The Times' Greatest British writers - my ramblings

[steepholm]

I was interested to see Erica Wagner's/The Times's list of the greatest post-war British writers. It was pleasing, of course, to see children's writers pretty well represented, but what are the values of 'great' and indeed 'British' in play here? J. K. Rowling greater than Dylan Thomas or Grahame Greene (or Terry Pratchett or Joan Aiken or Diana Wynne Jones for that matter)? I think not.

Of course such lists are inherently silly, and Wagner (to do her credit) more or less admits as much. Still...

According to Wagner: "we considered a number of factors — sheer quality of writing, longevity, lasting impact and, naturally, commercial success." Presumably JKR got in on the strength of the last of these, primarily - but if her, why not Barbara Cartland? As for the other criteria, I'm not sure what the difference is between longevity and lasting impact, but both would seem to discriminate against newer writers, in theory (I haven't studied the list hard enough to work out whether they actually do). She later emphasises this by adding: "Above all we were looking for endurance in both work and influence; sometimes the latter operates more stealthily than the former, and lesser-known names come to the fore." Whatever that means. It sounds like an abdication of responsibility on the part of the critic, along with a bit of mystical blue-smokery to cover her retreat.

Hmm. Philip Larkin I admire a great deal as a poet. And he very nearly married my aunty. But the greatest British writer since 1945? Surely not! And my C. S. Lewis fannishness is well documented in these pages, but in at No. 11? I do love the Narnia books, and I'm in awe at the quality of the man's mind, but he would have scoffed at the idea that he was a great writer, and so do I. *scoffs*  [ETA: That sounds a bit ungenerous. I do think him a very great man of letters.]

Interestingly, that typically British writer, the crime novelist, seems (as far as I can see) to be entirely unrepresented here.

Comments

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

I do suspect that these lists are compiled purely in order to provoke a response: faced with the prospect of having to fill those empty pages with stuff they have written themselves, the journalists go to the pub, brainstorm up a list, and wait for the letter to flood in. The preamble to this list pretty much admits as much...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course - but I still can't help responding in a half-heartedly Pavlovian sort of way.

[sdn.livejournal.com]

whoa, who was your aunt?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

In those days she was Ruth Bowman. She met Larkin when he was the librarian at Wellington town library - his first job after he left Oxford - and she was a 17-year old schoolgirl. They became engaged later, the only time Larkin did such a thing I believe, but he panicked and regretted it almost immediately (besides, Kingsley never took to her). She's the 'friend in specs' in the poem below:

Wild Oats

About twenty years ago
Two girls came in where I worked -
A bosomy English rose
And her friend in specs I could talk to.
Faces in those days sparked
The whole shooting-match off, and I doubt
If ever one had like hers:
But it was the friend I took out,

And in seven years after that
Wrote over four hundred letters,
Gave a ten-guinea ring
I got back in the end, and met
At numerous cathedral cities
Unknown to the clergy. I believe
I met beautiful twice. She was trying
Both times (so I thought) not to laugh.

Parting, after about five
Rehearsals, was an agreement
That I was too selfish, withdrawn
And easily bored to love.
Well, useful to get that learnt,
In my wallet are still two snaps,
Of bosomy rose with fur gloves on.
Unlucky charms, perhaps.

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

I think I'm going to have to hide this list from PK. He is never going to accept that Larkin is greater than Golding, and I would be hard pushed to construct an argument in which Alan Garner is 'greater' than Alasdair Gray (who may not himself be that thrilled to be co-opted into a list of 'British' writers). Different from/than/to but not 'better'.

I have always rather enjoyed playing with lists and allowing myself to be provoked by them, but looking at this one, apart from the small outbreak in the previous paragraph, I find myself thinking 'oh god, not again'.

It sounds like an abdication of responsibility on the part of the critic, along with a bit of mystical blue-smokery to cover her retreat.

I really am not going to argue with that judgement.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Wagner and Garner are personal friends, which may have some bearing on the matter.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure this works if the order is not ranked ...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I think it's meant to be ranked. Their aim was to cause debate, and that's more likely to be achieved with a ranked list.