# Major classics you haven't read?



## philistine (Aug 7, 2013)

I think it'd be safe to assume that most, if not all persons on this forum are reasonably well-read. With that in mind, I'm sure each of us has a huge classic, or several perhaps, that we haven't yet gotten around to reading; or maybe we've deliberately avoided it for several reasons. I know I have several.

I've not read a single Jane Austen novel front to back. Not one. I've gotten halfway through several, though just haven't been able to finish them- mainly because they weren't my cup of tea. Same goes for the assorted Brontë novels, and a few works in the same vein. I couldn't say why I don't really like them, either, as I enjoy other authors whose work is quite similar (Forster, Eliot, James, etc).

Related quote:



> Classic: a book which people praise, yet don't read.
> 
> - Mark Twain


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 7, 2013)

I haven't read a lot of Stephen King books, zero of the Harry Potter Series (never will,) and not much of Mark Twain.


----------



## philistine (Aug 7, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I haven't read a lot of Stephen King books, zero of the Harry Potter Series (never will,) and not much of Mark Twain.



Although Stephen King is a huuuuuge name in the horror genre, I can't say I've ever heard of his work being referred to as 'classic'. Insofar as that genre though, I guess they could be called that. I don't think the HP novels could be construed as classics, either.


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 8, 2013)

I'd like to read Anna Karenina but I'm saving it for a time when I might want to write a bit of an epic drama.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 8, 2013)

philistine said:


> Although Stephen King is a huuuuuge name in the horror genre, I can't say I've ever heard of his work being referred to as 'classic'. Insofar as that genre though, I guess they could be called that. I don't think the HP novels could be construed as classics, either.



I suppose they will one day, J.K. Rowling did make about a billion dollars writing them after all.


----------



## philistine (Aug 8, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I suppose they will one day, J.K. Rowling did make about a billion dollars writing them after all.



I'm skeptical. After all, payment for one's work = / = lasting success and recognition


----------



## squidtender (Aug 8, 2013)

Twain for me, as well as Melville (Moby Dick), Hemmingway (For Whom the Bell Tolls) and the few Jules Verne that I've missed. I know that some of these I can get for free on my Kindle . . . that will have to be done soon


----------



## Jeko (Aug 8, 2013)

If any King ever becomes 'classic', I'll set fire to my hair.

I have yet to read The Wind in the Willows, Robinson Crusoe and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Coincidentally, I have just bought them for 25p each from my local library.


----------



## escorial (Aug 8, 2013)

Kestrel for a knave...captures northern life in the 70's so well.


----------



## Sam (Aug 8, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I suppose they will one day, J.K. Rowling did make about a billion dollars writing them after all.



She could make another billion dollars off them and they still won't ever be considered 'classic literature'.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 8, 2013)

escorial said:


> Kestrel for a knave...captures northern life in the 70's so well.



I'm confused. This thread is for classic books you _haven't_ read, escorial. Are you saying you have or haven't read it? Anyway, the film of said book is my favourtie film ever.

If I were (was?) to start listing the classics I've never read, I'd use up the forum's annual bandwidth in a single post.



Sam said:


> She could make another billion dollars off them and  they still won't ever be considered 'classic literature'.



And I think she'd be the first to agree with you on that.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 8, 2013)

I haven't read _The Great Gatsby_ or _To Kill a Mockingbird_. Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_ is another spine I haven't cracked.

I tried reading the Sci-Fi classic _Dune_ once on an airplane, but I got bored rather quickly (in the first few pages) and haven't picked it up since. Maybe one day I'll give it another shot.


----------



## Origen (Aug 8, 2013)

Moby Dick and Rememberance of Things Past.  I started reading it, and now I can't remember where I left it.


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

Wuthering Heights, Ethan Frome, Madame Bovary, Moby Dick. There are many more. I’m certainly not averse to reading classics. I’ve read and enjoyed Twain, Dickens, Conrad, Fitzgerald and Hemingway; the list goes on. I’m just not compelled to read some the more hoary tomes that are often considered classics, the kind people are forced to read in school; although if I happen to pick one up, I can get into it. I enjoyed _Tess of the__ d'Urbervilles, _for example.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Aug 8, 2013)

_The Brothers Karamazov. _I've actually bought it twice (forgetting that I had it already) but never read past the first chapter.
_In Search of Lost Time._ Had to read the first hundred or so pages for school, have no desire to continue. One of these days I'll force myself and maybe I'll love it.
I've done okay with the nineteenth-century canon, but most twentieth-century classics, I probably haven't read. Not much Hemingway or Faulkner or any of those guys. Not even Kerouac. Pretty lame; someday I hope to catch up.


