30 Best, Since 50

[Brian D. McCary]

Steelhead writes:

> It made me wonder exactly what
> all the technoheads think passes as "real literature" these days.  So I
> decided to do something totally absurd, which is to publish a list of what
> I, Steelhead, consider to be the 30 most important American books of
> fiction published since 1950.  Remember: I wasn't born till '59, and I've
> tried to sprinkle in a little diversity.


My problem is not with the list; of the 25% of your list which I have
read, I can honestly say I think they are all good books.  The premise
of the challenge itself is flawed.

What the hell is a technohead?  Someone who likes technology?  Someone
who uses technology?  Someone who designs technology?  Let's get a definition
out of you, so that we can decide which side of your fence we fall on.

And, since when did literature collapse down into fiction?  For that matter,
what is your definition of fiction?  If "On the Road" or F&L/LV is fiction,
then surely "Desolation's Angels", "Hell's Angels", and F&L/CT'72 are also
fiction, and are (IMHO) eminantly better books by the very same authors. 
If you are letting in the journalists, try almost anything by John McPhee
("Oranges", or "In Suspect Terrain" if you are looking for a road story)
and you will find yourself dulled to the joys of Kerouac forever.

And then, there is that wonderful, terrible word, "important".  Define
important.  Sold plenty o'copies?  Abstract form?  Good Reviews?  What
do you think of Bill Gates' DOS manual, or the MacIntosh Bible?  Both
of these are freeform descriptions of abstract, artificial worlds, purchased
and read (and re-read and re-read) by millions, with only slightly less
plot than GR (which, I must agree, is well placed on your list).  I wouldn't
recommend them as general reading to anyone, but, hell, I read portions
of the Mac Bible, and I've never even owned a MacIntosh.  Plus, neither
one of these uses punctuation in the conventional fashion; in fact, it 
could be argued that they set new standards for punctuation.

To bring up our hero, "important" appears to be defined by the Pynchonian
"them": in this case, a faceless, nameless mass of university professors,
publishers, and book critics, who define those books which are not widely
read by the general public (as opposed to, say, Stephan King or Anne Rice)
but are read by a sufficient subset of the cadre to be discussed (as
opposed to books like "Temporary Sanity", by Thomas Glynn, which is funny,
brillian, well written, and only made it through one publishing run).

Furthermore, you take a U-turn in the middle of your challange: you
start off wondering what "technoheads" call literature, then you make
your own list and challange readers to find fault with it.  This will
not show you what T-heads call literature; it will show you some 
examples of what they *don't* call literature, eg, those books you 
suggest which they object too.  We have just participated in an orgy
of booknaming in the last month, giving some indication of what the 
list readers (including the T-heads) call literature.

Lastly, what does your age have to do with anything?

Still, I gotta hand it to you, you had the guts to post your list and
ask for your licks.  I don't know if I am a T-head, (I'm just a simple
engineer) but I would include the seven books of yours which I have read
as literature, so what does that prove...?  So in response, I will try
to assemble my own list (tonight) of "Some number of books, written in
a narative vein by an American author, which I have read, and for which
the world would be a better place if more people read them."

Until then, (and all meant in the spirit of fun)

Brian McCary