Which contemporary books will/should become classics?

In your opinion, that is.

In my library here, I categorized classics with a very lenient hand. I just throw in things that I think might as well be classics even if they technically aren't. I figure, it's my library, I can do what I want with it -- but I wonder if any of you have tried to project yourself into the future or push particular books towards being classics as well?

Yes there are some that I label as classics although they probably technically aren't yet. All of Chaim Potok's books probably aren't old enough to be considered classics but I feel they are and there is a local Canadian author that wrote about the Japanese internment in Canada during the war that I classify as classic because her book deserves to be classified that way and it WILL be classified that way, no contest. That book is called Obasan by Joy Kogawa. I think Nabokov's books are borderline classics in that they aren't very old but I don't think anyone would dispute that they deserve the title classics. There are lots more but I can't think right now, it's 4 am LOL

Oh, no doubt. I don't know anybody who wouldn't call Nabakov classic.

For me, I insist on calling Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee a classic. I suppose I should wait to do so until I read the rest of his works, but... I can't help it.

I would vote for Atonement by Ian McEwan, A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry, and I would definately second the vote for Disgrace.

I'd toss Chinua Achebe (Things Fall Apart) into the ring.

I wouldn't even attempt to guess. Oh, heck, yes, I will.

Elie Wiesel's Night
Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ

I think Truman Capote's In Cold Blood will be considered a classic, not because it's a great book in itself, but because it is the accepted beginning of a new literary genre, and so it will be studied for that reason.

How about?

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

The Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter

No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy

Beloved by Toni Morrison

I absolutely love the Chaim Potok shoutout. He is very under the radar for how good his books are. I have only read two so far, but over time I absolutely will read them all. I would throw in Margaret Atwood, The Cider House Rules by John Irving, and The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien.

I think Irving is definitely a commercial writer, won't be remembered for long. And I am afraid to say that, although he's not commercial, Coetzee won't be around for much longer either. His books aren't bad, but not outstanding as are Nabokov's, Joyce's or folks like that. They haven't brought anything new. I think Lawrence Durrell Justine, or the full Quartet of Alexandria is a classic, don't know if it's old enough. Garcia Marquez, Vargas Llosa, Javier Marias (Check him out, as he's one of the next Nobel prizes for sure, his book A heart so white is amazing) are definitely classics. And there's this little author called Bolaño which I think is the best thing since slice bread, mainly his book 2666, but unfortunately he died quite young (and quite recently) and has had quite a brief production.

I agree re John Irving - his books are too pat, with the exception of The World According to Garp - but disagree about Coetzee. He is a different writer than Nabokov but equally effective - much more politically and socially engaged.

I do quite like The world according to Garp but that one single book doesn't make Irving a classic, and I haven't read any other book of his which is as entertaining (and some of them are plain boring)

I agree with the fact that Coetzee is much more socially and politically involved, which is one of the reasons why he has a Nobel and Nabokov doesn´t, but that only makes his literature more tied to the current time period, and less likely to survive until becoming a classic.

I never said that Irving's entire body of work would become classic. I agree that he is quite repetitive in his topics. He writes what he knows and does not stray too far from that. His newest book, Until I Find You was not great. Although I listed Cider House Rules, I was very tired when I wrote that. Garp is my favourite Irving novel. Cider House being a close second. Irving has many books, but only those two I believe to be worthy of the classic distinction.

Anyone ever heard of Eternal Fire by Calder Willingham?

That is one book I would definitely call a classic.

Another book worthy of the title is Job: The Story of a Simple Man by Joseph Roth.

I have a long, long list of other authors equally neglected (I am very big on lost causes), but if I can get people to look at those two, I'll be happy.

My pick would be Girl With a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier

I just finished
Gilgamesh

the version by Stephen Mitchell

I highly recommend the book.

And to thinkg that it is the very first epic.

David Perrings

I think the Life of Pi will become a classic. It can be read of several different levels; it's philosophical, and it's an adventure story.

before i put my two cents in, i must say that i have no idea what could be classic after, say, 1990. this site has proved to me (once again) that Mr. Mensa here, Mr. MA in English Lit, is no longer WELL READ. There are so many references above and around this site that I have never even heard of it makes me humble. Maybe that's why I spend a good hour on this site daily! It is my new university!

to the point: we are talking about singular works here, not bodies of work, and as such John Irving's THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP and A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY are already classics. Prayer is being studied in many college lit classes now.

