"Hey, kids, let's start a list!" - Mickey Rooney

Here we can discuss fiction writen in the 21st century that we think might have a shot at being classics when the century is past.

Since this is, at least partially, designed as a resource for readers to have a warm and fuzzy feeling that the book they just purchased on spec will be at least readable and at worst not a waste of money, with your nominations include a little about why you think it will be a classic.

I know for most participants here this next is going to be hard, but let's try to stay away from genre such as SF. We already have more than enough threads where we can (and do) discuss the best (and worst) SF.

Okay, just to kick things off...

Oops, I haven't read anything published during the 21st century yet that I would put in this list.

Oh, well, carry on Horsa and Hengist ... er readers!

Message edited by its author, Jun 13, 2009, 2:22pm.

Life of Pi?

This one's based on a lot of speculation (then again, that's sort of what this thread's about, I guess), but I'm gonna suggest Mark Z. Danielewski's Only Revolutions. True, it wasn't exactly a best-seller (though it was shortlisted for the National Book Award), but that had to do with its bizarre format, and it's that format that might eventually get it some recognition.

What I have in mind is this: in the not-so-distant future, e-readers surge in popularity. Actual printed fiction wanes to the point where it's just little boutique publishers putting the stuff out. Eventually, there's going to be some kind of backlash, and people are going to look to books that really highlighted the unique characteristics of book-objects that e-readers can't replicate. I defy anyone to show me a book that more fundamentally *could not* exist on an e-reader than Only Revolutions.

Like I said, that's a lot of speculation, but it doesn't sound all that far-fetched to me.

#2, want to tell us why Pi?

Q, 54, and Manituana by Wu Ming (the Italian writing collective formerly known as 'Luther Blissett). The latter is coming out in English translation this year.

Detective Story by Imre Kertész.

Will Michel Houellebecq be to the 22nd century what Lautreamont was to the 20th?

And I've got hopes for David Mitchell.

2666 by Bolano. As epic, divisive, and confounding as Moby Dick

Nazi Literature in the Americas by Bolano. While originally published in 1996, the English translation came out in the 21st century. The Borges-like curiosity has proven horrifyingly prophetic, since American conservatism and neo-Nazi ideology have become indistinguishable in recent years.

Against the Day by Pynchon. While about the 1893 World's Fair, the labyrinthine mixture of politics, religion, and comedy resonates because we encounter this fatal cocktail in the 21st century.

Full disclosure, I haven't read either 2666 or Against the Day, but I've read enough reviews of both to have a confident familiarity with their subject matter.

Thanks for starting this list! I've been getting depressed about the seeming lack of challenging literature.

I just finished Bolano's By Night in Chile...it was wonderful. Still afraid of 2666.

Last year I read Louise Erdrich's Plague of Doves, which was also great. I think it was a Pulitzer finalist.

Oh, and Oblivion is the only book of fiction that David Foster Wallace managed to publish in this century (at least until The Pale King comes out), so I'm going to mention that too. If Wallace ends up fading away over the next few decades, I am going to be mightily upset (I almost wrote "depressed." Eek.)

When was The Savage Detectives written? That would be on my list.

7> Lautreamont is incomparable.

sutpen, I'm glad to hear you say positive things about Only Revolutions because I keep looking at it at Barnes and Noble. I keep thinking that I should read House of Leaves first and, quite honestly, it is a bit intimidating. On your recommendation, I probably will pick it up anyway. What's one more book in the great mountain?

I just checked on my nomination, Wind Up Bird Chronicle, but it was published in 1998. I guess I'll have to keep looking.

Well, Murakami is coming out with his first new book in 5 years so maybe that one will make the cut...

Well I really liked Mieville's latest, the city and the city. A noirish urban detective/crime/fantasy - which while less overtly strange than his steampunkish books is a lot "trickier" and thought provoking than his earlier books. This one might stand.

I also think that Abraham Verghese's first novel, cutting for stone, set mostly in his natal country of Ethiopia could be with us for a good while, also.

