The "Great Works" of Literature

UpCork

I have always said that I am going to read the 'great works' of literature at some point. I studied a few of them at school and loved them but have always really wanted to read Dickens and other classics by Bronte and Austen.

I think I'm going to read a classic book between all the other books I read - i.e. every second one.

If I use Dickens as a 'start point', which one do you recommend I read first.

sxt

"At tale of two cities" than "crime and punishment" by that Russian guy

yeah, check out tolstoy and dostoyevsky..maybe the existentialists, camus and sartre..maybe kafka??

The Mad Hatter

You're going to have different recommendations from everybody. Just pick one and start there. (Though I'd say Great Expectations, for what it's worth.)

Eliot Rosewater

UpCork wrote: »

I think I'm going to read a classic book between all the other books I read - i.e. every second one.

What kind of books do you usually read? To be honest, I don't know if jumping back to 19th century literature is the best idea because it can be long and heavy going. Dickens' books are about 400-500 pages apiece; Tolstoy over 700.

There are plenty of "Modern Classics" from the 20th century that are very much classic, while still being accessible. All the usual recommendations go here: Nineteen Eighty-four, Lord of the Flies, The Red Pony, To Kill A Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse 5, A Farewell To Arms, Catch-22, For Esme With Love and Squalor, At Swim-Two-Birds etc etc.

Denerick

Build yourself up to it OP. Don't just lunge at the classics. A book is a clever thing, it knows how to trick you.

There are literally thousands of great books out there that you or I or most people have never read. Start at something managable, then work your way up to Dostoyovky...

Or, disregard that advice and read whatever you like. It'll not make much difference anyway

MonkeySocks24

Start with Homer . Dostoevsky is actually an easy read. if you are going to read Dostoevsky stary with 'The Idiot' Anna Karenina by Tolstoy is an easy read. Hard Times by Dickens, Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. You should always read because you have an interest not because you feel you have too. If you read because you feel you have to if won't be fun. Reading is a hobby. It should be fun. Go to the library and rent out loads of books, you have three weeks to read them, that way if you don't like it simple return and try a differ author. Happy reading

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jackthelad321

for what it's worth, my favourite book is Lolita. Don't know if this is completely relevant here, but I think it's brilliant. An absolute classic, and not a very hard read. It's deep and at times disturbing, but the language is wonderous. I always marvel at it. That's what i feel anyway. I can't in good conscience reccommend anything else, Wuthering Heights is good but i wouldn't reccomend it personally. i've read Lolita four times, amazing read in my estimation. On Catch 22, It is a powerful book but not for everyone. I myself found it great in parts, and tedious in others. Worth a look. Just started 1984; my girlfriend was very very impressed with it.

Enjoy, it's a nice task to embark on.:) I should probably do something similar.

rockmongrel

Agreed on Dostoevsky's easiness and accessibility, loved Crime and Punishment.

Brendog

Ulysses

MarchDub

If you really want to start at the beginning...It's always an argument in literature to pinpoint the earliest novels but in English it is considered that the work of Daniel Defoe is amongst the earliest novelists. His books are still riveting to a modern reader IMO. I would suggest reading "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moll Flanders". They are great stories set within the historical time frame of the author. The Flanders novel is really interesting as it deals, among other things, with the early settlement of the American colonies by former or transported prisoners.

rockmongrel

MarchDub wrote: »

If you really want to start at the beginning...It's always an argument in literature to pinpoint the earliest novels but in English it is considered that the work of Daniel Defoe is amongst the earliest novelists. His books are still riveting to a modern reader IMO. I would suggest reading "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moll Flanders". They are great stories set within the historical time frame of the author. The Flanders novel is really interesting as it deals, among other things, with the early settlement of the American colonies by former or transported prisoners.

If you want early but brilliant and accessible, try Don Quixote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also non fiction was considered literature in the 19th century. Macauly was one of the centuries bestsellers and his prose was considered literature by many. An example from the previous century would be Gibbon, a man who had a massive impact on politicians and novelists (Think Walter Scott especially)

MarchDub

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh yes, of course but the spirit of the question in the OP as I read it was centred around [English language] novelists - the OP mentioned Dickens, Bronte and Austen so I was just answering within that genre. To go back to the beginnings of Irish lit would be to the ancient texts and the Tain and early poetry.

jackthelad321

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hmmm, good point Sir. Having said that, poetry, in my mind, is too boring to read in great depth. Just my opinion, your point itself is very true.

zippygirl

I just discovered the most amazing book:
From Barbie to Vibrator by Ana Tajder!
Unfortunately for all you English speakers out there it is only available in German and Croatian at the moment but it will be published in English hopefully next year! Spread the word check out the site and get it published in English sooner!!!
It is a great read, filled with humor and wit! I can only highly recommend it!