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

lasm said:


> Not even Kerouac. Pretty lame; someday I hope to catch up.



I wouldn't hurry. Just got around to reading _On the Road_ myself. It was fine. I think it's like a lot of novels that become classics because they were ground-breaking on some level and perhaps had some lasting influence. They don't necessarily hold up all that well. I'd put _Catcher in the Rye_ in that category. It resonated when I was a somewhat surly teenager, just discovering that people can be hypocrites. Not so much now on rereading it. Kind of wanted to punch that kid in the face.


----------



## philistine (Aug 8, 2013)

lasm said:


> *The Brothers Karamazov. *I've actually bought it twice (forgetting that I had it already) but never read past the first chapter.
> _In Search of Lost Time._ Had to read the first hundred or so pages for school, have no desire to continue. One of these days I'll force myself and maybe I'll love it.
> I've done okay with the nineteenth-century canon, but most twentieth-century classics, I probably haven't read. Not much Hemingway or Faulkner or any of those guys. Not even Kerouac. Pretty lame; someday I hope to catch up.



Same story. Started and restarted it several times, yet have never gotten past the first thirty pages or so. The same thing happened with a lot of Victor Hugo's novels. It didn't help in the introduction to _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_, the author saying that 'the description of the city is long, tiresome, and positively wrought with boredom'. I mean, who the hell wants to slog through that after reading such a thing?

As for Proust's masterpiece, it's probably one of the finest works of literature I've ever read. I got through all seven volumes of it in three weeks. I'd urge anyone to pick it up and give it a go.


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

as much as i love stevenson's jekyll and hyde, probably my favorite book....i haven't read anything else by him.
i should really get on that.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

First I want to say HP is not a classic yet, but it will be. It is an amazing fantasy epic. To outright deny it based on? Whatever it is is silly. At least read it before you de-class it. 

Also Squid don't bother with for whom the bell tolls. It is Ernest's worst work in my opinion. Read a Farewell to arms though if you have not. 

I haven't read a lot of classics. From Dickinson to Austen, and a lot of them I probably never will. Some read just to slowly for me, and if I pick them up I have to finish. It is a quirk with myself, I can't put away an unfinished book.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 8, 2013)

I've had some I tried to read and couldn't get into like Edna Ferber's "Giant," Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace," and Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment."  As far as ones I've never even attempted, the Bronte sisters, Lovecraft, JK Rowling, or Kerouac.  

What strikes me as odd, is by looking at the list of some of the greatest novels of all time, is how many I have actually read and not realized.  D.H. Lawerence, T.S. Eliot, Theodore Dreiser, then of course guys like Huxley, Steinbeck, etc.


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> First I want to say HP is not a classic yet, but it will be. It is an amazing fantasy epic. To outright deny it based on? Whatever it is is silly. At least read it before you de-class it.
> 
> Also Squid don't bother with for whom the bell tolls. It is Ernest's worst work in my opinion. Read a Farewell to arms though if you have not.
> 
> I haven't read a lot of classics. From Dickinson to Austen, and a lot of them I probably never will. Some read just to slowly for me, and if I pick them up I have to finish. It is a quirk with myself, I can't put away an unfinished book.



if harry potter is ever considered a "classic", the whole world just needs to shoot itself in the face.


----------



## philistine (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> First I want to say HP is not a classic yet, but it will be. It is an amazing fantasy epic. To outright deny it based on? Whatever it is is silly. At least read it before you de-class it.



But... but... what about my literary prejudices? You can't ask a man to give up those!

Also:



> Classic: Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.



I guess if HP is to become a classic, the definition will have to be changed.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 8, 2013)

dale said:


> if harry potter is ever considered a "classic", the whole world just needs to shoot itself in the face.



She is #69 on this list.

The 100 Greatest Novels


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> She is #69 on this list.
> 
> The 100 Greatest Novels



lol. the woman's not even dead yet. i mean...that it's on that list is ridiculous in itself, but the world has pretty much now become
a superficial dome of stupidity....so i expect it. and i did read the 1st 3 HP books. i thought they were ok reads. i enjoyed them. but to
label them as "classics" is kind of like calling justin beiber "classic rock". it's ignorant and it doesn't fit and should NEVER fit.


