Short books

[bookclover]

Hello,

I am finding long books quite disappointing at the moment - not them all of course. Loved The Great House by Nicole Krauss -so I'm trying to write down a list of short books, especially classics. For example, Henry Kames, The Aspern Papers.

Can anyone suggest other titles?
Thanks!!:seeya:

[laymonite]

Define short. < 300p?

[bookclover]

Define short. < 300p?

Well, around 100 pages.
Other than the one I already mentioned I'd also say Alan Better, the Uncommon Reader.

[ChicagoReader]

Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
The Stranger - Albert Camus
Notes from the Underground - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

[PeterL]

The Aluminum Man by G. C. Edmondson is less than 200 pages, and it was the best novel in the English language in the 20th century

[Delarge]

Hemingway: The Old Man and the Sea

[Alexander III]

Eugene Oenegin is a short novel, and also one of my favorites. It also is one of the great works of the romantic period, and contains most of it in a nutshell. Definitely give it a look.

[laymonite]

I actually quite enjoyed DeLillo's Point Omega. There's also Salinger's Franny & Zooey, Conrad's Heart of Darkness (re-recommended, I know), and a very artistically written book that I continue to defend, James Salter's A Sport and a Pastime.

[Veho]

Breakfast at Tiffany's - Truman Capote
The Bloody Chamber and Other Tales - Angela Carter
Silas Marner - George Eliot

[Venerable Bede]

I would like to recommend The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

[Panglossian]

The Metamorphosis - Kafka
The Medusa Frequency - Russell Hoban
Pedro Paramo - Juan Ruflo
Mercier & Camier - Samuel Beckett
The Feverhead - Wolfgang Bauer
Yes - Thomas Bernhard
Under Milk Wood - Dylan Thomas

[Intuition]

The Aluminum Man by G. C. Edmondson is less than 200 pages, and it was the best novel in the English language in the 20th century

Best novel in the English language in the 20th century? According to whose standards? You would have been fit better claiming that it was according to your opinion-- instead of stating outright as if it were an objective truth.

(I apologize if I seem offensive from this point on)

First off, I could not even find a description of the novel on wikipedia, therefore it is evident that critics do not agree with you in this case.

Some of the more famous examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/


The first list happens to be compiled of European critics. The second is a list in which the most prestigious writers alive were asked to place their votes-- as you can see they believe Lolita happens to be the greatest novel in the 20th century is; that isn't so far-fetched to say so either, since the prose in Lolita is masterful. The third list is again, a list of critics voting on 20th century literature.

Lastly, if we were to speak of the most influential novel of the 20th century, it would then be Ulysses-- which happened to be a formative break-through in the use of parodies, allusions, and mastering of stream of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28novel%29

Without further ado, allow me to go onto some short novels for our fellow thread-maker.

The Great Gatsby 190 pages F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Trilogy 500 pages Samuel Beckett
The Death of Ivan Ilyich 60+ pages Leo Tolstoy
The Season of Migration to the North 180 pages Tayeb Salih
Things Fall Apart 200 pages Chinua Achebe
The Street of Crocodiles 200 pages Bruno Schulz
The Trial 200 pages (depending on version) Franz Kafka
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man 200 pages James Joyce
I can't think of any others off the top of my head; if you truly want to read short classic literature, I would advise for you to read dramas, as they seldom amount to more than 100 pages.

(note: the 500 pages of Beckett are divided among three novels-- and I have mentioned some short fiction).

[kiki1982]

Has THe Picture of Dorian Gray been mentioned yet? (Wilde) That has some 150-180-odd pages (depending on the size).

You could also try a lot of Grahame Green. He used to write small books.

Try some small novels like Kafka's Metamorfosis or Pushkin's The Commandant's Daughter/The Queen of Spades. You could try some Kleist too. I don't know, though, if he has been translated. (probably has)

[Venerable Bede]

Things Fall Apart 200 pages Chinua Achebe

I read this book a week ago, since I've heard that it's one of the best 20th century novels. I think it's really overrated and seems to be praised mainly due to the fact it was written by an African. There was no plot to the book and the characters were all unlikable. I really don't see why it's considered a modern classic, except for the sake of political correctness.

