What classic novel will you never touch?

[Deinonychus]

In my case, it can only be 'Lord of the Rings': I just cannot be doing with anything Tolkein*. I accept that this is less a reflection on the author's supposed greatness as a writer/visionary, more that I grew up at a time when all my sister's boyfriends (and all school prefects) seemed obsessed with 'The Hobbit' et al and prog rock was reflecting all this nonsense way too much for a 'new-wave' mind like mine.

Of course, now that the whole shebang has been realised in a series of money-vacuuming movies etc, I feel even more magnetically opposed. ("The special effects are amazing!" "Yeah...right. What else did you get for Christmas..?")

(*Ironically, Tolkein was one of the examiners that gave my mother a distinction at 'O' level English many decades ago.)

[Darkstar]

I think there's a long list in my case. Currently filling the top position is Ulysses by James Joyce, as I recently read a synopsis of it and have decided it's really not the sort of thing I want to read.

[Starry]

I have a long list as well. Mostly authors whose books I was forced to read in school. For example, I will never read another Thomas Hardy or D.H. Lawrence book. Both these authors appeared misogynistic misery-guts to me and I can't imagine what they could possibly have to say that is relevant. Anybody else feel this way about old school books?

I agree about James Joyce. I've tried reading Portrait of an Artist, but can't get past the baby talk. So maybe it was brilliant and innovative at the time, but what does that matter now?

The russian classics don't appeal to me at the moment either - War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina. Maybe one day, but not today :)

[Rootytootytoo]

Actually Starry, you're right. I could never read F. Scott Fitzgerald after 'Tender is the night' was brutalised by my A level teacher... are you reading this Mr Bird!?

After the class had gone round for two hours reading it out loud in a monotone, the magic was lost on me to be honest. It doesn't have to be that way though - I still love Phillip Larkin and that was a school text. It depends if its delivered with enthusiasm!

[Deinonychus]

Starry - I s'pose the point with Hardy and Lawrence is that the values they depict are not relevant, not in these supposedly enlightened times. Obviously, one has to remain mindful of the times in which they were written/set...

('Jude the Obscure' - now there's a read to slash your wrists by. Might start a new thread..?)

[Claire]

Do start that Jude the Obscure thread! - I love it, despite it's massive misery-inducing tendancies ;) I'd love to see what other people think of it.

[Starry]

Starry - I s'pose the point with Hardy and Lawrence is that the values they depict are not relevant, not in these supposedly enlightened times. Obviously, one has to remain mindful of the times in which they were written/set...

Now I just don't agree with that (in the nicest possible way of course). If the values they depict have no relevance then why bother continuing to inflict them on poor GCSE/A-Level students, when there is so much excellent up-to-date literature out there. I agree though that you have to remain mindful of the times in which they were set. I have no trouble at all with Jane Austen for example, though perhaps that is because it appeals to the romantic side of my nature and I can overlook the way her main characters look down on "the poor folk" :)


It doesn't have to be that way though - I still love Phillip Larkin and that was a school text.

No, I agree, sometimes there is a book that stands out, for me it was Silas Marner, I loved it then and I still love it.

[Deinonychus]

Starry: I think a balance of modern and classic is fine for 'A' level - after all, the likes of Thomas Hardy clearly shaped the way many authors write now. As for binning writers like him, well, what Nazi Germany did/wanted to do was (shall we say) 'not pleasant', but I think it might just be a major wrong if schools no longer covered WWII in history classes! (Bit of an exaggerated point, but you get my drift..?)

Far from being out-and-out romantic, Jane Austen, while undoubtedly a 'great', was one of the most cynical writers of her era, IMO! (Her male characters were always so fundamentally flawed - I think that's why women like reading her..?)

[Jassie]

Far from being out-and-out romantic, Jane Austen, while undoubtedly a 'great', was one of the most cynical writers of her era, IMO! (Her male characters were always so fundamentally flawed - I think that's why women like reading her..?)

I generally have to restrain myself about enthusing about Miss Austen. So here it is... I agree with your comments Deinonychus. One of the reasons I love reading Jane Austen is her insightful writing of characters. Not just the main ones either, you can see flashes of them all in people today. Social climbing Mr Collins (any office brownoser), any worried mother who just wants to see her children married? Mrs Bennet of course (even my mum has flashes of her - eek). Snobby interfering Lady Catherine De Burgh (W.I popped into my head for some reason, probably as a result of 'Little Britain'!). Young women talking about nothing but boys, clothes and balls (nightclubs are full of em) Lyin, cheatin Mr Wickam or Willoughby, oh the love rats...I could go on, but I'm being restrained here... well trying. If you love people watching they are great novels.. what elements of the characters do you spot in any of your acquaintances? And I'm not talking about them striding about in boots and breeches staring moodily into the distance...

