Introduction to literature?

[SanderM]

Hello all,

I'm not a wellread person, I did read some, mostly fantasy books.
However I would like to broaden my horizon, and start reading literary
classics, however I remember from back in school I always remember my
teacher mentioning words as symbolism and theme and such, apparently
secondary meanings brought by the author of a book.

My basic question: How will I fully appreciate the literary classics,
and understand why they are classics?

I did find 2 books which I believe are concerning this subject namely:
- How to read a book (Mortimer Adler)
- How to read literature like a professor (Thomas C. Foster)

Will any of these books help me appreciate literature to the fullest?
Or is there a better way?

Thanks in advance,

Sander

[mal4mac]

To 'fully appreciate' the classics is impossible... that's why they're classics. The stream of papers appearing on classic novels is never ending. To 'fully appreciate' the classics you would need to read all those papers. Not recommended :)

Instead, why not aim to read the classics for enjoyment? Then it's easy - just pick up a classic and start reading. If you are enjoying the experience, keep on reading. If you are not, pick up another...

I used to read a lot of fantasy as a teenager, finding 'the classics' a bit boring. This was probably because most of the classics I encountered at school were not right for me at the time. That all changed with Macbeth :)

So maybe start there if you are happy about dealing with 'ole English'. If that's too much of a struggle, for now, try classic fantasy literature - H.G. Wells, Orwell's 1984, Gullivers Travels, R.L. Stevenson, 'fantastic' Dickens (Christmas carol...), and then move gradually into mainstream classics by the classic-fantasy authors you like best.

[Emil Miller]

To 'fully appreciate' the classics is impossible... that's why they're classics. The stream of papers appearing on classic novels is never ending. To 'fully appreciate' the classics you would need to read all those papers. Not recommended :)

Instead, why not aim to read the classics for enjoyment? Then it's easy - just pick up a classic and start reading. If you are enjoying the experience, keep on reading. If you are not, pick up another...

I used to read a lot of fantasy as a teenager, finding 'the classics' a bit boring. This was probably because most of the classics I encountered at school were not right for me at the time. That all changed with Macbeth :)

So maybe start there if you are happy about dealing with 'ole English'. If that's too much of a struggle, for now, try classic fantasy literature - H.G. Wells, Orwell's 1984, Gullivers Travels, R.L. Stevenson, 'fantastic' Dickens (Christmas carol...), and then move gradually into mainstream classics by the classic-fantasy authors you like best.

Those are very good recommendations for someone wanting to read something above the ordinary run of writing.

[TheChilly]

Hello all,

I'm not a wellread person, I did read some, mostly fantasy books.
However I would like to broaden my horizon, and start reading literary
classics, however I remember from back in school I always remember my
teacher mentioning words as symbolism and theme and such, apparently
secondary meanings brought by the author of a book.

My basic question: How will I fully appreciate the literary classics,
and understand why they are classics?

I did find 2 books which I believe are concerning this subject namely:
- How to read a book (Mortimer Adler)
- How to read literature like a professor (Thomas C. Foster)



Will any of these books help me appreciate literature to the fullest?
Or is there a better way?

Thanks in advance,

Sander

The best way to appreciate literary classics is to give them a shot for yourself. Not only does the effort pay off, but you gain a better understanding of what you read by being able to form your own conclusions and judgments on how a literary classic stood the test of time pertaining to the era it was written.

In my opinion, classics shouldn't be limited to only those from Dostoevsky or Charles Dickens. They can be evident in many different aspects of literary and genre fiction (i.e.: Samuel R. Delany, for Science Fiction).

For literary classics, I recommend giving some of Leo Tolstoy's short stories a shot ("The Death of Ivan Ilych" is a good introduction, even though it's a lengthy short story).

In terms of modern classics... it's hard for me to pick since there's a lot (I'm thinking either some Upton Sinclair, Cormac McCarthy, or Don DeLillo).

[kiki1982]

That seem two good suggestions you have there, but the main thing is practice.

