Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
AFAICT, Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are already not nearly as popular as they were when I started reading SF in the 70's. Bradbury might still be read, though - we read Fahrenheit 451 in school. I can see Vonnegut, too.
|
I did say you have to *start* with long-term popularity.
What I listed are *possibilities* that 100 years from *now* might be classics.
Popularity ebbs and flows; Austen is red hot these recent decades but earlier in the 20th she wasn't quite that highly rated. Some of the appeal might dim in future times, but her status is probably safe for the next few decades at least.
The SF trio?
I see long-term potential for specific works of all three. Doesn't mean I expect to see entire semester courses of the works of any of the three--Shakespeare they aren't--but I can see works like CHILDHOOD'S END, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, STARSHIP TROOPERS, NIGHTFALL, GREEN HILLS OF EARTH, NAKED SUN, THE END OF ETERNITY, THE GODS THEMSELVES, THE CITY AND THE STARS, etc, being read and pondered for quite a while. There's meat behind those stories, beyond their historical significance.
It'll be a long time before the works of the 20th find their proper place in the human legacy but any full discussion of the era has to include, if not *start* with the genres as the case can be made that what defines 20th century publishing *are* the genres. The rest is leftovers.
(There. That ought to stir up a few hearts.)
