Defining literature as what has lasted makes me think of a
conversation I recently overheard. One teen was talking to
another about music. He proudly declared that he did not
listen to new music. He wouldn't even consider listening to a
band until it had been around for a while. He is currently
listening to Coldplay, can like them now that they have three
[studio] albums out and are still good. I had a hard time
holding in my laughter. Leaving aside the questionable
quality of Coldplay's most recent, redundant album (except
for the great hidden track) and the perfect excuse this
practice provides for lazily letting others do the sifting,
what about one hit wonders? There are plenty of bands who
make one great album, plenty of authors who wrote only one
good book. Of course, this isn't an exact corollary for the
test of time, since many one shots, both musical and
literary, are deemed to have stood the test of time,
It is also terribly dismissive of new material. What, I've
got to wait until Ken Bruen has written three books and had
them well reviewed before I can read any of them? (Of course,
with Bruen's swift output, that would only require waiting a
month or two.) I'm sure there are plenty of people who only
read older works, but I wouldn't want to miss the thrill of
discovering a great new author and following his or her
career to see if the books get even better.
Of course, the real logical problem with this theory is
rediscovered classics. Hard Case Crime, Starkhouse, Point
Blank Press, Crippen & Landru, etc, are all engaged in
finding and reprinting lost classics. But how could a classic
become lost? I mean, if it "speaks to something timeless in
the human condition," how did it ever go out of print?
Wouldn't the test of time remain consistent? Did Hammett (at
least his short stories), for instance, cease to be great
literature in the '60s and '70s, only to become it again when
even most of his hardest to find short stories have been
anthologized?
In addition, who is it that determines if and how something
stands the test of time? Do we only consider what noted
scholars of literature say? If so, much of what we discuss
here would be thrown out. Or do we defer to authorities in
the field, in which case crime fiction, sci-fi, comic books,
etc, would be judged by those who study them? By this point,
we're getting pretty relativistic, not to mention insular,
steering away from any universal canon? Or do readers judge?
Is it just a matter of sales? Is Stephen King great
literature since his books have remained constant sellers,
have withstood at least several decades of time? (Never
having read any of his novels, I'm not commenting one way or
another on his worthiness.)
I do like a lot of old books. However, I don't kid myself
that I'm reading them the same way that original readers (or
even other conemporary readers) did. As an example, it was
recently noted that Travis McGees can now be read for their
vision of a different time. So I don't see the books
"standing a test of time," but as standing up to the test of
"right now." As times change, taste also changes, both the
taste for what is new and for what is recognized, and how it
is recognized, from the past.
Mark
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Great things are happening at
Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/do.u8A/hOaOAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Jun 2006 EDT