I hope the new Murakami is great - but i liked his last novel, after dark a lot more than most. I think/hope it'll gain in stature, despite (again) its lack of weirdness (albeit a lot less alien than Mieville's) over the years.

but wtfkRknws. I think Bolano will disappear into the dustbin of literary history, but i'll be dead long before i'm proved wrong.

(who the fk REALLY knows).

4> If for no other reason High Schools are already teaching it. i think that that'll keep it around. I also feel like sense it came out I've been hearing about it constantly, people are always recommending it, and I know 8 years isn't necessarily a good judge for 100 but I think that that gives it a good shot.
Plus its quirky, but not so quirky that people would be alienated by it. It is one of those books that apply to everyone.

#7 I wasn't too impressed by David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas. The link between the narratives wasn't strong enough. I have Houellebecq's Atomised on my TBR.

17:

I have to agree. I thought it was perfectly entertaining, but in no sense a "great" book.

The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, while I know that that was published in 1967 (I believe) I have a good feeling it'll be a classic, heck isn't it one already?

People have told me Twilight is going to be a classic. Gawd, I hope they're wrong. When you look at great literature (such as Little Women) Twilight can not so much as compare. Agree?

Disagree with #17 and 18, agree with Cliff. I thought Cloud Atlas was fab. Stated my thoughts on other threads, no rehashing here.

Here's one that I think might particularly interest you, Gene: Wizard of the Crow by Ngugi wa Thiong'o. Well-written, great satire, and well-plotted. For those who think modern fiction is often too plotless, this one's an antidote. Also filled with artfully placed Biblical allusions. It's a long work, ~800 pages, but it held my interest all the way through.

Had there not been a 20-year gap in Ngugi's output (from the time of his exile from Kenya until quite recently), I think he would've won the Nobel already.

Hmmm...WIZARD OF THE CROW does look like a beauty of a read. On my list!

Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden
A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr

Both are destined to be classics in creative non-fiction.

Atonement, Ian MacEwan. Can't recommend Saturday or Amsterdam at all, nor the excerpts of On Chesil Beach I read, but Atonement is an entirely different thing. Beautifullly written (by which I do NOT mean florid and overwritten, as we were discussing in the other thread)--MacEwan in full control of his materials.

The Age of Wire and String, Ben Marcus (1998--cheating a bit here). The only book I know of that rivals A Clockwork Orange for its audacity in creating a world through language. Absolutely original.

The Rings of Saturn, W.G. Sebald (cheating a little bit more here). Remarkable, I think, for its refusal to accede to any one form--autobiography, fiction, history, philosophy--and for its ability to quietly observe both the big and the small. A book of its time but executed by an older sensibility. I've done a bad job of describing it.

Cheating even more, but The Remains of the Day, Kazuo Ishiguro.

Great thread. It's interesting to look back at books that won the Pulitzer a century ago to see how few have stood up.
I've been stalled for a couple of weeks on House of Leaves, and I'm afraid that having lost my running start, I won't be able to get back into it. But so far, I can't pin the classic tag on it.
I don't think I've hit a 21st century classic yet, but I bet that Tim Gautreaux will eventually write one. I haven't read The Clearing, does that qualify?

24:

Man, other people have told me they struggled with House of Leaves too. I just don't get it. I found that book absolutely riveting all the way through (though it goes without saying that the Navidsons are more interesting than Truant). The first time I read it, it took me three days.

#23 If I had to pick a McEwan novel, it would be Enduring Love or The Innocent. Atonement wasn't bad, but the story was stretched painfully thin. Mind you, it was in On Chesil Beach, and that's a novella.

Not necessarily a classic, but the novel The Here and Now by Robert Cohen is a newer book and well worth the read.

The most impressive book I've read in the last few years was Little, Big by John Crowley, but I'm sure not everyone would agree ...

I read it in one fell swoop, burst into tears at the end and had to be physically restrained from starting it again immediately!

(Edited for pesky touchstones)

Message edited by its author, Jun 15, 2009, 4:12am.

