Sorry, that's Statistically Improbable Phrases.

Interesting..... But de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom is a "modern classic"?!

Dynomutt, is it the "modern" or the "classic" or the combination you object to?

I was wondering, when does a book go from modern classic to just a classic? Kafka and Proust wrote almost 100 years ago, and though their writing is still relevant and resonates today, they lived in a very different world.

Well, I guess it's a bit of both. To me, anyway, the "modern" part doesn't make a lot of sense since that work's quite old.

As for "classic", arguably the work HAS withstood the test of time. After all, it is still being published centuries after it was first penned. (Granted, it wasn't really published until the 20th century....But it WAS made into a movie! Yes, the movie was banned pretty much everywhere they tried to show it but it WAS made ....)

Ok, so if it wasn't published until the 20th century, then I guess it can be seen as a "modern" work since it didn't receive wide distribution until recent times.

One could make the argument that de Sade's work shines a blinding light on some rather unsavory parts of the human condition. In that sense,then I can see the work being classified as a "classic". One can also argue that the work is relevant today, especially given the liberalization of mores and the widespread consumption of material that appeals almost purely to the prurient side of people. As well, given the rise (or shall we call it simply the "uncovering"?) of the more unusual preferences that people may have when it comes to the sexual act (what IS a sexual act nowadays? Heck, eating grapes can be seen as a sexual act by some people, if that's their fancy!), then this work IS relevant.

Relevance is one thing. Modernity is another. And pure readability is yet another story. I don't know if you've ever tried to read this particular work of de Sade's but I wouldn't exactly call it a literary masterpiece. Most of the work (as I recall it) describes, in sometimes excruciating detail, acts that can only be described as depraved. Then, at some point in the middle, de Sade seems to have run out of steam. Instead of describing the different, er, "acts", he simply lists them. I couldn't help but think that, close to the end, de Sade seems to have shifted from telling a story to simply trying to shock the reader. Granted, I WAS shocked but I couldn't help but wonder what the heck was the point of it all.

I actually found his other works to be more ..... palatable. Ok, no. His other works were more READABLE.

I haven't read the Marquis, though I suppose he would have to be classified as classic erotica, though not necessarily classic literature. And though he was published in the 20th century, I wouldn't call him modern either. Unfortunately, there are a number of books that sometimes get lumped into the classic catagory simply because the subject matter is so shocking that it makes them memorable. I sometimes wonder, if you had a list of banned books and a list of pulitzer prize winners and asked people to check off on both lists which books they've read, probably the banned books would be more widely read.

As for readability, that's another discussion entirely and from my experience, not a requirement for being deemed a classic.

But, I was asking more in general terms, not specifically about that particular work. Kafka and Proust are on the quiz, along with Virginia Wolf. Are earlier twentieth century writers still modern? We don't consider Dickens modern, but there's only 74 years between Oliver Twist and The Metamorphsis, and 97 years between The Metamorphosis and today.

I also think it's interesting that if you look up SIP's on Amazon for classic books, there is often only one, and many times none. Here are three examples, you have to guess the books:

1. Elegant female
2. Merry old gentleman
3. Poor orphan child

Well, I think your question is part of a larger issue that, I think, relates to relativity. Basically, what IS a classic? What is modern? To me those terms are, quite simply, very relative.

Yes, it's a cop-out. I know. ;-)

Merryworld asked:

>Are earlier twentieth century writers still modern?

I think the word is used here to mean a particular school of thought, Modernism, rather than its more generic meaning of current/recent/"up to date".

As for the Mad Marquis, you might want to look at Robert Darnton's Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, in which he describes several other writers who attempted to outrage both sexual and philosophical sensibilities.