5 ms·

> "Donna Tartt, one of the best American novelists to emerge in the last 50 years, has published just three novels since 1992. Jonathan Franzen, the only Americ

• pmoriarty 8y ago
  I'd take Philip K Dick over all of them put together.
  • dewitt 8y ago
    Him too.
  • aidenn0 8y ago
    With few exceptions, genre fiction doesn't count as Serious Literature.
    • mr_toad 8y ago
      You mean because it’s not boring? It’s like serious literature has to eschew anything that would make it a good story, in case it got in the way of being good writing.
      • sincerely 8y ago
        Oh come on, Vonnegut is one of the most obvious examples of well respected American writers and you could hardly call his work boring. One of the 2016 Pulitzer prize winners (The Sympathizer - not cherry picking, just a recent book that comes to mind) was an extremely gripping/exciting story about escaping the end of the Vietnam war to America but it still managed to receive nearly unanimous praise. On the other hand, one could argue that if your works require elaborate setpieces and a fantastical setting then you're drawing attention away from an inability to write captivating stories. A plot summary of a Jonathan Franzen novel for example sounds incredibly boring but his writing is nearly impossible to tear yourself away from and will have your mind going for days or even weeks after you finish. It's perfectly fine to enjoy sci-fi/fantasy etc but there's no need to develop a victim complex about its position in the literary world.
        • lmm 8y ago
          Vonnegut is the exception that proves the rule (perhaps with Atwood). I found Franzen terrible FWIW, but there is certainly excellent literary writing out there. Prosecraft is a skill, just as plotting and settings are - neither is superior to the other. And there is a real cultural disrespect for the things that SF does well. I wouldn't mind that if good SF was still allowed to continue in its own place, but lately even that seems under threat (e.g. the Hugo awards are lately dominated by literary prose at the expense of the classic SF virtues).
  • cma 8y ago
    He also emerged more than 50 years ago though.
• benbreen 8y ago
  Roth didn’t emerge in the last 50 years (otherwise I’d agree with you).* I’ve enjoyed books by all six but I agree with King on this one. The Goldfinch was, page for page, probably the best reading experience I’ve ever had. I adore that book. Franzen is less lovable but undeniably talented and, for me at least, more fun to read than the people who influenced him (Pynchon, DeLillo, etc) *edit: I didn’t read the quote carefully. Looks like he really is saying those two are the best American novelists, full stop. Bold and kind of interesting statement on King’s part.
  • dewitt 8y ago
    I love Franzen. But not in a class by himself, at least not in a half-century.
  • saltycraig 8y ago
    The Goldfinch was fantastic, definitely in my top 5 favourite book of all time, if not top 2 along with the Empire Falls by Richard Russo and The Stand by Stephen King.
• exolymph 8y ago
  It's subjective.
  • dewitt 8y ago
    Sure. I'd even put Gibson, Wallace, Stephenson, Asimov, and Martin on my own subjective list, just on pure influence and enjoyment. The other ones though are at least in the running by most objective criteria, I'd imagine.
    • pmoriarty 8y ago
      There's no such thing as objective criteria. It's all a matter of personal opinion, much as some gatekeepers (like critics and academicians) would have you believe otherwise.
      • scentedmeat 8y ago
        > It's all a matter of personal opinion I'm all for "enjoy what you want" but to say that there is no objective difference in the writing of, say, Don DeLillo and Dan Brown, is ridiculous.
        • pmoriarty 8y ago
          I didn't say there was no difference, just that whether you think one is better than another is not "objective" but a matter of personal preference. Clearly Dan Brown and Don DeLillo are different. They write different sorts of books that appeal to different sorts of readers. But I struggle to see how those differences make one "objectively" better than the other. If there are objective criteria by which one could judge whether the one is better than the other, I'd like to know what they are.
          • TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
            There are fairly standard criteria for literary criticism that include psychological and social insight, use of vocabulary, use of advanced writing techniques, use of form, and many, many more. It is all opinion, but there’s a difference between the opinion of Alan Kay and of someone who has two days of Python and a copy of Angry Birds.
• sudosteph 8y ago
  Pynchon - Born 1937, "V" published in 1963 DeLillo - Born 1936, published first short story in 1960, novel in 1971 McCarthy - Born 1933, first short story published 1959, novel 1965 Roth - Born 1933, won award for "Goodbye, Columbus" in 1959 Updike - Born 1932, first published in 50's and 60s Morrison - Born 1931, first published in 1970 Mailer - Born 1923, first published in 1949 Remember that 50 years ago (from the time this was written) is 1965. Morrison is the only author you mentioned that doesn't have published works from before 50 years ago, and even then she still belongs to that same generation. King wasn't trying to slight any of them. It's just really has been a very long time. Edit: To compare, Tartt was born in 1963 and Franzen in 1959. I think this is really the generation he is referring to.
  • dewitt 8y ago
    Point made. I think you're right. : )
    • sudosteph 8y ago
      If it helps, you just made me realize I really need to read some books by these folks. Shamefully, McCarthy is the only on on that list I was familiar with before.