I think novels dubbed 'classics' certainly have a place in today's society. Our surface wants might have changed from buying carriages and horses to the latest model car or DVD recorder and where to go on holiday. Fundamentally though we humans haven't changed much and I can certainly identify with the emotions, fears, wants and hopes in classic literature, although not always obvious they are certainly there. I feel I've learnt an awful lot about humanity from them. We can use the arguement that many of the novels are about a narrow middle class view of England, but what's that saying..'people are the same all over'... As long as 'novels' aren't all you read I'm sure they won't turn your head or affect you in a dangerous manner. :rolleyes:

[Claire]

*wild cheering for Jassie's post!*

:cool:

[Jassie]

why thank you Claire [modest curtsey] :)

[Starry]

(Bit of an exaggerated point, but you get my drift..?)

LOL, sledgehammer to crack a nut springs to mind :) However, the fact that some writers are influenced by Hardy is neither here nor there in my mind. Does it really matter where a writer gets his/her influences from if they have something relevant to say. I have only read Tess of the Durbervilles so I can only comment on Hardy's writing in this book. His female characters are downtrodden and disrespected by all, and worse than that he has no respect for them himself. He puts them through scene after scene of misery and finally there is a miserable end where nothing that happened matters. What is that supposed to teach us? That women are worthless? That misery is godly? It just makes me mad thinking about him. Furthermore I don't like his writing either - he shoves symbolism down your throat and I much prefer my literature to have a subtle quality.

Having said all that I appreciate that not everyone feels the same way I do and banning books from A-level because I don't care for them is never going to be at the top of the national curriculum planning committee's agenda!! It just seems like such a shame to teach kids about reading behind the lines of a book with such misery.

As for Jane Austen, I did not mean that the only reason I like Jane Austen is because she appeals to my romantic side (although she does). I also like her because she is witty, and cynical and ALL the reasons Jassie mentions. Her books do transcend time.

Fundamentally though we humans haven't changed much
It depends what you mean by fundamentally. I really hope we have fundamentally changed, that we are no longer biggoted, that we are socially aware, otherwise what was the last one hundred years for?

[Jassie]

It depends what you mean by fundamentally. I really hope we have fundamentally changed, that we are no longer biggoted, that we are socially aware, otherwise what was the last one hundred years for?

Yah okay you got me there I agree and hope so too. Mind you it was difficult for me to get off the Jane Austen topic... just a tad obsessed :o

As for a classic I wouldn't read, I've had a hard time thinking of one as I would hope that I'd always have a go at reading something. It being a classic wouldn't tend to put me off, but then I would say that because I like em. I agree with everyone's aversion to Ulysses. Dare I say I had a problem reading Homer's Iliad, so that would probably be mine.

[lizzie_odd]

The word 'classics' for me always used to inspire dread. I'm now happily working my way through some of them on my English degree course, and attempting some in my spare time. (what spare time?!?!?) I sometimes have a little amount of dread in anticipation of the vast amount of reading i have to do, but on the whole I just try and get into it.
I think this notion of avoiding 'classics' is similar to the fear that many have of black and white films - yet these are some of the best films there are, yet i know people who purposely avoid them. There is a perception of them being boring, which i think is utterly wrong. When i was younger, I'm :rolleyes: ashamed to say, i shared that idea, but now i know better!
I'm a bit frightened of tackling Chaucer - but as a joint-degree student, i can brush him under the carpet for a little while (until year two, that is)...

[Deinonychus]

Starry: Hardy's words weren't purely put down to 'teach' folk how to think. I'm no apologist for him - I think he can be pretty unrelenting too - nor the way his characters come across, but, unfortunately, that's pretty much how things were for women a lot of the time. (The non-denial of past values is what makes the world a better place, I would hope.)

If you apply modern standards/values to the work of centuries back, you're going to get onto a sticky wicket all round, IMO. Jane Austen gets away with much because she was one of the first female authors to master irony. You pointed out her 'looking down on the poor' but have said you can accept that: so why should 'classism' be acceptable and 'misogeny' not? Neither is a particularly pleasant trait. Just wondering!

[Starry]

Deinonychus: Okay, I'll admit to playing devil's advocate a little! You're right, Hardy is only reflecting the attitudes of the majority of people in the time in which he lived, and Jane Austen's classism is no more acceptable than misogeny.