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

_Harry Potter_ might be considered classic _children's_ literature at some point, because that's what it is. You don't really compare or talk about _Peter Pan_ or _Anne of Green Gables_ or _Treasure Island_ in the same conversation with _The Great Gatsby_ or _1984_. There's a good reason for that.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

dale said:


> if harry potter is ever considered a "classic", the whole world just needs to shoot itself in the face.



Well considering it is the most popular book of its time; if your one opinion trumps millions then the world should indeed take your advice.


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Well considering it is the most popular book of its time; if your one opinion trumps millions then the world should indeed take your advice.



Harry Potter is a pop-culture phenomenon. Whether or not people will be reading it 50 or 100 years from now is the question. I'm sure there are novels that were very popular in their day that have long since faded into obscurity. It remains to be seen if Harry Potter will suffer the same fate. Regardless, I think awarding it "classic" status at this point is a little premature, don't you think?


----------



## Gargh (Aug 8, 2013)

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. It's the only book I've never been able to finish, and it promised so much


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

Myers said:


> Harry Potter is a pop-culture phenomenon. Whether or not people will be reading it 50 or 100 years from now is the question. I'm sure there are novels that were very popular in their day that have long since faded into obscurity. It remains to be seen if Harry Potter will suffer the same fate. Regardless, I think awarding it "classic" status at this point is a little premature, don't you think?



Well clearly not hence why I argue for it. :highly_amused: I think it is more than a pop culture phenomenon. Twilight was a phenomenon it has already died down. Almost twenty years after the first book HP still has very popular websites dedicated just to it.


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Well clearly not hence why I argue for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, if there are websites dedicated to it, that surely means it's destined to be classic.

The series was released over several years. You have to factor that into the longevity at this point, along with the movies and the merchandising etc. 

But who knows if people will be reading _Harry Potter_ in the coming decades or the next century? For all we know it could be long forgotten. Claiming to know otherwise is pure guesswork.

So I'm kind of with Dale on this one. That we're even talking about _Harry Potter_ in a thread about classic literature is pretty funny to me.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 8, 2013)

Longevity doesn't always make it a classic either.  There are still some people that read the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, but those works aren't considered classics, though I would put them in the same age frame as the readership of Harry Potter books.  Rowling is just a better quality writer than the people that have written for the other two.


----------



## philistine (Aug 8, 2013)

After a tedious search through my bookmarks, I finally found what I was looking for. This is the Great Books Program's criteria for what they consider a classic... or a great book:



> the book has contemporary significance; that is, it has relevance to the problems and issues of our times;
> the book is inexhaustible; it can be read again and again with benefit; "This is an exacting criterion, an ideal that is fully attained by only a small number of the 511 works that we selected. It is approximated in varying degrees by the rest."
> the book is relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries



I think going off of those criteria, none of the books in the HP series would make the cut, not by a long shot.

Link to the original list:

Great books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Robert_S (Aug 8, 2013)

There is so many I haven't read. Anything by Jane Austin, even though I have a several of her books. I haven't read "Tom Sawyer." I'm not sure how classic "Neuromancer" and "Mona Lisa Overdrive" are, but I haven't read them either. I haven't closed out the "Dune" series and haven't read "Two Towers" or "Return of the King."


----------



## OurJud (Aug 8, 2013)

I think all those of you who have mentioned the HP books are missing the point. There's a world of difference between a 'classic' and 'classic literature'.

HP already is a classic, simply because of its popularity, number of copies sold and its fame. But that is not to say it is classic literature, and more importantly I don't think even the author herself would consider it so. The HP books are what they are, and I'm sure she's fully aware of this.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people want to mock things that have become popular, regardless of _why_ they became popular. The HP books tapped into kids' imaginations like no other book has ever done before, and from there it snowballed. Someone remind me again why this is so terrible and deserves such contempt?

And for the record, this is not a biased opinion. I've not read a single one of the HP books, nor seen any of the films.

I know it's a terrible cliche, but it reminds of the attitude towards modern art when a person criticises a work with a derisory, "Pfft! I could have done that."

Yes, well, you didn't, did you?


