Wow. There's a lot of interesting ideas here to think about.
The first thing I was wondering though: When do you think modern fiction begins? Some 19th century writers seem quite modern to me. I'm wondering if you mean the last fifty years say... or maybe you have a broader or shorter timeline for modern fiction.
For me, I think one of the big distinctions between "classic" and what I think of as "modern" is that classic writers were generally stronger on the sentence level. I do a lot more underlining when I read Dostoevsky than I do when I read Tommy Orange for example. (I know these are super random choices.) Classic writers are more likely to illuminate with pure language. I rarely find a linguistic fisson in contemporary stories. "Modern" writers are more likely to impress me with atmosphere, milieu or a breezy style. In many cases modern writers are much better with dialog. I don't think there are a lot of examples in classic literature with dialog being the main driver of a story. I can't think of any anyway. There are a lot of modern novels where dialog is paramount. It occurs to me that maybe that's one way to categorize modern fiction; modern fiction might be fiction written since the advent of movies and TV where dialog (and personality) are so important. I think you're right about spiritual detachment in the sense that modern writers usually don't take a position on religion, but I do think a lot of modern writers are suggesting the existence of a spiritual power that's sort of floating behind the story. In other words, it's just less explicit; an invisible deus ex machina. The thing you say about the lack of "willingness to try something new" is more about modern publishing than it is about modern writers in my opinion. Thanks for writing this interesting essay. I'm looking forward to number 2!
Wow. There's a lot of interesting ideas here to think about.
The first thing I was wondering though: When do you think modern fiction begins? Some 19th century writers seem quite modern to me. I'm wondering if you mean the last fifty years say... or maybe you have a broader or shorter timeline for modern fiction.
For me, I think one of the big distinctions between "classic" and what I think of as "modern" is that classic writers were generally stronger on the sentence level. I do a lot more underlining when I read Dostoevsky than I do when I read Tommy Orange for example. (I know these are super random choices.) Classic writers are more likely to illuminate with pure language. I rarely find a linguistic fisson in contemporary stories. "Modern" writers are more likely to impress me with atmosphere, milieu or a breezy style. In many cases modern writers are much better with dialog. I don't think there are a lot of examples in classic literature with dialog being the main driver of a story. I can't think of any anyway. There are a lot of modern novels where dialog is paramount. It occurs to me that maybe that's one way to categorize modern fiction; modern fiction might be fiction written since the advent of movies and TV where dialog (and personality) are so important. I think you're right about spiritual detachment in the sense that modern writers usually don't take a position on religion, but I do think a lot of modern writers are suggesting the existence of a spiritual power that's sort of floating behind the story. In other words, it's just less explicit; an invisible deus ex machina. The thing you say about the lack of "willingness to try something new" is more about modern publishing than it is about modern writers in my opinion. Thanks for writing this interesting essay. I'm looking forward to number 2!