I think Steve King may survive with one of his works, don't know which one, but he is becoming MORE LITERATE as he ages. Not more horrorific, mind you, but MORE LITERATE.

here are some of MY contemporaries that are well on the way to becoming (or have become) classics:

Josephy Heller -- Catch 22
Saul Bellow -- Henderson the Rain King or ?
Phillip Roth -- Goodby Columbus or ?
Norm Mailer -- the Naked and the Dead
Jim Jones -- From Here to Eternity
Truman Capote -- In Cold Blood
James Dickey -- Deliverance
Raymond Carver -- Cathredral or ?
Sylvia Plath -- Bell Jar
Alan Ginsberg - Howl
Bob Dylan -- Song lyrics

and here are some names that will be forgotten as literary dust in just half a century:

john grisham, danielle steele, v. c. andrews, tom clancey, jackie suzzanne, and -- dare i say it? the paragon of today's book sales -- J. R. Rowling.

J.R. Rowling will continue to be popular because she has a never-ending audience--readers aged 10 - 20 will constantly entering the world of Harry Potter.
Chaim Potok's My name is Asher Lev & The Chosen should stick around. Also John Updike. Rabbit Run & Rabbit at Rest have classic potential, though the 2 middle books in the series are skim-throughs. Updike is good in a variety of oevres, short story, poetry, criticism, it's hard to make a selection. The novels of Saul Bellow are also hard to choose from. Both writers will be read long after our century. Also Philip Roth, but again, which book? Goodbye Columbus is my favorite but that might be because of the Movie & Simon & Garfunkel songs. (My favorite group)
Ann Tyler?
Eudora Welty?
Alice Munroe?
The list goes on...

I know that this will be considered blasphemy by many, but I don't really believe that On the Road will be considered a great work a hundred years from now. I could be wrong. It's happened before. There will always be young men who like to live vicariously (and ironically in this case) through books. I say young men because I feel like women aren't included in it, aside from being objects to color his experiences.

I admit that I have only read it once a long time ago and would be glad to be convinced otherwise because I know so many people love it.

I agree with Nabokov being considered a classic. I also think that McCarthy will stand the test of time.

This seems like a good time to make the point that just because something manages to worm its way into classic status doesn't mean that there weren't other comtemporary books of equal or greater merit that didn't make it. Great books get forgotten, alas. Mediocre books can remain prominent for a variety of reasons.

#19 - frogbelly - I don't think it's blasphemy not to like On the Road, but despite its plodding beginning, it's a book that really spoke to me as a teenager. It captures the excitement and craziness and pure optimism of a changing America in the middle of the 20th century, so I think it's got a chance at immortality.

Women aren't much in that book, it's true... But the blatant and overwhelming misogyny of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, for example, bothers me a lot more.

I'm thinking that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy might actually manage to go down as a classic. Natalie Babbit's Tuck Everlasting definitely ought to, as well as The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban.

#20 -- another political correctness slur? I see no misogyny in Cuckoo's Nest. Name me one character in that that doesn't evidence some characteristic of obsession, delusion, or other strong character defect. the only ones I can think of are the two black men (maybe) and the young nurse. Certainly, Nurse Ratchett is a common enough product in today's society (usually at the head of political correct movements), and the two girls who broke in are "fun" girls and by the looks of britteny spears and paris hilton and many, many others, that looks like a lot of truth to me. And for Ken Kesey's work (which reflects him) to be called misogynist is as ridiculous as calling John Barth a minimalist.

#19: I completely agree with you. On the Road's "greatness" is tied to the cultural changes going on at the time, as opposed to the narrative itself. It's a pointless story with characters that are two-dimensional and unsympathetic. Sure, some of the prose has a nice flow to it, but that's just not enough. But, as you said, it's a fantasy for men so it might stick around due to that.

Regarding On the Road you said it with pointless and unsympathetic. Maybe it's the male versus female perspective. I read it because my ex raved over it so. I can't think of more selfish, self-indulgent, irresponsible and vacuous characters. Maybe it was a release from the social expectations and strictures of the time, but I absolutely loathed it.

