Reading Classics - Where Do I Start?

[wishesjake]

Ok, I searched but couldn't find anything so I'm sorry if this has been posted before.

I am trying to better myself by reading classic literature, and I have no idea where to start. I am torn between just wanting to read something entertaining, and reading those books that everyone should read for the betterment of their mind. Please help me. Is there some kind of program that builds in level of complexity or tells you where to start so you don't get bogged down with stuff you don't want to read?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

[Nazish]

WishesJake, If you are interested in reading that gives you a touch of moral and virtues with equal dozes of entertainment, than may be you should go for Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray. This book is laden with beautiful yet ironical quotes by Oscar Wilde (one of the genuise of Literature) mouthed by Lord Henry. His philosophy of the world will leave you enthralled !

If you are a girl, then perhaps Little Women is the book for you which has been read and admired by millions of readers over centuries. I'm currently reading it and enjoying it immensely :)

[Patrick_Bateman]

You're English, so the rule is to start with Orwell (1984, Animal Farm and it's not a classic but Homage To Catalonia too)

[Nazish]

Orwell does not come in the category of Classic authors but 1984 is a must read anyway !

[kelby_lake]

Ok, I searched but couldn't find anything so I'm sorry if this has been posted before.

I am trying to better myself by reading classic literature, and I have no idea where to start. I am torn between just wanting to read something entertaining, and reading those books that everyone should read for the betterment of their mind. Please help me. Is there some kind of program that builds in level of complexity or tells you where to start so you don't get bogged down with stuff you don't want to read?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

What sort of books do you like reading? Are you male or female?

[JBI]

Depends what you have read already. Generally, chronological reading is quite suitable at first, unless your interest is limited to novels.

[Rores28]

Of Mice and Men, Animal Farm, 1984... is where I'd start... I wouldn't have ever started reading novels or "serious literature" had it not been for those three novels. They are fairly short, very touching, and the symbolism and themes are obvious enough to pick up many on your own, without referring to secondary sources.

From here I'd pick up Siddhartha, the Stranger, and Notes from Underground... a little more philosophically dense, but still sufficiently short and from various countries so you can sorta wet your feet and figure out where you may want to direct further reading.

[hexagondun]

first read mortimer adlers "how to read a book". The information is geared toward expository works, but the 2nd edition- written together with Mark VanDoren- has sections on reading poetry and fiction. All the skills you will learn are invaluable, and at the back of the book he lists the books anyone should read in their quest for culture. Start with Homer.

[dfloyd]

I had a technical degree (engineering) which required no reading, but was loaded with math, physics, and engineering courses. My objective was to increase my vocabulary and reading ability, remembering what I had read. Also, I wanted to increase my cultural level by understanding allusions mentioned in varous books.

Starting with Homer is bad advice. You probably have no concept of Greek history or mores, so you would immediately become bogged down plus you could be reading a less than good translation.

Start with some of the more modern authors such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, etc. One of each of these authors would be The Sun Also Rises, The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, and Babbitt. Non-fiction works might include The Autobiogrphy of Franklin and The Histories of Herodotus. Reading Herodotus, which is fairly easy to comprehend, will give you some background on the ancient world.

At this stage, you should be interested in building a sound background in following a plot and increasing your vocabulary. Nothing discourages a beginning reader as much as pausing to look up the meaning of an unfamiling word every few minutes.

The above authors, some will argue, are not considered as producing classic works. But you have to start with works which are more easily understood. You don't jump off into reading Homer, or even Charles Dickens, until you are capable of reading them. It took me years before I could effectively read Homer, Livy, Tacitus, Shakespeare, et al. The big thing here is not to get discouraged by leaping into works which are currently over your head.

When you have read several books which will serve as your introduction to reading, there are several scholars who have developed lifetime reading programs for the serious reader. These include such voracious readers as Harold Bloom and Clifton Fadiman. These can be consulted before going forward another step.

