fiction files redux discussion

60 views
New Yorker Releases "20 Under 40" List

Comments Showing 1-26 of 26 (26 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ry (new)

Ry (downeyr) | 173 comments The New Yorker released their list of 20 writers under 40 who they believe will contribute the most to American Literature in the near future.

The list probably won't be a big surprise, but the issue for which the list was made is going to be a double issue, focusing totally on Fiction! The link is below.


http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/...


message 2: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
Well. Jonathan Evison and Ben Loory aren't on here, so this list sucks.


message 3: by Ben, uneasy in a position of power; a yorkshire pudding (new)

Ben Loory | 241 comments Mod
i'm actually 67 years old.


message 4: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (last edited Jun 03, 2010 02:02PM) (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
See, and I went back in here to add Othmer and then thought... hmmm... and now I find out you're a charter AARP member.


message 5: by Jonathan, the skipper (new)

Jonathan | 609 comments Mod
. . . i'm 41!


message 6: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
saw this and thought it was rather jaw dropping

http://www.themillions.com/2010/06/a-...


message 7: by Ben, uneasy in a position of power; a yorkshire pudding (new)

Ben Loory | 241 comments Mod
we're stupider than we used to be? or just less famous so far?


message 8: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
Sigh. Losing on both counts. Ben is 67 and JE is 41. I guess I better get cracking if I want to make this list.


message 9: by Brent (new)

Brent Matt wrote: "saw this and thought it was rather jaw dropping

http://www.themillions.com/2010/06/a-..."


I hope that everyone knows that is a fake list that The Millions made to show who might have been on a list had they made one in 1970. I was confused at first.


message 10: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
well it's fake in that the New Yorker didn't publish it as such and it's a list generated in retrospect but it's not fake in that all those authors were under 40 in 1970


message 11: by Brent (new)

Brent right. thanks, that was explained more clearly than I had done.


message 12: by Martyn (last edited Jun 06, 2010 03:29PM) (new)

Martyn | 299 comments God, what a load of shit. What's the fucking rush? Some authors didn't write an important novel until they were really old. It's this increasing obsession with doing things really early. Like that little arsehole who climbed Everest at 13 as if he HAD to do it before his balls dropped. No he didn't, he just had ridiculous parents egging him on.

It probably won't stop until we get: 'five month old foetus dictates masterpiece from mother's womb decoded in a series of kicks to the stomach. New York Times calls it 'a spectacular literary achievement.'

I hate newspapers and chattering classes shit. can you tell?


message 13: by Brent (new)

Brent goodness.


message 14: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 641 comments Mod
Now that's a classic Martyn rant!


message 15: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
to Martyn's point though the list generated by the millions in retrospect is a very good illustration of something important

in 1970 the New Yorker wouldn't know that Fear and Loathing was still a year away from being published in Rolling Stone magazine in serialized form by a 33 year old fringe journalist with only one previous book to his credit (a book at that point 4 years old with nothing to show for the intervening 4 years but a handful of magazine articles) - indeed, would the New Yorker of that time acknowledge Hunter S Thompson as 'proper author' even if he had published his magnum opus?

nor could the editors of the new yorker possibly know that at age 39 Toni Morrison was only just beginning an illustrious career that would eventually lead to nobel laureate-hood

nor that at age 34 Don Delillo was still a year away from publishing his first novel

etc etc etc

I would wager that more often than not authors of novels age into their ascendency in their 40s because it takes some living to build up a book in you unless you're one of them one hit wunderkinden


message 16: by Shel, ad astra per aspera (new)

Shel (shelbybower) | 946 comments Mod
I had a poetry professor in college tell me that I was obviously "done" writing my childhood, that I needed to get out there and live a little, and then I would have something to say. She was right. Maybe I didn't have to totally stop writing for 17 years, but she was still right. At 37 I don't really know that I have something to say that's useful but I'm working on it.


message 17: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
'one hit wunderkinden' seriously? nothing? tough crowd


message 18: by Keith (new)

Keith Dixon (keithwdixon) | 44 comments the list certainly ticked me off in lots of ways -- still, we should all consider that the new yorker remains a champion of short fiction, which is a dwindling genre...


message 19: by R.a. (new)

R.a. (brasidas1) | 79 comments God, what a load of shit. What's the fucking rush? Some authors didn't write an important novel until they were really old. It's this increasing obsession with doing things really early. Like that little arsehole who climbed Everest at 13 as if he HAD to do it before his balls dropped. No he didn't, he just had ridiculous parents egging him on.

It probably won't stop until we get: 'five month old foetus dictates masterpiece from mother's womb decoded in a series of kicks to the stomach. New York Times calls it 'a spectacular literary achievement.


¡ Me acuerdo !

Wharton . . . late;
Hawthorne . . . late, (w/ the exception of the Romance, Fanshaw);
Dostoevsky . . . late, (began; but then that long break—well, prison will do that),

Hmmmm. They all seem like "heavy hitters."
Hmmmm. Perhaps, experience DOES count for something.


message 20: by Keith (new)

Keith Dixon (keithwdixon) | 44 comments i dove into this issue last night prepared to be totally pissed off for a number of reasons (there is a certain follow-the-leader quality to some of those picks...) but then i read the ferris story and damn, i have to admit that is a good story...


message 21: by Kerry, flame-haired janeite (new)

Kerry Dunn (kerryanndunn) | 887 comments Mod
Dan wrote: "Now that's a classic Martyn rant!"

It's kinda nice, isn't it??


message 22: by Matt, e-monk (new)

Matt Comito | 386 comments Mod
Kerry wrote: "Dan wrote: "Now that's a classic Martyn rant!"

It's kinda nice, isn't it??"


not enough rants up in here


message 23: by Dan, deadpan man (new)

Dan | 641 comments Mod
Dzanc Books released an alternative list. Check it out here:

http://emergingwriters.typepad.com/dz...

Interesting...


message 24: by Martyn (last edited Jul 02, 2010 03:23PM) (new)

Martyn | 299 comments why wasn't Stephenie Meyer on any of these lists? She's radically altered the figure of the vampire (which is why most people don't like her) and wrapped it a classical narrative. She has greatly influenced literature. She can't write for shit, but nobody can deny the eccentric stuff she's done hasn't influenced American literature. Jesus, people are copying her left, right and centre. So she should be on any list.


message 25: by [deleted user] (new)

She's on the list with Dan Brown and J. K. Rowling. Popular Fiction sneered at by Literary snobs.


message 26: by Brian, just a child's imagination (new)

Brian (banoo) | 346 comments Mod
When I'm dead I'm going to write a kick ass novel. Can't wait!


back to top