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I think all those of you who have mentioned the HP books are missing the point. There's a world of difference between a 'classic' and 'classic literature'.
> 
> HP already is a classic, simply because of its popularity, number of copies sold and its fame. But that is not to say it is classic literature, and more importantly I don't think even the author herself would consider it so. The HP books are what they are, and I'm sure she's fully aware of this.
> 
> ...


honestly? the main problem i have with the harry potter books is simply that JK Rowling's breasts aren't large enough for my tastes.
if a woman wants to write and me take her seriously? she needs to have large breasts. i have standards about my literature.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

^That is just silly. I wasn't even going to reply to it, but... :crushed: nevermind. 

Anyhow saying it isn't a classic is still silly. As it is like the Beatles of books. She comes from London and riles a new generation to start reading books. 

Is she A charles, ernest, jane? No, but is she more lively in her writing? Sure. Classic and Classic Lit are the same thing. Opinions may differ, but in the end it's all opinion. This list you provide doesn't mean the next guy will agree with the list.


----------



## philistine (Aug 8, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I think all those of you who have mentioned the HP books are missing the point. There's a world of difference between a 'classic' and 'classic literature'.
> 
> HP already is a classic, simply because of its popularity, number of copies sold and its fame. But that is not to say it is classic literature, and more importantly I don't think even the author herself would consider it so. The HP books are what they are, and I'm sure she's fully aware of this.
> 
> ...



The concept of the Columbus Egg differs infinitely from what objectively, in many people's opinion, is rather average literature. Several million people enjoy the music of Nicky Minaj; does that make her 'achievements' laudable and worthy of praise?


----------



## Myers (Aug 8, 2013)

I'm certainly not mocking _Harry Potter._ I think an important  criteria for classic status is longevity; whether or not a novel has the  legs to stand the test the test of time. I just thing it's premature to  bestow classic literature status based on current popularity,  especially considering that the popularity was in some part driven by  the hype surrounding the release of the next book, along with movies and  merchandising.  And I think some other nebulous idea of "classic" is  beside the point. That's not what we're talking about. So the question  is, will it resonate with children fifty or a hundred years from now?  Possibly, but that's just conjecture. So in my opinion, it doesn't yet  meet the requirements for classic literature, and I think it's a little  odd that it even came up in the first place.


----------



## Blade (Aug 8, 2013)

OurJud said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people want to mock things that have become popular, regardless of _why_ they became popular. The HP books tapped into kids' imaginations like no other book has ever done before, and from there it snowballed. Someone remind me again why this is so terrible and deserves such contempt?



I would think that any work that captures the public imagination would be a boon to writers and the publishing industry in general. The material is far past my time as a reader but a very successful contemporary series has to give the written word a big lift.

Objections.

a) The big $'s.:disturbed: Puts it in the league with movie actors and athletes. Is anyone really worth that much more than anyone else? ( if anything at all.)

b) The media over saturation that follows a hit can be a little on the irritating side, better nothing than too much.

As per classics I have never read, relative to the Wikipedia list, the vast majority. I have my excuses but I will never be noted as a great reader of the genre.:apologetic:


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

^ I can at least agree with the point of yet. Not a classic yet. Although I think there is instant classics. I won't argue that it hasn't stood a long test of time.


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> ^ I can at least agree with the point of yet. Not a classic yet. Although I think there is instant classics. I won't argue that it hasn't stood a long test of time.



dude...you're really into potter. ok. that's cool. so are millions of others. i was really into the wheel of time series. at least until jordan died.
and millions of others loved the wheel of time with me. but the wheel of time is NOT classic lit. tolkien is forever gonna hold the crown of the only
classic wizard/warlock/elf/magick literature. tolkien was one of a kind. rowling isn't even a pimple on his behind.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

^ Great and while your opinion may matter to you. There is a reason everyone is entitled to their own.  Also WOT was nowhere near the popularity of HP. Tolkien was a great, but he won't be the only classic. George Martin will be knocking on the door, JK rowling in many opinions is there, ect... Fantasy is only growing in terms of popularity and writing skill.