[Emil Miller]

I would second D.Floyd's advice. It is no use reading Shakespeare, Dante and other heavyweights until you are ready to take them on board; if you ever want to that is. Remember that many people on this website are students who have been instructed what to read as part of their studies and might never have come to their preferred writers otherwise. However, if you are English, you may find that British authors such as Robert Louis Stevenson, H.G Wells and W. Somerset Maugham, who are all master story tellers, are more congenial than the American authors that D.Floyd has mentioned; although they are certainly marvellous writers. Don't be put off by people who tell you that you should be reading Cervantes, Proust. Dostoevsky, Joyce etc etc. You can come to these later, but only if you want to. There is no necessity unless you are a student or avid follower of literature.

[AWritersWriter]

Try Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Honore de Balzac, Alexandre Dumas, Wilde as mentioned above. There is no need to Read everything a certain famed writer has written because at the end of the day its your time. Every Writers has Select Few works if you choose to read further thats great but isn't necessary. Also try Jules Verne and Jack London for Adventerous Fiction and Mark Twain is always a favorite.

[Bill 42]

I have a similar background to dfloyd. I really started reading when I was 26 years old. I had a degree in Computer Science and a job writing large database-driven software, and I was spending my time reading technical manuals. One weekend I watched the Great Books marathon on the Learning Channel and I decided to read some of the books featured. I shouldn't have - they were too advanced for me at the time.

After reading a few of these books, I started going back and re-reading the books I read in grade school and high school. After these books, the other books I was reading made a lot more sense.

Here's a list of books that I read in grade and high schools, and have since re-read:

Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
1984 by George Orwell
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Chrysalids by John Wyndham


These books were a lot better once I had some life experience, and I didn't have a teacher looking over my shoulder telling me what I should think about them.

[stlukesguild]

I must agree with JBI's suggestion that recommendations don't make all that much sense unless we know where you are coming from... what you have read and enjoyed is a good starting point for giving suggestions. Otherwise all you are getting are the names of books that others have read and enjoyed who may or may not have the least in common with your taste and reading experience.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

True, stlukesguild, but classics are classics, and all that has been mentioned definitely fits onto that category (with some arguable choices which are probably a bit too modern, i.e., Bradbury, Huxley, and Orwell).

I really like this list from Bill 42:

Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
1984 by George Orwell
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Chrysalids by John Wyndham

I would take out Adventures of Tom Sawyer,, though, and just read Huck Finn (it really is the deeper of the two, tom Sawyer being more of a children's book, but not without merit). I've never read A Tale of Two Cities, or The Chrysalids.

If I had to add to that list, I'd say The Great Gatsby, Heart of Darkness, and Moby Dick would all be good choices to expand your horizons. I'd say Moby Dick as one of the later ones to tackle. It's slow, and honestly, boring, but the language and story are brilliant.

[DougSlug]

snip...
When you have read several books which will serve as your introduction to reading, there are several scholars who have developed lifetime reading programs for the serious reader. These include such voracious readers as Harold Bloom and Clifton Fadiman. These can be consulted before going forward another step.

I highly recommend Fadiman's The New Lifetime Reading Plan:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Lifetime-Reading-Plan-Literature/dp/0062720732/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Great intro to western and world literature. Concise writeups of major authors, from Homer to Achebe. Biased of course, but well written.

[Night_Lamp]

Personally, I would recommend starting with 20 C. classics- Orwell, Forester, Hemmingway, etc,- and then moving backwards slowly. To the new student of literature, the language and themes would be, in my experience, easier to grasp when the reader moves from something closer to the familiar and then increases the other elements and older more complex language. I found Austen difficult to grasp in my early teens, but now really enjoy it.

[JBI]

Personally, I would recommend starting with 20 C. classics- Orwell, Forester, Hemmingway, etc,- and then moving backwards slowly. To the new student of literature, the language and themes would be, in my experience, easier to grasp when the reader moves from something closer to the familiar and then increases the other elements and older more complex language. I found Austen difficult to grasp in my early teens, but now really enjoy it.

And by 20th century classics you mean novels - which, as I pointed out earlier, is a limitation - that's why Chronological readings of great books makes sense to recommend at first, as it opens up the idea of a genre beyond the novel. The Waste Land, which is the 20th century text in English I would argue, is very much dependent on knowing what came before it. Such a limited appreciation of novels is quite sad actually, so, as mentioned before, not knowing what has already been read is a problem, but chronological understanding is still required at a fundamental level (one does not need to read all the classics in order, but the major canonical players) to get a shaped view of the tradition.

