Chaos Reading discussion

Peter posted:

How about "Contemporary Classics" (books we think will be read 100 years from now)?

Here are a few that I think will be there:
The Catcher in the Rye
Beloved
Invisible Man
Last Orders
The French Lieutenant's Woman
Palace Walk
Herzog
The Stranger


Are there any Murakami readers out there?

I really need to read more Murakami. Everyone I know loves him, but I've only read Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World and thought it was pretty good, but wasn't bowled over. A friend lent me Norwegian Wood so I may read that soon, and I've also heard really good things about Kafka on the Shore and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle so I'd like to at least read those two.

In regards to the thread title though, I went through my favorites shelf for some inspiration and don't feel confident predicting any of them as classics. The books I tend to really enjoy and try to foist on friends and passers-by tend to be lesser known or in more niche genres I think. So, while I could say "The Handmaid's Tale will be a classic of feminist science fiction or dystopian lit" and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a comedic science fiction classic", I don't know if other people would consider them just plain classics. Or am I falling into that old trap of "literature" vs. "genre fiction" -- a distinction I usually hate? Who knows, maybe people already do consider these classics even though they're not that old.

TL;DR version: Tough question.

I agree, Riona. I personally have issues drawing the line between "classics" and "contemporary". Some from the first post I would have assumed are already classics, and there are always books I find on the Penguin Classics stand at the shops that surprise me.

Can anyone come up with a workable answer to this?
Should we have a "future classics predictions" shelf?
If so, where do we draw the line between what is contemporary & what is classic?

Note - I'll add all the titles in Peter's post back into the "Classics" shelf as well. I don't think too many people would debate that they're classics.

hands down, best 'new' classic i have encountered was The Book Thief...

what a beautiful story...

also, if we are going back a bit in time to include titles like Catcher and Handmaid's Tale, then i nominate Watership Down, which ranks in the top 10 best ever books i have read

So the CLASSICS shelf is now up, but there were two suggestions I left off because they were both less than 20 years old. I wasn't trying to draw a line anywhere specific, but I think at 19 and 16 years old respectively, it just felt too soon to say they're classics. If you have a view on this, could you pop over to the "Classics" thread and let us know please? http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

The two books I left off are: The Giver and Last Orders (from peter's list above) and I think they probably fit with the idea of "books we think will be classics in the future". Any others?

My first Murakami book was Norwegian Wood and I've read his Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World, Kafka on the Shore and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. He reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut who is my favourite author.

Future classic?
Matilda and other Dahl's works, I think. Maybe Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ?

Imagine if our grandchildren will have to read Twilight for school? Haha
Since some schools has added The Boy in the Striped Pajamas anything can happen.

I have heard the term "modern" or "contemporary" classic applied to books published post-WW2.

Using 1945 as a cut-off date, I think books like Catch-22 and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would certainly qualify as modern classics.

I would also nominate Cancer Ward and In the First Circle: The First Uncensored Edition by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.

Anna wrote: "Imagine if our grandchildren will have to read Twilight for school? Haha
Since some schools has added The Boy in the Striped Pajamas anything can happen. "

GARGH! Don't even joke about that! >o<

I think probably Louis de Bernières books will be considered classics, but it's disappointing to me that so many people went nuts about Captain Corelli's Mandolin because of the film. I don't think it's his best book, (although it did make me cry, and I'm not a book crier usually). And what I saw of the film was appalling!

Kim wrote: "I have heard the term "modern" or "contemporary" classic applied to books published post-WW2.

Using 1945 as a cut-off date, I think books like Catch-22 and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would ce..."

Oops. That wasn't the approach we took with the group's classics shelf! There are quite a few in there that would be considered modern classics by that definition, but I think that's cool.

So what do you think the line would be then between "modern classics" and "too soon to be classics"?

Ruby wrote: So what do you think the line would be then between "modern classics" and "too soon to be classics"?

I think you were on the right track with books published less than 20 years ago. Would 1980 be a reasonable cut-off?

i think def! the H. Potter series qualifies for this list...

and Matilda and Coraline (which also belong on the YA shelf)...

i think 1980 would make an excellent cutoff to designate classics from future classics, btw...

Book links:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Coraline
Matilda

sorry about that, Ruby...an oversight...i am usually pretty good about that...

Hi Adam. I've started a thread (which you are welcome to do at any time too). It's for bookshelf suggestions (fiction), since we already had one for non-fiction.

I think defining "literary fiction" is a really tricky one though...

We've changed the "Future Classics" shelf over to "Modern Classics", which is now up and running. Please see that thread to nominate new books that are your favourite classics, published 1946-1993.