As for the modern versus classics debate, I'm not sure that I agree with the necessity of a time lapse before we can determine the quality of a book. If what makes for 'good' literature is subjective and person-specific then I don't need to wait thirty years to know which books I find worthwhile and enduring. A time-lapse is necessary for a novel to gain the approval of the 'literary establishment' but you have to admit that there is a lot of 'fustiness' about their attitudes which turns a lot of people off and inhibits potential lovers of literature.

Ashlinn,
with mu time-lapse remark I wasn't thinking so much of the literary establishmen, but of readers; readers loving a book an drecommending it further, so that it survives for generations - whether oit is studied at Oxford or recognised by the lit. profs. There are several literary gems which have been overlooked by the literary elite, but remain gems all the same; and as far as my own personal taste is concerned, if I love a boom I don't care if it was wruitten one or tqo hundred yeras ago! I am thinking more in terms of finding an objective measurement; in the sense of a book that reaches its mark, the heart of readers.

I would like to add, in defence of modern writers, that they are not the ones creating the hyperbole around their books. This comes from the publishing industry and it doesn't seem to me that writers have much say about what happens to their books, how they are positioned, how they are marketed once they hand them over. Is that a good thing?

This is absolutely true, and I can give you an example frommy own experience: when the paperback of my first novek came out, I was appalled. They had tried to make it "commercial", and they thought the best way to do that was to put my name across the cover in humonguous embossed letters, and then an embossed butterfly across a garish orange background. It looked absoluteky terrible, like a scream to "look at me!"

And then the used quotes by Lesley Pearse, Barbara Erskine, and Katie Fforde; now, I have nothing against these writers; they sell a lot of books and have their solid fan base. But they write for a completely different market than I thought I was writing for. That means that any reader who bought my book on the strength ofm say, a Barbara Erskine endorement, would be likely to be disappointedand not recommend it further. Whereas readers who, for instance, don't think of themselves as Lesley Pearse types would think, oh, that's not a book I would like. SO both ways, the quote misses the mark.

The only say I had in the marketing side was that I got to choose the titles. Some huge mistakes were made; and I get all the blame. What to do? Better luck next time, I say!

<Added>

.... shame on me, hundreds of typos! I really must get into the habit of re-reading before I post!
That first para again:


with my time-lapse remark I wasn't thinking so much of the literary establishment, but of readers; readers loving a book and recommending it further, so that it survives for generations - whether or not it is studied at Oxford or recognised by the lit. profs. There are several literary gems which have been overlooked by the literary elite, but remain gems all the same; and as far as my own personal taste is concerned, if I love a book I don't care if it was written one or two hundred years ago! I am thinking more in terms of finding an objective measurement; in the sense of a book that reaches its mark, the heart of readers.

Hi Ashlinn,

To start with, I must admit that AB's work has deteriorated over the past few years, I mean eight years ago I might have bought her books in hardback, and until three years ago I would have bought the paperback but now I might wait until I see the latest work in a charity shop! Seriously, I do like her early novels because they are such brutally accurate depictions of solitude and isolation. AB's characters can seem hopelessly passive and trapped which i think makes them unlikeable in some readers eyes esp. if they are looking for wish fulfillment/escape fantasies where the heroine takes control of her destiny etc.(I don't mean that's your reason Ashlinn, there are lots of other reasons for disliking her work). AB is showing us our worst fears about just how bad life can get when early dreams fade away. I like seeing that awful reality without any of the comforting cliches you can get in other books. But I can understand people not liking her books, they are depressing and sometimes the interior worlds can be too oppressive with over reliance on artificial language - and the characters do live in circumstances that most of us could not relate to - private incomes and flats in London that never have to be paid for!

If you ever feel mad enough to give her another go, I would recommend 'Look At Me' It has got some unexpected humour in it - at least I thought the vain couple in it were hilarious even if the heroine didn't!

Jane

Jane,

I see what you mean about AB. I think what turned me off was that I found her characters completely lacking in gumption. And I agree with you about the unexpected flashes of humour, a bit like finding diamonds in a coal-face. You never know, I might try your recommendation but not right now. Thanks for the insight.
Ashlinn

I think the 'literary' vs 'commercial' novel is a marketing decision rather than something inherent in the book - Dickens, for example, was as commercial as literary. K.C.Constantine, an American mystery writer, writes as well, with a depth of characterization and examination of moral issues, as any writer considered 'literary'.

I read almost anything - with the exception of sex and shopping. Georgette Heyer's regency romances are quite funny - cardboard (if likable) characters, trivial and totally predictable plots - but she has an elegant writing style that is polished and funny. She is in no way 'literary' but style dominates plot, character and a totally unreal setting.

I also think secondary English teachers miss a bet with Browning. We read "My Last Duchess" in high school, and the collective flesh of the class crept. (Most of the class, I remember, hated Dickens - I think they had trouble with the sheer size of the book rather than anything else.)

<Added>

Doris Lessing, generally considered literary, had major commercial success with The Black Notebook. It was a crossover book because of the subject and the time it was published rather than style.

I agree with you about Browning, Vixen. Porphyria's Lover is one of the best ever portraits of obsessive sexual jealousy.

Adele.

I have a recording of Robert Donat reading that - exquisite. Ask 'Robert who?' and I'll put you across my knee and slap you!


Mike

ummmm.... Robert who?

Mike, wasn't he in The Thirty-Nine Slaps?

Aruna,a sucker for punishment, huh? Be careful, or Silverelli will be after you!

Adele.

Adele - spot on! And, Goodbye Mister Slaps!


Mike

I think you'll find it was the Golden Notebook

You're right of course. It was The Golden Nightbook. Did Durrell write the Black Notebook?

ooooooh....it's gone all serious again!


Mike

Durrell wrote The Black Book

So did Ian Rankin
Emma

Emma's definition is the best I've heard.

It should be circulated to all authors, agents and publishers.

It's really helped get me some clarity for my own work, which I want to be entertaining but thought provoking. Thanks Emma.

Perhaps we need some new terms for genres? It might stop people writing boring, long winded, plotless novels in the belief they're writing literary fiction.