----------



## dale (Aug 8, 2013)

Skodt said:


> ^ Great and while your opinion may matter to you. There is a reason everyone is entitled to their own.  Also WOT was nowhere near the popularity of HP. Tolkien was a great, but he won't be the only classic. George Martin will be knocking on the door, JK rowling in many opinions is there, ect... Fantasy is only growing in terms of popularity and writing skill.



well...i will admit that rowling's breasts were larger than robert jordan's. i don'\t know by how much....but rowling did have cleavage.
i don't think tolkien had any cleavage at all, though. and that's my point. tolkien didn't need cleavage. he was straight up classic.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 8, 2013)

I understand your jesting. I really do. But talking in the context you are is very off putting. I do not speak for the women of this board, but I do speak for myself. Treading a very silly line there in my personal opinion Dale. My suggestion is to find another analogy.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 8, 2013)

philistine said:


> Although Stephen King is a huuuuuge name in the horror genre, I can't say I've ever heard of his work being referred to as 'classic'. Insofar as that genre though, I guess they could be called that. I don't think the HP novels could be construed as classics, either.



Agreed... 

Would Hamlet by shakespeare count? Would I be shot if I admitted that aside from Romeo and Juliet in drama I never read anything from Shakespeare? 
Or should my teacher be shot?
Or should my teacher be praised for not using such an old crutch for teaching English Literature?




OurJud said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people want to mock things that have become popular, regardless of _why_  they became popular. The HP books tapped into kids' imaginations like  no other book has ever done before, and from there it snowballed.  Someone remind me again why this is so terrible and deserves such  contempt?



Never have before?
I agree with much of your post, but that one tiny part: tapped into kids imagination like no other book has ever done before,

You are not old enough (because no living human is) to accurately make that assumption, and you are obviously forgetting Roald Dahl.
My imagination was far more active during childhood from Fantastic Mister Fox, The Big Friendly Giant and Charlie and Chocolate Factory than Harry Potter ever came close to achieving. Believe me, I love HP books, I've read them all multiple times. I'm not a great fan of the films, but I have no problem watching them and I have done more than once with those also.
Still... HP is more Teen, 11-16(-18 ) which is Harry's age throughout... which in UK where J.K Rowling is from (as am I) was the age that all in the UK attended High School. The Muggle Equivalent of Hogwarts. Hogwarts had the OPTION of staying on for NEWTS ... where as in the UK High School, after 16, the option is what we call 6th Form... which like hogwarts is staying in high school after age 16 for 2 more years.

Point being, that may not exactly be classed as "children" when saying it "tapped into childrens imagination"
The great thing about HP however, is its age range did in fact extend from the very young to the very old... where as Fantastic Mister Fox and other Roald Dahl work lost its appeal for Teenage audiences and was then rekindled in adulthood.
So...
"Like no book ever before..."??? Not quite, but I do understand what you are saying and with everything else I agree entirely, people always jump on the hate wagon once something has been labeled "fad"


----------



## dale (Aug 9, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I understand your jesting. I really do. But talking in the context you are is very off putting. I do not speak for the women of this board, but I do speak for myself. Treading a very silly line there in my personal opinion Dale. My suggestion is to find another analogy.



well, only one female on this forum has sent me naked pictures so far. that's why her writing rocks. but really? i don't care about all that crap, dude.
i think dionysus sent me here to offend people with words. so i'm gonna do that in a very subtle and gentlemanly fashion.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 9, 2013)

Dale. Seriously man? :-|


----------



## dale (Aug 9, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Dale. Seriously man? :-|



are you serious? are you really gonna classify jk rowling with dickens, poe, voltaire, hollin, steinbeck, henry james, colonel sanders and all them?


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 9, 2013)

Harry Potter's status as a classic is entirely beside the point of this thread. Time to take the next exit off this tangent and back to the main highway.


----------



## philistine (Aug 9, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> Harry Potter's status as a classic is entirely beside the point of this thread. Time to take the next exit off this tangent and back to the main highway.



Capital idea. 

There are still half a dozen or so Dickens novels that I haven't even picked up, despite owning his complete works. I'll probably never get round to reading them.


----------



## dale (Aug 9, 2013)

philistine said:


> Capital idea.
> 
> There are still half a dozen or so Dickens novels that I haven't even picked up, despite owning his complete works. I'll probably never get round to reading them.



great expectations. read that one. i am so in love with estella. that's why all my love relationships fail.


----------



## BreakingMyself (Aug 9, 2013)

I want to read so much, I'd surpass the character limit if I posted a list. 

The lines between a 'must read' and a 'classic' are quite blurred in my opinion. Not all books deemed classics are must reads either.


