{"id":3425,"date":"2017-01-17T07:17:20","date_gmt":"2017-01-17T15:17:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/?p=3425"},"modified":"2017-01-18T15:19:14","modified_gmt":"2017-01-18T23:19:14","slug":"best-books-of-the-last-20-years-and-the-canon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/2017\/01\/best-books-of-the-last-20-years-and-the-canon.html","title":{"rendered":"“Best Books of the Last 20 Years,” and the Canon"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>[contextly_auto_sidebar]<\/p>\n

It sounds like a great idea, or at least a revealing one: Assemble a list of the most important books of the last two decades, in any genre, from poetry to the novel. Find accomplished writers in a variety or genres \u2014 Rebecca Solnit, Jonathan Lethem, Roxane Gay, Ann Padgett, Patti Smith, and so on \u2014 and ask them for their favorites since 1997.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe end of December is a time when we are bombarded with end-of-year lists\u2014so much so that they start to blur together,\u201d Michele Filgate wrote in a recent post on LitHub<\/a>. \u201cBut what about the books that stay with us for years?”<\/span><\/p>\n

The list of 128 volumes that emerged from this is intriguing, at least, and makes no pretension to bring scientific, complete, objective, or whatever. It\u2019s just a few dozen smart and famous people picking their favorite books. The big winners, it turns out, are David Foster Wallace\u2019s \u201cInfinite Jest,\u201d Edward P. Jones\u2019 \u201cThe Known World,\u201d and Cormac McCarthy\u2019s \u201cThe Road,\u201d all tied for first.<\/span><\/p>\n

But here\u2019s what\u2019s most fascinating and a bit troubling: This trio of celebrated novels \u2014 the ultimate victors in this poll \u2014 got only three<\/i> votes each. And only a handful of other books got more than one<\/i> vote. (David Mitchell\u2019s \u201cCloud Atlas,\u201d \u201cAmericanah” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Elena Ferrante\u2019s Naples quartet, Bolano\u2019s \u201c2666,\u201d and eight others got a whopping two votes apiece.)<\/span><\/p>\n

So pretty much what we have here is 29 really smart writers \u2014 Rick Moody, Maggie Nelson, Geoff Dyer, and other luminaries \u2014 speaking mostly to themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, it\u2019s not really the fault of the assembled scribes, most of whom would be in my council of sages and some of whom are acquaintances of mine. And while some would argue that literature and books of history and poetry are not well served by the kind of list-making associated with \u201cLate Night With David Letterman\u201d and \u201cHigh Fidelity,\u201d I\u2019m not among them: We make all sorts\u00a0of lists and rankings in our heads, consciously, or unconsciously, all the time. Anyone who has edited an anthology, designed a college or high school course, chosen what to read this week for fun, what to give a friend for Christmas, or what to throw in the beach bag for summer vacation has been through this kind of thing in some form. As the Mekons song says, \u201c We make big decisions every day.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

But part of what we see on this list, I think, is the result of decades of running do\"\"<\/a>wn the canon. Not just a rigid canon monopolized by \u201cdead white European males,\u201d but the idea of a canon itself. <\/span><\/p>\n

We live in a period where the very notion of consensus, at least in the world of culture and journalism (remember Edward S. Herman\u2019s and Noam Chomsky\u2019s \u201cManufacturing Consent\u201d?) connotes a kind of middlebrow plot cooked up by Judy Miller. So it should not surprise us that none of these esteemed American writers — most of whom belong to one of the two PEN groups and go to the same Brooklyn or Echo Park parties, mostly share a left-liberal politics, and often clink glasses at literary fairs and spend a weekend each spring at the Los Angeles Times Book Festival, and so on — can\u2019t really agree on the best, most enduring work in their own field. <\/span><\/p>\n

The polled writers, for the most part, came of age after the great canon revolts at places like Brown (where the New Curriculum of 1969 made it possible so that \u201cevery student might study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose\u201d), Wesleyan, and Stanford (where the cry \u201c<\/span>“Hey, hey, ho, ho, <\/span>Western culture’s got to go<\/span>!\u201d became a great gift to reactionary fools like William Bennett.) They have been taught, in some cases, that the notion of a canon or core curriculum itself \u2014 even if it\u2019s liberalized with women and writers and color and so on \u2014 is by nature phallic or oppressive or whatever. <\/span><\/p>\n

In an attempt to emulate the LitHub list, this Stanford-born, Wesleyan-educated reader and writer assembled a hasty kitchen cabinet which included some critic friends, my (Brown-schooled) college mentor, my librarian wife, California\u2019s poet laureate, the best-read indie rocker I know, and, you know, a young guy I met at the coffee shop who was wearing a T-shirt inspired by David Foster Wallace. Ten smart people, at the very least, from three generations and two coasts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

My poll actually came out almost as horizontal as LitHub\u2019s: Of a few dozen books nominated by 10\u00a0people, only three got more than two votes. Patt Smith\u2019s \u201cJust Kids\u201d ti\"\"<\/a>ed \u201cInfinite Jest\u201d and \u201cCloud Atlas\u201d; each got four votes. (My judges were heavy on Gen X and music-lovers.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A few tomes did better here than on LitHub:\u00a0 <\/span>Junot Diaz\u2019s \u201cThe Brief, Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao,\u201d Joan Didion\u2019s \u201cWhere I was From,\u201d Alex Ross\u2019s \u201cThe Rest is Noise,\u201d all got multiple votes. But for the most part we had trouble agreeing in anything, either. <\/span><\/p>\n

Canons, of course, consolidate over time: We could certainly come up with a firmer, more stable list of the best, say, albums from the \u201860s, or movies from the \u201870s, or alt-rock bands from the \u201880s than we could with their 21st century equivalents. (Even if the \u201cForever Changes\u201d fans tossed grenades at the \u201cPet Sounds\u201d army, the \u201cGodfather II\u201d enthusiasts made war on the \u201cChinatown\u201d crowd, cardigan-clad followers of the Smiths arm-wrestled the R.E.M. brigade, and so on.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The LitHub list certainly has a lot of very strong and wide-ranging work. Is it better to have 128 books on that list, with only three volumes getting more than two votes, than a list of half as many, with more clustering over a few hits? (In other words, a less horizontal and more vertical list.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Maybe there\u2019s a way of looking at the LitHub list\u2019s flatness as a triumph of diversity. But to me, it says that whatever good things arrived with the coming of multiculturalism, the fragmenting of consensus delivered by the Internet, and the revolts against required readings and cultural gatekeepers and musty old canons and everything else, one of the things that\u2019s ocurred\u00a0is the loss of a common language. <\/span><\/p>\n

Without a lingua franca, I\u2019m wishing us all luck in the coming years: We may need it. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[contextly_auto_sidebar] It sounds like a great idea, or at least a revealing one: Assemble a list of the most important books of the last two decades, in any genre, from poetry to the novel. Find accomplished writers in a variety or genres \u2014 Rebecca Solnit, Jonathan Lethem, Roxane Gay, Ann Padgett, Patti Smith, and so […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3427,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[35,34],"tags":[758,759,761,729,760],"class_list":{"0":"post-3425","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-books","8":"category-literary","9":"tag-1990s","10":"tag-david-foster-wallace","11":"tag-david-mitchell","12":"tag-literary","13":"tag-patti-smith","14":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3425"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3433,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3425\/revisions\/3433"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/culturecrash\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}