which novel should I read next?

[gauchecritic]

I don't know about classics, I find them really difficult to maintain interest in. I've begun reading quite a few, can't say I've ever finished any in your list. The only reason I've read anything 'classical' is through set texts (not on the mobile)

Now that would be really difficult, reading set texts on a mobile phone.

As to the question of the need to read. Wanting to read classics is fine. Wanting to read classics so you know, to what people refer is ok too. As research into literary influence that's good. Let's face it, any reason is good, except perhaps one. The hope that they will individually 'teach' you how to be a good writer.

I know that's not the question, but it is my answer.

Suggestions = 0, although I've often heard that a translated classic isn't really a classic. But what do I know?

Gauche

Not on the list, nor a novel. T.S Elliot's "The Wasteland"

 

[Clare Quilty]

I have to say (yet again) that for me a fave and regularly reread book is Hardy's The Return of the Native.

My inclusion of "Jude The Obscure," as with the other books in the poll, is based solely on the fact that I have a copy of it lying about.

D.H. Lawrence (got over him long ago). Someone was gauche enough once to put forth the opening sentence of Native as akin to "It was a dark and stormy night", but perhaps he was taking the piss.

I absolutely loathe D.H. Lawrence. Some time ago, I read a D.H. Lawrence book entitled "The Plumed Serpent"-- an allusion to a deity, Quetzalcoatl, of whom you've probably never heard. Anywho, it was the most scandalously anti-Mexican rag I have ever laid eyes on. Former California governor, Pete Wilson, would not utter the odious racist pejoratives with which that book casually beats the reader over the head.

 

[Guest]

Gauche has caused me to think on something which a couple other people have addressed here. Now I know that we've got Simpsons and Tarentino fans here and they know about references to pop culture in both genres (film and cartoon-sitcom). I love the film rerfs. in The Simpsons, though kind of tired of Quentin's.

Anyway, that's why I think reading (or listening, watching) 'the classics' can only help one's reading/writing skills and pleasures, cos you'll get the references (at least beyond those everyone knows outside of tv ads or comic books, e.g., the Ride of the Valkyries, Beethoven's 5th, Homer's and Joyce's 'odysseys', etc., or lines like "To be or not to be" or "I have always relied on the kindness of strangers".) When I finished my B.A. at fifty, in English Lit., it was evident that all the traditional-age students in my classes had no references beyond pop media.

I can be really snobby about literature, esp. as I haven't time to reap and glean all I want, but the bottom line for me is to read and write better, so I don't read Pratchett or H.Potter or most best-selling titles. Same with film. I only appreciate the art of it as much as I do cos I've seen hundreds of films made before 1960. If all a 20- or 30-something knows about film is what's been made in their lifetime, then they do not know film.

Tired now. Over and out, Perdita

 

[haldir]

Hey Gauchecritic

Anyone who can suggest Eliot's Wastleand's cool by me.

Do you like John Donne or Sylvia Plath

 

[Guest]

I absolutely loathe D.H. Lawrence. Some time ago, I read a D.H. Lawrence book entitled "The Plumed Serpent"-- an allusion to a deity, Quetzalcoatl, of whom you've probably never heard. Anywho, it was the most scandalously anti-Mexican rag I have ever laid eyes on.

Clare, I know much of Quetzalcoatl as it is his symbol on the Mexican flag, and my ancestors were Aztec. Yeah, DHL was one of those gringos who took to the idea of idiot savant-like passion and lust and perverted it in his book. It's no different than any other stereotype about hot-blooded Latins. P.

 

[haldir]

Perdita

Don't apologise before you make your point!

The fact is that most of what we listen to/read/watch has antecedents. This does not deminish either. Rather, it expands the original and reference.

(agree bout Tarantino tho)

 

[Guest]

The fact is that most of what we listen to/read/watch has antecedents. This does not deminish either. Rather, it expands the original and reference.

Haldir, yes, but the substance and merit of the antecedent matters re. what we learn or experience. That's why QT has become nonsensical for me, he's even become self-referential. On the other hand, if one reads Joyce or Beckett (sorry, only Irishmen come to mind at present) their antecedents span centuries and teach us about the world and humankind in general (vs. our very own insignificant time or place). Just a point.

I am still grinning at the kilt, thank you so much!

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

ok, since i know you won't be reading HP (you don't know what your missing)

the favorite of mine that qualifies as a classic is 1984 but you've probably already read that. I used to just open it and reread parts at random. I don't know why exactly (many reasons I suppose) but I really liked that book.

 

[gauchecritic]

Do you like John Donne or Sylvia Plath

Never read any Plath, hardly read any poets at all, but I do like Donne's technique though not necessarily his poetry. Plus I haven't read any since 6th form [highers?]. And that was a looooong time ago.

Gauche

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I can be really snobby about literature, esp. as I haven't time to reap and glean all I want, but the bottom line for me is to read and write better, so I don't read Pratchett or H.Potter or most best-selling titles. Same with film. I only appreciate the art of it as much as I do cos I've seen hundreds of films made before 1960. If all a 20- or 30-something knows about film is what's been made in their lifetime, then they do not know film.

