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)

Erika, I'm with you on The Bluest Eye.

Erika, I'm with you on The Bluest Eye.

My favorite has always been Song of Solomon.

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.

ITA

Also, I love DeLillo but I think I was exposed to him at exactly the right time and by the right person (senior year of college by a professor I liked who was super enthusiastic about him).

I honestly don't remember if I've read any Roth.

I think maybe because she was trying less hard to be a symbolic genius because she was much newer at it. Simpler stories work better on me, personally.(and you're thinking "please, Lord, don't let her bring up Tim picking up Mrs. Watson's cornflakes again!" so I'm not. Ish.) "Beloved" was great, but I did have to read it a few times to really get it

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)

Ha! I bet that it has a lot to do with time weeding out the wheat from the chaff in earlier literature. You're right that the early theater, too, was meant for the masses, so there has definitely been a migrating audience in the last 400 years. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you might really enjoy Marilynne Robinson's books. She has a lovely way with language and a stateliness that indicates (to me, natch) that her books will last.