Book reviews?

[warm]

Just a random thought as I read this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_260/7750-1984-Out-of-10) on video games reviews which quoted Orwell's In Defence of the Novel (http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/novel/english/e_novel), how many of you readers actually base your reading choices on reviews?

Personally, I hardly read book reviews, though, yes, I do skim through the blurbs on the book jacket before making a purchase. But most of the time, I'd try books that have an interesting plot-line, written by an author of considerable fame (or someone whose books I've read and liked before), or essential titles that deal with topics that I'm generally more interested in.

I think I might want to try reading some book reviews. Are there any good/more reputable sites with online reviews?

[kelby_lake]

Just a random thought as I read this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_260/7750-1984-Out-of-10) on video games reviews which quoted Orwell's In Defence of the Novel (http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/novel/english/e_novel), how many of you readers actually base your reading choices on reviews?

Personally, I hardly read book reviews, though, yes, I do skim through the blurbs on the book jacket before making a purchase. But most of the time, I'd try books that have an interesting plot-line, written by an author of considerable fame (or someone whose books I've read and liked before), or essential titles that deal with topics that I'm generally more interested in.

I think I might want to try reading some book reviews. Are there any good/more reputable sites with online reviews?

Newspaper book reviews- things like The Telegraph and The Guardian.

[Emil Miller]

Just Google 'Book Reviews' and take your pick. A word of caution though, you might do better to stick to those of booksellers rather than of various newspapers which have a tendency to push books that follow their social and political line.

[mal4mac]

Newspaper book reviews- things like The Telegraph and The Guardian.

Suggest you read the essay recommended by the OP. George Orwell at his best! Especially:

"Question any thinking person as to why he ‘never reads novels’, and you will usually find that, at bottom, it is because of the disgusting tripe that is written by the blurb-reviewers. There is no need to multiply examples. Here is just one specimen, from last week's Sunday Times: ‘If you can read this book and not shriek with delight, your soul is dead.’ That or something like it is now being written about every novel published, as you can see by studying the quotes on the blurbs. For anyone who takes the Sunday Times seriously, life must be one long struggle to catch up. Novels are being shot at you at the rate of fifteen a day, and every one of them an unforgettable masterpiece which you imperil your soul by missing. It must make it so difficult to choose a book at the library, and you must feel so guilty when you fail to shriek with delight. Actually, however, no one who matters is deceived by this kind of thing, and the contempt into which novel reviewing has fallen is extended to novels themselves. When all novels are thrust upon you as words of genius, it is quite natural to assume that all of them are tripe." - George Orwell

"Z writes a book which is published by Y and reviewed by X in the Weekly W. If the review is a bad one Y will remove his advertisement, so X has to hand out ‘unforgettable masterpiece’ or get the sack." - George Orwell

Why not follow Orwell's recommendations? Stendhal, Dickens, Jane Austen, D. H. Lawrence, Dostoyevsky... that would be a good start! If you read his complete essays you will get other recommendations...

[kelby_lake]

Why not follow Orwell's recommendations? Stendhal, Dickens, Jane Austen, D. H. Lawrence, Dostoyevsky... that would be a good start! If you read his complete essays you will get other recommendations...

Might be a bit hard if you're looking for contemporary reviews, lol. And the Telegraph does tend to review the big releases of the time; and they make for quite good drinking games ;) You will invariably find words like 'poignant', 'acerbic', 'lyrical', 'masterpiece' and one of my favourites, tour de force'.

[Evaril]

If you're not looking for something contemporary, a reading or ranking list, not by itself but a few compared, is generally better than a book review.

[kelby_lake]

It's generally better to read book reviews after, so they don't skew your opinion whilst reading it.

[mal4mac]

Might be a bit hard if you're looking for contemporary reviews, lol. And the Telegraph does tend to review the big releases of the time; and they make for quite good drinking games ;) You will invariably find words like 'poignant', 'acerbic', 'lyrical', 'masterpiece' and one of my favourites, tour de force'.

The OP said nothing about requiring *contemporary* reviews.

Sometimes you find reviews by serious critics like John Carey, Harold Bloom, and James Wood in newspapers. When I feel the (increasingly rare) desire to read a modern novel I try and dig out reviews by critics, like this, who I respect & who have a "reasonable" reputation in most academic & writerly quarters. Generally, I read another novel by a writer who I fancy reading more of, which ikis why I seldm read modern authors! I'm reading Jabne Austen at the moment and would rather read another of her novels than any modern novelist. (i felt the same while reading Dickens, Tolstoy, Hardy... just about any other famous non-modern novelist...)