[Night_Lamp]

I always enjoy your thoughtful, intelligent posts JBI; but I think personally that reading novels for novels sake is the best basis for a greater enjoyment of literature at the start- then move on to the more critical thinking connections that you are advocating. I think becoming comfortable with literature and basic themes are more important as a beginner, then to draw the connections.

A totally personal outlook I admit; but as someone who was a long-time devourer of books, and then moved to university in my 30s, I found this the most logical (and easiest) progression from just reading to real understanding.

[kelby_lake]

Pick a novel from a time period/country that interests you/you have some knowledge of. Many of the classics require some appreciation of the context in which they were written.

As the first line of The Go-Between goes: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

[Gorki]

I started reading classics with Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice"...Subsequently I developed a penchant for her works and read Mansfield Park, Persuasion ,Emma...
By the bye, I started readng Dickens, Bronte etc...

I agree with dfloyd when he says--
Quote--"The above authors, some will argue, are not considered as producing classic works. But you have to start with works which are more easily understood. You don't jump off into reading Homer, or even Charles Dickens, until you are capable of reading them. It took me years before I could effectively read Homer, Livy, Tacitus, Shakespeare, et al. The big thing here is not to get discouraged by leaping into works which are currently over your head. "

So you can decide for yourself how to move on once you have kicked off...I gave my suggestion..Choice is entirely yours..

[OrphanPip]

I wouldn't start chronologically with novels anyway, early prose is painful to read. You should try reading something like Princess Cloria or The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, they're painfully boring. 17th century authors relished in copious amounts of purple prose.

If a chronological approach is going to be taken, start with Defoe, Burney, and Austen. You can add Richardson and Fielding in there too if you like to torture yourself. (Austen stands at the top of all those authors, and really is a good place to start reading classic novels.)

[JBI]

I wouldn't start chronologically with novels anyway, early prose is painful to read. You should try reading something like Princess Cloria or The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, they're painfully boring. 17th century authors relished in copious amounts of purple prose.

If a chronological approach is going to be taken, start with Defoe, Burney, and Austen. You can add Richardson and Fielding in there too if you like to torture yourself. (Austen stands at the top of all those authors, and really is a good place to start reading classic novels.)
I basically meant start with Homer, not start with Defoe :p

I meant novels in themselves represent one movement of literature which is relatively new. Personally the obsession with novels on these forums damages the limitation of scope. Poetry is all but unread, and starting with novels, and sticking only to novels encourages this. Prose is a form that is spawned out of poetry - therefore it is logical to understand poetry first, and see how things evolved.
On these boards, the term classic pretty much means novel, which is problematic, in that it is limited. Some I figure must need to rethink this limitation, as "reading the classics" does not only mean reading from Victorian novelists to modernist novelists.

[JCamilo]

I would second D.Floyd's advice. It is no use reading Shakespeare, Dante and other heavyweights until you are ready to take them on board; .

Because?
I was reading Dante, Cervantes and Homer with 11 years. At sametime I was reading Arthur Clarke,Agatha Christie or Hans Christian Andersen (or encyclopedias and comic books). The critery? My father had those books. So I got all that seemed to have a nice cover and monsters. I got very disapointed with Crime and Punishment, but such is life. Later I liked it. I was reading the bible with this age too...


My advice, get the cheapest boosk you can find, drop them if you dislike. Ignore the label of classic, ignore what you can not understand. Use your bias well: they are product of your taste, but do not limit it. Ignore the lists there, as the popular saying tell us "Tell me what you read, and I will tell who you are."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I basically meant start with Homer, not start with Defoe :p

I meant novels in themselves represent one movement of literature which is relatively new. Personally the obsession with novels on these forums damages the limitation of scope. Poetry is all but unread, and starting with novels, and sticking only to novels encourages this. Prose is a form that is spawned out of poetry - therefore it is logical to understand poetry first, and see how things evolved.
On these boards, the term classic pretty much means novel, which is problematic, in that it is limited. Some I figure must need to rethink this limitation, as "reading the classics" does not only mean reading from Victorian novelists to modernist novelists.

