A Year's Worth of the Most Celebrated Novels


Recommended Posts

> end of Gail Hightower...If you'd lost interest by that time, you rather seriously missed the point of the whole thing. [Jeff]

Less contentiously expressed (and with less of a long history of ridiculing my every literary choice), I might be more inclined to have a discussion of the book.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> end of Gail Hightower...If you'd lost interest by that time, you rather seriously missed the point of the whole thing. [Jeff]

Less contentiously expressed (and with less of a long history of ridiculing my every literary choice), I might be more inclined to have a discussion of the book.

Well, Phil, I can't say I can recall ever ridiculing any of your literary choices. My recollection is that the worst I've thought and perhaps said is that you probably wouldn't think quite so highly of some of them if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. It's not that these choices are bad - it's merely that they aren't really as magnificent as they may seem to someone who hasn't yet read widely enough to recognize their actual merit.

Whether we talk further about Light in August is entirely up to you. It's been a few years since I last read it, so it's not fresh in my mind, and I might not therefore have much of any real interest to say about it.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried twice to finish reading The Grapes of Wrath, but the naturalism never took hold of me. The film, however, has magnificent acting, especially from Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell. And stellar visual imagery as well. John Ford found it almost impossible to direct a bad movie.

The film is a masterpiece indeed. Both Fonda's and Darwell's acting performances were incredibly authentic, leaving an unforgettable impression.

I don't consider it [Wuthering Heights] "romantic" at all.

It's been ages since I read Wuthering Heights but what sticks in my mind is that I thought of it as extremely romantic back then. Not in any "corny" sense, but for its drama, its setting, its tragic 'dark hero' Heathcliff, etc.

What was it that gave you the impression of 'non-romantic' in the novel, Carol?

For the Victorians I would definitely include Vanity Fair and Middlemarch.The rereading comment above also goes for them.

I devoured both Vanity Fair and Middlemarch!

Hard to imagine two more different characters than the brazen Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair and Dorothea Brooke in Middlemarch, isn't it?

What geniuses of narrative power W. Thackeray and G. Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) were!

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

Does this mean that your reading list is the widest, longest and biggest on OL?

shinraifaith.png?7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

Does this mean that your reading list is the widest, longest and biggest on OL?

shinraifaith.png?7

It's all due to the magic socks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

Does this mean that your reading list is the widest, longest and biggest on OL?

shinraifaith.png?7

It's all due to the magic socks.Rumour has it they double as a reading lamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

I always used to tell the more serious of my students in San Francisco that the first sign your receive that you are making progress in learning about a field is when you begin to realize how much there actually is to know about it - and how much there is to know that, up to that moment, you had never even dreamed existed at all.

I'm sorry, Phil, but I've known you long enough and had enough literary conversations with you to know that, where literature is concerned, you've never yet reached that point. You have no idea how much more there is to this subject than you have supposed. You believe you know far, far more about it than you actually do, and, sadly, this renders you incapable of learning as much more about it as your native intelligence would otherwise permit. It does, however, leave you able to take umbrage at what you believe are needlessly insulting remarks about your alleged ignorance. I suppose there's some consolation in that.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

I always used to tell the more serious of my students in San Francisco that the first sign your receive that you are making progress in learning about a field is when you begin to realize how much there actually is to know about it - and how much there is to know that, up to that moment, you had never even dreamed existed at all.

I'm sorry, Phil, but I've known you long enough and had enough literary conversations with you to know that, where literature is concerned, you've never yet reached that point. You have no idea how much more there is to this subject than you have supposed. You believe you know far, far more about it than you actually do, and, sadly, this renders you incapable of learning as much more about it as your native intelligence would otherwise permit. It does, however, leave you able to take umbrage at what you believe are needlessly insulting remarks about your alleged ignorance. I suppose there's some consolation in that.

JR

Now wait a minute. Knowledge of literature and study of literature and wide reading are usually concomitant, but not always. There is no more subjective, contentious area than Great Books and Great Authors; after 400 years readers and critics have managed to mostly agree that Shakespeare was great,but he still gets criticized, and some smart people don't like him. (Ayn Rand didn't).

