Premature canonisation
Sep. 20th, 2018 07:36 pmBooks, not saints: or, it's not over until it's over.
How can you possibly even begin, less that 2 decades into a century, to even make A Premature Attempt at the 21st Century Canon?
I was sitting here thinking, you know, if you had been doing this in 1818, there were books that had been published by then that I am pretty sure would not have been on lists like this (anything by Jane Austen, and Frankenstein, for starters). And ditto 1918, because I have seen those lists of bestsellers of the year and it is rarely enough that one sees any title that one recognises except possibly as a historical curiosity.
There's a chart here which lists Bestsellers (USA, I think) alongside 'Critically acclaimed and historically significant' works published in the same year, 1910-1919. I suspect that it took some while for critical acclaim and historical significance to accrue (Herland I may point out, as I remember delving into this for some reason once, was only published as a periodical serial in 1915 and not as a book until, I think, the 1970s, such are the whirligigs of time and reputation).
no subject
Date: 2018-09-20 08:33 pm (UTC)I note that Robert W. Chambers shows up a lot. Of course, the book of his that's stuck around isn't any one of those -- it's The King in Yellow, which is fin-de-siècle American weird.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-21 08:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-09-21 02:01 pm (UTC)Chambers used to be called "the shopgirls' Sheherazade", which is as neat a way for the literary establishment to denigrate both the author and his audience as I've ever encountered. On the other hand, he made a lot of money that way, and The King in Yellow (actually a collection of short stories) fed into the American horror and weird fantasy genre almost as much as Lovecraft's stuff did. (And Chambers was apparently a much nicer fellow than Lovecraft, to boot.)
no subject
Date: 2018-09-21 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-09-21 08:26 am (UTC)