I think yours is a useful way of thinking about cannons. There are so many to add to the first two categories. I'd add for starters, Melville, Dickinson, Willa Cather, Edith Wharton. I also like the idea of cannons tailored to a particular interest.
Oh, this is a great list. Guns, Germans, and Steel was a thesis we all had to know about in college history classes. And I still think Debt is under-appreciated.
Every time I try to establish a personal canon and look back at it a year later, half the works wouldn't even make the cut anymore. It's humbling, really.
I've been wrestling with this lately after a discussion at my local book club about Céline's lost manuscripts that were recently found. I always understood that he was important. I could see why people put him up there with the Modern Classics (in France at least) but I never really felt it myself.
Then I read Guerre and Londres (I don't think they've been translated yet, and honestly I'm not sure they could be, so much of what makes them powerful is bound up in the language itself). This is different. It's unedited and probably the only time you can read Céline completely unfiltered on life and the human condition. The raw poetry in Londres especially, so many passages of fierce beauty worth memorizing.
Which, of course, raises the whole question of separating the author from the work...
Thanks for these recommendations. So long as we’re talking about Francophile writers, I think I’d add that “enfant terrible” Houellebecq to a list of French Contemporary Classics. Would you agree?
Houellebecq wrote some strong work early on, but his recent books have been pretty mediocre. His reputation in France has taken a real beating, and his behavior doesn't help.
I think people here like to frame him as some kind of social visionary, but I'm not convinced he's earned that. There's an interesting parallel with Céline actually—the real enfant terrible of French literature. Both get more distasteful as their careers progress, though Houellebecq hasn't quite reached the depths Céline did by the end. Not yet, anyway.
So yes, he probably belongs on a list of Contemporary Classics, but maybe not for the reasons people think.
I think yours is a useful way of thinking about cannons. There are so many to add to the first two categories. I'd add for starters, Melville, Dickinson, Willa Cather, Edith Wharton. I also like the idea of cannons tailored to a particular interest.
Great callouts in this list.
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.
Donnelly Meadows, Thinking in Systems
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years.
Diane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade.
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, Steel
Yes, all non fiction, but changed our views of important things.
Oh, this is a great list. Guns, Germans, and Steel was a thesis we all had to know about in college history classes. And I still think Debt is under-appreciated.
Every time I try to establish a personal canon and look back at it a year later, half the works wouldn't even make the cut anymore. It's humbling, really.
I've been wrestling with this lately after a discussion at my local book club about Céline's lost manuscripts that were recently found. I always understood that he was important. I could see why people put him up there with the Modern Classics (in France at least) but I never really felt it myself.
Then I read Guerre and Londres (I don't think they've been translated yet, and honestly I'm not sure they could be, so much of what makes them powerful is bound up in the language itself). This is different. It's unedited and probably the only time you can read Céline completely unfiltered on life and the human condition. The raw poetry in Londres especially, so many passages of fierce beauty worth memorizing.
Which, of course, raises the whole question of separating the author from the work...
Thanks for these recommendations. So long as we’re talking about Francophile writers, I think I’d add that “enfant terrible” Houellebecq to a list of French Contemporary Classics. Would you agree?
Houellebecq wrote some strong work early on, but his recent books have been pretty mediocre. His reputation in France has taken a real beating, and his behavior doesn't help.
I think people here like to frame him as some kind of social visionary, but I'm not convinced he's earned that. There's an interesting parallel with Céline actually—the real enfant terrible of French literature. Both get more distasteful as their careers progress, though Houellebecq hasn't quite reached the depths Céline did by the end. Not yet, anyway.
So yes, he probably belongs on a list of Contemporary Classics, but maybe not for the reasons people think.
Great reply, merci beaucoup!
Avec plaisir. I really enjoy your writing here. I’ve been using your Reading Log method for a while now—it’s been incredibly useful and satisfying.
Looking forward to your next posts!
Glad to hear the method is treating you well. Thanks for your kind and encouraging words.