JBI makes an excellent point, here. Poetry really is the starting point of all prose, and how much that fact seems to be ignored is unfortunate (one I, too, am guilty of).

[Alexander III]

I honestly belive you shouldnt start with novels, the best introduction to literature lies in short lyric poems. I suggest pick up a copy of the collected works of a romantic poet, that is the best introduction to literature. To understand the beauty in a novels, one must first understand the beauty of poetry.

For Romantic poets to choose from here is a good list

-Percy Shelley
-Keats
-Byron (childe harold's pilgrimage)
-Goethe
-Leopardi
-Ugo Foscolo
- Chauteaubriande

[KilgoreT]

I honestly belive you shouldnt start with novels, the best introduction to literature lies in short lyric poems. I suggest pick up a copy of the collected works of a romantic poet, that is the best introduction to literature. To understand the beauty in a novels, one must first understand the beauty of poetry.

For Romantic poets to choose from here is a good list

-Percy Shelley
-Keats
-Byron (childe harold's pilgrimage)
-Goethe
-Leopardi
-Ugo Foscolo
- Chauteaubriande

"I meant novels in themselves represent one movement of literature which is relatively new. Personally the obsession with novels on these forums damages the limitation of scope. Poetry is all but unread, and starting with novels, and sticking only to novels encourages this. Prose is a form that is spawned out of poetry - therefore it is logical to understand poetry first, and see how things evolved.
On these boards, the term classic pretty much means novel, which is problematic, in that it is limited. Some I figure must need to rethink this limitation, as "reading the classics" does not only mean reading from Victorian novelists to modernist novelists." (From JBL--I can't figure out how to quote two posts in my reply)

I am also interested in learning more about literature and I would say that I have become a serious reader in the last year or so. As many of the people on here have recommended, I have started mainly with '20th century classics' but am interested in beginning to read poetry, but to be honest I am intimidated by it. I have only ever read poetry in school and don't really know hoe to go about reading and really understanding it. Should I just grab one of those books you mentioned and start reading it? Any other poets you would recommend? Any tips at all for a poetry-toddler such as myself?

[Emil Miller]

Because?
I was reading Dante, Cervantes and Homer with 11 years. ."

I would suggest that any 11-year-old who could get to the heart of Dante, Cervantes and Homer would be the exception to the rule. Perhaps you are an exception.

[JCamilo]

I do not know, why would I be? My young twin sister were reading since that age Guimarães Rosa, Camões, Homer, Borges, Emily Dickinson, Lord Byron alongside with the likes of Rowling, Lewis Carroll, Frank L.Braum... (one tried Dante and Poe but gave up)... I guess it is a matter of incentive, there is no text that is so complex that someone cannt access (even Joyce) if he became familiar to it. Homer is complex if we think with people used with journalism, but if you are familiar with verses, it is much easier.

Anyways, getting to the heart is not something I would think of, unless you mean liking those authors. I still ignorant enough to read them again (albeit, with Homer is more a matter of reading different translations)...

[OrphanPip]

I am also interested in learning more about literature and I would say that I have become a serious reader in the last year or so. As many of the people on here have recommended, I have started mainly with '20th century classics' but am interested in beginning to read poetry, but to be honest I am intimidated by it. I have only ever read poetry in school and don't really know hoe to go about reading and really understanding it. Should I just grab one of those books you mentioned and start reading it? Any other poets you would recommend? Any tips at all for a poetry-toddler such as myself?

Just starting out with poetry I would stick with English language poets to start with. Picking up an annotated anthology will help a lot, the book will give you some background information on general movements and authors, and the notes will help you understand the poems themselves when they contain heavy amounts of allusions or difficult language.

The English Romantics are a good place to start if you want to get chronological. That is the period where poetic language starts to get a bit more clearer and direct. It helps for your overall understanding to be aware of earlier poetry, but 18th and 17th century poetry is not always easy readings.

