Which current day author will be a Legend?

[GOLLUM]

OK, I know about the SFWA Grandmaster award but who do you think of the modern day writers may be seen in future years as Giants in the field. I can think of very few actually. I'm talking about really major infliuences here, people of the ilk of Tolkien, CS Lewis, Urusla K Leguin, Asimov, Heinlein. Not just famous or very good authors but real greats. I'm not clear as to any modern authors that would get a guernsey. I can't for instance see Martin or Erikson being placed in this light, maybe in future years it will happen.

The author I would like to nominate is Gene Wolfe.

Who is yours?

[Tillane]

Mine would probably be Iain Banks. Not only has he (in my opinion) consistently been the best SF writer we have in Britain for the last twenty years, but he's equally adept at non-genre fiction. There aren't many who can claim that, methinks.

[j. d. worthington]

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this one for a bit. I don't quite think Banks would make it into the same category, though it's a near miss. Wolfe... I think his prose style might well count against him there, as one needs to be both highly influential, innovative, and quite popular (even perhaps bordering on Populist), to get that sort of recognition, and Wolfe's style is more dense and "literary" than most of those you mention (same with Banks, really).

However... considering that Lovecraft has made it not only where fans are concerned, but even finally where the guardians of the gateway of overall literary fame are concerned (at least, for now), it is possible that they may. If not, I'd say they will be considered just barely below that level...

If so... I'd go for Ballard or Aldiss, I think... and quite possibly Moorcock, who has grown tremendously over the years. I also think it quite likely that Ellison will see such recognition over time, though he's somewhat eclipsed right now. Once the concerns over personality subside, I think the power of his writing, and the fact that it is both intelligent, literary, and manages to be an odd blending of elitist and egalitarian, and that it hits so powerfully on an emotional level about lasting human concerns, will probably see his work recognized at that level over time....

Bradbury, of course, has already been assured such status....

[Tillane]

Actually, so have Aldiss and Ellison, who were made SFWA Grandmasters in 2000 and 2006 respectively.

Having thought harder about this, I think you might be right about Banks, JD. His style may be a little too dense in comparison to those writers initially mentioned, though I certainly don't hold it against him (quite the opposite, actually). I certainly wouldn't argue against either Ballard or Moorcock, either; great writers both. I'd be tempted to add Philip K. Dick to the list of possibles, along with William Gibson; PKD for the sheer body of work, Gibson (and I'm aware his work tends to polarise readers) for impact and influence.

[Connavar]

I thought Philip K. Dick was already a legend?


If he isnt he is the most clearly to become a legend i have read atleast. His work is already rated very highly and it will only get better for him.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this one for a bit. I don't quite think Banks would make it into the same category, though it's a near miss. Wolfe... I think his prose style might well count against him there, as one needs to be both highly influential, innovative, and quite popular (even perhaps bordering on Populist), to get that sort of recognition, and Wolfe's style is more dense and "literary" than most of those you mention (same with Banks, really).

You make a good point about him not being a populist but he's such a high class author and I know he's extremely well regarded by his contemporaries although as you say not as well embraced by the populous. I still think he may get those accolades over time but it won't be easy. Time for me to start pushing the barrow....

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

I thought Philip K. Dick was already a legend?

I would agree with that. He's certainly one who lives quite comfortably in that rarefied atmosphere.

[paranoid marvin]

Generally speaking , the most influential authors are those who write novels accessible by the young.Obviously those stories read and enjoyed by our youth will be remembered fondly throughout their lives , and are most likely to be those passed on , or recommended to , their children , thus keeping alive interest in the novel and/or author

In this respect , and considering how widely read by both young and old the Harry Potter novels are , one can only surmise that JK Rowlings ,whilst not neccesarily the most accomplished of authors , will nevertheless be remembered for far longer than many of her more acclaimed contemporaries.

[gully_foyle]

I'll vote for Banks and Gibson.

I think Banks' work will stand the test of time quite nicely, his concepts are pretty wild and the Culture goes beyond the Foundation in terms of depth and philosophy. And cause I just love reading his books.