So if, like me, you prefer non-modern novelists then your task is made much easier - there is a general consensus about which older novels are the best, so you just need to pick up a "canonical list", forget about reading reviews, and just read from the list.

(The consensus ends before the modernist novels of Proust and Joyce - John Carey, for instance, doesn't rate these authors highly - rightly in my opinion - so anything before 1913 should be a safe bet...)

[Emil Miller]

The OP said nothing about requiring *contemporary* reviews.

Sometimes you find reviews by serious critics like John Carey, Harold Bloom, and James Wood in newspapers. When I feel the (increasingly rare) desire to read a modern novel I try and dig out reviews by critics, like this, who I respect & who have a "reasonable" reputation in most academic & writerly quarters. Generally, I read another novel by a writer who I fancy reading more of, which ikis why I seldm read modern authors! I'm reading Jabne Austen at the moment and would rather read another of her novels than any modern novelist. (i felt the same while reading Dickens, Tolstoy, Hardy... just about any other famous non-modern novelist...)

So if, like me, you prefer non-modern novelists then your task is made much easier - there is a general consensus about which older novels are the best, so you just need to pick up a "canonical list", forget about reading reviews, and just read from the list.

(The consensus ends before the modernist novels of Proust and Joyce - John Carey, for instance, doesn't rate these authors highly - rightly in my opinion - so anything before 1913 should be a safe bet...)

I think he would do well to heed your advice, but I would tend to stretch the readable novels period a bit further to include American writers such as Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I don't read modern novels, i.e. those written since WW11, with a few notable exceptions such as Grahame Greene and Nabokov. The post-war period has been, to my mind, pretty much a cultural desert as far as literature and music is concerned.

[Mr.lucifer]

My personal philsophy is that everything sucks, no exceptions. Culture is overrated.

[mal4mac]

I think he would do well to heed your advice, but I would tend to stretch the readable novels period a bit further to include American writers such as Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I don't read modern novels, i.e. those written since WW11, with a few notable exceptions such as Grahame Greene and Nabokov. The post-war period has been, to my mind, pretty much a cultural desert as far as literature and music is concerned.

I've read the main novels of the four authors you mention and am not tempted to read them again, or anything else by them, with the exception (perhaps) of 'selected' Hemingway short stories. I agree the post-war period has been pretty much a cultural dessert - post-first-world-war, that is :)

Which modern novels have you read that you would want to read again instead of re-reading the novels of Dickens, Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Hardy, Dostoyevsky, and other major pre-WWI novelists?

[Mr.lucifer]

Culture is overrated.

[StreetStyleCat]

It's generally better to read book reviews after, so they don't skew your opinion whilst reading it.

Mostly I do so and recommend!

[Emil Miller]

I've read the main novels of the four authors you mention and am not tempted to read them again, or anything else by them, with the exception (perhaps) of 'selected' Hemingway short stories. I agree the post-war period has been pretty much a cultural dessert - post-first-world-war, that is :)

Which modern novels have you read that you would want to read again instead of re-reading the novels of Dickens, Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Hardy, Dostoyevsky, and other major pre-WWI novelists?

Well, as I have said, I have read most of Greene's novels and re-read them in French and German translations just for the fun of it; as I have done with a number of English writers. I would certainly re-read Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises and a particular favourite writer that I have often re-read is Somerset Maugham. His masterpiece Of Human Bondage was written in 1915 so it falls just inside your defined good writing period, but most of his other works were written post WW1. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, written in 1925, is a book that I have read many times and I would always be prepared to read it again. I have read Dickens and Dostoyevsy but although Dickens is eminently re-readable, I wouldn't want to re-read Dostoyevsky, whom I found to be turgid and often tedious. I like Trollope and have recently re-read The Warden but I haven't read Austen or Tolstoy. I have read much of H.G.Wells, some of which I would read again and all of Orwell who is always re-readable although I am diametrically opposed to his political viewpoint. Then there is Thomas Mann, one of the greatest prose stylists in the German language, most of whose work, including the masterly Buddenbrooks, falls outside of the period you mention.
These are just some of the modern writers who may or may not fall within the classic domain but do not, in my view, represent a cultural desert.

