Beloved is also the only book on that list I have read. But Philip Roth seems to drive me bugfuck, so I guess that is unsurprising.

I was stunned by how many of the top choices were by novelists in their 70s. I don't read a lot of literary fiction in general, but it seems to me that there might be some good younger writers out there who got missed? It seemed like a lot of these guys (Roth, DeLillo, Updike)were canonized longer ago than 25 years, and their newer works got put on the list by default. I would love to know the age/demographic of the people surveyed.

For some reason Toni Morrison seems a much more modern writer to me than Roth or Updike.

I'm not a Roth fan, but The Things They Carried is on my top ten, for sure. (Hec, I think you and I have had that conversation before.)

I forgot to add that John Updike drives me MORE bugfuck than Philip Roth. @$#%! Rabbit.

I think this may be why I was an unsuccessful English major. I wanted to LIKE everything I read. But seriously, I would much rather read Thomas Hardy (whom everyone else seems to hate) or Theodore Dreiser than either Updike or Roth.

I also think that the emergance of "literary fiction" has caused the demise of many novels which are actually enjoyable. I mean, Shakespeare and Dickens and even Hemingway, I think, were writing for an audience who wanted to enjoy their works in some way. I feel like Roth, DeLillo, Updike et als are writing to "create literature".

I would love to know the age/demographic of the people surveyed.

The respondents are listed here. Or at least, those are the people invited to respond. The accompanying article (and wow, A.O. Scott makes Stephen Hunter seem terse) says that not everyone replied, and that some who did reply refused to name a single book.

Wrod. I'd put Price's "Freedomland" or something by Lethem on that list, but the way McCarthy writes gives me a headache, so I'm not unbiased(and no, not "Pelecanos re karoti" enough to insist that "Hard Revolution" get a slot...I know genre as cat vomit. But I think history will be kind to that bit of cat vomit in the way Chandler is now art.) I've read about half the list and even as a Roth fangirl, I'd only include "Pastoral"...that was deep. But the NYT's crush is bigger than mine. I also prefer "The Bluest Eye" to "Beloved" but maybe that says more about me than about Morrison. I've read about half the list...not having a life will do that for you. Have not felt strong enough for Delillo yet...is that valid or my "Aw, shucks. Went to state college," inferiority thing? "Mystic River", "The Poisonwood Bible"

some who did reply refused to name a single book

Sure, because asking for a single work of fiction to represent two and a half decades without any distance is madness.

I don't agree with Sophia's argument about how the audience for literature has changed: novels have always been written for educated middle-classes.

Also, I want to point out that Housekeeping is a phenomenally good book, and Robinson is one of the best writers out there today. A Confederacy of Dunces is also a noble choice. I don't really like Roth, either, over my sample size of two books.

Finally, some of my favorite (and least favorite) American writers are on the list of surveyed authors.

Beloved is the only book I have read on that list either.

Will it mark me an irretrievable pervert if I say "Portnoy" changed my life? Because I think it did.

I am not sure I am right, Corwood. All I really know is that all the "modern literary" peeps do nothing for me, personally, at all, but people who wrote "literature" earlier in time do. I am just, I guess, trying to find the reason. Maybe it is because I am really a lower-class educated person, rather than a middle class educated person? (not being snarky at all)