Photo by Gallebee
Every morning I wander through my Reader and check out what’s happening in the literary world. Recently, I stumbled upon Paper Cut’s post on the London Times recent list of the best 50 writers since 1945 (British writers only — Philip Larkin topped the list). My first thought was, “I need to brush up on contemporary British writers!” I only recognized 16 of the 50. My second thought was, “Hmmm… Ian McEwan is only a few places above J.K. Rowling, and both are behind Salman Rushdie and Ian Fleming (of James Bond fame).” As usual, I was curious about the criteria and went to the Times Online source. Turns out the criteria was: “sheer quality of writing, longevity, lasting impact, and, naturally, commercial success.”
No one would argue with “sheer quality of writing” and “lasting impact,” but I wondered why “commerical success” would merit a “naturally”? Does this mean that Emily Dickinson wouldn’t make the cut on the “Top 50 Writers after 1850″ list? I understand that this century (and, obviously, the one just prior) are extraordinarily different with respect to publishing and to the plethora of information available. If Dickinson was writing today, you can bet I would be touting her on my blog… that is, if I had heard of her! I wonder if including commercial success is a symbol of our arrogance as 21st century readers? In other words, are we so enlightened now that we could not fail to miss greatness amongst us?
I also wonder if we use similar criteria in our own lives to define success? Again, “quality” should be at the top of any list — whether quality teaching, managing, blogging, consulting, writing, etc.. And “longevity” and “lasting impact” sure would be nice, too, in any endeavor. But do we myopically focus too much on “commercial success” to the deemphasis of other more important facets? Ideal Bite recently identified jobs that are good for the environment or for nonprofit organizations. Most likely, commercial success will not be the focus of most of these careers, but thankfully there are many individuals who put making a difference in the lives of others as a priority. Obviously, financially supporting oneself is necessary, but the old cliche “no one on their death beds wishes they had worked more” is a cliche for a reason.
Anyway, should “commercial success” be a criteria of what we consider to be the best art? I would love to read what others think!