Gibson, for me, represents a turning point in SF and polarising people is one of his charms.

But I must confess, I'm not well read enough of contemporary authors to say who gets legend status. But looking at who is being mentioned as noted legends, the criteria seems to be to push the envelope a lot, and not many current day SF writers seem to do that.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

Generally speaking , the most influential authors are those who write novels accessible by the young.Obviously those stories read and enjoyed by our youth will be remembered fondly throughout their lives , and are most likely to be those passed on , or recommended to , their children , thus keeping alive interest in the novel and/or author

Philip Pullman then. His trilogy His Dark Material is deep and can be read on different levels.

Neil Gaiman too.

[ravenus]

I'd like China Mieville to be known as a legend. He's one of my fav fantasy writers of today. Of course I'm not really representative of the market

[Majimaune]

Pullman might last for a little while but not too long I think.

I would like say Timothy Zhan but he probably hasn't done enough to be well known outside the Star Wars circles.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

Generally speaking , the most influential authors are those who write novels accessible by the young.Obviously those stories read and enjoyed by our youth will be remembered fondly throughout their lives , and are most likely to be those passed on , or recommended to , their children , thus keeping alive interest in the novel and/or author

In this respect , and considering how widely read by both young and old the Harry Potter novels are , one can only surmise that JK Rowlings ,whilst not neccesarily the most accomplished of authors , will nevertheless be remembered for far longer than many of her more acclaimed contemporaries.

No, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that. Look at the status of writers in any branch of literature in general, and it isn't the ones that are the most popular with the young, or the most widely read at any particular period, that are the most remembered... it's the ones who appeal to the readers over a long period of time, and for many reasons I'm afraid Rowling doesn't have that kind of staying power. Give it 40 years, and we'll see (assuming I'm still alive at that point to know....)

The young, especially, very seldom have a great deal to do with an author becoming a legend, unless that author continues to appeal not only to the original readers, but readers over a long period of time -- L. Frank Baum being a good example of the young having effected this, with his Oz books. In part, this is because the young also change so in their tastes as they grow older, and what appealed so strongly to most people when they were young does not appeal to them when they revisit it when they're older. Even adults have this problem -- it's an inevitable result of growth and change, and of maturing taste... the more you read, and the broader the scope of your reading, the more demanding a person tends to become; and all-too-often a juvenile favorite loses its glamor as this happens. The appeal of most popular writers even suffers this, as I noted, with adults, as new popular writers move in to nudge them out. History tends to be rather brutal when it comes to popular writers, and the loyalties of each generation of young are to those who catch their own attention, not their predecessors'. Darned few writers manage to survive that change from one generation to the next. I do expect Rowling to be affectionately and even nostalgically remembered, but not to survive that long in print; as I say, though, only time will tell whether or not I'm right on this.

I'd agree, though, with those who class Dick as having already achieved that status; but Tillane, I have to disagree on the others having already got there; grandmaster status not quite being, I think, what GOLLUM is asking about. I make this statement about Bradbury because of the very substantial body of work he has already, and the recognition he has received since the 1950s; the fact that he long ago transcended the boundaries of genre to become a noted American writer, period; and the fact that he has influenced an enormous number of writers of the generation(s) following him. Ellison at least comes very close to that, his often pyrotechnic style having had a major impact on a large number of writers of the generation immediately following him, and indirectly on the ones following them; but, as I note, for now he is something of an eclipse... though not entirely. However, going back through a fair amount of his work very critically through the years, even harshly so, I'm fairly confident that within a decade or two that eclipse will give way, and his writing will be rediscovered and will achieve canonical status. Whatever his flaws, I've become convinced that he's a good enough writer to achieve this.