But the reason I asked "what he is supposed to be teaching us" is because his literature is being taught in schools and while I realise that A-level students are not as impressionable as 10 year olds, I think he does give out the wrong impression of literature in general. In the past I've taken part in several threads about the books that are read in schools and 90% of the answers declared a dislike of classics because of the ones choosen to be read in school. And I've lost count of the number of times that people have mentioned they would like to read "blah blah" book, but they feel it would be too time-consuming/difficult/worthy. Whereas if the national curriculum choose books with a lighter touch, but exploring the same themes, perhaps more people would become enthused about reading.

[Carly]

I have to agree with all those people who have listed Ulysses as something they never want to read! I HATE it! I have started it a few times, having been supposed to have read it twice at uni, but I've never got very far. This is because it was twaddle. Yeah innovation sure whatever, but what does innovation really MEAN? Something new? What if I wrote 'This is not a novel' over and over again to fill a few hundred pages and published it under the title 'Novel'......surely that would be innovation? And I bet if someone actually did that there would be some idiots who would worship as a post modernist masterpiece. And it would make a better read than Stephen Dedalus and his cronies! ;)

What's so good about it other than being innovative? In my opinion ANYTHING can be innovative (see above) but in order for it to be held in any respect it should be approachable and enjoyable. If you write (or paint or create in any way) something only pretentious creeps pretend to like just because it's different what is the point? It's just their way of trying to feel elite and better than everyone else. If you actually read a lot of post modern theory you'll find it is practically unintelligible! It's just people trying to be clever - how often have you read something and thought 'that must be REALLY clever because I don't understand it' - chances are it it's actually just twaddle that just doesn't make any sense to a rational brain, so don't worry about it. They obscure understanding because they have nothing of substance to say, and by doing so they make a name for t hemselves as being innovative and clever. On closer study their work just doesn't wash. To arty pretentious types yeah maybe, but those of us with our feet on the ground? no thanks!

Anyway, sorry, kind of off on a rant there, needless to say James Joyce falls into the category I've just described! I'm sure my lecturer told me an anecdote that James Joyce's daughter was a bit mad in the head, but Joyce couldn't have her committed as, under the same criteria, he would be admitting he himself was mad!.....pretty telling, huh?

If anyone can convince me on the merits of James Joyce....well, Ulysses at least (I'm embarrassed to admit a soft spot for Dubliners) I'll give you a kitten.

[Deinonychus]

Blimey. To describe James Joyce as 'meaningless twaddle' is, uh, somewhat sweeping - he was one of the finest writers of his era. And 'Ulysses' was very much a 'one off'. But if you go into his (or anyone's) work with such preconceptions, you won't enjoy it, no...

I don't understand either this notion that writing/art/music/whatever has to be 'accessible' in order to have merit. Nothing personal, but that's utter nonsense. Are you honestly suggesting that all abstract painting is worthless? Or that only mainstream music should be played anywhere? (Because a piece of work isn't completely linear does not make it 'arty' or 'pretentious'.) Of course people shouldn't need cosseting with an easy read all the time - writing needs to challenge the reader now and again. I'd have thought that was obvious, quite frankly...

[Grammath]

I think I'm probably going to incur the wrath of a number of you with this post, expecially those of a female persuasion, but I had the experience a number of you have described with Hardy and Lawrence.

I don't envy Mr. Rossotti for having to try and enthuse to a classroom of 16 year old boys on the delights of "Emma", but he did a poor job and I've had a phobia of Austen ever since. The leading characters all just seemed like silly little girls to the spotty teenage oik that was the mid-80s me and they irritated the hell out of me!

I reckon Austen must be a girl thing, I remember in one of the "Big Read" programmes Clive Anderson saying something like 80% of the votes for "Pride and Prejudice" had been cast by women. On the flipside, a similar percentage of men had voted for "Catch-22" and "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", both of which I adore.

I guess 20 years a long time to hold a grudge, but I just can't help myself. There's so much other stuff out there that I really want to read that I can't bring myself to try again.

I feel a battle of the sexes coming on...flame away, ladies!!!

[Jassie]

I reckon Austen must be a girl thing, I remember in one of the "Big Read" programmes Clive Anderson saying something like 80% of the votes for "Pride and Prejudice" had been cast by women. On the flipside, a similar percentage of men had voted for "Catch-22" and "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", both of which I adore......

.....I feel a battle of the sexes coming on...flame away, ladies!!!
I suppose I'm just a gal who is broad minded enough to enjoy all forms of literature, 'Catch 22', 'Hitchikers Guide', Hardy, AND Austen. Etc... ;)

[Carly]

Blimey. To describe James Joyce as 'meaningless twaddle' is, uh, somewhat sweeping - he was one of the finest writers of his era. And 'Ulysses' was very much a 'one off'. But if you go into his (or anyone's) work with such preconceptions, you won't enjoy it, no...

