In (approx.) 100 years, will...

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'm sure that there are some current, and not-so current, books that will still be read a century from now. Take the Hobbit for instance, I'd argue that it has already reached the point after some seventy-odd years where it's likely to be a classic for generations to come.

I agree. How widely read these current books will be read in the future does remain to be seen, though. I'm reminded of Shakespeare and Marlowe. If I recall correctly, Marlowe was more popular than Shakespeare during his lifetime, but the opposite is true now. Perhaps novels that we think will be read in the future will still be read, but not as widely as one would imagine, while the work of another author might unexpectedly attain a measure of fame not seen during his or her lifetime.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Agatha Christie is lacking that intangible quality known as greatness.

The author who is behind only the Bible and Shakespeare in sales figures, with over two billion sales, is "lacking in greatness", do you think? Her books are probably not great literature, but they are undeniably best sellers!

[Pulpmeister]

The first Christie novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, is now 93 years old and still read by the millions.

I lately re-read the bulk of Aggie's mystery output (not the Westmacotts) and found that as well as the detective aspect, she tells a good story well. Not, I agree, a "fine writer". But a good enough one, telling an enjoyable story, with characters who are, while you are reading, lively and agreeable.

I would say "great" for sure.

However, you can't predict these things. You not only have to be popular with the general public in your own time, but continue to be popular long after you're dead, and that's a very difficult feat, achieved by few--and predicted by fewer.

I can't think that Jane Austen imagined, even for a minute, that she'd still and loved be read 200 years after she died.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Will people still be able to read in a 100 years time?

I think so though the language will probably have changed a bit by then. It wasn't so long ago for example that there was no J in the language so words starting with that letter had an I to start it instead. And look at Shakespeare for example. Words have changed meanings or spellings or both since he wrote his plays. That's not to mention words that don't yet exist because they aren't yet needed, and of course there is slang which though usually tied to a period of time can replace the conventional word on the street.

[xg4bx]

In the shadow of the Cyber Wars, all that will dwell amongst the wreckage of man's great age will be a copy of Confessions of a Guidette by Nicole ''Snooki'' Polizzi and a half finished book of MadLibs.

[Ekaros]

Language might be huge thing. The shape of English could be very much different in 100 years time. The internet and how widespread it's use is combined how different it in different parts and areas. Lot of non-native users which will influence it in some ways. The end result is likely much different from such languages as French, German and other small European ones...

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

In the shadow of the Cyber Wars, all that will dwell amongst the wreckage of man's great age will be a copy of Confessions of a Guidette by Nicole ''Snooki'' Polizzi and a half finished book of MadLibs.

The book A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller presents a post-apocalyptic world where monks preserve some some scarce fragments of the past, including a grocery shopping list.

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

The book A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller presents a post-apocalyptic world where monks preserve some some scarce fragments of the past, including a grocery shopping list.

When they found out they hadn't had to make all those blueprints blue with white lines they were just a touch upset at the wasted time/ink.

So, what will make the future go "wha?", especially if there is some cataclysmic event in the interim?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

Language might be huge thing. The shape of English could be very much different in 100 years time.

Doubtful. The effect of mass communication has been to essentially freeze the structure of the language. We get new words, but the underlying language remains much the same. The English of 2013 is pretty much the same as that of 1913, 1813, and (to a slightly lesser extent) 1713. You would have not the slightest difficulty in reading "Pride and Prejudice", which was published 200 years ago, in 1813, and Jane Austen would equally have no difficulty in understanding a novel written today.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

The end result is likely much different from such languages as French, German and other small European ones...

... if they will still exist then.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by stop__dreaming

... books written now stand the test of time, as has the 'classics' we all love? If so, which books, today, do you feel could last with future readers?

I think it's impossible to say which books published 'now' (say, the last ten years) will stand the test of time.

We might have some inkling for books published between ten and twenty years ago. I suspect that Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy might have a long life.

And I think that we can begin to have a good idea about book published between 50 and 100 years ago. The Hobbit won't going away. Nor will many of Agatha Christie's works (although some will sink like stones, except in 'complete works' sets). Kipling will still be read in 100 years, certainly.

And for books that are more than 100 years old now and still in-print and being read, I think that most of them will carry on being read.

[Anabran]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Will people still be able to read in a 100 years time?

I think they will but I think writing will become a lost art eventually.



Cheers

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doubtful. The effect of mass communication has been to essentially freeze the structure of the language.We get new words, but the underlying language remains much the same.

This is the most prevalent theory, and it is consistent with the theory that language change occurs due to isolation. It seems to be very clear that *lack of isolation* doesn't cause language change, although it's still sort of an open question to linguists whether lack of isolation prevents language change. But there really hasn't been enough time to evaluate this empirically.

WRT new words, the structure of the language hasn't changed much since Shakespeare's early modern English (it's changed a little, but thees and thous don't usually cause problems); the difficulty in reading Shakespeare comes primarily from the fact that the vocabulary has changed a lot. And secondarily from the fact that people aren't as used to reading poetry.

The English of 2013 is pretty much the same as that of 1913, 1813, and (to a slightly lesser extent) 1713. You would have not the slightest difficulty in reading "Pride and Prejudice", which was published 200 years ago, in 1813, and Jane Austen would equally have no difficulty in understanding a novel written today.

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Her books are probably not great literature, but they are undeniably best sellers!

Popularity does not equate to greatness. Christie may continue to remain popular in 100 years. I find her entertaining but lacking in depth.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz2N0vYpXti

In Curran’s “Agatha Christie’s Secret Notebooks,” the notebooks in question are school exercise books in which Christie worked out her plots. She made lists of possible victims, culprits, and M.O.s. Then she picked the combinations that pleased her. The writer thinks this shows Christie’s willingness to work by formula, and thereby to forego depth in favor of the puzzle. This practice exposed her to the contempt of some critics.

Hard case crime and noir-rooted plots are the pastrami of the mystery genre. A.C. is for the tea biscuit crowd.

[piperclassique]

I'm fine back to Chaucer. That's the earliest period where I can read aloud with confidence. For french and german, I struggle with anything before eighteenth century. My latin is only good for a few lines scattered in a modern work. Do I need to work at my dead language studies or should I just enjoy more accessible works? I admit to a hankering after Beowulf in the original but it is so far not strong enough for the study required. Intellectual laziness, I suppose. Hats off to Harry!