[mal4mac]

... a particular favourite writer that I have often re-read is Somerset Maugham. His masterpiece Of Human Bondage was written in 1915 so it falls just inside your defined good writing period, but most of his other works were written post WW1. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, written in 1925, is a book that I have read many times and I would always be prepared to read it again. I have read Dickens and Dostoyevsy but although Dickens is eminently re-readable, I wouldn't want to re-read Dostoyevsky, whom I found to be turgid and often tedious. I like Trollope and have recently re-read The Warden but I haven't read Austen or Tolstoy. I have read much of H.G.Wells, some of which I would read again and all of Orwell who is always re-readable although I am diametrically opposed to his political viewpoint. Then there is Thomas Mann, one of the greatest prose stylists in the German language, most of whose work, including the masterly Buddenbrooks, falls outside of the period you mention.
These are just some of the modern writers who may or may not fall within the classic domain but do not, in my view, represent a cultural desert.

You've swayed me somewhat.

I read Somerset Maugham many decades ago and I am tempted to read his works again.

I have just read "The Devils" by Dostoyevsky and wouldn't want to re-read it. But I will be re-reading "Brothers", C&P and "Notes" - turgid, often tedious certainly, but he's really deep! I'd much rather re-read Dickens, though. I've only read one Trollope, and would certainly read more of him before any modern novelist.

I'm surprised that you haven't read Tolstoy or Austen. How did you manage to miss them out? Have you really read and re-read all of Orwells novels? I think (apart from 1984) they are something to avoid ... - I admire every essay I've read by him, though, I plan to read his collected essays some time soon.

I've only read, and avidly re-read, Wells' science fiction novels. Can't think why I haven't read his later "social" novels - maybe because they are panned by modernist critics who I should have ignored (John Carey sings their praises in "The Intellectuals and the Masses"... )

I enjoyed Buddenbrooks, and would re-read that, and would like to read more of Mann - although I found Dr Faustus somewhat turgid and don't feel inclined to re-read that.

[Emil Miller]

You've swayed me somewhat.

I read Somerset Maugham many decades ago and I am tempted to read his works again.

I have just read "The Devils" by Dostoyevsky and wouldn't want to re-read it. But I will be re-reading "Brothers", C&P and "Notes" - turgid, often tedious certainly, but he's really deep! I'd much rather re-read Dickens, though. I've only read one Trollope, and would certainly read more of him before any modern novelist.

I'm surprised that you haven't read Tolstoy or Austen. How did you manage to miss them out? Have you really read and re-read all of Orwell's novels? I think (apart from 1984) they are something to avoid ... - I admire every essay I've read by him, though, I plan to read his collected essays some time soon.

I've only read, and avidly re-read, Wells' science fiction novels. Can't think why I haven't read his later "social" novels - maybe because they are panned by modernist critics who I should have ignored (John Carey sings their praises in "The Intellectuals and the Masses"... )

I enjoyed Buddenbrooks, and would re-read that, and would like to read more of Mann - although I found Dr Faustus somewhat turgid and don't feel inclined to re-read that.

I don't really know why I haven't read Tolstoy or Austen unless it's because I mildly resent the feeling one has to read them. Most of the authors that I have read are those that I arrived at by personal selection rather than being taught to read them in school.
I think most people will have come to Wells via his science fiction but his social novels are, to my mind, infinitely superior; especially Love and Mr Lewisham which is semi-biographical. He was an uneven writer and some of his work , such as The New Machiavelli, doesn't stand up, but for social observation, Kipps, and The History of Mr Polly are hard to beat.
Yes, I have read everything that Orwell had published but I haven't re-read all of it, I meant that it is all re-readable as he is such an entertaining writer. I think the essays are some of the best ever written; albeit many of them, as with the novels, tendentiously liberal/left in tone. It was in opposition to Orwell that I published my novel Pro Bono Publico, which gives chapter and verse to the opposite social and political viewpoint.
I agree that Dr Faustus is pretty heavy going but Mann's writing generally, is top grade stuff and I prefer him to Hesse.
As for Maugham, he is not in the pantheon of great English writers such a Shakespeare or Dickens but he is a consummate craftsman who has been consistently underrated by the literati in the UK in much the same way that Maupassant has been in France.