I don't understand either this notion that writing/art/music/whatever has to be 'accessible' in order to have merit. Nothing personal, but that's utter nonsense. Are you honestly suggesting that all abstract painting is worthless? Or that only mainstream music should be played anywhere? (Because a piece of work isn't completely linear does not make it 'arty' or 'pretentious'.) Of course people shouldn't need cosseting with an easy read all the time - writing needs to challenge the reader now and again. I'd have thought that was obvious, quite frankly...

Hmm..feel the need to stick up for myself here...firstly, please don't suggest I read Joyce with 'preconceptions'...at no point in my post did I say that I thought this BEFORE I read it. In actual fact I initially approached Ulysses with enthusiasm. These 'preconceptions' as you call them are actually conclusions I have come to after reading a great deal of literature and theory. They are my opinions, and just because you don't agree with them Deinonychus doesn't automatically mean they are unfounded, as your use of the term 'preconception' would suggest.

Yeah, writing needs to challenge, I didn't dispute that fact. But what's Joyce challenging in Ulysses? I am genuinely interested in what people think. Don't just slag off what I say without substantiating it, if you think Ulysses is such a great read, tell me why and maybe you'll inspire me to give it another go.

All I'm saying is that there is a fine line between art and the ridiculous. What makes something art? What makes Ulysses a classic? What's good about it apart from the fact it's unique? Or is being unique enough? Isn't the primary role of art entertainment? Something to be enjoyed? Do people only like Joyce because most other people don't? Is it to set themselves apart, to be superior to the common denominator? These are questions I think are interesting to discuss, and that, Deinonychus, was the point of my post. Sorry you missed it, quite frankly....

[Carly]

Jane Austen, while undoubtedly a 'great', was one of the most cynical writers of her era, IMO! (Her male characters were always so fundamentally flawed - I think that's why women like reading her..?)

You're wrong there Deinonychus....women like reading Austen because she's got a wicked tongue and her bitchy comments strike right to the heart of most women! Austen's men may have been flawed, but so were her women! Even the seemingly perfect (and boring) Fanny Price feels the rough side of Austen's tongue every now and then! Come on...! Now I think of it aren't Austen's women WORSE than her men? ....Mrs Bennet anyone?! Lady Bertram?!

[Deinonychus]

Carly: I've always rated Jane Austen, so I have no real argument with you there. I was merely flagging up the discrepancy of previous poster Starry's distinction between 'the treatment of men/underclasses' by Austen and 'the treatment of women' by Hardy. Anyway...

If you write (or paint or create in any way) something only pretentious creeps pretend to like just because it's different what is the point? It's just their way of trying to feel elite and better than everyone else. If you actually read a lot of post modern theory you'll find it is practically unintelligible! It's just people trying to be clever - how often have you read something and thought 'that must be REALLY clever because I don't understand it' - chances are it it's actually just twaddle that just doesn't make any sense to a rational brain, so don't worry about it. They obscure understanding because they have nothing of substance to say, and by doing so they make a name for t hemselves as being innovative and clever. On closer study their work just doesn't wash. To arty pretentious types yeah maybe, but those of us with our feet on the ground? no thanks!

Re. the other debate - I didn't miss your point, no - I doubt anyone did. That was the paragraph with which I had a problem. I'm not suggesting that your opinion is 'unfounded' for one second, but if you use expressions like 'trying to be clever' and 'better than everyone else', then it's hard to take it seriously. If you don't like something, then fine - I'm merely asking why you think you have the right to dismiss somebody's work as 'arty' or 'pretentious' simply because something in it doesn't strike a chord with you (or that you just don't get it)? Who are you to be the arbiter of taste here? Sure, there's art/lit/music out there that I find hard work, but that doesn't give me the right to suggest that it isn't valid. And what would happen if a 'less penetrable' book/abstract work of art/whatever came along that you liked? Would you swallow your appreciation and go back to the above opinion anyway? I'm just wondering.

Finally, I can't agree that the primary role of art is 'entertainment', no. It's a role, perhaps, but I'd say the main one was 'expression'. I doubt many quality writers become writers to satisfy an audience. They certainly shouldn't have to write just to keep the reader amused - although, obviously, plenty do...

