« How should we price the "public option" for dogs? | Main | Famous Economists Quiz »
The test of time?
Eighty years ago the Manchester Guardian (as this paper then was) ran a poll to discover from its readers' votes the "novelists who may be read in 2029".
George Simmers, on his literary greatwarfiction blog, has jumped the gun by 20 years with some satirical reflections on the top five novelists in that poll.
Only another 20 years to go, and the top five are already looking shaky:
They are John Galsworthy (1,180 votes), H. G. Wells (933), Arnold Bennett (654), Rudyard Kipling (455), J. M. Barrie (286).What of James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, DH Lawrence, Henry Green, Ivy Compton-Burnett, Agatha Christie, EM Forster, and Jean Rhys? This distinguished crew either do not figure in the 1929 poll, or clock in with derisory counts (Joyce gets fewer than 10 votes – alongside Max Beerbohm, it's pleasing to note).
I love Galsworthy and for that matter Wells. Here is the article. Here is further commentary. By the way, no one back then voted for Agatha Christie, who is now probably the most frequently read of the British writers from that era.
For the pointer I thank the always-excellent Literary Saloon.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 4, 2009 at 05:53 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Agatha Christie? In 1929 she had not yet written ten books. None of them are famous today, as best as I can tell. I will have to give the 1929 voters a pass for not guessing that she would late become famous.
Posted by: Joe Torben at Nov 4, 2009 6:11:53 AM
I feel mentioning Agatha Christie might be a bit unfair for 1929. She had written only 7 or 8 books by then, and was mostly famous because of the gimmicky conclusion of "The murder of Roger Ackroyd".
As far i can tell, she wasn't particularly better known than other detecive writers, and there was not reason why she should be better known. She only became the best-known detective writer of England after 1929.
Posted by: Zamfir at Nov 4, 2009 6:22:19 AM
Low sample size?
Posted by: Ryan at Nov 4, 2009 7:00:55 AM
Pg Wodehouse is of that era and all his books are in print. He is not popular here but is widely read throughout the commonwealth, including India for reasons that are not readily apparent. Bottom line: more people should read wodehouse.
Posted by: Amitav at Nov 4, 2009 7:50:01 AM
Wells, Kipling, and Barrie "looking shaky"?
I think it's pretty much assured that they will "be read" in 2029. How widely is another matter....
Posted by: Brent Buckner at Nov 4, 2009 8:18:50 AM
The Forsyte Saga is ranked 6800 on Amazon.co.uk,
War of the worlds is 8600,
Kim is 9600
Peter Pan is 15000.
Only Bennett can't do better than rank 64000 for Old Wives Tales.
For comparison:
Murder on the Orient Express is 7300 (and wasn't written yet in 1929)
Lady Chatterly's Lover is 4200 (and brand new in 1929)
Ulysses 8100
Mrs Dalloway 2500
Howards End 4200
So some of the hind-sight list score better, but not amazingly so
Posted by: Zamfir at Nov 4, 2009 8:49:09 AM
Wells, Kipling, and Barrie get read a lot more in middle and high school. I don't see that changing; they certainly won't be replaced with James Joyce.
Posted by: IVV at Nov 4, 2009 9:31:14 AM
The writers on your "shaky" list are still worth
dipping into and more than dipping into.
As for more high-brow or modernist writers,
two reflections. The line between elite and
populist applies in politics, culture, sport,
and other areas. I myself think that one can
like or dislike modernism for right and wrong
reasons.
Some reject modernism routinely, because it is
"strange". Others, dismissed as Philistines,
reject it for intelligent reasons.
Posted by: Candadai Tirumalai at Nov 4, 2009 9:48:27 AM
I'm not sure new book sales is the way to measure how well read something is. I read my mother's Peter Pan when I was a kid because she kept it for me -- just as my grandmother had kept it for her. All told about ten people have read that book but Barrie only wracked up one sale. (On the bright side, for him, the book is so old that he was still alive to get the royalties when it sold.)
The same holds true for many of the other authors as well. I read through all of Kipling's children's stories (and many of his works aimed at adults), along with Portrait of the Artist and a huge batch of Agatha Christie novels.
The only indisputably true statement made here so far is that all people should read more P.G. Wodehouse, though I would note that most of his best novels also came after 1929. The real apex of his art -- The Code of the Woosters, Uncle Fred in Springtime, Joy in the Morning -- came right at the dawn of World War 2.
Posted by: Scoop at Nov 4, 2009 9:56:24 AM
Anyone who doesn't think Kipling is a writer for the ages is ... a bit odd.
Aside from the obvious "kids' books" (which I read as a child and which profoundly impressed me), there is Kipling's poetry: including one that will live forever in the Anglican Hymnal ("Recessional").
Posted by: David at Nov 4, 2009 10:30:04 AM
Their seems a disconnect between the original list - "books that will be read in 100 years" - and the modern criticism, which seems to mostly consist of, "these books aren't 'great' or, at least, not as great as some other books." Those are two different things.
Perhaps more to the point, though - are we surprised that people can't predict the future? I'm more surprised that they got it as right as they did; of the top 5 authors, indeed, all five are still read 80 years later.