#21 - andyray - I don't know what you mean by "another political correctness slur?" I have read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest once, as a teenager, and found it on the spot to be really misogynistic. That was my natural take upon reading it. I've never actually run across anyone else who felt that way. Several people I've known have considered it among their favorite books. So my opinion really doesn't have anything to do with political correctness.

One of these days, I'll reread it, and may even develop some more nuanced arguments than I'll mention here. For now, here's what bothered me about the book when I read it 15 or 16 years ago: it bothered me how many times Nurse Ratchett's large breasts were mentioned; it bothered me that all the women were bad guys, except the prostitutes who had sex with the inmates for free (those are the "'fun' girls" you mention, I guess?); it bothered me that the Really Big Problem At The Heart Of It All was that the henpecked male doctor just wasn't ballsy and in-charge enough.

I don't know yet how I'll feel rereading the book as an adult. At the time, I was all for the message of personal empowerment and freedom and responsibility in Cuckoo's Nest, but I felt like it left out half the population. I don't know whether Ken Kesey is misogynistic or not, but his book struck me more as an adolescent fantasy than a complex representation of reality.

Okay, so anyway, #23 - varielle - re: the "selfish, self-indulgent, irresponsible and vacuous characters" in On the Road -- maybe it's a matter of taste. Hedonism isn't for everyone, but it's got a pretty broad base of admirers.

Plus, part of OtheR's interest nowadays stems from the thwarted homosexual love thing, which wasn't Kerouac's intention at all. Some books get more interesting over time through no fault of their own.

The house of the Spirits by Isabel Allende should be a classic but not so much the rest of her work. I agree with Sergio about Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Perhaps Possession by A.S. Byatt? That book is just so literary!

Xiguli: okay. I'll tell you what. I haven't read it since Florida State (circa 1971), so I'll re-read it and take note of your points and see if the bucket holds water.

(U gave me a reason to enjoy myself again. Thank you!)

Be careful about one thing. Where the women's movement got off track is not realizing our emotional makeups (male and female) truly are "Mars and Venus," so to speak. Science more and more shows why, when we are highly upset, men rage and women cry. The recent estrogen study has captured the causes of why women go to their bottom on hard drugs and alcohol in 10 or 20 percent of the time it takes men.

Me? I have said from various viewpoints during my life: Vive le difference!

I live to give enjoyment to others.

But I'm 100% diametrically opposed to you on the Mars and Venus thing. Research shows that men and women aren't that different--the commonality is vast and there's a difference only at the two extremes. (Think of a Venn Diagram, except the two circles are almost completely overlapping.) Obviously, you're entirely entitled to think differently and I imagine you have your reasons. But loftily advising anyone on "where the women's movement got off track"--I mean, that makes me question how much you know about "the women's movement" (whatever it's supposed to be).

For the record, I'm a feminist who, I imagine, holds different views from many other feminists. After all, it's a feminist tenet that women have "special ways of knowing," and I think that's baloney, too.

To sort of bring it back to the topic at hand, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest bothered me not because it presented women negatively, but because it presented them so one-dimensionally. But I look forward to hearing what you think upon a re-read.

I guess some (or all?) of Paul Auster's novels will become classics. All the same: I really like his books and his style and phantasy. Some years have passed since I read his novels, so I can't remember very much of his characters and plots, but I'll surely read these novels once or twice later on. So many books and so little time !! ;-o

The Bridges of Madison County.

My vote would be for Margaret Atwood's Alias Grace. Most of her books are wonderful, but for me Alias Grace is definitely her best.

I'd also second A.S. Byatt's Possession, I quite enjoyed it when I read it and can easily see how it will be considered a classic in the future.

Finally I have to mention The Secret History by Donna Tartt, an amazing book that will surely be enjoyed by generations of readers to come.

I think Alchemist by Paulo Coelho might become classic..

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
Omeros by Dereck Walcott

I can't think of any other books that I myself have read written in English in the last twenty years that match these two.

#20. . . "Mouse and His Child," yes!

I was simply blown away by The Book Thief (Markus Zusak), when I read it this May. I'd nominate that as a future classic.

True History of the Kelly Gang, Peter Carey.

An interesting question and I will have to think harder about individual works, though I wouldn't rule out some of the popular fiction, just because it is popular - remember that people stood on the docks to get the latest installment of the Charles Dickens serial when it came in from England - and he wasn't considered high-brow by any means. For me, I find Dicken's plots to be melodrama, but my god can the man write - just amazing.