[Carly]

Ok, ok, Deinonychus, truce! You've kinda backed me into a corner and I can no longer defend myself without saying stuff I don't actually mean! I was being purposely hyperbolic about James Joyce/art etc, I wasn't expecting anyone to care! Serves me right for being argumentative... :rolleyes:

No, seriously although I don't agree with everything you write about art, I'm not as stuck in my little conservative rut as I may have come across, I don't always consider the effects of my words before I use them and often end up in this situation arguing a corner I don't wholeheartedly believe in...it's led to many an argument between me and my boyfriend! :o I admit I'd kind of forgotten to consider the idea that art is also a form of expression as I was too caught up in the other part of my rant! Art (including literature) does indeed have merit in expression of the artist's feelings, I guess what makes me mad is when people who obviously don't get it but just pretend to in order to make themselves look clever. It means the medium can be abused, and as art gets more and more obscure it's often hard to tell the difference between what is genuine expression and who's just trying to make a fast buck by being obscure. I'm actually glad you argued with me cos it's made me think more clearly about it, and I guess it's the commercialisation of obscure art that I don't like. It's easier to see why mainstream stuff is popular, and there's a standard to judge yourself against, whereas with alternative stuff there isn't necessarily a scale on which to judge achievement or skill, which leads to impostors cashing in on what should really be a small market. you don't have to prove anything, you just have to be obscure enough to be noticed, and sometimes it's really hard to tell who's doing what, and that's not the fault of the artist, it's the fault of the impostors who have weakened the area by trying to commercialise it. I wasn't really meaning to demerit art as a mode of expression, although I admit my words may have suggested that. Sorry if this is a bit garbled, i'm tired!

Does no one have any words of support for James Joyce?! I'm waiting to be convinced of the merits of Ulysses...! There's actually an interesting theory i've read about literary canons and why certain novels are always included, but i'll save that for another day! (ie once i've done my research!)

[Deinonychus]

Hi again, Carly! I know what you mean about 'bandwagon-jumpers' in the creative world - but I think they're usually pretty easy to spot. There again, you have another problem with an artist/writer/musician's work appearing to be a complete sham, yet somehow still working - and thus still valid. There are far too many ways in which any boundaries between the mainstream and the so-called 'elite' (a term much misused, IMO) can be fudged. One needs the other to survive basically, but if a leftfield movement were to become popular, surely it would then be part of the mainstream..? (The bottom line is that any work of art/piece of writing etc should surely be merited on its own terms...)

As for folk who 'pretend' to be into something in an attempt to heighten their own credibility, well - that might be a tougher one to prove. When this is unarguably the case, though, there's little point in getting worked up about it: after all, what could you feel for such people other than sympathy? Far better to care about the art than those who spout off about it.

But, it's an easy argument in which to tie oneself up in knots, yes...

As for 'Ulysses' - well, as I mentioned on another thread, I never finished it either (though plan to), so I wouldn't be the one to give a definitive answer to your question. After all that!

[Nonfictionreader]

Honest to g*d, I picked this sentence/passage entirely at random from the middle (p.385) of a copy of Ulysses.

"Here the listener who was none other than the Scotch student, a little fume of a fellow, blond as tow, congratulated in the liveliest fashion with the young gentleman and, interrupting the narrative at a salient point, having desired his visavis with a polite beck to have the obligeness to pass him a flagon of cordial waters at the same time by a questioning poise of the head (a whole century of polite breading had not achieved so nice a gesture) to which was united an equivalent but contrary balance of the head asked the narrator as plainly as was ever done in words if he might treat him with a cup of it."

How on this earth can such an unstructured, impenetrable and vague use of language be about expression? If he wanted to express himself, he'd have used more than about twelve full stops in the entire book. Yes, language is flexible. Yes, rules have to broken and the boundaries of acceptable means of expression tested. But this is deliberately esoteric - the man doesn't want to communicate, he's clearly either insane or having a good old belly laugh at all the literary snobs. I genuinely doubt that anyone has ever got through the whole 732 pages and thought anything other than "well that was a waste of time, how can I make up for all those lost days spent immersed in that narcissitic orgy of english words and multilated syntax? I know, I'll pretend to everyone else that its actually really inspirational, enlightening and (heck, why not) even enjoyable. Then everyone else will want to do the same, and for decades to come people will be agreeing with each other over what a genius James Joyce is and, if anyone disagrees, we can just laugh at how ignorant they are!"

And that's how it (very probably) happened.

[Deinonychus]

You are 'Carly' under a different name, and I claim my £3.36 (after tax).

[Nonfictionreader]

Both you and the taxman are to be disappointed - I am not an incarnation of Carly, although I am aquainted with the young lady.

[Deinonychus]

Well - I was close, eh?

[Colinj]

War & peace by Tolstoy & perhaps any Dickens although I have been curious enough to look through them. I cannot seem to get into poetry for some reason.

[babelbel]

..........has to get my vote on this one. As someone has already said 'it may have been great in its time'!

I would like to say that my English teacher was fantastic. We mixed Macbeth with Royal Hunt of the Sun and Juno & the Paycock - To Kill a Mockingbird with Rebecca - and the poetry we did was almost exclusively contemporary while the rest of the school did war poets and 19th Century.