Paul Auster could become a classic... Not because he is a best-selling author already, but I find his prose wonderfully soothing and sort of dreamy. Maybe it's just me, but it's the sort of books I can really picture as a must-read 50 years from now.

I think both Crowley and Auster are strong candidates for literary longevity. Have you visited Mr. Crowley's blog:

http://crowleycrow.livejournal.com

Crowley gave a reading from his new novel, Four Freedoms, only last week and according to his blog it was sparsely attended. And, of course, the final book of the Aegypt tetrad was published by a small press. He's a great writer, but the establishment doesn't seem to have noticed that yet.

I read about Crowley reading to a couple of crickets chirping in the back of the room too, Ian, and I found it incredibly sad. And yet if you'd put some hack in there with umpteen franchise novels and tree-killer fantasy tomes, the place would've been packed with starry-eyed gits from the unicorn and dragon crowd. Sickening.

I heard about a convention in California years ago where Richard Matheson read to a near empty room...because some gamer guru was talking to an overflow crowd (both were scheduled at the same time). I repeat: sickening.

There's a similar incident recounted in Andrew Smith's Moondust*. At a convention in Vegas, there was a long queue for the signature of a TV actor from some sf show, but no one queuing for Dick Gordon, CMP of Apollo 12 and one of only 24 men to travel to the Moon.

* Gah. Nonsense. "Moondust" pulls up a touchstone for Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust". But "Moon Dust" pulls up Smith's "Moondust". Which is one word, not two.

Message edited by its author, Jun 15, 2009, 10:55am.

Gene -
Agreed, nothing stupendous has been published this century. (And perhaps in the preceding half century too). That's not to say new books aren't worth reading, but ....holy smokes with 6 billion people on the planet shouldn't we have at least one Milton?

Message edited by its author, Jun 15, 2009, 9:00am.

I remember that bit about Gordon, Ian. And I recollect shuddering in dismay.

"Look! It's that guy who played a security officer on that one episode of 'Deep Space 9'!"

"Wow! Cool..."

That whole convention scene was depicted wonderfully in "GalaxyQuest".

#30 - cheers, Cliff - will check that out!

In re Crowley
"He's a great writer, but the establishment doesn't seem to have noticed that yet."

the blurbs in the back of my copy of Endless things
NYTimes Book Review;" a dizzying experience, achieved with unerring security of technique"

The Washing Post Book World: "An astounding display of scholarship and imagination.."

"Affecting, cerebral, surpirsing an delightful..." Publishers Weekly.

Don't get much more mainstream that these venues.

>37 - Aren't all book blurbs filled with astonished praise? Every single one.

of course - but Ian was saying that Crowley was ignored by the "mainstream" and the ones cited are about as mainstream as American book press can be. Maybe he meant "mainstream readers" but that's a different pile of books. It wasn't about the quotes - it was about the NYTimes, Washington Post and Publishers Weekly.

Message edited by its author, Jun 15, 2009, 8:40pm.

>39 - Oh. I thought he meant that Crowley hasn't been noticed in that he doesn't stand out based solely on what the "mainstream" have said.

Knowing Ian, he meant mainstream readers. Crowley has ALWAYS been a critics' darling but most folks are too dumb to get him. I mean, Jesus, the guy wrote a novel in the guise of Lord Byron. How gutsy is that?

From what I've read of his blog, he's a very modest, unassuming guy. That makes him doubly great in my books.

The Onion AV Club are going to read Little, Big by Crowley in the upcoming months:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/wrapped-u...

Maybe it will get all those young, iPod-listenin' whippersnappers to appreciate Crowley.

Full disclosure: I've never read any Crowley. Another few volumes to throw on the TBR pile the size of Everest.

#37 Does "The Washing Post Book World" count as mainstream? (joke)

I suppose i meant readers, but surely even a critical reputation should have been enough for a major publishing house to pick up Endless Things. The fact that it was published by Small Beer Press does suggest that Crowley's reputation is not as widespread as it should be. OTOH, The Translator, Evening Land and now Four Freedoms were all published by a major publisher...

Well, now I'm interested. His books get a priority boost since the author is still alive. Into the wish-list he goes!