A reading-discussion group is the exact place to expand your knowledge of books and get the first impression of them which is most valuable. If you like them you might want to read another book by same author, if they knock you out you will want to read them again, if they don't hold your interest, next book please, life is too short. There is a time to learn to appreciate the finer points of authors and literary movements, and a time to discover the writers who can draw you into their world and enchant you. Neither is a time to worry about other readers' reader's credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. [Jeff R]

I know a great deal about literature and fiction - have read a lot in a wide range of genres: plays, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, mysteries, classic fiction, great literature, essays, etc. -- as well as the other areas necessary for someone to appreciate and understand and better assess literature, including: history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, the arts, and many of the 'hard' sciences.

> someone who hasn't yet read widely enough [to recognize their actual merit]

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm as widely read [i.e, across many different fields and areas, not only "serious" literature] -- having done it across a lifetime starting around age nine or ten -- as nearly anyone on this list.

I always used to tell the more serious of my students in San Francisco that the first sign your receive that you are making progress in learning about a field is when you begin to realize how much there actually is to know about it - and how much there is to know that, up to that moment, you had never even dreamed existed at all.

I'm sorry, Phil, but I've known you long enough and had enough literary conversations with you to know that, where literature is concerned, you've never yet reached that point. You have no idea how much more there is to this subject than you have supposed. You believe you know far, far more about it than you actually do, and, sadly, this renders you incapable of learning as much more about it as your native intelligence would otherwise permit. It does, however, leave you able to take umbrage at what you believe are needlessly insulting remarks about your alleged ignorance. I suppose there's some consolation in that.

JR

Now wait a minute. Knowledge of literature and study of literature and wide reading are usually concomitant, but not always. There is no more subjective, contentious area than Great Books and Great Authors; after 400 years readers and critics have managed to mostly agree that Shakespeare was great,but he still gets criticized, and some smart people don't like him. (Ayn Rand didn't).

A reading-discussion group is the exact place to expand your knowledge of books and get the first impression of them which is most valuable. If you like them you might want to read another book by same author, if they knock you out you will want to read them again, if they don't hold your interest, next book please, life is too short. There is a time to learn to appreciate the finer points of authors and literary movements, and a time to discover the writers who can draw you into their world and enchant you. Neither is a time to worry about other readers' reader's credentials.

I am not talking about evaluation of authors or works. Nor am I talking about what anyone likes. Of course, people should read what they like and avoid what they don't like - unless they fancy that they have a scholar's knowledge of literature and can speak knowledgably about it among those who actually know the subject to some extent, in which case they should probably broaden their reading somewhat beyond what they merely like. To persuade those actually in the know about literature, they'll also have to demonstrate the capacity to grasp what the admirers of authors they don't like are seeing in those authors. To criticize Faulkner, in Light in August, for example, for being "long-winded" or "repetitious" - really, one doesn't know where to begin with such a remark. It's as though one were dealing with a person who said of Atlas Shrugged that it is "simplistic" or "black and white" or "like a comic book." One knows immediately that one is dealing with a person who, on a very fundamental level, did not understand what s/he was reading. This is no crime, of course. With complex novels, it is commonplace. It is not, however, commonplace to find people who can't understand complex novels posing as experts on literature.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> One knows immediately that one is dealing with a person who, on a very fundamental level, did not understand what s/he was reading. [Jeff]

Ad hominem (attack the man, not his arguments) and argument from intimidation.

> posing as experts on literature

Mischaracterization of opponent and putting words into his mouth (never claimed to be an 'expert', just claimed to be quite widely read).

> have a scholar's knowledge of literature

(i) Overstatement of what is needed to simply, commonsensically state what is good or bad with what one has read.

(ii) Misstaken idea that you have to read dozens of other works of fiction before you can validly assess -this- one. Analogous to the idea that you need to be a 'scholar' of movies, before you are entitled to claim the one you are seeing is a "stinker" versus a great achievement.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil: I am in the 6th year of the Mortimer Adler 10-year syllabus for the Great Books of the Western World, and I wish we had chosen something along the lines of your reading list instead. Last night's meeting involved Tacitus, and I know I was supposed to enjoy that old boy, but I just couldn't force it to happen. I think it smart that you are reading novels for a reading list, rather than non-fiction.

