Allan Guthrie wrote:
On the other hand, some classics endure despite the writing,
whilst neglected masterpieces litter the literary landscape
hoping that some day a publisher will rediscover them before
they do, indeed, turn to dust.
******************** This bears on a good point which I have
not mentioned, but might as well bring it up now. I have
defined er... classics as being writing which has endured. I
have not said that the writing was necessarily good. Thus
there are good classics and bad. So although quality is often
a major factor in a piece going the distance, it isn't a
requirement. This adds mystery to the search for the elements
which make a work a classic.
I'd like to bring this back to the question of whether some
of Spillane's work will become classics. Mario said that it
is impossible to predict what will become classic, and I have
already stated my disagreement with that. I think that one of
the reasons it's not easy is because the glass you need to
look through to see writing that will become classic is
fogged over with fashion. Right now successful violence in a
novel is totally faux pas. Very frowned upon by enlightened
citizenry. And yet the classics are filled with it. Homer's
two epics are filled with glorious violence. So is Gilgamesh
and Beowulf, The Green Knight, the Bible, and just an
absolute buttload more. Bottom line is that those who reject
Spillane's chance of making it to the classics need to make
sure that their opinion is not clouded by fashion.
miker
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2007 EDT