Recognising hidden messages is about practice. If a character is called Romeo, it will probably refer to Shakespeare's play in one way or other (the book itself or the character), but that is quite blatant. It is possible too that certain situations remind you of things you read before, certain things characters say remind you of philosophers or other characters or whatever, but those things are less easy to recognise if you haven't read a lot unless you are reading something with footnotes. Also the mere fact that something may mean something (a read label on the door, for example, or maybe flowers that feature a lot or something) needs some practice. You don't need to know what it means per se, but just recognise it as something possibly intersting to investigate.

However, to enjoy you don't need that knowledge, but it certainly makes enjoying a lot better if you see things that way! You start to do it with TV series too and drive people mad with it :D.

Good luck though.

Anything that bugs you, investigate, that's the best thing in the beginning ;).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you want to read classics and enjoy them (and from that gain an appreciation), I'd suggest not reading analytically (finding symbolism and all that) and just read for pleasure. If you do like what you read, you can always go back and delve deeper.

I am really a huge fan of Norton Critical Editions (http://books.wwnorton.com/books/subject-detail.aspx?tid=11202) (all of which can be gotten on Amazon). You can just read them for pleasure, or, if you want, read the criticism that comes with them to delve deeper. Not all the books on that list are as well placed in the canon as others, and there are plenty not there that should still be read, but perusing that selection may be a good starting point. Norton also has wonderful anthologies of short stories.

[NiMROD]

I am not so well-read either though I've been making headway over these years now that college doesn't occupy so much of my time. The way I started off was gradual. Not heavy literature, but things like David Copperfield or Count of Monte Cristo. It's literature, but it's fun literature that isn't about all the symbolism but rather the weaving of a tale and solid writing. When not forced to read it, I find Huck Finn to be an interesting read without delving into symbolism.

[kelby_lake]

It depends how far you want to explore classic literature. If you want to go on an exploration, dive in the deep end and immerse yourself in some Russian literature. You may need a dictionary or SparkNotes beside you but eventually you will need them less and less.

If you simply want to read some famous novels, then start with some dystopian novels, seeing as you like fantasy. 1984 and Brave New World are probably the two biggies.

As for symbolism and various interpretations, leave that until the second reading. You'll soon develop an instinct for things like that.

[Emil Miller]

I am not so well-read either though I've been making headway over these years now that college doesn't occupy so much of my time. The way I started off was gradual. Not heavy literature, but things like David Copperfield or Count of Monte Cristo. It's literature, but it's fun literature that isn't about all the symbolism but rather the weaving of a tale and solid writing. When not forced to read it, I find Huck Finn to be an interesting read without delving into symbolism.

Yes it's a mistake to take oneself too seriously in what on reads.While Shakespeare, MIlton, Dante etc. may teach their readers a lot, they are not by any means the sole repository of the world's wisdom and it's possible to gain much from reading less exalted but well written books by famous writers who are just as concerned to tell a good story as the pillars of the literary establishment.

[SanderM]

Thanks a lot for all the reactions, they helped me a great deal into giving insight in how I should treat literature.

My main concern was that when reading those classics I would miss a whole lot of the enjoyment, because I'm not very knowledged on how literature is formed (themes/symbolism). I guess I overthought it all and should just start reading, and on the way think about what I read.

My main reason for wanting to start reading is to broaden my knowledge, which is currently very much technical oriented, and I would like to broaden this with history, philosophy, culture and other sciences. I think I'll start with 1984, as I've seen this title come up in a lot in discussions regarding privacy, I definately want to be able to read Homer someday, but I think for now that's too hard to grasp.

Again, thanks!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I definately want to be able to read Homer someday, but I think for now that's too hard to grasp.

Not so. You might think Homer would be more difficult to grasp over other works but it is not so, there are some very readable translations around. The Penguin edition of The Odyssey for example is very straightforward. I'm not a classicist but I don't think the merits of Homer lie in the complexity of the language anyway, same with other oral tales.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Odyssey-Penguin-Classics-Homer/dp/0140449116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314730403&sr=8-1

Good advice already given and I'd say read a range of work and read often, reading what you enjoy.

