Are we living in a Golden Age for literature?

[Dan Jones]

Or, to put it another way, are there more brilliant writers out there today than at any point in human history?

It's tempting to say no, because when we look at the past only the great survive, and all the dross falls by the wayside - time has a great way of determining what's good. On the flip side, is the vast majority of what's out there right now dross, and is there more dross - percentage-wise, nowadays than there was in the past - let's say 100 years ago for argument's sake?

One of my reasons for asking the question is because, in theory, the tools for becoming a highly competent, skilful writer are all out there online and easily accessible. The other reason is that the industry seems to be converging towards certain "standardisations" of literature - ie omniscient POVs are becoming redundant; "showing not telling" is universal, authorial interjections are discouraged etc etc - in short, there are a set of "rules" that can help a writer work towards a work of, if not genius, then extremely good quality and competence.

So has this accessibility to the advice and success of others led to more brilliant writers, or simply (gulp) more disillusioned ones?

My personal opinion is that there are probably more "good" writers than there ever have been in terms of sheer numbers. IMO the greatest piece of literature produced in the English language is Moby Dick. But I read those magnificent first few pages and can't help think that Melville would have struggled to get an agent nowadays*.

Discuss...

*As a qualifier, it's worth mentioning that Moby Dick flopped and almost cost Melville his career, and only became the boffo smash hit it's known as now because it was adopted by the (English) Edwardians at the turn of the century.

 

[HareBrain]

The other reason is that the industry seems to be converging towards certain "standardisations" of literature - ie omniscient POVs are becoming redundant; "showing not telling" is universal, authorial interjections are discouraged etc etc - in short, there are a set of "rules" that can help a writer work towards a work of, if not genius, then extremely good quality and competence.

Whilst I agree that these standardisations might lead, in general, to fiction that fewer people dislike for "technical" reasons, I think they might also restrict writers from using devices that best suit their stories. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of those things you mentioned, and I can think of many examples of stories that have employed them which would probably be worse without. Imagine if every poet had to write in only iambic pentameter.

But I would agree that there isn't necessarily a higher proportion of dross around than there was before. I once found a few late 19thC hardbacks on a pub shelf, from authors I'd never heard of, and tried to read them. They were abysmal.

 

[Ursa major]

As an aside....

In terms of being readers, rather than writers, it must be a Golden Age, partly because we are able to read so much great literature from both the past and the present, and partly because we are no longer restricted to what happens to be in the local bookshop** and the local library***. And not just because of online retailers (of books and ebooks), but because of the efforts of, for example****, Project Gutenberg.


** - Although the demise of so many bookshops is not good (and they can be used to order books).

*** - Even when that local library can be used to order books held by other libraries.

**** - While I deplore the way Google has ridden over copyright concerns, the idea itself -- digitising as many old books as possible -- is a good one. We should be funding our great national libraries (e.g. British/Bodleian, Congress...) to do this work (coordinated, as necessary, to avoid duplication of effort and incompatible file standards).

 

[TitaniumTi]

That is such an interesting question. I agree that the tools to become a competent writer are more accessible. However, alternative entertainment is also much more accessible today. My father wrote a book when he was living a solitary, semi-nomadic lifestyle as a hunter in rural NSW, with only his dog and horse for company. (This was long before I was born.) He told me that he was delighted when he walked into a bookshop in Sydney and saw his book shelved next to Shakespeare. I think most hunters today would have cars and iPhones, and would travel home to their families after each day or night of hunting, so their lifestyles probably offer less time and incentive to write.

I also wonder if women writers such as Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters and George Eliot would choose different careers if they were living today; their options would be much wider. I seem to remember reading of other writers of the 19th and 20th century, whose inherited incomes allowed them to devote time to writing would they be forced into other careers today?

the industry seems to be converging towards certain "standardisations" of literature

As a reader, I find this incredibly frustrating. There is a great deal of similarity between many books and each best seller seems to spawn a clutch of imitations. I actively search for originality. Unfortunately, I find it less often than I like.