[Lokasenna]

Stephenson's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde surprised me with its shortness. Surprisingly good, given that it was only about 70 pages...

[Intuition]

I read this book a week ago, since I've heard that it's one of the best 20th century novels. I think it's really overrated and seems to be praised mainly due to the fact it was written by an African. There was no plot to the book and the characters were all unlikable. I really don't see why it's considered a modern classic, except for the sake of political correctness.

As I haven't the time to write an essay at this very moment in defense of Achebe, I will briefly illustrate some points which amount to the novel's stature.

Firstly, the novel is not avant-garde, so it isn't possible to not have a plot. That is tantamount to saying that a building (whether or not you find it horribly designed) has no foundation. I believe what you meant to say is that the plot does not move at the pace you would have preferred it to. This allows me to arrive at the conclusion that you dislike minimalism in art-- although minimalism by no means decreases the aesthetic value of such art.

Secondly, you claim that the characters were unlikable-- are you attempting to insult the novel because you found the character not to your liking? Are you attempting to claim that the character is unrealistic or undeveloped? Or are you claiming that it is an issue regarding principle? If it is the latter, then not every character is developed in attempt of reeling in the sympathy of the audience.

Lastly, I will not disagree that the expression of African culture in literature helped boost its international popularity-- although I would account that only to its financial success, and not aesthetic.

Oh, and just for the sake of clarity-- you realize that "one of the best 20th century novels," could be anywhere from the top ten to one hundredth. That's quite a range.

[Venerable Bede]

As I haven't the time to write an essay at this very moment in defense of Achebe, I will briefly illustrate some points which amount to the novel's stature.

An essay is not necessary. I'll be happy to have a simple, brief debate with you :).


Firstly, the novel is not avant-garde, so it isn't possible to not have a plot. That is tantamount to saying that a building (whether or not you find it horribly designed) has no foundation. I believe what you meant to say is that the plot does not move at the pace you would have preferred it to. This allows me to arrive at the conclusion that you dislike minimalism in art-- although minimalism by no means decreases the aesthetic value of such art.

Perhaps I should clarify. By calling it "plotless" I mean that the book lacks direction; there is no tension built until near the end. There is no suspense built early on; just a series of random, unconnected chapters centering on different characters and jumping long periods of time. The story gives an interesting picture of life in Umuofia, but it lacks any continuity, structure, or direction.


Secondly, you claim that the characters were unlikable-- are you attempting to insult the novel because you found the character not to your liking? Are you attempting to claim that the character is unrealistic or undeveloped? Or are you claiming that it is an issue regarding principle? If it is the latter, then not every character is developed in attempt of reeling in the sympathy of the audience.

Unlikable is not a sufficient word for what I meant. They certainly are unlikable, but for most of them it's simply because they are underdeveloped. Okonkwo is actually a realistic, developed character, I dislike him, but I don't consider that to be a fault with the book. I understand that not all books are supposed to have likable protagonists.



Oh, and just for the sake of clarity-- you realize that "one of the best 20th century novels," could be anywhere from the top ten to one hundredth. That's quite a range.

I mean in the top 100 range. I've seen it mentioned on several 100 greatest 20th century lists.

[Intuition]

Perhaps I should clarify. By calling it "plotless" I mean that the book lacks direction; there is no tension built until near the end. There is no suspense built early on; just a series of random, unconnected chapters centering on different characters and jumping long periods of time. The story gives an interesting picture of life in Umuofia, but it lacks any continuity, structure, or direction.

Art does not require standard formulae-- it doesn't need to follow guidelines and begin by slowly creating suspense into a visible climax, and sometimes the tension may be more subtle than others.

It seems as if your issue with the discontinuity of the chapters is a common misconception of what many take for the lack of structure in a novel. It is slightly influenced by modernism in its rhythm-- although we cannot assume that it lacks direction because it is episodic and contains temporal shifts. Another masterpiece such as Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury comes to mind. Every chapter a different character in a different temporal setting, and some would argue that this novel "has no plot" either. Although, it has been proven to the point of being dogma, that Faulkner has complete understanding of literary techniques and theory-- as Achebe should too (not to put Achebe on the same level as Faulkner) since he is after all a professor of literature, and a critic.