Aldiss, I think, hasn't quite achieved that sort of status yet, largely because Aldiss has such a workmanlike approach. He is very seldom truly one who draws attention by an especially notable style -- notable because of such strong individual quirks, that is -- but rather because he has a very literate, solid, but quiet approach and is overall quite consistent in quality. Such a writer, if they achieve the status of "legend" -- most such don't, unfortunately, they usually are accorded the accolade of a "standard author", which is still a damn' big achievement; just not as bright a star as a "legend" -- takes a longer time because of that quieter approach; they don't draw attention to themselves. (Robert Silverberg is another good example of this: a highly literate, very solid writer, also highly respected and with a solid body of work behind him, but someone who doesn't have the sort of stylistic quirks that draws especial attention to himself the way those whose names take on "household name" status tend to.)

Ballard, by dint of the sort of material he works with, and his varying style and manner (compare, even in his early work, the solid but almost transparent approach of the tales in The Overloaded Man with the almost opaque, rather difficult, but especially memorable approach he used for those in Vermilion Sands or The Atrocity Exhibition, for example), is more likely to stick in the mind because of those eccentricities and even bizarreries of style. Moorcock has such a varied style and approach, and has written such a variety of material, and also has stylistic individualities that tend to make even his early work stand out in one way or another, as well as presenting a particular theme and philosophy that makes nearly the whole of his corpus a "work-in-progress" (also therefore rather unusual on that count) that he lodges in the mind of many, and has since nearly his earliest appearances, where he rather set the S&S paradigm on its ear with Elric -- not to mention what he did with SF with Jerry Cornelius, Blood, etc. He has also had an enormous impact both as writer and editor (and in his case, the two are very intimately intertwined, as both are reinforced by his philosophical orientation) on writers of at least two generations now, also giving him that qualification. I'd say another generation would be enough to determine for certain whether or not he's truly achieved a lasting status as a legend in the field; but for my money -- yes, he has.

At any rate... those are some of the criteria I'm bringing to my choices; so it's not easy for me to pick 'em. After all, Sheridan Le Fanu was all but forgotten for 50 years after his death, until M. R. James edited Madame Crowl's Ghost and Other Tales of Mystery... and then very slowly and gradually achieved more fame until now, 130+ years after his death, he is recognized as indeed a legend, and one of, if not the most, important writers of ghostly tales of the 19th century, influencing (either directly or indirectly) nearly all writers of the classic ghost tale ever since.

[Werthead]

Gene Wolfe is already widely considered a legend in the field, as is Moorcock, Jack Vance, Aldiss and Ballard.

Amongst more recent authors to emerge (1970s+) it's more difficult to say who will ascend to their ranks. GRRM I actually think will make it. A Song of Ice and Fire has done more for epic fantasy in terms of developing the subgenre than any work since The Lord of the Rings, whilst his non-ASoIaF work is very accomplished. His ability to move between different genres and maintain quality is unusual and noteworthy. He is already considered one of the very best short story writers in the whole SF&F genre as well (as Dreamsongs attests).

Robert Silverberg for a lengthy and varied career I think will also make it to this status, although some would put him there already. Terry Pratchett will definitely be in there, for sheer consistency, invention and bringing genuine humour to the genre. Neil Gaiman is also a possibility.

Amongst the very new authors (the ones who emerged in the last decade or so) I'd say that China Mieville has a good shot at the title and Bakker is in with an outside shot, but no-one else really stands out. As the field gets larger and more and more people regurgitate previous ideas, the chances of someone coming along with a scintillating 'new' concept gets smaller. Most of those considered 'grandmasters' (Clarke, Heinlein, Tolkien, Asimov, Howard, Peake, Bester, Matheson, Dunsany etc) already brought something new to the genre in its younger days, and with the genre now well-established, that's something more difficult to replicate.

[Daenerys]

George RR Martin is a very accomplished writer and in my eyes already is a legend. But like the poster before me, I think he will make it beyond what I think of him, and will one day be considered a 'legend'.

I'd love for Gaiman to get there, but if he does, it will be one of those obscure legends that anyone who has read his books will love, but outside of that not a lot of people will recognise. Which may be way cooler than being a very famous big name anyway.

Also, David Gemmell may have a niche out there waiting to be filled. At least, I hope so.