[prendrelemick]

You could certainly read the E V Rieu translations of Homer tomorrow. I would recommend you read them early on and for pleasure. They are at the root of western literature.

Don't bother with those 'How to read books' books until you want to take your reading further.

[mal4mac]

I would also recommend the E V Rieu translation of Homer's Odyssey. It comes with an introduction to all the background you need to know.

Rieu tested his translation by reading it to his wife and children while bombs fell during the London blitz - if it took their minds off that he was happy...

After that? Rieu's translation of the Illiad maybe? That's a bit more of a struggle, though ...

Maybe I've read too many of these "how to read a book" books, maybe I'm jaded, but I'd recommend not reading any! Do you really want to read like a Professor? Or do you want to enjoy reading?

You'll get more than enough waffling on about symbolism and "how to read it" information in the introductions to novels from Penguin and Oxford ... never mind Norton ... but try and read the Novel before the introduction...

The introduction often gives away the plot. If you feel the need to know more about the novel, rather than having fun :), then read the introduction after reading the novel. I doubt you will think you've missed much by not reading the scholarly introduction! I usually just skip the intro completely these days - and get on with reading another novel! Life should be fun and lived to the full, so don't spend it reading the out-pourings of dusty, second-rate scholars.

[stuntpickle]

Hello all,

I'm not a wellread person, I did read some, mostly fantasy books.
However I would like to broaden my horizon, and start reading literary
classics, however I remember from back in school I always remember my
teacher mentioning words as symbolism and theme and such, apparently
secondary meanings brought by the author of a book.

My basic question: How will I fully appreciate the literary classics,
and understand why they are classics?

I did find 2 books which I believe are concerning this subject namely:
- How to read a book (Mortimer Adler)
- How to read literature like a professor (Thomas C. Foster)

Will any of these books help me appreciate literature to the fullest?
Or is there a better way?

Thanks in advance,

Sander

I actually read Adler's book several years ago and found it fairly shallow in regards to reading prose and poetry. It's more of a primer for students preparing to write research papers. There's only a single chapter on reading imaginative literature if I recall correctly, and it can be summed up as follows: really try to imagine you're the character of a novel when you read it. Frankly, that just seems a little stupid to me.

I would, however, highly recommend Nabokov's Lectures on Literature (not the Russian lectures for what you're looking for). Apart from his actual lectures on literary works, the opening and closing lectures are I think particularly interesting. You can read part of the opening lecture on Amazon. You can find one of the closing lectures on the internet under the name of The Art of Literature and Common Sense, but, unfortunately, the formatting is all screwed up. The book is definitely worth buying. After reading the opening lecture you can start by reading the fairly slim volume Jekyll and Hyde and then afterwards (and ONLY afterwards) read what Nabokov has to say about it. From memory, I recall Nabokov analyzing Metamorphosis, Jekyll and Hyde, Bleak House, Madame Bovary and Mansfield Park. If you enjoy his Lectures on Literature, you can follow up by reading his Lectures on Russian Literature.

[mal4mac]

I would, however, highly recommend Nabokov's Lectures on Literature...

Oh no, you might just have persuaded me to read another book about books :)

"Tolstoy is the greatest Russian writer of prose fiction. Leaving aside his percursors Pushkin and Lermentov, we might list the greatest artists in Russian prose thus: first, Tolstoy; second, Gogol; third, Checkov; fourth, Turgenev. This is rather like grading student's papers and no doubt Dostoevski and Saltykov are waiting at the door of my office to discuss their low marks." - Nabokov

I haven't read Gogol, but, from my experience of English translations, that seems about right - Dostoevsky is over-rated... Tolstoy and Chekhov are magical (must read Gogol!)

" ... great novels are great fairy tales -- and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales."

Good news for a fan of fantasy :) And he is so right if he is thinking about Dickens and Stevenson!