It is difficult to compare different eras of writing, because writing is directed to the needs and fashions of its time. I think books of earlier generations got much more "mileage" from their descriptive passages; perhaps the availability of inexpensive travel makes their "exotic" seem ordinary to us. Conversely, perhaps currently fashionable conflict focused drama would seem tawdry or unrealistic to people who lived more endangered lives.

 

[Dan Jones]

As a reader, I find this incredibly frustrating. There is a great deal of similarity between many books and each best seller seems to spawn a clutch of imitations. I actively search for originality.

To develop this point, surely it's encouraging newer writers to adopt these standardisations and, in some instances, squash the devices they might ordinarily use? Sometimes this might be a good thing, but also could reduce diversity in voice.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm not sure if this is the case. There are many factors involved, and one of my primary concerns lately is the popularity of other media.
Many things have affected people's attention spans (I'm looking at you Internet).
There is also the effect of globalization, and news media, so you have less nuanced perspectives.
I don't think there is the same regard for writing novels, so you see the brilliant creative minds moving to current artistic forms.
It's hard to say, because often the interest in novels past is the unique vantage point from that time period.

 

[TitaniumTi]

To develop this point, surely it's encouraging newer writers to adopt these standardisations and, in some instances, squash the devices they might ordinarily use? Sometimes this might be a good thing, but also could reduce diversity in voice.

I agree. The challenge for every writer is to use techniques that make stories accessible to readers, while retaining the originality of his or her story and narrative style.

 

[svalbard]

A good question. I would be with Ursa on this and believe we are in a Golden Age for readers. Not too sure about the writing part though. A person might have all the tools to be a good writer at their fingertips now, but unless they can tell a story, then all the grammar, first person POV, etc mean nought.

Being a good writer is only one part(a crucial part), the ability to be able to tell a great story is in my view arguabely more important. I see fewer of these writers around today. Then I may be stuck in the past as I would rate the likes of Gore Vidal, Dorothy Dunnett, Alfred Duggan as great tale spinners and brilliant writers.

I am sure there are plenty of fantastic authors alive today. GRRM would rate highly as a food critic ☺

 

[Ray McCarthy]

are there more brilliant writers out there today than at any point in human history?

Actually alive ones? On the basis there is more literacy than ever before, laptop cheaper than typewriter pre 1970s in real terms and no paper to buy and more people alive, you'd think there ought to be.

On the negative side; TV, Cinema, Computer Games, modern Journalism and Web sites are probably depressing imagination and ability to write.

Hard to say. No for actually published live ones.

It's a golden age for reading.

 

[BAYLOR]

How many of todays popular writers will be read and remembered in a 100 years ?

 

[Dan Jones]

Indeed. It's the question only time can answer, and most people won't be around to know whether they got it right or not. Will the massive bestseller smashes endure, or will it be the award-winners and critically-acclaimed literary giants, or will it be something that isn't expected; books which flop in their own time but which is picked up by a latter-day audience (a bit like the aforementioned Moby Dick)?

We're all trying to muddle along as best we can, really.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think Sturgeon's Law still applies.

 

[Vince W]

I think Sturgeon's Law still applies.

But I think it's closer to 99% now.

 

[tinkerdan]

We always live in the golden age of literature.

I can picture those cave dwellers stepping back from those amazing drawings and patting themselves on the back and saying, "We truly live in the a golden age of literature". (Well, they might be a bit more or less eloquent than that.)

The trouble is that ours has been covered by the avalanche result of Sturgeon's law and now we have to sort through it to find that ten-percent and just who is going to chose that for us because I can see Sturgeon's law and Zeno's paradox waiting in the wings for anyone that tries.

 

[Jeremy M. Gottwig]

I like where things are headed, but I feel like things are still just a bit too transitional. I might rather say that we are *entering* a golden age.

Some of this might have to do with the explosion of mobile devices and the death of the TV as a focal point in any house. Our tech has become more personal, which has helped many rediscover a love of reading. That said, I think that writers are only beginning to understand how to write for this new era, and many publishers are even further behind. There is also some serious resistance among publishers (consider the greater implications of Amazon vs. Hatchette).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

and the death of the TV as a focal point in any house

Much exaggerated.