----------



## blazeofglory (Aug 9, 2013)

The book I really love to read and has been a priority for a long time is Ulysses and but that remains yet to be read. I set aside the book for its intricacy and incoherent phrases. Not that the book is unworthy of reading repeatedly yet the fact is I leave every chapter with fatigue. I read it on the recommendation  but to be honest I could not enjoy reading it.

I value critics or book commentators but not to the extent of fatiguing myself leafing through voluminous academically written books and this book to me is like those I was compelled to read to pass the exam and yes to pass the test of my proficiency in English literature.

Now I am wiser than what I used to be and I do not choose to waste my time on some literary jargons which neither can entertain me nor can intellectually gratify me.


----------



## Skodt (Aug 9, 2013)

BreakingMyself said:


> I want to read so much, I'd surpass the character limit if I posted a list.
> 
> The lines between a 'must read' and a 'classic' are quite blurred in my opinion. Not all books deemed classics are must reads either.



I think a lot of what people call classic is for the style. It does some across as frightfully boring in some aspects for today's reader. But for that being said the way Ernest H. prose flows across a page, and the way Charles D. writes characters, just goes to show you most classics have a reason they exist in that section.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 9, 2013)

dale said:


> great expectations. read that one. i am so in love with estella. that's why all my love relationships fail.



Yes, but how big were Estella's funbags?


----------



## philistine (Aug 9, 2013)

blazeofglory said:


> The book I really love to read and has been a priority for a long time is Ulysses and but that remains yet to be read. I set aside the book for its intricacy and incoherent phrases. Not that the book is unworthy of reading repeatedly yet the fact is I leave every chapter with fatigue. I read it on the recommendation  but to be honest I could not enjoy reading it.
> 
> I value critics or book commentators but not to the extent of fatiguing myself leafing through voluminous academically written books and this book to me is like those I was compelled to read to pass the exam and yes to pass the test of my proficiency in English literature.
> 
> Now I am wiser than what I used to be and I do not choose to waste my time on some literary jargons which neither can entertain me nor can intellectually gratify me.



It's the same reason I haven't yet picked it up. That and _Finnegans Wake_.

Joyce's wife, shortly after the publication of FW: 'why don't you write books people can actually read?'



Skodt said:


> I think a lot of what people call classic is for the style. It does some across as frightfully boring in some aspects for today's reader. But for that being said the way Ernest H. prose flows across a page, and the way Charles D. writes characters, just goes to show you most classics have a reason they exist in that section.



I'd say for the most part it's due to their timelessness. Yukio Mishima penned several novels that were instantly hailed as timeless classics, as he alluded to the trappings of his generation as little as possible, making the book a hovering cloud of commentary, in effect. _The Sound of Waves_ is a perfect example of that.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 10, 2013)

The only classics I've read are Pride & Prejudice and Wuthering Heights, which I'm embarrassed to admit. My number one flaw as an aspiring author is that I don't read enough. Well, to be even more embarrassingly honest, I can't remember the last book I read. I think it might have been And Then There Were None/Ten Little Niggers. (is that a classic? If so, I've read three)

I think the problem with my generation (and younger) is that we have too many gadgets. Why would I need a book to read on the train - I have my iPhone, iPod, cellphone... Which means I have constant access to internet, friends, email, instagram.. you name it. I'm never bored.

I need to pick up a book asap. The Secret Garden is glaring at me from the nightstand.

EDIT: My memory is horrible. Fight Club and American Psycho (for the second time) were the last books I read.

EDIT 2: Cosmopolis is glaring at me as well. Is it any good?


----------



## WechtleinUns (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm afraid I'm not very well versed in european classic literature. Mr. Dickens, Agatha Christe, Jane Austen, etc, never read the lot of them. I have read a lot of Russian and Japanese Literature, such as Soseki, Tolstoy, Gogol, and Lady Murasaki. So... yeah. Sorry for necroing the thread. O.O


----------



## ppsage (Aug 13, 2013)

I still have a good bit of the Talmud to go and feel like I could use some Dos Passos again. I too was a long procrastinator of Ulysses but acquired the audio book and have listened in toto twice and selections innumerable time. Have favorite parts and everything. Joyce was a singer first and, in his heart, always. Really wouldn't consider reading it through now, that would be poverty.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 13, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Why would I need a book to read on the train - I have my iPhone, iPod, cellphone... Which means I have constant access to internet, friends, email, instagram.. you name it. I'm never bored.



Because none of those things you listed can provide the same thing as a good book.