I would still place Graham Greene in the first tier of novelists most who work for a living should be reading in their spare time, even though he seems to have fallen into "niche" status among the lit crits. Start with the Power and the Glory and move to A Burnt Out Case and you'll be hooked.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think JR is pimping you as much as you presume he is; his points on this topic apply to all of us, regardless of one's book reading resume. I find his points pretty well on the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> One knows immediately that one is dealing with a person who, on a very fundamental level, did not understand what s/he was reading. [Jeff]

Ad hominem (attack the man, not his arguments) and argument from intimidation.

> posing as experts on literature

Mischaracterization of opponent and putting words into his mouth (never claimed to be an 'expert', just claimed to be quite widely read).

> have a scholar's knowledge of literature

(i) Overstatement of what is needed to simply, commonsensically state what is good or bad with what one has read.

(ii) Misstaken idea that you have to read dozens of other works of fiction before you can validly assess -this- one. Analogous to the idea that you need to be a 'scholar' of movies, before you are entitled to claim the one you are seeing is a "stinker" versus a great achievement.

I've offered no arguments, Phil, so I can't be guilty of any fallacies. I know you often have difficulty distinguishing between statements and arguments. I recommend that you try harder to understand the difference.

Helpfully,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I am in the 6th year of the Mortimer Adler 10-year syllabus for the Great Books of the Western World, and I wish we had chosen something along the lines of your reading list instead. Last night's meeting involved Tacitus, and I know I was supposed to enjoy that old boy, but I just couldn't force it to happen. I think it smart that you are reading novels for a reading list, rather than non-fiction. [PDS]

I think you need a good balance of both: I'm in two other book discussion groups (in addition to the monthly novels one) which meet biweekly and we read a range of other types of material - short stories, essays, non-fiction books (chapter by chapter), plays, poetry.

My objection to Alder's collection is that, despite its pretty multi-colored spines and beautiful bindings, it does not fairly or acurately cover the greatest or most important books of the western world. My objectionn is not only what you mention: the top-heaviness of non-fiction over fiction, but the top-heaviness of works of philosophy** (Adler was a philosopher) and the omission of some relatively recent great works. And the omission of secondary sources.

And those would be my objections, for the same reasons, to the 'great books colleges' which use Adler's list as their curriculum: Too narrow.

**The history of philosophy has hardly been one of rationality, and too often has been one of crazy theories and how many angels can you fit on the head of that pin. Yes, you need some exposure to philosophers, but it should be dwarfed by your exposure to other kinds of works.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> end of Gail Hightower...If you'd lost interest by that time, you rather seriously missed the point of the whole thing. [Jeff]

Less contentiously expressed (and with less of a long history of ridiculing my every literary choice), I might be more inclined to have a discussion of the book.

Well, Phil, I can't say I can recall ever ridiculing any of your literary choices. My recollection is that the worst I've thought and perhaps said is that you probably wouldn't think quite so highly of some of them if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. It's not that these choices are bad - it's merely that they aren't really as magnificent as they may seem to someone who hasn't yet read widely enough to recognize their actual merit.

Whether we talk further about Light in August is entirely up to you. It's been a few years since I last read it, so it's not fresh in my mind, and I might not therefore have much of any real interest to say about it.

JR

JR: mindful that you are not a performing monkey, I would love to hear any thoughts you have on Graham Greene. His light-hearted stuff doesn't interest me much, but his serious fiction seems first rate. Anybody who can come up with the line that "his smile was like the painful reopening of a wound" has something figured out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

I have read about half your list. I did not regret any one of them.

It's been years since I read The Grapes of Wrath, but I remember really liking the characters and the way you get entangled with them. I ignored the social message.

I later saw a tape of an interview with Steinbeck on TV. He said his father would have called The Grapes of Wrath another one of his "smart-alec works" because he paralleled some of the stuff from the Bible in it. (I don't remember who interviewed him.) For example, he said the killing of the preacher at the end was supposed to be an imitation of the crucifixion of Jesus, and so forth.

There. I spoiled a plot point, but the scene is still powerful when you know it is coming--arguably more so as you can soak in more details leading up to it.

I might reread it one day.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished "The Grapes of Wrath" a little while ago.