As I get older I realise just how much that woman opened up to me!

Miss Ferguson .............if you're out there.............thanks for everything ...(and I'm sorry for being the little s**t in your class!)

.........and before I go..........colinj I agree with you about War and Peace - which I have read - but you have to read at least one Dickens before you die!

[Cathy]

I have almost forgotten how this thread begun now I have got to the end of it...

Just wanted to say about Hardy that he reminds me or the mole-like character on The Simpsons who is always having horrible things happen to him 'oh not again', or Kif, Zapp Brannigan's downtrodden sidekick in Futurama. Don't read it if you are depressed! And don't expect anything to have improved for any of the characters by the end of the novel!

As for untouchables, Moby Dick (a book about a whale?!).

[Seraphina]

lol, i know what you mean about thomas hardy and the guy from the simpsons, that's really funny!

i have had the dubious pleasure of reading moby dick, and it's actually an ok story - if you skip the chapters about whaling! i mean, there's a whole chapter on rope...yes ROPE. and another on the colour white! tedious reading to say the least.....!

[Momo]

Rescued Thread:

#34
5th August 2006, 11:51 PM
PinkyWolfyOriginally Posted by Starry
No, I agree, sometimes there is a book that stands out, for me it was Silas Marner, I loved it then and I still love it.Me too - I loved this book! George Eliot tells her tale with a mixture of womanly sympathy, sharp observation, tact, and humour. Her depiction of a long-gone past, and her clear pointing of right and wrong impulses, give the story qualities that are sometimes found in morality plays or in fairy tales.
__________________
Currently reading: The Witches by Roald Dahl

Reading next: The Far Pavilions by M M Kaye
------------------------------------------------

#35
6th August 2006, 08:08 AM
Hazel

Ulysses - I will never read it nor do I have any desire to.
__________________
Currently Reading
Germinal - Emile Zola
C Because Cowards Get Cancer Too - John Diamond
Number 1 in Heaven - Jeremy Simmonds


www.joehay.co.uk
www.greenmetropolis.co.uk
www.myspace.com/joehaymusic
------------------------------------------------

#36
6th August 2006, 09:17 AM
yorkshire rose

so glad to be in the company of so many Hardy and especially Lawrence'phobes. One or two exceptions to what's been said. I loved 'Under the Greenwood Tree' but I read it when I was recovering from 3 horrible weeks in hospital and maybe that coloured my view. I have nothing to good say about Lawrence, I think he just hated people. Read the travel books if you don't believe me.

I discovered recently I had an ancestor who was a whaler so I've just read Moby Dick and really enjoyed it, even the stuff on rope.......

Totally agree on Ulysses...although I remember reading the purient stuff at the end as a teenager. Loved War and Peace - just loved it, but I like a long read.
What would I never touch? I'm not sure, there's stuff I think I might grow into...Stendhal, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, when I'm older (even) and wiser (maybe)......although I've a soft spot for Pushkin.

What was it Beecham said? - try anything once except incest and morris dancing,........ apologies to any morris dancers present............
------------------------------------------------

#37
6th August 2006, 05:17 PM
katrina

I've read Ulysses the whole way through because I thought I ought to, and yeah at the end of it I wondered why. I spent the whole novel not understanding what was happening and expecting to be enlightened in the final chapters, yet this never happened. I only managed 2 pages of Finnegans Wake - utterly unreadable IMHO.

Moby Dick is a book I started and gave up and hope to never have to read again. Generally I try to give a wide variety of literature a go, if a Classic has survived this long then surely it is worth a look. The 'canon' is interesting, why some books are feautured others not, it will be interesting to see which contemporary books make it as books worth reading in the future
__________________
Currently Reading:

Collected Poems, Ted Hughes
A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson (dipping into)
Elsewhere, Zevin.
The Crimson Petal and the White, Faber
------------------------------------------------

#38
6th August 2006, 05:29 PM
yorkshire roseOriginally Posted by katrina
it will be interesting to see which contemporary books make it as books worth reading in the futurenow that is an interesting thought - topic for a new thread?
------------------------------------------------

#39
14th August 2006, 01:30 AM
cummycummins

Will never touch anything by Thomas hardy or Jane Austen. I will probably try dickens. I will also never touch poetry and probably not Ulysees. I mean why bother. Nobody finds it entertaining!
__________________
Join my friends discussion forums. They are still under construction but he still needs mmembers. If you like forums join! He can probbaly get a book forum up and running too. Click Here
------------------------------------------------