Secondly, the story does give an interesting picture-- one that is subtlety complex as well. It helps to know the irony behind the novel. Achebe, who claims that English happens to be a "language of colonizers," ironically, chose to write his novel in the English language instead of his native tongue. He also happens to quote Yeats, one of the great English language poets. There is a cultural struggle in the novel, and it proves to be somewhat of a polar opposite to Conrad's Heart of Darkness which centralized around the colonizers. This novel expresses a different perspective.

Thirdly, I wouldn't go so far as saying that this novel lacks themes and motifs. It deals with sacrifice, a theme which would seem nearly alien to Western audiences. There are large traces of inequality, allusions to Greek tragedy, and shifts of power.

Perhaps one of the most important themes in the novel is the misinterpretation of words through translations. It occurs when Mr. Brown’s African translator is ridiculed after his misinterpretation of an Igbo word. This theme also happens to be an allusion to foreign literature, in which the key to reading lies in finding the perfect translation. It also happens to express the miscommunication between the Africans and the colonizers, something Conrad did not care to do.


Unlikable is not a sufficient word for what I meant. They certainly are unlikable, but for most of them it's simply because they are underdeveloped. Okonkwo is actually a realistic, developed character, I dislike him, but I don't consider that to be a fault with the book. I understand that not all books are supposed to have likable protagonists.


Lastly, you claim that the characters which surround Okonkwo are underdeveloped. It may seem like this, but there are other reasons why they seem like mannequins to him. Okonkwo, rebelling from his father's effeminate attitude, chooses a more aggressive and "masculine" path. This disrupts his ability to allow other characters to "open up" to him, therefore it makes it seem as if Achebe's characterization is shallow.


I mean in the top 100 range. I've seen it mentioned on several 100 greatest 20th century lists.

Although the 20th century may have been a great century for literature, this novel is able to fuse universal themes, with cultural themes, flawlessly. To assume that this novel does not deserve to be in the top one hundred novels of this century is tantamount to assuming there has been a greater novel than it written every single year of the past one hundred years, I could not imagine so. It provides such a kaleidoscopic representation of the societal roles, terrain, and psychology of a culture never before so masterfully represented-- by the pen.

[Venerable Bede]

Art does not require standard formulae-- it doesn't need to follow guidelines and begin by slowly creating suspense into a visible climax, and sometimes the tension may be more subtle than others.

No it doesn't need to follow standard formulas. But when a book has you wondering why you should keep reading it, or if it will ever get better, then it fails.


It seems as if your issue with the discontinuity of the chapters is a common misconception of what many take for the lack of structure in a novel. It is slightly influenced by modernism in its rhythm-- although we cannot assume that it lacks direction because it is episodic and contains temporal shifts. Another masterpiece such as Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury comes to mind. Every chapter a different character in a different temporal setting, and some would argue that this novel "has no plot" either. Although, it has been proven to the point of being dogma, that Faulkner has complete understanding of literary techniques and theory-- as Achebe should too (not to put Achebe on the same level as Faulkner) since he is after all a professor of literature, and a critic.

I'm sure Achebe understands literary techniques perfectly fine, but he still didn't put them to good use, and the result is a very suspense-less and boring plot.


Secondly, the story does give an interesting picture-- one that is subtlety complex as well. It helps to know the irony behind the novel. Achebe, who claims that English happens to be a "language of colonizers," ironically, chose to write his novel in the English language instead of his native tongue. He also happens to quote Yeats, one of the great English language poets. There is a cultural struggle in the novel, and it proves to be somewhat of a polar opposite to Conrad's Heart of Darkness which centralized around the colonizers. This novel expresses a different perspective.

I did already say that it gives an interesting look at Ibo life. But to me, a novel needs much more than just a look at life in a particular setting. For instance, The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco not only presents a detailed and absorbing view of 14th century monastic life, it also contains an intriguing, well-formed plot. You need both for a great novel.


Thirdly, I wouldn't go so far as saying that this novel lacks themes and motifs. It deals with sacrifice, a theme which would seem nearly alien to Western audiences. There are large traces of inequality, allusions to Greek tragedy, and shifts of power.