[avid]

I volunteer at the local library. Fortunately it is a shared resource with a university so I have access to alot of excellent literature. Alongside many of the pulitzer prize winners are books of criticism. These provide in depth analysis of characters, symbolism, and devices used by the author. They shed a whole new light on the particular body of work.
Try some for greater appreciation

[stuntpickle]

Oh no, you might just have persuaded me to read another book about books :)

"Tolstoy is the greatest Russian writer of prose fiction. Leaving aside his percursors Pushkin and Lermentov, we might list the greatest artists in Russian prose thus: first, Tolstoy; second, Gogol; third, Checkov; fourth, Turgenev. This is rather like grading student's papers and no doubt Dostoevski and Saltykov are waiting at the door of my office to discuss their low marks." - Nabokov

I haven't read Gogol, but, from my experience of English translations, that seems about right - Dostoevsky is over-rated... Tolstoy and Chekhov are magical (must read Gogol!)

" ... great novels are great fairy tales -- and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales."

Good news for a fan of fantasy :) And he is so right if he is thinking about Dickens and Stevenson!


FYI, it sounds as if you're quoting from Lectures on RUSSIAN Literature. I think his Lectures on Literature is a better place to start if only for the introductory lecture.

Also, Gogol is, in my opinion, excellent. If you're into weird fiction, I would suggest you start with The Nose.

[dfloyd]

greatest, best, worst, etc .... and emphatic statements which are only opinions .....
such as Dostoevsky is overated whileTolstoy is number 1. The original poster must be quite confused by now. I would suggest she go elsewhere for recommendations where she might get an unbiased professional opinion which seems impossible to get here.

[Calidore]

Apply the same rules to literature that you no doubt do to your fantasy novels: If it looks interesting, give it a shot. If you like one, check out more by that author and in that vein. But for god's sake, don't feel obligated to like something just because People of Learning pronounce it Important. Pretentious intellectual twaddle is no better than vapid genre twaddle.

There's a list of LitNet's top 100 books here--check that out, look up summaries on Wikipedia, Amazon, or whatever, and dig into those that look promising.

There's classic fantasy, also: E.R. Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros, which is really eccentric, but which I liked a lot and have read twice; Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter, which bored me cross-eyed; and works by William Morris, which I haven't yet read.

[kiki1982]

Yes... 'The greatest' and 'magical', 'over-rated', I don't know... If there were a Russian here who knew about it, he'd probably put you right...

Austen is a favourite with me and Bronte too, but I wouldn't say that Austen is magical and Bronte is very good and that Hardy is over-rated :eek: I would have to be really off my tree. I can call Austen sublime, but I can I say the same of Bronte and of Hardy. Let's say I really like them.

And then, with the Russians... Where is Pushkin in all this? He must be the single most revered writer of them all as he was the one to find out about 'the Russian novel', yet everyone is talking about later writers... and one searching to be the man of the parable to give away all his money, but not becoming happy despite what Jesus said. A bit of a sad mind, I would call that, but there you go.

As someone else here said, starting with something like Dumas which is light on symbolism and straightforward may be a great start. Certainly very gripping. If you want fun, go for The Three Musketeers (which earned him his place amongst the great French authors), it is light, fun and laughing from beginning to end (or almost). If you want brooding revenge, go for The Count of Monte Cristo. Haunting, fantastic, sublime. Really. I couldn't put it down for the last 500 pages and that rarely happens with me. I even stated to neglect my students...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

greatest, best, worst, etc .... and emphatic statements which are only opinions .....
such as Dostoevsky is overated whileTolstoy is number 1. The original poster must be quite confused by now. I would suggest she go elsewhere for recommendations where she might get an unbiased professional opinion which seems impossible to get here.
Where would that be?

[Mr.lucifer]

ISn't Nabokov famous for not just dismissing Dostoevsky but also a lot of great writers like Faulkner, Borges, Mann, Bellow, etc.?

[kiki1982]

Where would that be?

Now that is a good point!


ISn't Nabokov famous for not just dismissing Dostoevsky but also a lot of great writers like Faulkner, Borges, Mann, Bellow, etc.?

