Authors that get better with age.

[Nateskate]

My title is misleading. I assume everyone here is growing as a writer. You face your first battle scene, your first chase scene. Soon, you realize this wasn't as easy as you thought.

As you grow as a writer, some authors will become trite in your opinion. You simply outgrow them. But others will grow in your esteem. Mark Twain- for his simplicity at capturing everyday life. Dickins...etc.

Now, when you read a really great writer, you look at what they've written with renewed appreciation for their gift.

This happened for me with J.R.R Tolkien. The first time I read LOTR, I brushed through it trying to play catch up. But the second time I read it, while fighting to make things work in my own novel, my jaw dropped time and again.

Tolkien's vocabulary, his descriptions of Mordor, and his descriptions of Arda in the Silmarillion, left me in awe. Honestly, I would read a phrase or sentence, and have terrible writer's envy, but also appreciation for this artist's gift as well. "How did he ever think of that?"

Which writers do you appreciate more now that your own skills are growing? You realize how hard it was for them to do what they did?

[narnia]

As a child I read the entire Narnia series 30 or 40 times while attending a private K-6 elementary school (no surprise, I am sure).

About 15 years ago I got the entire hardcover set as a birthday gift, and read them again, wondering beforehand if I had outgrown them. I realized then why his magical story-telling abilities inspired a young girl to some day write her own stories, something I may not have understood back then even as the seeds were planted.

I still read them all once a year and will probably do so until I can no longer.

Oddly enough, I have never read anthing else by C.S. Lewis, not sure why, but some day I plan to.

[jenstrikesagain]

I dunno if Hannah Green ever wrote anything else, but I Never Promised You A Rose Garden is stunning and complex on so many levels I may never find them all. I've read the book at least 40 times and I get something different out of it every single time, from literary allusions to frequent "Oh, how cool, how'd she ever think of that" moments. The subject matter's kind of dark (16 year old schizophrenic girl checks into a 1960s mental hospital, much hilarity ensues) but well worth your time.

I just discovered Dan Simmons and fell madly in love. The Terror, his book about the doomed Franklin expedition to the Arctic, is massive and, uh, terrifying. I'm halfway through Summer of Night and pretty well blown away by that as well.

Sleeping with the light on, Jen.

[Paichka]

Ray Bradbury and George Orwell.

I first read F451 and 1984 when I was 10 and 12, respectively. That was just entirely too young (for me) -- I thought the ideas were cool but the books themselves bored my younger self to tears.

Read them again and realized why they're classics. Rats eating a dude's FACE. How could I ever have thought that was boring?!

[Judg]

I've had it go both ways. Rereading certain books, I wonder what I saw in them. Others, most notably A Canticle for Leibowitz recently - I am so awestruck I wonder why I didn't catch how wonderful it was back then.

And then there are things that just were and still are wonderful, like LOTR. I haven't read it in a few years. Time to dip in again.

[Danger Jane]

Virginia Woolf gets better as I get older and more able to understand her


:D of course, my entire Virginia Woolf experience has lasted...three years. I've done a lot of growing in three years!

[Shady Lane]

Louis Sachar. Holes is better the older I get.

[AJ Clare]

Nabokov.

I think everyone's read Lolita at least once because it was so very scandalous but I think when I read it for the first time (at around 16) I didn't recognise half the puns and double-entendres and the overwhelming cleverness of what the author does with language in creating his word-playing anti-hero Humbert Humbert.

It's like, Humbert is charming ("You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style"), utterly charming, but he's also a total villain. You, the reader, are effectively being groomed to regard his relationship with Lolita as something other than a monstrous abuse of a young girl's trust. It's left to Lo herself to say it starkly and simply; "Oh, you know - the hotel where you raped me."

