.

Lots of good points. Yes, Carol, I think you're right that we've been conflating buzz and accessibility in this discussion. And I agree that there's no way to know if a book is going to be a classic without a lot more time passing than the 16 years that this group currently covers.

Portia, I think we do end up with a good mix of weighty tomes versus slim volumes. And frequently when deciding the moderator pick we look at what's leading the pack in the open pick and choose accordingly; i.e. a shorter book to balance a longer book, a book from a different country & c.

Portia, ok I apologise for nominating a 600 page tome this month but I think it is a book with literary potential..

Whitney is right. The page count for books this year has been nicely balanced.

Firstly, I think this book group is very good indeed – great work by the moderators. There’s not much wrong that needs fixing. For me the stated aims are spot on – just what I’m looking for. There seems to be good choice and discussion on all selections. And if I can’t locate a book in time or at reasonable cost, it will go on my TBR list if I’m at all keen on it.

I have found it more difficult to obtain the chosen books over this summer and maybe some minimum period since first publication would help. But if a ‘new’ book is chosen in the Open Pick, and the moderators’ pick is then deliberately an older, more accessible book then I’d be happy to have at least one available selection per month.

I feel that nominations of lengthy books are catered for by the vote. If it looks really good, folk will still vote for it. So when I vote I take account of availability, book length, the author’s pedigree and the ‘heaviness’ of the subject matter.

As Hugh quoted in he first post in this stream, the group's focus is " "For people interested in keeping up with the modern literary classics. We will be reading fiction and fine literature from 2000 to present, with the intent of finding those literary gems of timeless and enduring quality. We are not interested in reading the latest bestsellers, nor in discussing books already well-represented in other groups. Rather, our passion is to explore those works of fiction which stand a good chance of being remembered fifty years from now. ".

I have wondered about the quality of some books nominated and have not participated very much recently because I have read a few I didn't think contained the richness of literary prose I seek in my reading. I would like to see the group return to this original purpose - I feel it fulfilled this purpose in the first few years I was involved.

Maureen wrote: "As Hugh quoted in he first post in this stream, the group's focus is " "For people interested in keeping up with the modern literary classics. We will be reading fiction and fine literature from 20..."

I agree with Maureen's thoughts. It should be about quality.

I'm glad I have some support, and I will continue to nominate books that are at least a year old, and which I believe have some potential to endure, but in the end the group is an evolving democratic organism that none of us can presume to control, and that makes it all the more interesting.

It's interesting that none of the candidates for October could be partially classified as Literary. We should drop the last word of the group name. If there's a long book, run it for 2 months, right?

OK, I'll bite, Carl--what classifies a book as "Literary"?

Well, I was referring to how Goodreads readers classify the books, but I agree with their classifications. For me, literary fiction is much more about the writing whereas mainstream fiction is focused on the story, the topic, or the action. Literary fiction is writing as an art.

Ah, I see--I've never really paid attention that GR actually has a genre called "literary fiction". Color me blind! I suspect a number of these selections might just dip into your definition of literary fiction. I think a lot of these distinctions blur as we begin to examine them. Certainly, I'm a fan of what you're calling writing as an art, but "literature" has a pretty broad definition.

Good idea re: running a longer book over an extended time period!

Carl,
Interesting thoughts! I am always suspicious of pigeonholing and have never paid any attention to Genre labels here, since it seems very restrictive to use such arbitrary classifications to limit ones reading ambitions.

Literature is notoriously difficult to define, but I don't think you will find much support for a definition as narrow as the one you propose, and my biggest problem with "writing as art" is that it depends logically on defining art, which is just as impossible and ultimately meaningless as defining "literary fiction", which for me is about feelings and instincts that do not submit to simple rules.

As for the long books question, looking back at previous discussions there are often comments continuing well beyond the nominal end date of the discussion, and although spreading a discussion over two months seems attractive, it would reduce the number of books we can discuss (and the number of books we discuss could be a fruitful topic in its own right), and we see plenty of high quality nominations failing to win the polls already - there is no shortage of suitable books to discuss.

I would only say that genre definitions are very good for general classification, despite expected outliers. I also think that if we are unwilling to strive for artistic writing, the group is inappropriately named. It should just be modern fiction. It takes courage but we must differentiate between the artful and the commercial or admit that the group may only occasionally read literature.

Carl wrote: "It's interesting that none of the candidates for October could be partially classified as Literary. We should drop the last word of the group name. If there's a long book, run it for 2 months, right?"

Going back to this statement, with all due respect, you are incorrect. Two of the nominees are classified as literary fiction, along with Atwood's and Powers' works, which are each classified as "literature". So either the genre definitions are very good or they are not. If they are, then four of the nominees fit our group's name. My nominee is a fifth work, which I anticipate will be deemed literature with the passage of time, but it doesn't have the big publishing house marketing department that would create helpful buzz amongst the NetGalley populace and result in in-publishing-year genre classifications that would persuade you of its fit.

I joined this group over five years ago, when less of the twenty-first century had happened and there were fewer books that fit. We all knew, even then, that it takes a lot of nerve to claim to be able to identify future classics that will stand the test of time. I don't know how many arguments I have read here over the definition of "literature" or "literary," but it seems to come up at least two or three times a year. People appreciate different things. "Literary" and "commercial" do not have to be mutually exclusive. Some books succeed because they are very well-written (i.e., the writer is skillful at his craft), but also have commercial appeal because the works address timeless ideas or subjects with universal appeal. The nominating process here is somewhat haphazard, but that is a virtue of the system. It helps us read a broader range of what is available, so we're not all stuck reading nothing but award winners.

I agree, Casceil. Maybe it has been unusually heavy on the commercial, historical, and speculative. After all, you go with the group or read other things. With so much commercial, there should be lots of readers because that is the pitch - popularity!

Casceil wrote: "...We all knew, even then, that it takes a lot of nerve to claim to be able to identify future classics that will stand the test of time. ..."

Casceil -- elsewhere, I called it our audacity! Kind of fun to be part of such an endeavor, however futile it might be. (Part of my work used to be predicting what certain technology markets were going to do. Same sort of stuff....?)

I have just been reading Marc's message about the October and November discussions. I'd be interested in how others feel about revisiting existing discussions at the expense of reducing the number of new ones - we had a very lively round of nominations this month and an encouragingly high number of poll votes, which shows there is no shortage of new ideas for books to discuss.

In some ways I like the idea, but I'm not sure how it will work, since there will always be a temptation to go back and look at the earlier discussions, and these remain open for new comments.

Another idea for a one off special nominations round might be to restrict nominations to books that have been nominated before but failed to win the vote...

Hugh, the idea is that there are a lot of members who joined more recently, and missed out on book discussions they would have wanted to participate in. Yes, people can read a book and revisit an old discussion, but that never ends up as much of a revival. It also keeps things interesting to occasionally try different things.

The nominations will be restricted to books read before 2014. We read 28 books a year in this group, so having 2 rereads isn't really going to cut into the new books all that significantly. Also, this is a test case to see how it goes. If people seem to appreciate it, we may make it a regular feature; otherwise it will have been fun to do once.

Thanks for the explanation Whitney - I didn't mean to stir up any further controversy :)