From George Simmers himself:
"Galsworthy is still in print"
"Wells and Bennett have their devoted followers"
"Kipling is a great unignorable fact in English literature"
"Peter Pan continues to enchant"
I doubt a similar poll conducted today would hold up as well in 80 years.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 4, 2009 11:25:47 AM
They are John Galsworthy (1,180 votes), H. G. Wells (933), Arnold Bennett (654), Rudyard Kipling (455), J. M. Barrie (286).
Isn't this actually an astonishingly good list? Galsworthy, Wells, Kipling, and Barrie are all still read -- Wells and Kipling quite widely, Barrie mostly through adaptations, and Galsworthy by people who go for that kind of thing. The Guardian's readers actually seem to have had a pretty good sense of what would stand the test of time.
Posted by: Taeyoung at Nov 4, 2009 12:23:32 PM
Tyler Cowen,
...who is now probably the most frequently read of the British writers from that era.
A bit OT, but I think it is case that after Churchill, T.E. Lawrence is the second most cited, quoted, etc. Brit of the 20th century. Like Tocqueville, everyone talks about him and very few read him.
Posted by: Seward at Nov 4, 2009 12:27:59 PM
I think we would do as well at predicting what will last. The facts are we actually buy more books now than we did then. In the UK the average number of book purchases per capita per annum is seven to eight. This suggests that we read a great deal.
That article served mostly to indicate that John Sutherland is an idiot. He also seems to be a bit of a snob about anything other than modernism, not noticing that a lot of other styles are and remain popular. I think that his comment on Tolkien fading is absurd. The Lord of the Rings is the most important work of Epic Fantasy its influence dominates one of the major sub-genres of Fantasy. It is extremely widely read and shows no sign of declining. Of the top five the only one I don't recognise off hand is Bennett. By contrast I've never heard of several of the writers he names, so it is really questionable that they should be higher of the list. H G Wells is of course one of the two founding fathers of science fiction along with Jules Verne.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar at Nov 4, 2009 12:42:15 PM
It's also worth noting that the poll took place near the beginning of 1929 (April 3rd was when the result were printed) and that the poll asked about living authors.
So it is disoncerting to read the rather silly article by Sutherland oddly suggesting that a current poll would feature Tolkien, who of course isn't a living author. And of course the sheer ahistoricity of is unintentionally hilarious: the above-mentioned timing of Agatha Christie's novels has been mentioned, but also note that
-Henry Green had only published a single novel by the beginning of 1929 (his 2nd was published sometime during 1929).
-Jean Rhys had only published one novel (and a collection of short stories) by the time of the poll.
And in fact about half of the authors he suggests as alternatives had the majority of their careers after 1929, besides the authors mentioned above, Compton-Burnett had only written two novels prior to 1929 - and 17 after. Her wikipedia article also notes, amusingly and in contradiction to Sutherland, "Most of her novels are out of print."
Simmers' blog post is much better, though.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 4, 2009 12:44:05 PM
I think we might be missing the most interesting thing about this poll:
"the winner was the competitor whose list most nearly matched the general consensus."
Posted by: ed at Nov 4, 2009 1:05:20 PM
Arnold Bennett's "The Card" is an excellent comedy. Do try it.
Posted by: dearieme at Nov 4, 2009 3:50:04 PM
Clearly, they just had more writing talent back then.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 4, 2009 5:23:36 PM
As a masterpiece of high literary prose style, "Kim" certainly ranks near the top.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 4, 2009 5:25:04 PM
If nothing else, Kipling is the most quoted of the authors. Also, his Stalky and Company was the first great English school story. J.K.Rowling owes Kipling quite a debt.
Posted by: Kaleberg at Nov 4, 2009 8:34:21 PM
I wonder how many people--- even elite people--- read Joyce, Woolf, and Forster except in college courses or because they're supposed to be famous books. Take away college sales, and I bet the Amazon rankings would be a lot lower.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen at Nov 4, 2009 10:11:21 PM
I was just surfing and found your blog. It really impressed me and I have bookmarked it. Keep posting as I am gonna come everyday for reading. It was really informative.
Posted by: Managed hosting at Nov 5, 2009 2:11:51 AM
Does anyone actually read James Joyce today?
The essay seems to be confusing what people should read with what people actually read. Wells, Kipling, and Barrie (at least Peter Pan) are still read quite bit, certainly more than the modernest authors.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Waugh, Huxley, or Shaw, though to be fair the first two were just starting their careers in 1929. But Shaw had been awarded the Nobel Prize only five years earlier.
I think in the twentieth century, authors' popularity is correlated with how many movies were made of their work, and how watched those movies are. Hence the recent vogue for Tolkien. Again this is hurting the more modernist authors, who have only inspired high brow movies.
Posted by: Ed at Nov 5, 2009 10:50:09 AM
Interesting comments to read (if hardly flattering). The question is, how many people today read The Light that Failed, Captain's Courageous, A Widow In Thrums, The Little Minister? (Peter Pan is not a novel, and Kipling survives, I think, because of the un-novelistic Jungle Stories, poems, and excellent short stories).
The original text in the Guardian (proofs of which I didn't see) cut out, for reasons of space, my acknowledgement to George Simmers's excellent bloggery.
idiotically, JS
Posted by: john sutherland at Nov 6, 2009 5:33:34 AM