And I'm positive that's deliberate, coming from a writer of Nabokov's calibre. Also the heartbreaking irony at the end where Humbert and Lolita, both terribly damaged by their experiences, could possibly have been redeemed by their love for one another but they each want to love one another in different and irreconcilable ways. I didn't appreciate the subtlety of that when I first read the novel.

Also Donna Tartt - The Secret History. When I read that in my teens I thought the characters were so cool that if you licked them your tongue would freeze stuck. As an adult I thought they were all pretty horrible in a Great Gatsby sort of way and it was a better and more shocking read for seeing the characters clearly.

[David I]

I think everyone's read Lolita at least once because it was so very scandalous but I think when I read it for the first time (at around 16) I didn't recognise half the puns and double-entendres and the overwhelming cleverness of what the author does with language in creating his word-playing anti-hero Humbert Humbert.

...I didn't appreciate the subtlety of that when I first read the novel.

I was one of those precocious kids who read too many classics too young. Somebody ought to warn people that here's no point in reading Nabokov or Dostoyevsky or Flaubert or Camus until you have some years on you.

[AJ Clare]

I was one of those precocious kids who read too many classics too young. Somebody ought to warn people that here's no point in reading Nabokov or Dostoyevsky or Flaubert or Camus until you have some years on you.

I was just the same, but I think it's good to get stuck into the good stuff young because you learn that it is accessible, even though you might not understand it on the same level you would in your thirties, forties and onward.

[Charlie Horse]

J.D. Salinger. I read Catcher in the Rye every summer when I was in High School. Read just about everything else he wrote in my late teens/early 20s. Thirty years later I decided to re-read some of his stuff and marveled at the nuance I found. With one sentence he can reaveal his character's mental state clearer than I could in five paragraphs.

[Nateskate]

As a child I read the entire Narnia series 30 or 40 times while attending a private K-6 elementary school (no surprise, I am sure).

About 15 years ago I got the entire hardcover set as a birthday gift, and read them again, wondering beforehand if I had outgrown them. I realized then why his magical story-telling abilities inspired a young girl to some day write her own stories, something I may not have understood back then even as the seeds were planted.

I still read them all once a year and will probably do so until I can no longer.

Oddly enough, I have never read anthing else by C.S. Lewis, not sure why, but some day I plan to.

I read both Narnia and Tolkien as an adult. Both writers had incredible gifts.

[Zelenka]

Tolkien for me too, but also M R James. I first heard some of his stories as an audio book my uncle let me borrow and thought they were the creepiest things I'd ever listened to. I went out and got a hold of a copy of his short stories and read the lot. I still have the book, battered and falling to bits though it is, and it's one of the ones I haul out again and again. I just love the subtle, almost matter-of-fact way he builds suspense and creates such a scary atmosphere.

Also, probably Lewis Carroll. I didn't really get into 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Through the Looking Glass' as a child (although I was given those on audio book as well once, coincidentally), but as an adult I adore them and just recently the books have been a huge influence on one of my fantasy WIPs.

[Danger Jane]

I was one of those precocious kids who read too many classics too young. Somebody ought to warn people that here's no point in reading Nabokov or Dostoyevsky or Flaubert or Camus until you have some years on you.


I don't know about that. I mean, I read To the Lighthouse when I was an extremely impressionable fifteen-year-old...but that's the point. I was still impressionable. That book and that writer have influenced me really deeply--the older I get, the more I realize just how much. When I read it, I knew I was getting about ten percent of the meaning. And I still know I'm probably getting about thirty percent now. But it shaped me really profoundly and I don't think that would ever have happened had I saved the classics til I had some more life experience under my belt.

It's what we read when we're young that shapes us. Who cares if we get it all the first time through? I'm glad I read stuff way too deep for me and also right on par when I was younger, and still do now.

[Shady Lane]

I was one of those precocious kids who read too many classics too young. Somebody ought to warn people that here's no point in reading Nabokov or Dostoyevsky or Flaubert or Camus until you have some years on you.

Whooooa!

Hold your horses with Camus.