Frosha

I have studied english in university and helped teach it in secondary schools and even I have trouble when it comes to the "great works". Should we take the great literary works as being those that have been given the credit by academics and critics or can a text thats is not necessarily in the canon be considered great? Surely if you enjoy the text and it has some kind of effect on you it is great? Or should it be held to canonical standards???????????

I love everything from Homer to the Brontes but I also have an affection for Harry Potter!!!!! I love Voltaire , Conrad, Hardy which are all considered greats but as I say i loved J.K Rowling too.

Although alot of modern texts are not good at all!!!!

Damian Duffy

jackthelad321 wrote: »

for what it's worth, my favourite book is Lolita. Don't know if this is completely relevant here, but I think it's brilliant. An absolute classic, and not a very hard read. It's deep and at times disturbing, but the language is wonderous. I always marvel at it. That's what i feel anyway. I can't in good conscience reccommend anything else, Wuthering Heights is good but i wouldn't reccomend it personally. i've read Lolita four times, amazing read in my estimation. On Catch 22, It is a powerful book but not for everyone. I myself found it great in parts, and tedious in others. Worth a look. Just started 1984; my girlfriend was very very impressed with it.

Enjoy, it's a nice task to embark on.:) I should probably do something similar.

I absolutely love Lolita. My top 3 of all time. Nabokov is a fantastic writer. The thing that stuck with me the most was his ability to bring you into this paedophile's world and actually make you sympathise with his plight. You get so engrossed in it and the language is so well constructed that you forget the world your reading about. You have to stop and remember (well at least I did) that this man is a paedophile and this girl has been manipulate beyond belief. I could not recommend a better classic to read either.

Although to the original poster, you shouldn't read 'classics' as some task or because you feel like you have too. You should read them because you want a challenge or you want to be asked questions of yourself while reading. A book can be your best friend but if your not engaged with it, it can be a nightmare.

Damian Duffy

Frosha wrote: »

I have studied english in university and helped teach it in secondary schools and even I have trouble when it comes to the "great works". Should we take the great literary works as being those that have been given the credit by academics and critics or can a text thats is not necessarily in the canon be considered great? Surely if you enjoy the text and it has some kind of effect on you it is great? Or should it be held to canonical standards???????????

I love everything from Homer to the Brontes but I also have an affection for Harry Potter!!!!! I love Voltaire , Conrad, Hardy which are all considered greats but as I say i loved J.K Rowling too.

Although alot of modern texts are not good at all!!!!

A great work, to me, is a book that has, in the opinion of critics and book lovers, contributed something to literature.

A book can be enjoyable and widely regarded as a good read ( say the Stieg Larsson series, girl with the dragon tattoo etc) but it hasn't really contributed anything unique that will make it memorable in the distant future.

But something like To Kill a Mockingbird (first one that came into my mind) dealt with a serious issue in a unique way whilst also being a very good story and has and will survive the years in which it exists, in doing so being relevant to generations that were born in different era to that which the book was set in.

A book being timeless, engaging, controversial and unique like that makes it a great work.

Eliot Rosewater

Damian Duffy wrote: »

The thing that stuck with me the most was his ability to bring you into this paedophile's world and actually make you sympathise with his plight.

I think that's a great quality in an book and an author. The most prominent work in that regard that I've read has to be The Sound And The Fury by William Faulkner. Part 3 is narrated by a bigoted, pessimistic, racist, abusive and dismissive 30 year old man from the Deep South. But when you think about the book, and the character, you realise; I wholly see where this character is coming from and I can totally forgive him for being such a terrible person.

That theme and that quality is repeated somewhat in Faulkner's subsequent novel As I Lay Daying. One of the narrators declares that the word pride was invented by people with no pride; that the word greed was invented by people with no greed. The point being that those judgemental people are detached enough from the reality of the situation to be able to amuse a moral holier than thou attitude, and that those in the situation can be forgiven for their apparent moral weaknesses, if we try and sympathise with them and understand why they did what they did.

Warm Panda Cola

If you want something easy enough to start with I'd recommend Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, really good book & very accessible, or maybe Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte, or Persuasion by Jane Austen

Morlar

Conrad should definitely go on your list towards the top.

Ole Rodrigo

Atomised - Michel Houellebecq
Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy
The Glass Bead Game - Herman Hesse

Morlar

rocstar wrote: »

The Glass Bead Game - Herman Hesse

+ Demian by Hesse. A Very short novel of 110 or so pages (iirc) and very memorable.

sxt

rocstar wrote: »

Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy

Loved that book! A real grisly visceral western!