I was glad to see that somebody put J.K. Rowling on the list of people who might not become classics. I wonder about this as I don't find that the Potter books have the heart of many books that became children's classics - parts of Narnia still affect me emotionally - Potter, not so much. But, all of the children reading these now, will be giving them to their children in 10 to 20 years - and this might keep them around for another generation or two - but will they be around in 75? I'm not sure.

I agree about The House of the Spirits and Tuck Everlasting - but Tuck has made it 40 years already so doing well. Will Stephen King be read as a master of the horror story in 50 years? I think some of his works might be. I also agree about James Jones - definitely underated.

I don't think Harry Potter will ever become a classic, which I hope it won't ever become one, while books like The Hunger Games have a possibility to become one. All the author has to do is make new editions of her book till her death. Then it will become a classic. Lots of books have become classics that way so I won't be surprised to find, when I'm older, my kids renting out The Hunger Games, the classic.

>27 Xiguli:: I have the same love-hate relationship with the word "feminism" that you do. I'm old enough to remember that it used to mean "a person who believes in gender equality", but young enough to have been part of the generation that became disillusioned with feminism as a result of it's slow decent into the realms of hypocrisy as it embraced the idea of "female superiority". Perhaps it's time to coin a more gender-neutral word for those who believe in gender equality.

I'm seconding BookAddict's call for Obasan by Joy Kogawa. I read that in grade school as a part of our English class, so part of me already considers it a classic. In Canadian fiction, I also would like to throw Three Day Road by Joseph Boyden, The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood, and Waiting for Columbus by Thomas Trofimuk into the ring.

>37 authorspalace:: I think the Harry Potter series will be read in the future a lot like the Narnia Chronicles are now. I don't know anyone who didn't read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe in their youth, but almost no one read any of the others. In the Harry Potter Series, I think most children will enjoy The Sorcerer's Stone but very few will read any others from the series.

A difficult question. Even Samuel Johnson was famously wrong about Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy.

>39 Waywiser_Tundish:: Thanks for bring up the subject of unlikely classics. It's a good reminder that what is truly innovative in literature is often not understood or even liked when it is first released.

Johnson decried Tom Jones because it erased the lines betweens "nobleman" and "commoner". For most of the novel, we believe that Tom Jones is an "ill-bred bastard" with ideas way above his station, only to discover by the end of the book that Jones is the product of two upperclass families with every right to marry the upperclass woman he loves. The characters in the book who are portrayed as the most base and destructive are all "noblemen", while the noblest of characters are the commoners. To Johnson, with his hard faith in the English class system, such a book was an offensive, perverted nightmare.

Tristram Shandy played with literary structure as no book had before. Instead of a well-ordered novel with main plot, sub-plot, and story arch, Tristram Shandy told it's story the way someone sitting by a fireplace on a cold, winter evening might tell a story to his friends. It's main theme was the unpredictable chaos of life, and it's structure reflected that theme. But it's structure was revolutionary, and caught everyone, including Johnson, off guard. Even today there are people who can't get past page 20 of it, and walk away from it saying, "and this is a classic?"

>39 Waywiser_Tundish:,40
Yes, we're very likely to be wrong in guessing what future generations will see as the most important things that happened in literature in our generation. The safest bets for the late 20th century are probably either women writers or writers from developing countries: those are the developments in literature that really became established in our time. But posterity may see it differently.
It also depends a bit on who gets to define "posterity": given where the bulk of purchasing power is likely to be in the centuries to come, I suspect 20th century Asian writers will stand a far better chance than American or European ones of achieving "classic" status.

I'd be looking for books heralded as perfectly capturing the mood of their time, but that at the same time speak to universal truths which will carry on delivering their message through the ages. Novels that launch new genres and styles will also be remembered. Also, needs to stand up to re-reading very well.

My own additions to the pile would have to be:
The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle
Shipwrecks
Silk
The Other Hand
As If I Am Not There
The Athenian Murders
The Crimson Petal and the White
Captain Corelli's Mandolin
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Cloud Atlas
The Lost Language of Cranes
A Thousand Splendid Suns
Sophie's World
Ragtime

I could go on (it's okay, I won't) and I'd also second many of those already mentioned.

