Brutal mediocrity: or why no one will read Hunger Games, Divergent or Harry Potter in 100 years

WHAT MAKES A CLASSIC AND IS IT SOMETHING YOU CAN PREDICT?

This is a conversation which crops up quite regularly: “what do you think will still be read in 100 years?” I have heard it said “oh, definitely, Hunger Games and Harry Potter, probably even Twilight.”

The thing though is: what makes a classic? Is it is timelessness? because it’s not — necessarily — about popularity. When it comes to the popularity of a book, that raises the question of why is it popular? Is there something happening in this decade which makes readers more susceptible to a certain style of writing? And how can you know which direction culture and society are heading?

Here’s an example of an author who was immensely popular in her day, but I doubt many people outside of universities read her today. Marie Corelli (1855–1924 ) was known as “the favourite of the common multitude” (Kirsten McLeod). She sold more copies of her books than Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells and Rudyard Kipling combined.

It’s fair to say many people have heard of Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells and Rudyard Kipling…how many people have heard of (and read) Marie Corelli? And yet she outsold those three big names in literature.

Liking a book vs good book is the same conversation as popular book vs What’ll become a classic

“Every child in our world will know his name” (Rowling, book 1, p14)

As big a fan of Harry Potter as I am, there’s no certainty it’ll still be read in 100 years. But Narnia still is — and have you read Narnia: great story and all, but I’m not so sure about the prose. Yet C.S. Lewis told a brilliant story which will — without question — outlive us all. Same with Tolkien, Dickens and Shakespeare: Hemingway’s books will still be printed when my generation’s great-grandchildren are in the grave.

I’ve only read the first Hunger Games book, and all I can say to that is: really guys? people actually think Hunger Games will stand the test of time? My problem with the idea of Hunger Games surviving is that it’s more of an extension of an idea from 1984 and that violent Japanese film (Battle Royal?). I’d like to think some of Stephen King’s books might. Like “It” or “The Stand”…but it’s pure speculation. In 100 years time Stephen King, James Paterson, Chuck Palahniuk may be relegated to universities if they still even study novels.

I haven’t read Divergent so I can’t comment: I’ll leave that up to those who know what they’re talking about. I’ll say this though: if it’s like Hunger Games then it’s unlikely. I’m not disparaging these books as entertaining reads. I’m saying that just because lots of people like a book in this decade does not mean people will still value it — or find it entertaining — in 100 years.

If people study books like Twilight, Harry Potter and Hunger Games in a hundred years it may just be as cultural phenomena. What series, written in the last 20 years, like Harry Potter has touched so many people? In what decade has terribly written erotica topped the best sellers list in practically every English-speaking country for almost three months uncontested? (50 Shades of Grey did it.)

What makes a classic

Many authors who are today considered great works of literature were not all well received when they were first published. And there is still debate about authors like James Joyce as to whether or not they should be considered classics. Yet many people take authors like Fitzgerald, Dickens and Shakespeare to be obvious classics.

As I said earlier: Marie Corelli outsold Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells and Rudyard Kipling combined! She was so popular she considered herself a modern day Shakespeare. Yet who is she today? She’s — mostly — remembered as a cultural phenomena, someone who outsold authors who are, today, held in high regard.

I researched what makes a classic and all I got was a bunch of Wikipedia entries about the Western Canon: so I don’t have any pithy statement that sums “what is a classic” up. In fact, after having studied literature at university I can say: that is a good question: what does make a classic?

Novels as Cultural Phenomena

I think series such as Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey and Hunger Games will be relegated to studies in cultural phenomena. After all, how can a sub-par vampire story do so well when there are so many better vampire novels around? As a piece of Gothic literature the Twilight series fails. It’s at best post-feminism (in a sort of welcome back to the 1950s way) and at worst it’s the desires of an awkward schoolgirl spilt over a few thousand pages.

But really: who knows where society and culture will be in a hundred years time. The whole debate at the moment comes down to who you talk with. Some critics have said there’s no more good literature to be had, that the modernists had the last word and now it’s all just a rehash.

Then there are others who think the modernist writers got it wrong. And there will always be those who argue there’s nothing left to say because Shakespeare said it all.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you see school children 100 years from now reading Harry Potter? Will Twilight survive? Or will Stoker’s Dracula maintain it’s pedestal position? Hunger Games as opposed to Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Thank you for reading.

Originally published at www.joshguilar.com.