I'm sixteen.

I read The Stranger.

I loved it.

And it inspired my WIP.

[Nateskate]

Tolkien for me too, but also M R James. I first heard some of his stories as an audio book my uncle let me borrow and thought they were the creepiest things I'd ever listened to. I went out and got a hold of a copy of his short stories and read the lot. I still have the book, battered and falling to bits though it is, and it's one of the ones I haul out again and again. I just love the subtle, almost matter-of-fact way he builds suspense and creates such a scary atmosphere.

Also, probably Lewis Carroll. I didn't really get into 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Through the Looking Glass' as a child (although I was given those on audio book as well once, coincidentally), but as an adult I adore them and just recently the books have been a huge influence on one of my fantasy WIPs.

This made me think. With Twain, Carroll, Dickens and Dumas, and Tolkien and C.S.Lewis, I look at these as iconic writers. Perhaps I'm prejudiced as a contemporary, but with today's great writers, I'm not seeing the likes. I'm sure future generations will disagree with my assessment. I imagine living "in the era" prevents us from marveling at writings that captuere the era.

[~grace~]

This made me think. With Twain, Carroll, Dickens and Dumas, and Tolkien and C.S.Lewis, I look at these as iconic writers. Perhaps I'm prejudiced as a contemporary, but with today's great writers, I'm not seeing the likes. I'm sure future generations will disagree with my assessment. I imagine living "in the era" prevents us from marveling at writings that captuere the era.


I occasionally wonder who from Right Now will be considered Icons in 50-100 years. I mean, I'm not seeing anyone I would put on a Nabokov or Twain level. Maybe we're in the dark years of literature.

[Danger Jane]

I occasionally wonder who from Right Now will be considered Icons in 50-100 years. I mean, I'm not seeing anyone I would put on a Nabokov or Twain level. Maybe we're in the dark years of literature.

I don't know. Has there really been a dark age of literature since publication became accessible?

It takes time for true greatness to be recognized, sometimes.

[wayndom]

This made me think. With Twain, Carroll, Dickens and Dumas, and Tolkien and C.S.Lewis, I look at these as iconic writers. Perhaps I'm prejudiced as a contemporary, but with today's great writers, I'm not seeing the likes. I'm sure future generations will disagree with my assessment. I imagine living "in the era" prevents us from marveling at writings that captuere the era.

I read a terrific article once about classics versus bestsellers. Most of the article was a series of lists of bestsellers and classics that were published at the same time. Almost none of the classics were bestsellers in their time, and virtually no bestseller went on to become a classic (defined as a book that continues to be read for many decades).

So it's entirely possible that classics are being written and published, but aren't being well-received right now, so we don't know about them.

[Nateskate]

I occasionally wonder who from Right Now will be considered Icons in 50-100 years. I mean, I'm not seeing anyone I would put on a Nabokov or Twain level. Maybe we're in the dark years of literature.

My guess is that some people from this generation will be appreciated more for capturing history. One of the things about Dickens is that there's an otherworldly charm to the setting and the characters. But at the time this was written, it was far more serious, as children were forced into sweat shops to pay off their parents debts. So perhaps some writers who are great at capturing a period and place will be viewed more favorably someday?

[Nateskate]

I read a terrific article once about classics versus bestsellers. Most of the article was a series of lists of bestsellers and classics that were published at the same time. Almost none of the classics were bestsellers in their time, and virtually no bestseller went on to become a classic (defined as a book that continues to be read for many decades).

So it's entirely possible that classics are being written and published, but aren't being well-received right now, so we don't know about them.

That makes perfect sense, and I commented on this in the above thread. Many of the greatest works of literature were veiled social commentaries, like Gulliver's Travels, and even Mark Twain's stories. Yes, they were popular, but they became iconic after their deaths.

I can't help but believe some current authors will age well. But others will be like a ten-year-old big mac. You wouldn't want to touch it.