I would add A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry. (Again, cheating by a handful of years.) The book is good on its own merits, but having been labeled 'India's Dickens' will keep Mistry in the spotlight.

Another thought: short story collections are getting short shrift in this thread, and for a good reason: entire collections are rarely thought of as classics. (Even reading a great short story writer, say Chekhov or O'Connor, straight through, shows how hard it is to write a whole book of good ones.) So it might be fair to open the thread up to great individual stories with some chance at lasting.

Rohinton Mistry, with a name like that he should be writing Harlequin Romances. I have to remind myself he is a serious writer, and Indian to boot.

What mistry awaits in the manner house garden at Rohinton?

ETA: edited to give Mr. Mistry a sex change.

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 10:04am.

She?

Not the Rohinton Mistry who lives in Canada and writes novels. That Rohinton Mistry is a "he".

I know many may be tired of hearing about it, but for myself, reading Gilead by Marilynne Robinson (2004) was an experience I still treasure. If the religious musings of the narrator don't deter the reader (some readers are as vociferously anti-religious as others are religious), then this long letter to a son will reward.

I would also recommend Gate of the Sun by Elias Khoury (2006). To call it a political novel does it disservice, yet politics are inescapable, as it is a story of the post-WW2 Palestinian experience. For those for whom it matters - this novel is not overly sympathetic to the Israeli nation. Yet I think it avoids being a mere political screed, because of the quality of the writing and characters (and, of course, the translator).

Gate of the Sun is published by Archipelago Books - a wonderful publisher well worth checking out if contemporary international literature in translation appeals to you.

Philip Roth is, apparently, not for everyone, but I quite enjoyed his 2006 novel Everyman.

After offering up a few suggestions I don't feel guilty now including a link to a blog that discusses new books of note coming out this year. Some may discount some of the suggestions as they come from the "belly of the beast", but it's still nice to know. I find that even with the web, I still miss the publication of books by authors I admire.

http://dgmyers.blogspot.com/2009/01/fict...

See also the link in the first sentence of the post for other recently, or soon to be, published novels.

If international literature in translation appeals to anyone, I might also suggest, Twisted Spoon Press, Ibis Editions, Zephyr and Green Integer.

These publishers generously link to other publishers so if you start with any one of these, you'll probably end up at the others.

eta: If you go looking for Zephyr Press, there are two. The one you want has a URL that ends with .org

Message edited by its author, Jun 16, 2009, 9:39pm.

#48: I've been meaning to get around to Gate of the Sun--it's on my shelves. Thanks for the link--I didn't know that Richard Russo and Richard Powers both had novels coming out this year! Two authors that I really feel should have more of a readership than they do (Powers especially--I hardly ever encounter other Powers enthusiasts).

Richard Russo's Straight Man predated the 21st century by 3 years, but I'm going to mention it here anyway. A damned funny work that blends academic satire with midlife crisis and manages to pull it all off with poignance, wit, and good humor. I often recommend Russo to fans of Dickens, and this novel particularly--read it and you'll see.

Actually there are TWO Richard Russo(s) who are both fine writers - although yours is more likely to be around 50 yrs hence.

Looking forward to Russo's next--and I'm with you, STRAIGHT MAN is one of the best sendups of academia I've ever read. Wonderful book...like most of Russo's stuff.

48: I do want to get around to reading Gilead even though I am vociferously anti-religious. To be fair, I reserve my hatred for the Christian Right and the moral hypocrites against marriage (though that doesn't stop THEM from having gay sex and/or molesting altar boys). I've heard lots of good things about that book. Too bad the Christian Right and other anti-book hating non-elitists ("Salt of the earth. You know, morons." -- Blazing Saddles) usually do their book-readin' with a copy of one of those retarded/anti-Semitic/stoopid "Left Behind" books.

52:

I too am not a religious man. Nor do I have any fondness for the hypocrites you refer to. The narrator you will meet, upon opening this book, lacks entirely the bombast, annoying certainty and self-righteousness you associate with Christianity.

