Greetings,
Yeah, they're all excellent authors. Definately in my favourities list, although I would Anthony Burgess and Margeret Atwood to it.
Anthony Burgess is another of my all time favourite authors. If you haven't already read it, I'd recommend seeking out
The Kingdom of the Wicked - it's his novelisation of the early years of Christianity, and is well worth a read. Also, of course, there's
Earthly Powers, which has the best opening sentence of any novel I can think of: "It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me."
I've not read Margaret Atwood, but I've heard nothing but good reports, so I'll be sure to check out her work in the future.
Do you think so? I would have defined good fiction as lies based on a solid truth. Afterall, the most popular books are so popular because they ring true somewhere deep inside (with the exception the Da Vinci code, which is a bit like tabloid gossip on a Biblical scale).
Yes, that's certainly fair enough. Every novel, no matter how far-fetched, must have some relation to reality. Having said that, even if something in a novel feels particularly true, with very convincing characters, it's still a fiction. You can also find novels which have a historical basis, which are slightly different, but I still see fiction as essentially being an elaborate and highly developed form of lying. They often appear to contain truth, but ultimately any judgment on that truth is subjective - a character may appear convincing to one person but not to another, for example.
Peace