I never said it didn't have themes. I agree that it does. All I assert is that its plot lacks structure or direction.

[Red-Headed]

The Steppe ~ Anton Chekhov (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Steppe)

[Freudian Monkey]

Try Kafka's short stories, they're all way under 100 pages and definitely worth your time.

[tonywalt]

Catcher in the Rye is short, but a bit over 200 pages. Worth it though.

[Intuition]

No it doesn't need to follow standard formulas. But when a book has you wondering why you should keep reading it, or if it will ever get better, then it fails.

To be honest, the fact that it doesn't follow standard formula should in itself be a motivation to continue reading. "Better" is subjective, what seems horrid to you may never have been "bad" to critics in the first place, perhaps you just disliked its pace.


I'm sure Achebe understands literary techniques perfectly fine, but he still didn't put them to good use, and the result is a very suspense-less and boring plot.

I'm not sure if you understood what I'm attempting to point out. Suspense does not instantaneously heighten the aesthetic importance of a novel, or a piece of art, for that matter-- surely it may make it more intriguing for some, but to be honest-- I prefer an author who respects my patience. On the other hand, I sometimes become bored when I realize the novel is using conventional techniques to attempt to shackle me into the narrative.


I did already say that it gives an interesting look at Ibo life. But to me, a novel needs much more than just a look at life in a particular setting. For instance, The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco not only presents a detailed and absorbing view of 14th century monastic life, it also contains an intriguing, well-formed plot. You need both for a great novel.

I haven't read The Name of the Rose so I cannot comment on the novel. As for needing an intriguing and well-formed plot for a great novel, of course you do-- to some extent; I only believe that your ideology behind what is a well-formed plot is different from mine. Take for example, Flaubert's Madame Bovary. Without a doubt it is one of the most perfect novels of all time, although some would argue that it is completely boring for the first half of the novel, and has no suspense. What intrigues the reader is the simplicity and the attention to detail of the novel. Of course, the masterful prose helps too. This is what Achebe does in Things Fall Apart. You didn't happen to hate Madame Bovary as well, did you?


I never said it didn't have themes. I agree that it does. All I assert is that its plot lacks structure or direction.

I'm not sure what more direction it needs when it's attempting to express themes and motifs-- great novels can exist solely on those. It also depends how well they're expressed.

[Des Essientes]

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe is a great novel and it most certainly has a plot. It is an amazing examination of both tragic hubris as well as the evils of British colonialism. The "Venerable Bede" you are naught but a narrow minded reactionary scumbag.

[Venerable Bede]

To be honest, the fact that it doesn't follow standard formula should in itself be a motivation to continue reading. "Better" is subjective, what seems horrid to you may never have been "bad" to critics in the first place, perhaps you just disliked its pace.

I enjoy books that experiment with standard formula, but I found that Achebe's experimenting failed. It wasn't just the pace, it was the fact that nothing happens till Okonkwo is banished and even then it doesn't get that much better.


I'm not sure if you understood what I'm attempting to point out. Suspense does not instantaneously heighten the aesthetic importance of a novel, or a piece of art, for that matter-- surely it may make it more intriguing for some, but to be honest-- I prefer an author who respects my patience. On the other hand, I sometimes become bored when I realize the novel is using conventional techniques to attempt to shackle me into the narrative.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I can't read something that doesn't grab me in the first few pages. If I make it halfway through the book, however, and I still feel that nothing is happening, then I start to get annoyed. I have the patience to wait for an author to develop his plot, and I dislike a cheap thriller that tries to grab you with cheap suspense and cliffhangers, but I dislike directionless novels even more.


I haven't read The Name of the Rose so I cannot comment on the novel. As for needing an intriguing and well-formed plot for a great novel, of course you do-- to some extent; I only believe that your ideology behind what is a well-formed plot is different from mine.

This seems to be the case. I suppose whether a plot is good or not is a rather subjective topic.


Take for example, Flaubert's Madame Bovary. Without a doubt it is one of the most perfect novels of all time, although some would argue that it is completely boring for the first half of the novel, and has no suspense. What intrigues the reader is the simplicity and the attention to detail of the novel. Of course, the masterful prose helps too. This is what Achebe does in Things Fall Apart. You didn't happen to hate Madame Bovary as well, did you?