God, what a powerful book!! That's all I can say right now till I've had time for it to sink in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> end of Gail Hightower...If you'd lost interest by that time, you rather seriously missed the point of the whole thing. [Jeff]

Less contentiously expressed (and with less of a long history of ridiculing my every literary choice), I might be more inclined to have a discussion of the book.

Well, Phil, I can't say I can recall ever ridiculing any of your literary choices. My recollection is that the worst I've thought and perhaps said is that you probably wouldn't think quite so highly of some of them if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. It's not that these choices are bad - it's merely that they aren't really as magnificent as they may seem to someone who hasn't yet read widely enough to recognize their actual merit.

Whether we talk further about Light in August is entirely up to you. It's been a few years since I last read it, so it's not fresh in my mind, and I might not therefore have much of any real interest to say about it.

JR

JR: mindful that you are not a performing monkey, I would love to hear any thoughts you have on Graham Greene. His light-hearted stuff doesn't interest me much, but his serious fiction seems first rate. Anybody who can come up with the line that "his smile was like the painful reopening of a wound" has something figured out...

PDS, I regret to report that I've read none of Greene's fiction, either the "entertainments" or the "serious novels" (I regard the distinction as meaningless, myself). I have some of the "entertainments" on my "to read" list, but haven't got to them. I haven't thought of the "serious novels" as something I'd likely be interested in reading, because of my (perhaps erroneous) belief that they largely address themes which an intelligent person could find compelling or even interesting only to the extent that he or she was a Roman Catholic or found it possible to take seriously Roman Catholic (or, for that matter, any religious) doctrine and the "moral" conflicts it can lead to in people's lives. As I say, I could be all wet about this. It's an impression I've received from superficial reading of commentators on Greene. But it has made me more reluctant to give his work a try. (If being a Catholic is making you miserable, recognize it for the load of crap it is and scuttle it!)

I have read some nonfiction by Greene. He was a fine writer, there's no doubt whatever about that.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> end of Gail Hightower...If you'd lost interest by that time, you rather seriously missed the point of the whole thing. [Jeff]

Less contentiously expressed (and with less of a long history of ridiculing my every literary choice), I might be more inclined to have a discussion of the book.

Well, Phil, I can't say I can recall ever ridiculing any of your literary choices. My recollection is that the worst I've thought and perhaps said is that you probably wouldn't think quite so highly of some of them if you had done more reading - knew more about literature generally. It's not that these choices are bad - it's merely that they aren't really as magnificent as they may seem to someone who hasn't yet read widely enough to recognize their actual merit.

Whether we talk further about Light in August is entirely up to you. It's been a few years since I last read it, so it's not fresh in my mind, and I might not therefore have much of any real interest to say about it.

JR

JR: mindful that you are not a performing monkey, I would love to hear any thoughts you have on Graham Greene. His light-hearted stuff doesn't interest me much, but his serious fiction seems first rate. Anybody who can come up with the line that "his smile was like the painful reopening of a wound" has something figured out...

PDS, I regret to report that I've read none of Greene's fiction, either the "entertainments" or the "serious novels" (I regard the distinction as meaningless, myself). I have some of the "entertainments" on my "to read" list, but haven't got to them. I haven't thought of the "serious novels" as something I'd likely be interested in reading, because of my (perhaps erroneous) belief that they largely address themes which an intelligent person could find compelling or even interesting only to the extent that he or she was a Roman Catholic or found it possible to take seriously Roman Catholic (or, for that matter, any religious) doctrine and the "moral" conflicts it can lead to in people's lives. As I say, I could be all wet about this. It's an impression I've received from superficial reading of commentators on Greene. But it has made me more reluctant to give his work a try. (If being a Catholic is making you miserable, recognize it for the load of crap it is and scuttle it!)

I have read some nonfiction by Greene. He was a fine writer, there's no doubt whatever about that.