Tired now. Over and out, Perdita

I can understand the idea of Literature snobbery and the mystique over the "classics" even when some aren't all that great books but were considered good or novel at the time (example would have to be JFC's "The Last of the Mohicans". Bad plot and style by today's standards but at the time it did things no other book did). However, speaking as a devourer of fantasy and science fiction and a lover of surrealism, I defend the books considered non-classics as well. Why? Because many of them are better written, more imaginative, and more cleverly worded. Look at the subtlties of Douglas Adams style (especially his forte of making a single sentence funny not so much because of its words but because of its relative length in accordance to expectation. example: "Arthur slept. He was very tired." from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Or look at the nuances and twisted flavorings of Ray Bradbury's work. Or look at the intriguing blend of ancient myth and modern emotions in the works of Neil Gaiman. Or look at the haunting raw imagination of Edgar Allen Poe. These are all members of the genre crowd that rarely make it to the "classics" rota, but remain very good books not only to read but to study. I'm not dissing classics, I own several copies of quite a few (2 complete works of Shakespeare. 2 copies of The Divine Comedy. 3 copies of Huckleberry Finn. Too many copies of The Odyssey by Homer. And single copies of a great many more). I am merely saying that the non-classics can have a great literary merit as well. And they're fun to read too. A great plus in my humble opinion.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Originally posted gauchecritic
Let's face it, any reason is good, except perhaps one. The hope that they will individually 'teach' you how to be a good writer.

Well I certainly do not believe that reading the classics will, in and of itself, make one a better writer. I do believe that critical active reading is an essential part of learning the writer’s craft and of writing process itself. I have gravitated toward these time-honored promethean works of literature, not for their intellectual hauteur, but for their material grandeur. Writing is influenced by reading. I want, as influences, the greatest examples of written language. In addition, as you alluded to, these works have considerable intertexual significance. They sit at the nexus of an interrelated literary and cultural web—with other texts and movements (some far outside of the literary realm) referring to and drawing meaning from them. So, your point about knowing people are talking about is extremely valid. In something as mundane as “The Simpson’s” there are often many esoteric literary references--of which most are lost on the majority of the audience—such as Lisa Simpson’s quip, “Prayer; The last refuge of a scoundrel.” This is admittedly tangential, but one of the funniest things I have seen is just such an exchange between the Simpson kids.

Lisa: Pablo Neruda said, "Laughter is the language of the soul."
Bart:(superciliously) I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda.

The greatest part of a writer's time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book. —Samuel Johnson

He also said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

 

[Clare Quilty]

Clare, I know much of Quetzalcoatl as it is his symbol on the Mexican flag, and my ancestors were Aztec. Yeah, DHL was one of those gringos who took to the idea of idiot savant-like passion and lust and perverted it in his book. It's no different than any other stereotype about hot-blooded Latins. P.

I was joking about you never having heard of Quetzalcoatl. I can't speak to the entire DHL catalog, but the characterizations of the Mexican people in "The Plumed Serpent" are a far cry from the hot-blooded Latin stereotype. They are portrayed, in that book, as degenerate semi-humans, truly fortunate to find themselves under the yoke of colonialism..

 

[Clare Quilty]

oops

 

[Clare Quilty]

I haven't time to reap and glean all I want, but the bottom line for me is to read and write better, so I don't read Pratchett or H.Potter or most best-selling titles. Same with film. I only appreciate the art of it as much as I do cos I've seen hundreds of films made before 1960. If all a 20- or 30-something knows about film is what's been made in their lifetime, then they do not know film.

Tired now. Over and out, Perdita

This is the point that I was fumbling around trying to make.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Do you like John Donne or Sylvia Plath

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but it's quite a confluent coincidence that you should mention those writers. Earlier today I was flipping through the pages of "The Bell Jar" and last night I watch an Emma Thompson movie "Wit," in which Ms. Thompson portrays a professor of English Literature whose speciality is metaphysical poetry and John Donne.

 

[sirhugs]

I just finished Lolita and I've long since read every John Irving book. Irving was a favorite of my youth.

The Enchanter, by Nabokov, is the short story precursor to "Lo-Lee-Tah." I'm seriously considering moving this to the head of my list.

The Enchanter then. Have you read Irving's advice book for writers? Very brief. Very informative,

 

[kinky shy girl]

the other day, I browsed through a graphic novel based on Kafka's Metamorphoses. Can't remember who the artist was, but very cool concept.

 

[Clare Quilty]

The Enchanter then. Have you read Irving's advice book for writers? Very brief. Very informative,

I have “Enchanter” on order. It was not in stock at any local bookstore. Therefore, it looks like I am going to go with the insanably optimistic Candide.

I could not find any reference to a John Irving authored book on writing on either Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com. Were you referencing his memoir, “The Imaginary Girlfriend?” If not, what is the title of the book in question?