I loved Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton when I first read it as a teenager.
Recognizing how far my taste has developed since then, I recently re-read it... and found it to be a shrill anti-science screed wrapped in an action movie script.
If this line of thought scares you, don't reread prey. This is science fiction for people who hate science. (that's not to say they're "bad" books, but his work seems to have a "tone")
Odd. My memory of that book is that premature commercialization of science was presented as evil, not science itself. I admit not re-reading it since being a teenager.
Novels are written to satisfy the social milieu of the time in which it's written. Society's moved on since Jurassic Park, why would it still be relevant?
If the book addresses human fundamentals instead of transient silliness, it can last forever. The Count of Monte Cristo (1844), Heart of Darkness (1899) and Jane Eyre (1847) are still relevant and enjoyable, for example.
I loved the Count of Monte Christo, and took pains to get an unabridged copy. I got through it, but if I'd had anything else to do at the time, I don't think I would have.
The impatient sci-fi fan can can substitute Alfred Bester's resetting in space. Much shorter and has some cool ideas about teleporting in addition to the revenge served cold. Lacks the lovely florid language of the original.
> Novels are written to satisfy the social milieu of the time in which it's written.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. It's easier to see this with movies. Pop-culture references and characters using the latest technology are easy ways to make a movie more ephemeral.
A character popping memes holding an iPhone X will not age well.
>A character popping memes holding an iPhone X will not age well.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you look at, say, William Gibson and how he talks about brands, especially in his early cyberpunk stuff, it's super dated but also super influential, and I think still good.
I mean, looking at Gibsons older stuff? Japan is the future. But Gibsons newer stuff? China is the future. It's not so much a prediction but a statement of how society felt; in the '80s, it did feel like Japan had overtaken us, at least until their bubble burst. In the teens? it kind of feels like China is in that same position, and Gibson's work conveys that feeling perfectly.
Gibson can be read as stories about fashion, and fashion is inherently dated. But reading old things about fashion can still be really interesting, even though it might require a little more knowledge of historical context.
I think the parent's comment was more about the literary tastes of a teenager / young adult verses an adult / older person. That isn't to say your point isn't valid, just that it seems orthogonal to the parent's point.
And I'm saying that the perception of a novel's 'goodness' depends a lot on its relevance. I'm not saying that you shouldn't read them, but rather that you should consider their relevance when you make your judgment call.
Not millenia. The oldest novel that we still read is The Tale of Genji, written in 1010, followed by Romance of the Three Kingdoms, followed by Don Quixote. That's three still-relevant novels from 1010 to 1605. There are assuredly dozens to hundreds of novels written in that time period. Three are still relevant today.
Whereas many ancient Greek and Roman plays are still performed today, right alongside Shakespeare. The play is simply a more durable form of literature.
Wikipedia describes Lucian's True Story as a novel written circa 200 AD. I had to read it in high school. I'm sure there are other examples.
On other comments you describe Quixote as one of the first novels ever written, not just still read, which is definitely very, very far from the case. Don quixote itself cites legions of prior novels!
Apuleius' "Metamorphoses" is probably the oldest complete novel known. It is from the second century, so much older than the novels you mention. And it is still read - at least I read it a few years ago in translation and found it hilarious and fascinating.
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the HN crowd doesn't care to distinguish between types of creative media
No snark: did/do you think anyone who has ever read Shakespeare is not aware of that? Even without literature teachers to explain the history and background, the format gives away that secret.
I think I agree with you that the context of an artistic work is a valuable lens through which to view it, but there are definitely timeless works of art, too. Don Quixote or most of Dickens come to mind.
Sure. But novels specifically require a greater-than-usual time investment, so they will appeal to a more niche crowd than a play, it's modern analogue, the movie, or a poem. And the length practically requires filler.
Most anyone aiming at timelessness avoids the novel format, which is far more geared towards time-killing entertainment. That doesn't mean you can't find timeless novels, but they're fairly rare. We remember Jane Austen, but not the endless legion of contemporaries inhabiting the same space she did.
Your examples themselves are instructive. Don Quixote was one of the very first novels ever written. Of course it's amazing. Dickens' novels were originally serialized in magazines, not published in full. It's a testament to his genius that they're as timeless as they are. His seminal work, A Christmas Carol was published in full, but it was a novella, not a novel.
I remember reading Anna Karenina and thinking the pacing could have been a lot tighter. The novel has almost from the beginning been pop fare, more of a business concern than an artistic one.
Recognizing how far my taste has developed since then, I recently re-read it... and found it to be a shrill anti-science screed wrapped in an action movie script.