#40
14th August 2006, 12:38 PM
MomoOriginally Posted by cummycummins
Will never touch anything by Thomas hardy or Jane Austen. I will probably try dickens. I will also never touch poetry and probably not Ulysees. I mean why bother. Nobody finds it entertaining!I don't know whether that remark is for the last book you mentioned. All I know that youfind a lot of people here who find Jane Austen so entertaining that they re-read her books all the time - including me.
------------------------------------------------

#41
14th August 2006, 12:38 PM
crayonOriginally Posted by Starry
I agree about James Joyce. I've tried reading Portrait of an Artist, but can't get past the baby talk. So maybe it was brilliant and innovative at the time, but what does that matter now?That is exactly how I feel about it. I was supposed to read it for a course at university, I tried four or five times and never got more than 40 pages in - it has put me off all James Joyce for life!
------------------------------------------------

#42
14th August 2006, 03:05 PM
megustaleerOriginally Posted by cummycummins
Nobody finds it entertaining!That's a light the blue touchpaper and retire sort of remark :eek:
Watch out for the poetry, Hardy and (numerous) Austen fans hereabouts. :scared:

[Momo]

Next part (had to cut because of the smileys):

#43
15th August 2006, 11:50 AM
MomoOriginally Posted by cummycummins
Nobody finds it entertaining!That's a light the blue touchpaper and retire sort of remark :eek:
Watch out for the poetry, Hardy and (numerous) Austen fans hereabouts. :scared:[/Quote] :yup: :yup:

[Momo]

And the last, sorry!:

#44
15th August 2006, 12:19 PM
StarryWill never touch anything by Thomas hardy or Jane Austen. I will probably try dickens. I will also never touch poetry and probably not Ulysees. I mean why bother. Nobody finds it entertaining!/[Quote]All I can say is you don't know what you're missing by not reading all of the Jane Austen novels immediately and several times a year. ;)

I agree about the poetry though :D
------------------------------------------------

#45
15th August 2006, 12:35 PM
CathyOriginally Posted by Starry
All I can say is you don't know what you're missing by not reading all of the Jane Austen novels immediately and several times a year. ;)Here, here! You might find JA is not at all what you expected and be converted...
__________________
Currently Reading: The Road Ahead by Bill Gates, not sure if its a real read or a uni one.

[David]

I notice I never contributed to this. It will come as little surprise to regulars that there's barely any classic I wouldn't try and I don't agree with most of the dismissals listed above. Still, rather than drone on in justification of each I'll simply say if you're interested in my reasoning I've posted on pretty much all of them. Even Ulysses, which I'll grant you is a tough read at points, has many merits. Ultimately too experimentational for my taste, it's still a valuable exercise to read it - I don't believe the only good or worthwhile reads are the easy ones. Occasionally it does both mind and spirit good to embark on a real challenge!

Still, I've yet to read another novel sometimes touted as the greatest of all time (though not too often) - Richardson's Clarissa. The epistolary form and subject matter haven't been enough to tempt me to wade through its small woodland's-worth of paper. I probably will eventually, but not today!

[Starry]

Occasionally it does both mind and spirit good to embark on a real challenge!

As someone who's done quite a lot of dismissing, I feel I ought to reply :)
I agree with you but I think it depends on what you think of as a challenge and where your interests lie. I tend to look towards non-fiction for my challenging reading, and I don't mean difficult to read, but thought-provoking. At the moment I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, not difficult to read, but time-consuming because I have to keep stopping and thinking about what he is saying. It is relevant to me in today's scary world in a way that Ulysses or Far from the Madding Crowd will never be. And although I do like my fiction to be informative, interesting, breath-taking even, above all I like it to be entertaining!

[David]

That's fair enough, Starry, and it will always be true that different people find different things entertaining. I intend to read The God Delusion myself when it's in paperback since it should prove to be very interesting.

However,
It is relevant to me in today's scary world in a way that Ulysses or Far from the Madding Crowd will never be.
Non-fiction such as Dawkins will always speak more directly to our current age than, say, a Victorian tract on the importance of legislating for universal suffrage. Fiction, on the other hand, deals at its heart with the human condition, and there is much to provoke relevant thought about that in novels from any age. Giving your characters a mobile phone and the odd rant about reality TV is only contextual window dressing; underneath we're all the same. So although I agree about non-fiction, I'm not sure comparing its relevance with the likes of Joyce or Hardy is entirely like-for-like.

Still, I accept, as I always have in discussions like this, that it's horses for courses. We do all find different things entertaining.

[Starry]

So although I agree about non-fiction, I'm not sure comparing its relevance with the likes of Joyce or Hardy is entirely like-for-like.