JR

JR: thanks for the response--I don't think you're all wet, but maybe a bit damp. Yes, the "Catholic thing" is odd component to some of Greene's writings, especially for Catholics. Greene is not a classic lapsed Catholic, but more of a lapsing Catholic, and I would imagine Catholics who read his stuff find his problems with the church off putting, or worse. I have never been bothered by this element to Greene's writing because I don't get the Catholic thing in the first place. Again, I appreciate the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just about to select next year's reading list for "Great Books" discussion. Any thoughts on this 'candidates' list? [i will probably add "The Fountainhead" and "Emma".] ==>

Dear Great Books Discussion Group Members at South Shore Regional Library, It is that time of year again when we begin the process of making selections for ou..reading list for 2012. ...select SEVEN titles from the nomination list below...... A TITLE THAT IS NOT ON THE LIST BELOW, PLEASE ...MAKE SURE THAT YOUR SELECTION MEETS OUR CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN A GREAT BOOKS GROUP. These criteria include the following: there is mention of the work in critical circles as either "great" or a "classic"; it has had a significant cultural, historical and/or literary impact; it lends itself to varied interpretations; and it raises important questions and issues that different generations continue to deal with....

SELECTION LIST OF READING TITLES FOR GREAT BOOKS GROUP AT SOUTH SHORE--2012: CHOOSE SEVEN FROM THIS LIST

1) A TALE OF TWO CITIES (Charles Dickens)

2) AMERICAN PASTORAL (Philip Roth)

3) THE HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS (Isabel Allende)

4) MY ANTONIA (Willa Cather)

5) PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (Jane Austen)

6) JULIUS CAESAR (Shakespeare)

7) THE HEART OF THE MATTER (Graham Greene)

8) TESS OF THE D'URBERVILLES (Thomas Hardy)

9) THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA (Friederich Nietzsche)

10) FRANKENSTEIN (Mary Shelley)

11) THE GREAT GATSBY (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

12) NANA (Emile Zola)

13) THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN (Mark Twain)

14) THE JUNGLE (Upton Sinclair)

15) BELOVED (Toni Morrison)

16) OEDIPUS REX (Sophocles)

17) THE CRUCIBLE (Arthur Miller)

18) THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (Oscar Wilde)

19) BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER (Herman Melville)

20) ETHAN FROME (Edith Wharton)

21) FATHERS AND SONS (Ivan Tugenev)

22) THE ODYSSEY (Homer)

23) THE DEATH OF IVAN ILYICH (Leo Tolstoy)

24) THE WAY OF ALL FLESH (Samuel Butler)

25) WUTHERING HEIGHTS (Emily Bronte)

26) SELF-RELIANCE AND OTHER ESSAYS (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

27) GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN (James Baldwin)

28) THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

29) MEDITATIONS (Marcus Aurelius)

30) DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.

31) ON LIBERTY (John Stuart Mill)

32) THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE (Betty Friedan)

33) THE BOOK OF JOB (Bible/Old Testament)

34) THE SCARLET LETTER (Nathaniel Hawthorne)

35) SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS (David Guterson)

36) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (Henry David Thoreau)

37) THE PRINCE (Machiavelli)

38) THE CONFESSIONS (St. Augustine)

39) MAJOR BARBARA (George Bernard Shaw)

40) AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Henrik Ibsen)

41) A LESSON BEFORE DYING (Ernest Gaines)

42) SISTER CARRIE (Theodore Dreiser)

43) CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY (Alan Paton)

44) FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS (Ernest Hemingway)

45) A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN (Virginia Woolf)

46) 1984 (George Orwell)

47) ANTIGONE (Sophocles)

48) MEDEA (Euripides)

49) SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE (Kurt Vonnegut)

50) A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (play by Robert Bolt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just about to select next year's reading list for "Great Books" discussion. Any thoughts on this 'candidates' list? [i will probably add "The Fountainhead" and "Emma".] ==>

Not much from the last 50 years. Lobby for The Crying of Lot 49 by Pynchon, it’s surely reached classic status and is quite short. See how many people figure out the ending. Also, Middlemarch and Foucault’s Pendulum, so you can compare and contrast the “Casaubon” characters. Seeing 1984 on the list made me think of Darkness Before Noon, another must read. There's quite a few non-fiction books on the list, why not lobby for VOS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND, you gave some very eloquent excerpts from Foucault's Pendulum on the 'Great Literature' thread** last year which motivated me to add it to my to-be-read list. Hmmmm...maybe I'll browse it a bit in the bookstore and see if I want to add it. I'd prefer to be discussing Fountainhead to Rand's non-fiction for the level of this discussion group.