Religiosity aside, Robinson, without qualification, is a writer who will reward your time. Small details and larger truths are each thoughtfully and uniquely presented so the reader feels compelled to pause and appreciate great writing. If you haven't already (and I know this falls outside the time period we've established here) do pick up a copy of her earlier Housekeeping.

That said, others on this site (although thankfully not in this group) have given "thumbs down" to Gilead for being "too slow". Absolutely ludicrous. If you need car chases and hand grenades to enjoy a novel, skip this book. If, however, you want an author who trusts her readers and believes them capable of contemplation, then please go ahead and ignore the mantle of Christianity that cloaks this novel.

Message edited by its author, Jun 16, 2009, 10:59pm.

My problem with Gilead is that it seemed like two short stories she tried to kluge together. One is the narrator's letter to his son, the other is a real-time diary account of a another dude that shares the narrator's name. Very early in the novel the letter to the son morphs into a diary and letter. It is pretty hard for me to see how the narrator could anticipate that the real-time story of his namesake would go anywhere and include it in the letter.

Robinson writes well though. The sound of the novel is gentle like the old man narrator is gentle: Half fallen fence. Susurrus. It is a very nice effect.

Robinson is also very subtle. You have to deduce that the narrator is a Congregationalist from a comment about locks, Robinson never says it outright; you have to deduce that the narrator's new wife goes to the gravesite of his first wife (and daughter) and places flowers there.

The religious stuff means a lot to Robinson. That's fine, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket; at least she didnt have the narrator undergo some Augustinian/Pauline conversion.

It's good, it's fine technique, but it is not a work of genius.

Message edited by its author, Jun 19, 2009, 2:09am.

54:

It's unfortunate you were confused. It's worth a second, longer look. It was a unique take on the book, though.

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 3:34am.

Jeanette Winterson needs to be on this 10% list.

Message edited by its author, Jun 17, 2009, 10:05am.

#56: I'm sure I agree, though I'm unqualified as yet to choose her best work--do share. (I've read Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, The Stone Gods, and Sexing the Cherry-- the last of these would be my choice of the three, but I know it's a bit fey for some people's tastes. Anything top these--The Passion? Written on the Body?)

Written on the Body is excellent, as is Gut Symmetries. I also love her short stories.

Excellent--I have all of that ahead of me--and already on my shelves, no less!

Enjoy!

Houellebecq! Too bad Elementary Particles appeared in 1998!

55: Hi, beardo.

I have already read Gilead twice. I do not feel confused, still I am very interested in how you think I am confused.

Robinson has the narrator call what he is writing a diary later on in the book. The combination letter/diary seems to me to be a weird narrative device and I feel Robinson fell between two stools.

Here's why I think it is weird. In retrospect a first-person narrator can, with imagination, pick out the important twists along the way that make up his narrative. But in this novel how do we explain how the narrator knows that the happening-as-he-writes-it John Ames Boughton thread will become so important? Why would the narrator think his son would care about the John Ames Boughton thread?

I propose three solutions.

One is supernatural clairvoyance. For example, the narrator has some vision that John Ames Boughton would become the kid's stepdad after the narrator dies of a heart attack and that the narrator would become reconciled to Boughton, so he needs to tell the kid Boughton's story and let the kid know that the narrator accepted and blessed Boughton. My problem is that supernatural clairvoyance does not appear to be supported by the narrator's religious experience---or the text.

The second solution is sheer luck. The narrator simply got really, really lucky in having a dramatic conclusion occur in the Boughton thread. If Boughton had just left town without the blessing, then the point of the Boughton thread would have been He's a bad dude! and the kid would have read it 10 or 15 years too late.

The third solution is authorial contrivance. Robinson had this cool Boughton short story but it wasnt long enough for a novel on its own, so she combined it with a separately conceived letter idea and hoped no one would notice the scotch tape at the joints. This is my choice.

I accept there can be 'better' interpretations.

62:

You wrote:

"But in this novel how do we explain how the narrator knows that the happening-as-he-writes-it John Ames Boughton thread will become so important? Why would the narrator think his son would care about the John Ames Boughton thread?"

