Which modern writers will still be remembered in 500 years time?

What about Wallace?

Attached: 881306A8-7409-4CA0-8DF5-74D6ED451BD5.jpg (2560x2434, 651K)

The problem with Wallace is that he was an American phenomenon, and never really reached the consciousness of other people besides anglophone nations, at least in my opinion.

I've known a lot of continentals who have read him, that's not the problem with Wallace. The real problem is that his work is so tied up with contemporary themes and circumstances that none of it will be relevant to a new century imo

Harry Potter will be remembered more than the mentioned writers in this thread.

also he's kind of shit

Well he did commit suicide, Surely he would have written a masterpiece, he managed to write a magnum opus his first complete work, his later works would have transcended into something insightful

Me

based
Me too

ayn land lmao

The Nietzsche of our time.

Attached: 220px-Jordan_Peterson_June_2018.jpg (220x309, 14K)

Hot take: a translator will do to Bolano's work what Maude did to Tolstoy and fuel more endless debates about the role of the translator, or some other tripe, while the translator in question will have unconcealed the true beauty in Bolano's prose and his books will become important historic documents in the same cast as Dickens' and Tolstoy himself, except, of course, about what life was like at this weird time at the turn of the century.

Other 'contemporary' authors of some historic/aesthetic interest:
>Krasznahorkai
>Vollmann
>Mathias Enard
>Sebald (RIP)
>Knausgaard
>Modiano if Proust/modernism goes out of fashion

I'm excluding authors who mainly rose in international prominence during the 20th century. Pynchon, DeLlilo, et al. I have a feeling McCarthy will be remembered as THE writer of the post-modern era not because he's the best or most interesting, but because his writing is purely timeless and covers a lot of ground historically speaking.

>fuck George Saunders

Why?

Attached: D3p8c1JWAAABwz4.jpg (640x480, 43K)

cringe and bluepilled

Attached: 1554863240512.png (573x529, 618K)

These anons know. There are some authors that are so important in terms of formal and stylistic changes that they brought about (Faulkner, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway) that they won't be forgotten even if perhaps the critical opinion on them changes.
As a German I would also definitely add Thomas Mann and Bertolt Brecht to the list. I highly doubt they will ever be forgotten

This. Tolkein was the original that launched so many imitators.
Rowling won't be remembered. Her work was entirely derivative of others.
Stephen King might be only because of sheer volume but I think as the seminal horror writer Lovecraft has him beat.

A CME could do it if powerful enough.

me desu

Lmao at all of the nerds itt thinking any of these people will be remembered. Who is remembered today that wrote 500+ years ago? Shakespeare, Chaucer, Plato, Dante, and Aristotle. This isn't additive. The more writers there are, the less people will remember. It's unlikely that anyone from our century will be remembered, but if anyone is, J. K. Rowling is the most likely as she serves the same role as the ancient authors remembered today-- extremely popular among all age groups, wealthy, and entertaining. Her works have impacted a much greater number of people than anyone else itt.

>Rowling won't be remembered. Her work was entirely derivative of others.
Rowling jump started the entire YA movement, and Martin will be remembered as the anti-Tolkien.
I don't understand why you think Stephen King being prolific has anything to do with him being remembered. You may not like his books, but people love The Shining, It, The Stand, and others, and many of his famous stories have been turned into films that will absolutely be remembered 500 years from now like The Shawshank Redemption and The Shining.

Joyce definitely will be forgotten in 50 years time. He's shite mate.

>implying the films will last
Films from the 60s and early 70s already look cheesy and dated. King adaptations started in late 70s, no reason to think they will last any more than Hammer Horrors or some Bela Lugosi shit

user, you could make the same argument to GRRM, Joyce and Hemingway

I really hope humanity will be cosmic dust in 500 years' time

None of those people have had as big an influence on people as the Harry Potter series. Do you realize how crazy everybody went, to the point that it defined their whole identities? The same isn't true of GOT, which is just mindless indulgence in violence. The most people say about Hemingway is that he had good dialogue, but he isn't at the level where he will be remembered the way we remember Shakespeare. And Joyce? The only people who give a fuck about him are literature majors, and even then less than half of them.

Hey anons, I'm James Oliver Curwood, the best selling writer of my time, with multiple movie adaptations of my books. You all still remember me right? Vast sales and movies adaptations are a guarantee of a lasting reputation

Attached: 66979.jpg (177x266, 7K)

>films from the 60s and early 70s already look cheesy and dated
What did you mean by this? And the King adaptations I'm talking about are Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, and Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption, two of the most critically acclaimed films of all time.

Attached: breathless1960_102620120706.jpg (999x720, 171K)

Goddard is a perfect example of 60s films looking cheesy and dated. Of Kubricks output, Spartacus, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Lolita, Dr Strangelove all look old fashioned now. Give it a few years the same will happen to the Shining.

absolutely based and underrated

Jordan Peterson for sure

Also Tolkien, Nabokov, and Hemingway

what makes you say so?

What do you even mean by cheesy and outdated? Film's been around for over a century now and people still remember classics from the silent era (if not the general public, there is a thriving film critic community that loves Metropolis, Intolerance, The General, Modern Times, Pandora's Box, etc.).

I can pretty much guarantee that the US will produce a couple Eugene O’Neille wannabes as the ship begins to circle the drain faster, so we have that to look forward to at least

>500 years in the future
>memory of our history
The future is basically mad Max fury road

>Hammer Horrors or some Bela Lugosi shit
>iconic costumes and characters still loved and referenced to this day
Yeah...totally forgotten...