The alternative though is that you could just read poetry on line, it tends to be easier on the eyes than reading novels and the vast majority of great poetry from prior to WW2 is easy to find on the internet. That will save you money at least, then you could just come here to talk about the poems.

[mortalterror]

JBI makes an excellent point, here. Poetry really is the starting point of all prose, and how much that fact seems to be ignored is unfortunate (one I, too, am guilty of).

Actually, I believe that historians like Herodotus, or orators like Demosthenes are the real originators of western prose style.

[JCamilo]

And Aesop, parables and fables are already the form of modern short stories.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh. Okay. But, modern prose in general's roots can be traced back to poetry, no?

[mortalterror]

Oh. Okay. But, modern prose in general's roots can be traced back to poetry, no?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. All of the modern prose writers I can think of based their craft in earlier models. Even in the fourteenth century, Petrarch chose Virgil for his poetic model and Cicero for his prose. From the earliest times, there have been two fairly distinct traditions, where it's understood that prose is one thing and poetry another.

[JCamilo]

well, we can say somehow, as overall we can say all greek literatura may have roots in poetry, etc. But seriously, if you find a traditional oral artist, a poet declaimer is different from a storyteller.

Fables and parables are quite modern, they have economy of language, but also seeking a form that is more poetic, they do seek for the bigger impact at once, they do fram the action in one single momment, many romance are born from prose novels tied together, something indians did with fables and parables. They traveled to the bible, italian novelino, folk faery tales, 1001 nights, they were used for educational purposed, just like philosophers did also... so, prose have a lot of roots (the dialogue of course is more to do with rethoric, plato and drama) others than narrative poems...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I guess what I mean is prose used for artistic purposes has its roots in poetry. I know prose has been around, but it wasn't until a few hundred years ago the novel began to be seen as literature, and its artistic merits were rooted in poetry. Again, probably wrong in this thinking, though.

[JBI]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. All of the modern prose writers I can think of based their craft in earlier models. Even in the fourteenth century, Petrarch chose Virgil for his poetic model and Cicero for his prose. From the earliest times, there have been two fairly distinct traditions, where it's understood that prose is one thing and poetry another.

To an extent - but historical narrative, and oral tradition has always had routes in poetic forms because of mnemonic traits granted by verse. The narrative tradition, I would argue, moved from orated events, to verse, to finally verse narratives, to then, the emergent prose narratives.

Fiction in itself though is closely tied to verse - one looks to the mythic, and the ancient archetypal and finds most things rooted in verse, since, in the beginning verse was the dominant form, as it binds to time better (it is, after all, set to time). There is no denying that.

As for English novels, I personally think knowing something of English narrative poetics really puts a nice context.

Of course, non fiction is different, but still, there is poetics in Cicero, as rhetoric, and its art, is rooted in classical conceptualizations of poetry, rather than classic conceptualizations of prose.

Looking at right now for instance, my copies of Chinese classics on my shelves, I realize that the trends and qualities of the prose are totally based on rules of poetry, and that the real stylistic choices and art form is reliant not on the rules of prose, but on following a syllabic pattern and set of rhetorical trends borrowed from a poetic tradition - the same perhaps can be said of early Western texts - I have no idea to the extent, not being a naratologist nor a reader of either Latin or Ancient Greek (though Hebrew surely is rooted in Verse), but the point is that narrative is closely tied to verse.

The Bible itself is rooted very much in poetry, something which is more apparent when reading in Hebrew.

[mortalterror]

Prose has it's own rules distinct from poetry. That's because they have different origins and purposes. Prose arose out of speech and poetry out of song. Poetry is much more elevated and affected than prose, as a general rule. When prose becomes elevated beyond the norm, some people say that it is poetic. There is an elevated or eloquent style of prose which lends itself to this kind of treatment, but usually such adorned and labored writing makes for bad prose. When such a thing happens we call it "purple prose."

There are many types of good prose, and the eloquent is just one of them. The plain style can be just as artistic without being so grand. It is an artistic style which stresses the simplistic rather than the complex, and is distinct from more elaborate styles by it's short periods and commonplace diction. However, the most common style of prose, especially in use today, is the middle style between eloquence and plainness. This is often used because it seems least affected, and is closest to everyday speech.