If I understand you correctly, this seems to be the major sticking point for you.

Remember, the narrator's letter/diary is preoccupied with his relationships with both his father and his son. It is within this context that the appearance of John Ames Boughton is crucial.

John Ames Boughton is the prodigal son of the narrator's life-long friend. He is also the narrator's surrogate son; symbolically offered many years previous, when it appeared the narrator would remain childless. Throw in suggestions of, if not direct reference to, Biblical father-son relations, and John Boughton is important to the narrative for much more than the time he spends with the narrator's family.

The return of John Ames Boughton was, then, very pertinent to the narrator's preexisting focus on the ways that fathers and sons battle, reconcile and understand generational differences. It is for this reason the narrator begins to include the contemporary narrative. This inclusion required neither "clairvoyance" nor "sheer luck". Rather, all it needed was for him to recognize its near-obvious applicability to his larger themes.

To your third 'solution': Robinson seems to have had little difficulty in writing enough about the Boughtons - see her recently published Home.

Finally, there is nothing in Robinson's writing I have found to suggest that she just cobbles together various elements and hopes it passes muster. Indeed, she's proven herself quite willing to wait many years before publishing her work.

ETA: Furthermore, if you consider the presence in the Old Testament of sons who seek either redemption or a blessing from their fathers, the narrator's decision to include the "contemporary narrative" should seem more understandable.

Message edited by its author, Jun 18, 2009, 4:51am.

The return of John Ames Boughton was, then, very pertinent to the narrator's preexisting focus on the ways that fathers and sons battle, reconcile and understand generational differences. It is for this reason the narrator begins to include the contemporary narrative. This inclusion required neither "clairvoyance" nor "sheer luck".

Exchanging interpretations about books is great fun! I've definitely enjoyed thinking about the book again. Thanks for replying.

I think your idea is very plausible, so I looked at the Young Boughton parts of the novel again. The narrator is not like Marcel who wrote that "everything has been invented by me in accordance with the requirements of my theme"; instead Young Boughton is presented by the narrator as a non-fictional person and is introduced without the narrator knowing what to do with him.

She told me Jack might be coming home, too. It actually took me a minute to think who that was. p. 18

We havent heard from Jack for a little while and it is making us a bit anxious. p.29

He has been in high spirits since he heard from Jack. "He'll be home soon!" he said. p.68

He still in St. Louis, and still planning to come home....I suppose I might tell you a story about him...When I've had a little opportunity to talk with him. I might decide all that trouble is well forgotten and write nothing about it. p.72

Glory has called to tell me Jack Boughton is home...He will come by to pay his respects in the next day or two. I am grateful for the warning....Boughton named him for me... p.86-87

Today John Ames Boughton paid a call....I have never felt that he was fond of me. p.91

I hope there is some special providence in his turning up... p.122

beardo, all these are diary comments for events in 1957. We're halfway through the novel and the narrator still hasnt used Young Boughton to address any of his themes, he is just a source of unexplained anxiety. If anything the last quote makes me more sympathetic to my first proposed solution as its just supernatural providence that has caused the narrator to switch from a letter to a diary so he can include all this so far pointless stuff about Boughton.

Message edited by its author, Jun 19, 2009, 3:19am.

48: OK, OK, I've ignored a recommendation of Gilead for the last time; I've added it to my to-buy list.

Again (as in my earlier posts) cheating by a handful of years, but I would include Denis Johnson's Jesus' Son in a list of lately published potential classics. (It packs more punch, for me, than his Tree of Smoke, which is 20 times as long.)

Geoff: couldn't agree more.

64:

I too am enjoying this.

Neither Robinson nor the narrator ever come out and explicitly say "This is my theme". The absence of such a statement, however, doesn't mean that that the presence of John Boughton isn't relevant to the larger themes of the narrative.

You wrote: "We're halfway through the novel and the narrator still hasnt used Young Boughton to address any of his themes, he is just a source of unexplained anxiety."