**I always clip and keep posts that made an impression on me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just about to select next year's reading list for "Great Books" discussion. Any thoughts on this 'candidates' list? [i will probably add "The Fountainhead" and "Emma".] ==>

1) A TALE OF TWO CITIES (Charles Dickens)

2) AMERICAN PASTORAL (Philip Roth)

3) THE HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS (Isabel Allende)

4) MY ANTONIA (Willa Cather)

5) PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (Jane Austen)

6) JULIUS CAESAR (Shakespeare)

7) THE HEART OF THE MATTER (Graham Greene)

8) TESS OF THE D'URBERVILLES (Thomas Hardy)

9) THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA (Friederich Nietzsche)

10) FRANKENSTEIN (Mary Shelley)

11) THE GREAT GATSBY (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

12) NANA (Emile Zola)

13) THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN (Mark Twain)

14) THE JUNGLE (Upton Sinclair)

15) BELOVED (Toni Morrison)

16) OEDIPUS REX (Sophocles)

17) THE CRUCIBLE (Arthur Miller)

18) THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (Oscar Wilde)

19) BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER (Herman Melville)

20) ETHAN FROME (Edith Wharton)

21) FATHERS AND SONS (Ivan Tugenev)

22) THE ODYSSEY (Homer)

23) THE DEATH OF IVAN ILYICH (Leo Tolstoy)

24) THE WAY OF ALL FLESH (Samuel Butler)

25) WUTHERING HEIGHTS (Emily Bronte)

26) SELF-RELIANCE AND OTHER ESSAYS (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

27) GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN (James Baldwin)

28) THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

29) MEDITATIONS (Marcus Aurelius)

30) DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.

31) ON LIBERTY (John Stuart Mill)

32) THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE (Betty Friedan)

33) THE BOOK OF JOB (Bible/Old Testament)

34) THE SCARLET LETTER (Nathaniel Hawthorne)

35) SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS (David Guterson)

36) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (Henry David Thoreau)

37) THE PRINCE (Machiavelli)

38) THE CONFESSIONS (St. Augustine)

39) MAJOR BARBARA (George Bernard Shaw)

40) AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Henrik Ibsen)

41) A LESSON BEFORE DYING (Ernest Gaines)

42) SISTER CARRIE (Theodore Dreiser)

43) CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY (Alan Paton)

44) FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS (Ernest Hemingway)

45) A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN (Virginia Woolf)

46) 1984 (George Orwell)

47) ANTIGONE (Sophocles)

48) MEDEA (Euripides)

49) SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE (Kurt Vonnegut)

50) A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (play by Robert Bolt)

I hope the Feminine Mystique doesn't make the cut. It was certainly influential in helping kickstart the 70s feminist wave but it was a trivial, fraudulent book. If there is a felt necessity for feminist lit from that era anyone else would be better - Germaine Greer, crazy Kate Millett, anybody.(I would add de Beauvoir's the Second Sex but I am down on the French just at the moment).As always I think a novel would be better - Vida by Marge Piercy, which has the whole student protest world also, brilliantly done. The other choices look good, it will be tough to choose just 7.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND, you gave some very eloquent excerpts from Foucault's Pendulum on the 'Great Literature' thread** last year which motivated me to add it to my to-be-read list. Hmmmm...maybe I'll browse it a bit in the bookstore and see if I want to add it.

It's 623 pages. Scanning your list (and of course I haven't read them all) the longest I see is the Hemingway (which I recall as interminable when I slogged through it in High School), and it's still less than 500 pages. It may be beyond what a reading group can get through in a month. The Name of the Rose is 536 pages, but that's including the postscript, the novel proper is under 500 pages.

PS Phil, why not try to substitute Appt in Samarra for Gatsby? It's shorter and you could move it from the biblio tower to the book club bower!

Since you're familiar with the O'Hara, maybe you can tell me if there's any connection between Julian English and the Emperor Julian? Emperor Julian was killed near Samarra, in modern day Iraq, he was in his early thirties, and that's about it as far as similarities go. He wasn't a drunk, he didn't commit suicide, he wasn't a seducer...it all seems like a red herring to us addicts of Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_apostate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now