Kim from Sophisticated Dorkiness asked on my review of Thank You For Smoking that really struck a chord with me. Here’s her original comment:
It is interesting how some books age well and some books don’t. I mean, Jane Austen’s books are very much set in her time, but she’s writing about people and their actions somehow transcend time in a lot of ways. Do you think this book might age better when there is some more distance — we’ll be able to look back on it and see something more universal in what it’s commenting on?
And so I want to ask you all something: why do certain books age well, why others become dated nearly as quickly as they’re published? Do you think that the longer a book has been around, the easier that readers can find something profound? Or does it just depend on how the book is written?
There’s two sets of things that date a book for me: if it’s focused on something political/economical/business-y and if it’s focused on trends. Thank You For Smoking is in the first category, and though it’s dated it’s possible that it might age better when a few more decades have gone by. But the books that are focused on trends and what’s popular at the moment…eh.
When I say “trends” I mean things like clothing, slang, and even technology. It’s hard to get past that stuff if it’s something that’s no longer popular (cell phones the size of bricks, hello!), especially if a book is so dependent on them. And then sometimes the things outside of the material seem dated to us modern readers as well. Think of the Sweet Valley High books (the originals, I mean), or even the Nancy Drew books. Totally dated, right? It’s not just the clothes, either; it’s the attitudes of the characters and the social conventions they embody (especially Miss Nancy there). They’re highly entertaining, but I don’t think anyone’s finding insight on the human condition in The Mystery of the Brass-Bound Trunk.
On the other hand, think of a book like A Wrinkle in Time. It was written in 1962, but I don’t think anyone can truly consider it to be dated. It’s got some out-dated stuff in it, sure, but it’s still got enough universal truth stuff that it’s transcended time (lol, pun) while still being very entertaining. Or even E.L. Konigsburg’s From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs Basil E. Frankweiler– written in 1968, and obviously dated simply by looking at the train fares, but it’s still both highly entertaining and profound.
So I suppose that I think books written specifically to be in the moment, to be modern and hip and whatever, like Gossip Girl or The It Girl: they tend to become dated quicker than books written with something other than product placement in mind. Not that both kinds of books can’t be fun to read! But is Gossip Girl seriously going to be as popular with anyone not prone to nostalgia (a la Sweet Valley High) 30 years from now as it is today?
But then what about something like Tartuffe? Totally political and a product of its time, right? But it’s so old it’s gone beyond dated and went into classic territory, so I have no idea. And technically A Wrinkle in Time and From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs Basil E. Frankweiler are classics as well– so does that mean that because they’ve had more time to stew, so to speak, they’ve become more appreciated than books that have only had twenty or ten or five years? Is time really the antidote to dated books?
What do you think? Can you find something universal even in Gossip Girl? Or do you think it’ll take a few more years?
Loading ...
Do you think it’s to do with the emotional resonance? For me what works so well about A Wrinkle in Time is the centrality to the book of Meg’s love for Charles Wallace. And for The Mixed-up Files, it’s that desperate, undirected seeking quality that Claudia has. (Hm, I don’t know if I’ve said that very well.) I haven’t read the Sweet Valley High books, but I get the impression that they have less of that…
I think that books that resonate emotionally with readers tend to either be the kind that age really well or the kind that falls more on the sentimental side of things. I occasionally reread certain books because I have an emotional connection with them, but they aren’t on the same un-aged level as A Wrinkle in Time, maybe. The Sweet Valley High books have some really good emotional triggers in them, but they definitely fall into the sentimental category for me.
It is so sad to think that the Sweet Valley High books are dated. I read every single one when I was a child and they were an important part of my life back then. It makes me think I’m old if you say things like that! I’m only 31 and now I’m feeling dated….LOL! I guess I’ll just have to get used to that!
Well…they are! lol.
But they’re rewritten most of them or added new books to the series, so only the originals are really dated. If that makes you feel better?
It’s kind of like how the Babysitters Club books are becoming dated! And those were a big part of my childhood, so I’m right there with you. Sigh.
I definitely find that technology dates books. On one hand, I can see why authors would put a big focus on it – it’s what people are using right now, so it’s relatable, but even a couple years from now, because technology changes so much, it means that it won’t have the same relatableness that it does. What I’m wondering is if this will mean that we’ll be seeing more and more books being updated, like the Sweet Valley ones.
Oh, for sure technology is a big indicator of when the book was written. And I know at least a few authors are all for their books being updated if it means reaching more audiences, so I wouldn’t be surprised if more books were edited regarding things like that.
I wish my original comment were more grammatical
I was initially going to agree with you that books like The Mixed Up Files and A Wrinkle In Time aged well because of their “universality,” but then you asked whether that might be because they’ve moved into classics territory so we have enough distance on them not to find the dated stuff that weird. Then I wasn’t sure. But maybe the reason those books have become classics is exactly because they age well — they have enough universal stuff in them that you can ignore some of the markers of time.
Whether or not something ages well may also depend on what you’re reading it for. If you’re reading it to get a portrait of a specific moment in time, like historical fiction maybe, then it probably will age better. I haven’t read Thank You for Smoking, but maybe in a couple years people will be able to look at it as a portrait of that corporate culture and it won’t seem to odd — we’re still quite close to the time in the book so the differences might seem especially stark.
Anyway, that was rambly. Good questions!