20th & 21st Century (but Dead) Prolific & Acclaimed Non-SF & F Authors -- Worth Reading "Everything"?

Extollager

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
9,229
If a moderator could correct the typo in my thread title, I would be grateful. Also, in the "Copious" author thread, the title should use "prolific" rather than copious."

Recently there was a thread for discussion of notably prolific authors who are widely recognized as standard, canonical authors, and the question proposed was: Who are the ones worth reading in their entirety? (Some wiggle room was allowed. One could hold that Stevenson is worth reading in his entirety without intending to read all eight volumes of the Yale edition of the letters, for example.) The list included familiar names of prolific authors such as Shakespeare and Dickens. It was asked that the author should have been dead at least 50 years, so as to give time to establish that the author in question was a true standard, canonical author.


(The thread title should have used "prolific" rather than the more ambiguous "copious.")

The present thread is intended for discussion of this same question: Who (if any) are the 20th century and even 21st century dead authors, recognized for their literary excellence, who are worthy of being read in their "entirety"? Really, more specifically, who are the ones you would consider reading in their entirety? To avoid duplication with other Chrons threads, everyone is asked, please, not to nominate authors who are widely known as authors of science fiction and fantasy, horror, children's books, or of mystery fiction-- so this isn't the place for Le Guin, Bradbury, Tolkien, etc., great as they may be. It would be good, too, if authors much of whose productivity was in the 19thC were discussed on the other thread, even if they wrote a lot in the 20C (e.g. Rudyard Kipling).

The thread is concerned with novelists, poets, playwrights, perhaps essayists and memoirists, but not people primarily known as historians, literary critics, etc. If the writer is widely recognized as a good letter writer, that output might be considered in reckoning up his or her prolificity.

Here are some prolific authors from the period whom I would be ready to read in their entirety and upon the reading of whose works I've made a good start:

Evelyn Waugh
V. S. Naipaul
Sigrid Undset
George Orwell

Some other authors who make it as prolific, as having attained widespread recognition for their literary achievement, and who died within the period include

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Graham Greene
Jean Giono
William Faulkner
C. P. Snow
Kingsley Amis (he did write in the sf, horror, and mystery genres, but that work is a relatively small portion of his overall productivity)
Thomas Mann
Rose Macaulay
Heinrich Böll
Iris Murdoch
Arthur Koestler
Saul Bellow
Halldor Laxness
William Golding
Anthony Burgess
Hermann Hesse
John Steinbeck
Virginia Woolf
Anthony Powell
Isaac Bashevis Singer --- he sure was prolific!
Joyce Carol Oates
Patrick O'Brian
Kurt Vonnegut
A. N. Wilson

I would consider reading "everything" by W. G. Sebald and Bruce Chatwin, but to me they do not seem to qualify as prolific authors. My rule of thumb for nominations is that the author in question (for this thread) must have written so much that it would take quite a few weeks to read everything. Sebald and Chatwin could be read pretty comfortably in a couple of weeks each, I suppose.

 
Last edited:
Here are my Sigrid Undset books. I've read most of them, also Jennie and Marta Oulie, early books worth reading but not of compelling interest in my opinion.
undset.jpg
 
I think the obvious ones would be Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Steinbeck. All are staple authors in US curriculums and wrote multiple highly regarded novels. There seems to be a backlash against them these days, but I’ve enjoyed a few works from each.

I’d have to think a bit on which ones I would rate. Greene would be there, as well as Chandler and Hammett probably. The latter two are maybe not as prolific.
 
Robertson Davies
Norman Lewis
Eric Newby
Ryszard Kapuzcinski
I would nominate Jan Morris but she is still alive.

is Marquez still going?
 
Hitmouse, till I checked Wikipedia just now I didn't realize Norman Lewis was so productive -- a prolific author indeed. Likewise with Kapuściński.
 
I've read a substantial portion of each of the following, and could see myself reading all of their work:

Muriel Spark
Rumer Godden (though I'd probably skip the children's books)
Elizabeth Bowen
Anita Brookner (including the art history books!)

I've essentially read all the major works by the following:

J.P. Donleavy
Raymond Queneau
Georges Perec

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I read a lot of D.M. Thomas (for some reason) and Milan Kundera, though I don't know if I would recommend them now.

I've read all the eleven novels of David Markson, and would highly recommend him, but I don't know if he quite qualifies as "prolific." I would also list here Thomas Pynchon, who certainly makes up in number of pages what he may lack in number of books.

Others of whom I've read between one and three titles, but into whose work I can could see myself digging more deeply:

Marguerite Yourcenar
Marguerite Duras
Michel Leiris

I haven't seen Updike mentioned yet. I'm not crazy about his fiction (though many people are), but I love his nonfiction, and there's certainly a lot of both.

Other possibilities:

Italo Calvino (I've read several of his books, one of which at least I adore, but frankly I don't feel impelled to read more. I can see others doing so, though.)
Jack Kerouac (ditto)
 
Last edited:
I think Thomas Pynchon fails the test by virtue of having a pulse.
 
Hugh Walpole, for certain - and he's under-rated these days. I'm not sure Orwell or Fitzgerald should make a list of prolific authors. Neither wrote all that much, and it wouldn't be such a project to read them all. Orwell only wrote 9 major works (I've read 7 of them), and Fitzgerald only 5 novels. Even adding all their shorts and essays, they weren't all that prolific. Steinbeck certainly, Hemingway, yes.
 
Bick, I'm including the four fat volumes of Orwell essays (and letters) that came out around 1970. Some of his best work is in the essay form. But I see your point and agree that maybe Orwell doesn't qualify as "prolific"; certainly he was nothing like so prolific as some of the others listed on this thread.

Fitzgerald I don't know very well at all, just a couple of readings a long time ago of Gatsby and that's about it. Maybe soulsinging would like to defend Fitzgerald for this topic.

Again, an author is prolific if he or she wrote so much (in addition to obvious ephemera and letters) that to read it all would take most people "quite a few weeks" -- perhaps a few months.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top