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...

[sdn.livejournal.com]

whoa, who was your aunt?

[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.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

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