I haven't read Madame Bovary as of yet, so that's yet another book we can't use to discuss :).


I'm not sure what more direction it needs when it's attempting to express themes and motifs-- great novels can exist solely on those. It also depends how well they're expressed.

Here we disagree. I believe that a book must have a good plot first and foremost and themes and motifs are extra goodies.


Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe is a great novel and it most certainly has a plot. It is an amazing examination of both tragic hubris as well as the evils of British colonialism. The "Venerable Bede" you are naught but a narrow minded reactionary scumbag.

And thou art a knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver'd, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel biatch, one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deny the least syllable of thy addition.

[Intuition]

I enjoy books that experiment with standard formula, but I found that Achebe's experimenting failed. It wasn't just the pace, it was the fact that nothing happens till Okonkwo is banished and even then it doesn't get that much better.


"Nothing happens."

The argument which I always hear from students upon watching minimalistic cinema, or reading "boring" novels. It isn't possible for "nothing" to happen. The incidents are subtle, perhaps you did not notice them? The novel does have quite a straight-forward structure. He begins with great reputation, as can be noted from his victories in wrestling and such. He gains more. He then loses it. I'm also surprised to see you can't see how brilliant the ending of this novel is. Not only does Okonkwo lose his reputation with his own culture, he also loses it with Christianity. It is against Ibo tradition to kill one self, as it is also against the Christian rule to do so; therefore, our protagonist finds himself condemned by both cultures, even the one he cherished.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying I can't read something that doesn't grab me in the first few pages. If I make it halfway through the book, however, and I still feel that nothing is happening, then I start to get annoyed. I have the patience to wait for an author to develop his plot, and I dislike a cheap thriller that tries to grab you with cheap suspense and cliffhangers, but I dislike directionless novels even more.

By claiming that Things Fall Apart does not have a direction, and that you prefer cheap thrillers which miraculously do have directions. Then in your mind I believe you are also claiming that you prefer cheap thrillers to this internationally acclaimed masterpiece. Seldom does one meet an individual with this much audacity.



This seems to be the case. I suppose whether a plot is good or not is a rather subjective topic.

Correct, but I believe that we can both agree that it has remarkable prose?


I haven't read Madame Bovary as of yet, so that's yet another book we can't use to discuss.

Ah. I recommend this. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is a novel that requires reading.


Here we disagree. I believe that a book must have a good plot first and foremost and themes and motifs are extra goodies.

Frankly, I believe that a novel can exist without a dense plot and strong characterization, and almost solely on prose. That's nearly what Nabokov did in Lolita. A great deal of the characterization and content is cheap, and simply made for controversies sake, whereas the prose is perhaps the most perfect ever written.

Themes and motifs perhaps may be additions, but they're additions that great novels require. If someone believes that motifs are far too didactic then he does not have knowledge of subtle motifs. An example being Gatsby's green light--


Gatsby's green light: Located at the end of the Buchanans' dock, this green light represents Gatsby's ultimate aspiration: to win Daisy's love. Nick's first vision of Gatsby is of his neighbor's trembling arms stretched out toward the green light (26). Later, after Daisy and Gatsby's successful reunion, a mist conceals the green light, visibly affecting Gatsby. Nick observes, "Possibly it had occurred to him that the colossal significance of that light had now vanished forever....Now it was again a green light on a dock. His count of enchanted objects had diminished by one" (98). This image suggests Gatsby realizes he must face the reality of Daisy, rather than the ideal he created for her.

This metonym easily makes The Great Gatsby a work of genius (if someone believed it hadn't already been brilliant beforehand). Without it Fitzgerald wouldn't have the same recognition he has today.


Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe is a great novel and it most certainly has a plot. It is an amazing examination of both tragic hubris as well as the evils of British colonialism. The "Venerable Bede" you are naught but a narrow minded reactionary scumbag.

It is needless to become infuriated, perhaps the only reason he argues so is because he wishes to discover why others believe it to be brilliant? You could have helped him a little more if your defense of the novel was a little longer.


And thou art a knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver'd, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel biatch, one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deny the least syllable of thy addition.

The immortal bard at his best.