ETA - Also adding touchstones for Things Fall Apart (#5) because it deserves it.

#6 I think Truman Capote's In Cold Blood will be considered a classic, not because it's a great book in itself, but because it is the accepted beginning of a new literary genre, and so it will be studied for that reason.

I suspect you're right about the book continuing to be considered a classic but it's worth remembering that it was chronologically beaten into second place as far as true crime is concerned by Ludovic Kennedy's Ten, Rillington Place (written in 1961) which deserves to be included in the list on the grounds of originality and having been instrumental in a) obtaining an official pardon for Timothy Evans, and b) changing the UK laws on the death sentence.

In re #s 6 & 44. As to the creation of a new genre, we need to be historically accurate. "True crime" is not the genre. The big flap made at the time -- which I well remember --was about IN COLD BLOOD as a so-called "non-fiction novel", about which, curiously, there has been a little discussion lately in another group (I forget which. Hobnob With Authors? -- check it yourself). Sadly, it didn't change much of anything in the good ol' USA, and indeed, aside from making Capote mucho money, only coarsened and cheapened public consciousness on the subject -- if one could imagine such a thing.

In general, I think the whole concept of "modern classics" is a vain and vacuous one. I might be more patient with it were those who discussed it to define the standards of permanent (or even sustained) excellence and value which the word "classic" has meant up till our confused time. If you can find it, read Gilbert Highet's essay "What is a classic?". Naturally, most people won't be as adamant as he is (and I with him) in his praise of THE BOOK OF JOB and DIE MEISTERSINGER VON NUERNBERG, but even to mention them in the same discussion as THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY or ON THE ROAD -- which Kerouac himself dismissed as his potboiler -- is to pull the dunce cap over one's own head. Even so, peace to you all. -- Goddard

#45> "In general, I think the whole concept of "modern classics" is a vain and vacuous one."

Vain, certainly. Vacuous? I don't know . . . how about harmless fun?

I agree with your qualification of the definition of In Cold Blood as "non-fiction novel." In my opinion, the finest example of this form (or at least the best one I ever read) is Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song about Gary Gilmore.

As for your dunce cap, c'est la vie. I've worn that cap often enough not to mind if it clashes with my ensemble. A classic for most people simply means a book that is still read decades or even centuries after its publication, whether or not it compares favorably with the Book of Job. On the Road is a book that probably must be read at a certain time of life to be appreciated for its spirit, which is its strength. Its faults are many, certainly. I read a remark once that Kerouac never wrote a great book but that their are great passages of writing in almost all of his novels. That might be pretty close, although I remember The Subterraneans being a pretty solid and gripping explication on the horrors of uncontrolled romantic jealousy. I'd have to read it again to see if those impressions stand up. I expect that folks of a certain age, or maybe only males of a certain age, will continue to read On the Road as long as there are people interested in breaking away from societal constraint and/or who have a literary/cultural interest in the Beats. Whether it seems a great or even a good book to the over 30 crowd might be beside the point entirely.

Anyway, I've seen Catch 22 mentioned here frequently. While it is one of my favorite books, I've come across several people lately, personal friends, who have given it a try and not been able to finish it, so I wonder whether its brand of humor and satire have come to seem a bit obvious in light of literary developments since its writing. So I'm not sure whether it will still be read 50 years from now, sadly.

So are some books/authors which I would like to think will become classics and which I think have at least a fighting chance in that regard:

Heller: "Catch 22" (here's hoping!)

Roth: I wish "Portnoy's Complaint" would continue to be read. It's one of the funniest books I ever read, but I don't think anybody reads it any more even now. I'm guessing "The Human Stain" and "American Pastoral" are the two Roth novels that have the best shot.

Umberto Eco might be read for a long time, as well as Salman Rushdie.

"Flaubert's Parrot" by Julian Barnes, maybe. I haven't read it myself, but have heard its praises sung often.

I wonder if Le Carre's spy novels and/or Elmore Leonard's work will make it into classic genre fiction status.

"Song of Solomon" is my favorite Toni Morrison, worthy of lasting a long, long time.

McMurtry's "The Last Picture Show"

This is harder than I thought it would be. Perhaps I'll come up with some more. My problem is that I don't read enough current fiction!