/thread
He was more of a media figure, maybe he will be cited as a guy who wrote an influential doorstopper but on the scale of half a millenia I doubt it will be more than that as much as I unironically like him.

I know you're just memeing but there's literally nothing he and mustachio have in common.
Nietzsche was a reclusive soft spoken guy who had the most wonderful way with words who influenced so many who came after him, not in the least the early psychologists like Freud and Jung.
Peterson rips of Jung and, badly may I add, Nietzsche while being a commanding demagogue. He will be remembered as a symptom of our schizophrenic time at best.

Even Rowling seems more likely than Peterson if I'm being honest. Even as a public speaker he's not really unique when compared to your average daddy figure ala Sam 'Ben Stiller' Harris or Steven Pinker.

There will be a solar flare that will destroy all electronically stored info and no one will have the technology to read CDs or USBs. Digital is unironically the storage system with the least longevity

That's a comfy-looking room

Saul Bellow
Robertson Davies
Margaret Atwood

Pinker? lolno
And Peterson is standing with reason against the current wave of left-cringe, which is to be doing something risky and notable. Rowling wrote some low-brow fantasy stories for children, nothing more, however much they well.

The pendelum always swings. People will become starved for artistic integrity and the feedback loop of everything getting shittier will close.

>Peterson
>Reason
>Has he even read Maps of Meaning?
Believing in the shared subconciousnes and that blue haired trans rights activists will bring about 'post-modern neo-marxist authoritarianism' hardly seems like taking a stand with 'reason', as ill defined as that concept is.

Also: He has tenure and his ramblings have earned him massive income and social capital. Hardly seems risky.
Rowling has literally contributed more than Peterson, Pinker and Ben Stiller combined and that says more about them than it speaks praises to her, trust me.

They’re not smart.

>Films from the 60s and early 70s already look cheesy and dated.
t. pseud who doesn't know shit about cinema

There are countless classics from the 60s and 70s that are widely loved to this day. Also, shitting on a film for looking dated is as retarded as shitting on pre-20th century literature for having archaic prose. Guess what? ALL art dates. Forty years from now some stupid kid will be calling your favorite films cheesy and dated.

Attached: David Lynch shiggy.jpg (1386x920, 161K)

Why do you care? Will you remember them in 500 years?

Attached: 1555154907610.jpg (563x503, 21K)

>there's literally nothing he and mustachio have in common
>Peterson rips of... Nietzsche
Way to contradict yourself, retard.

He was a major fag my man!

>has been 100 years since dubliners and portrait published
>approaching ulysses centennial
>still whole courses offered every semester worldwide to studying his works exclusively
>still feared by sperglords on Yea Forums who could be busy reading
>wont be remembered 50 years from now
what user mean by this?

A serious consideration is the translatability of authors 500 years from now. There’s a reason why people read the Canterbury Tales more than they do Piers Plowman.

this

>still loved
>widely loved
By who? A few film geeks, but nobody who matters. Show some shitty Jimmy Stewart film to a modern teen and they will get bored to shit. Cinema ages like milk

Based and high IQ post

>Goddard

GET THE FUCK OUT AND BACK TO YOUR FAILED SCREENWRITING LIVES. THIS IS A LITERATURE BOARD. SOMETIMES LYRICS ARE ALLOWED.

What stands the test of time will be more likely to be considered art, IF and ONLY if humanity will progress and keeps pseudery out of its museums and collective mnemosyne. Yet OP's question is futile and idle for it is by definition not ours to judge in this matter in 500 years.

What do you mean by "modern"?

Rowling, King etc. may or may or may not be remembered. I mean not so long ago people would probably mention Pratchett here as well and who the fuck remembers him nowadays(now that I've mentioned him you do, but he's not nearly as commonly mentioned as he used to be a decade ago).
King seems to be single-generation writer. There are many people who read him but they all seem to be similar when it comes to their age(35-45 years olds as of now), Rowling seems the same(just slightly younger audience). I'd say they are going to be remembered by name but not by works, kind of like people recognise Chesteron - they know the name, they know he was writer, maybe read a book of his but that's about it. Even then, some writers, especially these writing in languages different than English may be discovered in 50 years from now.

I'd say that the most recent writer(by date of death) that has proven himself to stand the test of time would be Tolkien.

Hesse. Maybe Frisch.

>By who? A few film geeks, but nobody who matters.
You know the same sort of argument could be used to mock old literature, right?
>Show some shitty Jimmy Stewart film to a modern teen and they will get bored to shit.
So teenagers are the supreme judges of art? Damn, I guess Harry Potter is the pinnacle of literature and the Marvel cinematic universe is the pinnacle of cinema.
>Cinema ages like milk
I repeat, ALL art ages. You have yet to respond to this argument in any meaningful way. All you've done is repeat the same "old films suck because they're dated" bullshit.

Attached: 1253457346.jpg (350x500, 18K)

You can rip someones material off and still have nothing of value in common, dipshit.

I think Michel Houellebecq will be remembered. Am I delusional?

you're straight retarded

>literally nothing
Sure sweaty.

The bset place for a Goblin is in the filling cabinet

Attached: expecting-someone-taller-by-tom-holt.jpg (288x475, 79K)

Unless you're abusing the word "literally" like a brainlet.

>Literally nothing
>Nothing of value
>These statements are identical
Imagine being this retarded.
Make the world a better place and shove yourself in a burning oven.

>Abusing the word
He doesn't know language is socially defined.
No wonder I'm not getting through, you're a bit slow.