Influence of classic literature on writers declining, study claims...

[j d worthington]

It worked out very well for Susanna Clarke.

Didn't do too badly for E. R. Eddison or Fletcher Pratt, either....

There is a huge difference between imitating (as it is usually used) and emulating or being influenced by; one is more the sort of thing one expects from an apprentice writer who hasn't yet found their own voice; the other is something which helps to broaden the palette and enrich the fabric, even in a very well-established writer, whether it be a Joanna Russ or a Henry James.

So, if (and frankly I think this is a BIG "if") modern writers are less influenced by the classics, I firmly believe this is a bad thing. If, as I think more likely, it is a case of confusing the significance of the terms, and what we are looking at is imitation, that is not anything to particularly be concerned about.

In any event, I come down very much on the side that, no matter what sort of thing you write (and it always helps to be able to write in a variety of modes, as most writers with staying power have tended to do), a decent familiarity with "classic" literature (including genuinely classical -- i.e., Graeco-Roman) is a very good thing. Not only does it help to expand one's references, allusions, and textual richness, it also does wonders for refreshing one's perspective and providing a never-ending range of techniques and manners to choose from when choosing a voice for a particular piece.

Relying on too thin or shallow a literary background is deliberately hobbling yourself, either as reader or writer. Having the freedom -- including one's own mental restrictions -- to select and learn from both modern/contemporary and classic writing is giving yourself the freedom to learn from all the best, of whatever generation; and cannot help but enrich what emerges from your own imagination as a result.