MarchDub

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that's a great quality in an book and an author. The most prominent work in that regard that I've read has to be The Sound And The Fury by William Faulkner. Part 3 is narrated by a bigoted, pessimistic, racist, abusive and dismissive 30 year old man from the Deep South. But when you think about the book, and the character, you realise; I wholly see where this character is coming from and I can totally forgive him for being such a terrible person.

That theme and that quality is repeated somewhat in Faulkner's subsequent novel As I Lay Daying. One of the narrators declares that the word pride was invented by people with no pride; that the word greed was invented by people with no greed. The point being that those judgemental people are detached enough from the reality of the situation to be able to amuse a moral holier than thou attitude, and that those in the situation can be forgiven for their apparent moral weaknesses, if we try and sympathise with them and understand why they did what they did.

I find your analysis interesting but come to Faulkner from a very different angle. I once lived in a southern US town where the KKK had regular cross burnings on the local hill and paraded around main street, all suited up in their sheets, handing out their 'literature' . They disgusted me beyond words. I never feel sympathy/empathy for Faulkner's characters' bigotry - maybe because of this reality and how it can manifest itself.

Eliot Rosewater

MarchDub wrote: »

I never feel sympathy/empathy for Faulkner's characters' bigotry - maybe because of this reality and how it can manifest itself.

That's fair enough. Though, in my defence, the bigotry in The Sound in the Fury isn't anywhere near as bad as that of the KKK. The racism amounts to the man of the house begrudging the "******" servants the food and shelter he gives them and treating them in a demeaning manner.

What novels of Faulkner have you read, out of curiosity? Do they contain characters that would be as racist as the KKK?

Ole Rodrigo

Morlar wrote: »

+ Demian by Hesse. A Very short novel of 110 or so pages (iirc) and very memorable.

On the list for this year

sxt wrote: »

Loved that book! A real grisly visceral western!

Its hard going in places, but brilliantly written and unforgettable characters. Had to read it a few times with the aid of John Sepichs ' notes on BM '. It destroys any romantic notions of how things really were in the wild west !

Ole Rodrigo

OP - I had similar thoughts not so long ago and found this really good.

http://tinyurl.com/359wacb

squeakyduck

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bleak house is one of the most boring novels I've ever read in my life. Although it was my first proper introduction to Dickens I found that his love of setting the scene put me to sleep.

But, I do believe each to their own. What I love others could hate!

Brendog wrote: »

Ulysses

I hated Joyce when I first read Ulysses but now I'm writing a thesis on him! He is my favorite author. If you do decide to take the Ulysses plunge I strongly recommend either Kileen's Ulysses unbound or Kiberd's Ulysses and us.

I did find Ulysses very hard going, the first time round; and only on my third reading of it decided to google translate the French! :rolleyes: If you read the synopsis when you are finished the chapter the whole thing makes a lot more sense!It's a book that you learn something different from each time you read it! But, I've never read and understood the whole thing cover to cover!

What is Finnegans Wake like? I'm considering reading it when I have more free time!

MarchDub

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's fair enough. Though, in my defence, the bigotry in The Sound in the Fury isn't anywhere near as bad as that of the KKK. The racism amounts to the man of the house begrudging the "******" servants the food and shelter he gives them and treating them in a demeaning manner.

What novels of Faulkner have you read, out of curiosity? Do they contain characters that would be as racist as the KKK?

The issue with the KKK [and Faulkner's bigoted characters] is this - incredible as it might seem the KKK were not marginal or out of step with the mainstream thinking in the south prior to the civil rights laws so what would seem to us to be extreme bigotry was acceptable "normal" behaviour. Membership in the KKK was very widespread - and local doctors, lawyers, police, businessmen were all involved. All levels of southern society were involved. I will try too explain why this was.

The southern states had strict "Jim Crow" segregation laws so that black citizens lived in a totally separate world to the whites. They went to separate schools, separate restaurants, separate churches, even drank from separate drinking water fountains. They had to sit in the back of buses in designated seats. The races were not allowed by law to mix in any way and even a white person who violated these laws and say entered a black restaurant could be arrested and brought into court for suspected attempt of "contamination" i.e. mixing with the black race and then going back to the white world.

The KKK were seen as staunch supporters of these laws and were widely regarded in the south as rightful enforcers of the segregation laws. They literally got away with murder as no white jury would ever convict them. Even their version of Christianity supported the segregation laws. The basic fear was intermarriage and this was unlawful - the Miscegenation laws took care of this. Ironically, the Catholic Church were regarded as too liberal and were also targeted as "enemies" for allowing mixed race marriages - although priests had to travel north with the couple in order to perform the ceremony.

So - I know this is a long post - the bigotry as expressed in say Absolam, Absolam! [which deals with the issue of mixed race marriage] was a symptom of a larger belief in total segregation. What I am trying to say is that there was no "mild" bigotry - And Faulkner's bigoted characters would be right in step with the local KKK.