 

[PartialMitch]

Or, to put it another way, are there more brilliant writers out there today than at any point in human history?

I give this a big yes. There are way more authors (and readers) than ever, but the art of writing as a whole is improving. I'd say it's analogous to painting during the Italian Renaissance .... over two or three generations, the artists learned from each other, developed new and better techniques and redefined the possibilities of the art. Unlike any other time in history, any writer can start selling their book instantly, for free, without the bottleneck of traditional publishing. Yeah, this floods the market with hundreds of thousands of new titles every year ... but the good stuff rises to the top (i.e. The Martian) and the sheer volume of material being produced guarantees that there is a lot of good stuff out there.

But, as others have said, this is only the beginning. The future is going to be one of "user-created content" and writing is the ultimate form of such content: anyone can do it, and when it is done well, it can change the world. Or at least entertain a lot of people.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The future is going to be one of "user-created content" and writing is the ultimate form of such content: anyone can do it,

I'm thinking that's rather optimistic?
1) It takes a lot of learning
2) It takes a lot of practice
3) I'm not convinced anyone can do it.

An unemployed person might have time for 1 & 2 and to produce more than one novel. Only a proportion of unemployed will have the needed education + vocabulary + life experience + talent as well as the time to learn technique and practise writing.

A lot of people, the majority, don't actually read books. A lot of people watch sport, cat videos, youtube, play games, daytime TV, mass market TV & Cinema etc ... not conducive to writing. The people using this website are not representative.

 

[PartialMitch]

Well, the answer to number three lies in numbers one and two. Anyone can write, but not anyone can write well. That takes patience, passion and practice. Having a job, family and other obligations can slow the process down, but if someone wants to write, then they'll make the opportunity. Anyone could do it, but few are dedicated enough to actually do it.

You're totally correct that most people don't read, but those that do read now have access to an unimaginable amount of written material, and there are a lot of people now who are just starting to really get into reading, thanks to Kindles and other pieces of tech (and even audiobooks; while I do not consider listening quite equal to reading, it is a strong market for storytelling). The people who want to write, the people willing and able to study and hone their craft, now have a greater opportunity than ever before to put their work in front of others. Finally, the people who do write have the opportunity to learn from as many authors as they can read, and I think this is improving the techniques of writers everywhere. We get to stand on some giant's shoulders, and that helps us get higher.

Yeah, I'm optimistic (about some things, anyway), but I've been impressed by human imagination forever. I suppose that I'm inspired by the amount of good (or at least entertaining) works created by self-published authors. I read a lot of such work, and I'm continually inspired by stories that would have never seen the light of day just a few years ago. Yeah, there is definitely a lot of garbage out there, but the good stuff gets noticed, and it is more available right now than ever before.

 

[steelyglint]

A golden age for literature?

No.

There are talented people, and there are works destined to be seen as classics by the future. Had there been a Shakespeare instead of a Stoppard, a Byron instead of a Motion, even a Rider Haggard instead of an Archer, and they were all working now, I might soften that 'no' to a 'maybe'.

Add a term: A golden age for SF literature.

Yes.

How could it be any other way? Humans are continually peaking as far as scientific advancement is concerned, computing capabilities continue to improve, and that parasite, technology, is forever improving itself via its hosts - us (the physical evolution of AI began with an ape cracking a bone with a rock). Its all there for the extrapolating, dreaming, imagining, hoping and all the other things writers do to build their 'Future History'. Will things get better and better until we can almost glimpse a 'Culture' a few millennia hence, or will it all burn away in a flash or be scoured by war, neglect or climate to leave the race facing an 'Amtrak Wars' inheritance? Perhaps grey goo is our destiny, or perhaps that benign and oh-so-advanced alien race will show up and invite us to join their intergalactic community - from orbit, of course - having seen human alien-invasion movies, mistaking them for factual reenactments, and deciding it was a safer policy than 'shoot first'. Besides, they probably could use a good attack dog.

.