An elevated poetic style is more common than an elevated prose style, and so we tend to think that rules common to both are the exclusive property of the former. Yet, this is not so. When the prose style chooses an elegant diction, and reaches an uncommon fluidity or rhythm it is not being poetic any more than when poetry strips itself of metaphors and lofty language does it become prosaic.

[JBI]

Prose has it's own rules distinct from poetry. That's because they have different origins and purposes. Prose arose out of speech and poetry out of song. Poetry is much more elevated and affected than prose, as a general rule. When prose becomes elevated beyond the norm, some people say that it is poetic. There is an elevated or eloquent style of prose which lends itself to this kind of treatment, but usually such adorned and labored writing makes for bad prose. When such a thing happens we call it "purple prose."

There are many types of good prose, and the eloquent is just one of them. The plain style can be just as artistic without being so grand. It is an artistic style which stresses the simplistic rather than the complex, and is distinct from more elaborate styles by it's short periods and commonplace diction. However, the most common style of prose, especially in use today, is the middle style between eloquence and plainness. This is often used because it seems least affected, and is closest to everyday speech.

An elevated poetic style is more common than an elevated prose style, and so we tend to think that rules common to both are the exclusive property of the former. Yet, this is not so. When the prose style chooses an elegant diction, and reaches an uncommon fluidity or rhythm it is not being poetic any more than when poetry strips itself of metaphors and lofty language does it become prosaic.

Hmm, maybe in English - in Hebrew that does not seem the case so much - the Bible, for instance, the prose narratives, are in the elevated poetic style - likewise, Classical Chinese prose is written in a literary language, following rules outlined in poetic-like metrics (5syllable clauses being the most obvious feature). I cannot say much about other forms, but there is certainly a trace of poetry in the origin of prose. I would not say it is rooted totally in a speech to text relationship and not a speech to song to poem to prose relationship.


Perhaps though for the Western tradition (meaning Greek/Roman, not Hebrew) you are right, lets get back on topic though so we do not hijack this too long.

[mortalterror]

Good verse generally makes for bad prose and vice versa. The metrical rules and tropes are all different.

LO I the man, whose Muse whilome did maske,
As time her taught, in lowly Shepheards weeds,
Am now enforst a far vnfitter taske,
For trumpets sterne to chaunge mine Oaten reeds,
And sing of Knights and Ladies gentle deeds;
Whose prayses hauing slept in silence long,
Me, all too meane, the sacred Muse areeds
To blazon broad emongst her learned throng:
Fierce warres and faithfull loues shall moralize my song.

Can you adapt that into really good prose without bending and twisting the meaning and phrases by some rather convoluted substitutions? Likewise, people would look ridiculous if they tried to speak in trochaic hexameter. What most people are confusing for poetry is really only rhetoric. Probably the only thing poetic about poetry is it's rhythm and meter.

The true relationship between poetry and prose seems to be reciprocal in nature. Whenever a new technique is invented for one, it is quickly adopted by the other, and so which was first to do anything becomes a muddled issue.

[JCamilo]

Well, if you mean using verses is unlike prose, then it is fine. If you mean poetry as the craft the language, the care with rythim, the symbolism, etc then poetry is found in texts without verses. But what we call prose is not under the influence of poetic narratives only, even if we consider the obvious link with Don Quixote.

It is true all texts had oral source, but there is a difference between the oral poetic source such as Homer and for example, Aesop and his fables. If we even analyse the meaning of the word, it is very close to prosaic, as both indicate daily chat. The fables and parables are more daily talk that someone added (mostly due to religious influence) the style of animals, etc. But they are not meant to be "sung" or anything else. They are oral but not poetry.
The same goes for Herodothus, it is not poetry. His source is oral, but he is closer to prose as he is doing some short of journalism. Those daily mundane tales will be together with philosophical prose be relevant for prose, and they are not verse.
If there is some expection, I would say it is Ovid, who used verse for different literary genres. Metamorphosis is more an anthology of short tales in verses, he is very relevant for guys like Apulleio and others.