I don't understand why anyone would need a _reason_ to read.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 14, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Because none of those things you listed can provide the same thing as a good book.
> 
> I don't understand why anyone would need a _reason_ to read.



It wasn't exactly meant as a question to be answered, I was just trying to show why I think people read less these days. 

Good for you.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 14, 2013)

I haven't read TheYellowMustang's book yet.  :cookie:


----------



## Robert_S (Aug 14, 2013)

You know, I like to read, but I would like to have it take up less space in my place. I'm not talking about one book. I have enough books that some had to go into paid storage (along with 90% of my property) and I have a good sized box of books under my bed that I intend to read.

I'm thinking of getting a kindle or nook in the next 1-2 months to replace books, but I don't want to re-buy the books I have now.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 14, 2013)

Tolstoy, all of Dickens, Vonnegut, Proust, Voltaire, Wilde, most of Bradbury's stuff. Obviously, countless more, but these are classic authors I am actively wanting to read at the moment.


----------



## Gargh (Aug 14, 2013)

Has anyone ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? I've always felt like it's something I should want to read to fully understand the cultural influence it had but I've never quite been convinced enough.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 14, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> Tolstoy, all of Dickens, Vonnegut, Proust, Voltaire, Wilde, most of Bradbury's stuff. Obviously, countless more, but these are classic authors I am actively wanting to read at the moment.



If you read a Vonnegut book, read one of these three:  _Slaughterhouse Five_,_ Welcome to the Monkey House_, or _Cat's Cradle_.  It's so hard for me to narrow it down that far because of all his other books I've read.  _Breakfast of Champions_ is so popular, _Timequake_ is good..._Jailbird, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Galapagos_, there is a book with a collection of his stories you can get cheap called _Bagombo Snuff Box_, ...well I think that is all the ones I've read, there is another called The Sirens of Titan that is supposed to be real good but I haven't read it yet.  I had another book that was an anthology that had the _God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater_ in it along with some other great stories, that would be a good way to go also.  Just be prepared to have a lot of socialist ideas thrown your way, and also understand he is huge on satire.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 15, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> It wasn't exactly meant as a question to be answered, I was just trying to show why I think people read less these days.
> 
> Good for you.



Why, what did I say?


----------



## Sam (Aug 15, 2013)

This isn't a discussion about whether or not people read less these days. Get back on topic.


----------



## philistine (Aug 15, 2013)

Gargh said:


> Has anyone ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? I've always felt like it's something I should want to read to fully understand the cultural influence it had but I've never quite been convinced enough.



Several times. I've noticed the same thing happens every time I decide to go through it: inferno is captivating, and you almost feel as if you're reading a work of prose. The various events and conversations which take place make it the strongest (and most interesting) part of the piece. Purgatorio is good for much of the same reasons. Curiously enough, I find the concluding segment, paradiso, to be the most dull part. I definitely know where I'm going when I check out. :razz:


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Aug 15, 2013)

I haven't read any of Austen as well. I also have a copy of War and Peace by Tolstoy, but I am yet to open it. The book is still sealed fresh from the bookstore, and it's been in my shelf for roughly two years now.


----------



## philistine (Aug 15, 2013)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> I haven't read any of Austen as well. I also have a copy of War and Peace by Tolstoy, but I am yet to open it. The book is still sealed fresh from the bookstore, and it's been in my shelf for roughly two years now.



I've read it, though have found it makes an infinitely better doorstop, deadly weapon, or ersatz stepping stool than it does good reading material. :drunk:


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Aug 15, 2013)

Ha! I may fancy doing that with my copy as well.


----------



## Senserial (Sep 12, 2013)

One life is not enough to read all classics. For example I haven't read "Crime and Punishment". And I haven't read anything by Hemingway.
But I don't think that you should read a book, only because it is classical. If the writer's style or the main topic don't appeal to you, you shouldn't feel obliged to read it.


----------



## Ichthyosaur (Sep 21, 2013)

Despite really wanting to, I've never read 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' by Oscar Wilde. Once I finish all the books I'm currently reading, I'm definitely going to get myself a copy. ​


----------



## dale (Sep 21, 2013)

Gargh said:


> Has anyone ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? I've always felt like it's something I should want to read to fully understand the cultural influence it had but I've never quite been convinced enough.



i have. admittedly, i had a hard time getting through it. probably the only reason i finished it was just to be able to say i finished it.


----------