I was worried after I posted that I was talking utter rubbish and I was :o

[David]

I was worried after I posted that I was talking utter rubbish and I was :o
Of course you weren't! I know exactly what you mean about non-fiction; I was just exploring its relationship with fiction. I always find the relevance of classic fiction to modern life interesting, and your contribution gave me an excuse to jabber about it!

;)

[bobblington]

Classically - I will never read another Thomas Hardy - suffering The Mayor of Casterbridge at school was enough to teach me that the depression lives of his characters should be given to Eastenders (another thing I don't indulge in).

I am sure he is brilliant, but for me he brings misery.

I am pretty sure I will never read Jane Eyre again (it took me a year because I always found things I'd rather read). I am sad that I feel like that because the storytline really should be something I'd enjoy.

Popularist - Harry Potter is something I have manager to avoid up til now
(except 1 and that was sort of a dare) and I hope to resist for a while yet. And I know I will never read any of the Vampire stuff that is so popular. Really not for me.

[Ailecornum]

At the ripe old age of 20 I concluded that books have their 'time' in our lives and put off reading any more Tolstoy as something that would happen at the 'right time' in my life. Now at an age more than double the first mentioned, I find I still haven't read Tolstoy and still don't feel moved to. Does anyone else have this feeling that books may inhabit a time in our lives and that if we are patient they will knock on our mental or emotional doors when we are best placed to appreciate them? I'm assuming that the reader is already fairly well-versed in literature and is open minded about books.

[lunababymoonchild]

I've been struggling with this question for a while now and have come to the conclusion that the Classic that I know I definitely won't read is Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. I read that at school and thought that it was totally horrific. It touched me very deeply especially since, at the time, there were many disabled people in my family so it was a bit too close to home for me.

ETA The Lord of The Rings. Got halfway through that and will never touch it again.

[BrightTights]

ETA The Lord of The Rings. Got halfway through that and will never touch it again.


Half way!?!? I managed about...hmmmm...3 pages! My LotR trilogy is currently on Amazon....seems nobody on there wants them either!
I also bought a lovely hardcover, illustrated copy of The Hobbit which will never be read, but looks beautiful.

All of Tolkein's are definately high on my list of 'nevers'!

[Minxminnie]

All of Tolkein's are definately high on my list of 'nevers'!
Me too. Hate them with an irrational passion.

[lunababymoonchild]

I read The Hobbit three times and enjoyed it, it was just tLOtR that I couldn't get to grips with and do not wish to.

I won't be reading The Thirty Nine Steps again either. Read it at school, loved it and reread it as an adult and was much disappointed.

[UCLGeogPhD]

Anything by Dickens. Really found Oliver Twist to be a laborious read and got sucked into completely un-necessary descriptions that seemed to drag on and on. Not a Dickens fan.

[momac]

At the risk of being classed a low brow I have to confess that I found Mrs. Dalloway was tedious and depressing - didn't finish it but did read the last page.

[chuntzy]

Tolkien: me, too, as a never-never!

As for the classics, I think I read them at the right time - in my late teens and early twenties when I had plenty of time but nevertheless Wuthering Heights I never finished and will never attempt again.

[blithe_spirit]

At the risk of being classed a low brow I have to confess that I found Mrs. Dalloway was tedious and depressing - didn't finish it but did read the last page.

I know what you mean, momac. I have been reading 'Mrs Dalloway' and could easily have abandoned it but was determined not to as I really hate having to give up on any book. I found the 'stream of consciousness' style of writing quite hard to come to terms with and for that reason it did not quite live up to my expectations.

As far as classics are concerned I have to confess that I have never read any of Sir Walter Scott's novels and doubt if I will. I have tried, but find the long descriptive passages just too tedious.

[momac]

As far as classics are concerned I have to confess that I have never read any of Sir Walter Scott's novels and doubt if I will. I have tried, but find the long descriptive passages just too tedious.

We had to read The Antiquary by Sir Walter Scott in school and all I remember is the the title and the teacher who taught us. Obviously had a real impact on me. :D

[BrightTights]

I read The Hobbit three times and enjoyed it

Maybe I'll give The Hobbit a go then............I have an illustrated version so if I get bored I'll look at the pictures! :D

[tagesmann]

We had to read The Antiquary by Sir Walter Scott in school and all I remember is the the title and the teacher who taught us. Obviously had a real impact on me. :DI haven't read any Scott and always feel that I should. Especially as he is the favourite author of one of my friends.

[momac]

I haven't read any Scott and always feel that I should. Especially as he is the favourite author of one of my friends.

I remember The Antiquary as being a small book with small print but it didn't matter then because I was in my teens and my eyesight was good. Hopefully his works have been reissued with larger print if you decide to have a go at Sir. W.