Are classic novels better than contemporary ones published in past few decades? and if so, then which ones?

Hey vick,

Measurement in the arts, that's a hard one.There's also the question about the time frame you've set: classic (centuries of work) versus "past few decades".

The easiest thing to do is to mention some great contemporary novels:

1.One hundred years of solitude (Gabriel García Márquez)

2.Blindness (José Saramago)

3.The camp of the saints (Jean Raspail)

4.Hopscotch (Julio Cortázar)

As for classics, there are so many to choose from,

1.Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe

2.Victor Hugo's Les Misérables

3.Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace

4.James Joyce's Ulysses

For a thorough analysis of this try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel

Peace

It's merely a matter of personal preference as to whether a person feels classics are better. I am a fan of the classics and feel that they show a lot about history in a very unique way. Writers responded to the times the same way that writers today do. Often, with someone like Jane Austen or Henry James, people can be turned off by the style of writing. There are too many words and it's boring, according to some. I feel, however, that you have to get past all that and get to what the author is really saying. There's a lot of depth that it might take a lot of digging to uncover, but it's worth it. Try "The Awakening" by Kate Chopin or "The Turn of the Screw" by James (it's his easiest to read).

Moby Dick.. Mutiny on the Bounty. Pitcairn Island. Could name a whole list.

Is Lolita a contemporary or a classic novel?

The Karamazov Brothers - it's great, I'm just reading it again!