I don't see this as problematic for my understanding of young Boughton's relationship to the narrator and his letter/diary. That the narrator hasn't overtly tied Boughton to his larger themes is, I think, beside the point.

The question at hand is why he included Boughton in his writings. John Ames doesn't need to say "I am writing about Boughton because he ties in with my larger themes", in order for such a relationship to exist. I suggest that the reason Ames included the contemporary narrative you find troubling is because he finds it applicable to what he has already written. His including it indicates that the relationship exists in his mind, regardless of whether or not he spells it out for the reader.

I can't know if Robinson intended John Ames to be aware of the relationships between Boughton and the letter/diary. Yet, those connections exist. The narrator's inclusion of the contemporary thread is then not only relevant to the larger themes, but is consistent with the larger narrative arc of the novel.

Regarding the "unexplained anxiety", I think this is an example of Robinson trusting the reader to read between the lines. It seems reasonable that one might feel anxious at the prospect of seeing, after a long separation, a family member with whom there has been conflict in the past. John Boughton was, after all, a surrogate son to the narrator. If the narrator hadn't felt anxious at Boughton's presence, it would have been difficult for both the novel and the diary to support the notion of a filial relationship.

Regarding the use of the word "providence": I can remember as a child hearing elder parishioners in my church speak of "providence". Today you might hear people say "God's will" instead. I didn't read that quotation as an acknowledgment of a supernatural experience, rather than as an expression of faith in God having an, as of yet unknown, plan.

Maybe it's just me being a fanboy, but I think The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay could eventually become a classic. It's gorgeously written, but not overwrought in its prose. It's a love letter of sorts to another era, and to a particular genre, but still manages to keep the focus on the characters and their lives rather than just being about the comic books they make.

2001.

#69 - defn. agree in re "Kavalier and Clay" - one of my favorite books irrespective of time frame.

Another vote for "Kavalier and Clay"

I liked Kavalier and Clay, but I liked The Yiddish Policemen's Union better.

I agree, YIDDISH POLICEMEN was better. I thought KAVALIER lost its way in the final third and sort of limped to the end.

Yiddish Policemen was pretty good - you can tell Chabon has a love of genre fiction and idiosyncratic dialects - but it just didn't have the same wide scope as Kav and Clay, and I felt like some of the characters relied on cliche a bit much. However, that is not going to stop me from being there opening day when the Coen Bros. finally come out with that film adaptation of YPU.

The only Chabon I've read is Gentlemen of the road which I thought was an interesting tale, and fun to read, mostly. But does it come close to attaining classic status? Not a chance, unless what constitutes quality is turned upside down. The narrative kind of hump-de-humped along as if it were written to convey the feeling of being on horseback.

Message edited by its author, Jun 20, 2009, 11:18am.

His including it indicates that the relationship exists in his mind, regardless of whether or not he spells it out for the reader. I can't know if Robinson intended John Ames to be aware of the relationships between Boughton and the letter/diary. Yet, those connections exist.

With a slight twist I should include your explanation as a solution. I would put it in Freudian terms: his unconscious self knows better than his conscious self what to include in the letter/diary.

It is ironic that in this novel where Christianity plays such a big part I would find the supernatural explanation unsatisfying. It should be easier to suspend disbelief!

Again, thanks for the conversation.

What an absolute delight of an exchange!!

It is for discussions like this one, that I come to LibraryThing.

Thank-you for sending me back to one of my favourite novels.

i'm pretty sure Chabon would agree that Gentlemen of the road was meant as a light romp (kind of in the way Greene differentiated between his "entertainments" and his "serious" novels. Given that his preferred original title was "Jews with Swords" i think it's pretty clear he was taking an affectionate break from his usual books which, while they generally reflect his love of genre and humor, also have a somewhat more serious underpinning.

From "Jews with Swords" to "Jews in Space":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_jLnrUXJ...

To "Pigs in Space":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnDS_Td0K...

I agree with Cliff on Kavalier and Clay. Finishing it was, for me, a discipline, not a pleasure.

Thouroughly enjoyed Policeman's Union. Was sure to pick up a 1st ed. afterward.