And Tolstoy dismissed Shakespeare... Maybe Nobokov was still of the idea that writings were not supposed to depict Russia's misery, working classes or something. I don't know what background Nabokov had, but it is just possible that he was quite conservative that way.

[mal4mac]

greatest, best, worst, etc .... and emphatic statements which are only opinions .....
such as Dostoevsky is overated while Tolstoy is number 1. The original poster must be quite confused by now. I would suggest she go elsewhere for recommendations where she might get an unbiased professional opinion which seems impossible to get here.

Isn't Nabakov a professional? You can't get an unbiased opinion in literature - and some of the most amusing biases are to be found in the greatest authors. For example, Tolstoy had a fairly unique bias against Shakespeare! So the only thing to do is to read a few 'generally' acknowledged classics and make up your own mind...

[mal4mac]

ISn't Nabokov famous for not just dismissing Dostoevsky but also a lot of great writers like Faulkner, Borges, Mann, Bellow, etc.?

Yes he's famous for that, he also attacked many translators of Tolstoy who most others think are quite good. It's another case of "Tolstoy attacks Shakespeare". This is no reason to dismiss Nabakov, only to use him carefully and in small doses, like Vodka...

[kiki1982]

Yes he's famous for that, he also attacked many translators of Tolstoy who most others think are quite good. It's another case of "Tolstoy attacks Shakespeare". This is no reason to dismiss Nabakov, only to use him carefully and in small doses, like Vodka...

Yes, well, it depends how much vodka you ae used to.

The fact that he knew both Russian and English excellently means that he was in a position to criticise where the others were not... And he produced wonderful translations of Pushkin, which were then criticised by his friend who clearly didn't know his own language properly.

I think that makes his criticism of translations more valuable than the average non-Russian speaking publisher who bases himself on sales rates. It's quite hard to sell a transaltion that doesn't exist, don't you think?

Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare was morally motivated and had little to do with Shakespeare's merit. Had little to do with literary appreciation either, to me, but there you go.

Is an author to be less esteemed because his work is unrealistic? I think that Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, the Brontes, Dumas, Hugo, most of the Romantics like Dickens who like coincidence, Wilde etc. etc. would go out of the window for not being realistic. What portrait changes appearance? Not to mention Goethe! Imagine, the devil turning up!

Tolstoy was looking for spiritual relief, gave his money away in an attempt to find this and was then disappointed. His wife no less so and evetually died alone, a morose and disillusioned man. I don't know if I have to take his criticism seriously... I may read his books, and they may be sublime (who knows), but criticism of other writers in this case is superfluous and a non-statement.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You can't get an unbiased opinion in literature
I was just about to mention this, but you beat me to it.

I would really love to know where one gets an unbiased professional opinion. It seems the least bias would be lists that are determined by the votes of anyone, but that's hardly professional, and likely not to steer one in the direction of what most consider "great" literature. Any list is biased by the people who make it, as are anthologies by the editors that put them together. You can't even decide what is great and what isn't without bias. . . .

[kinesj]

Here is a list, not of my favorite writers, although many on this list are among them, but of important writers of various styles, times, and backgrounds that would enrich your reading experience, in no particular order. This is by no means comprehensive, but large and eclectic enough to keep you busy for a while. :biggrin5:

William Faulkner
Franz Kafka
James Joyce
Honore De Balzac
Czeslaw Milosz
John Milton
W.G. Sebald
Robert Hayden
Samuel Beckett
Lorine Niedecker
George Eliot
Derek Walcott
Vladmir Nabokov
Anton Chekhov
Maryse Condu
Joyce Cary
Marcel Proust
Ernest Hemingway
Carson McCullers
Flann O'Brien
Julio Cortazar
Saul Bellow
Robert Penn Warren
Percy Shelley
John Berryman
Tu Fu
Malcolm Lowry
Willa Cather
Edgar Allan Poe
Flannery O'Connor
James Baldwin
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Dante Aligheri
Tennessee Williams
Goethe
Gustave Flaubert
Geoffrey Chaucer
Virginia Woolf
Emily Dickinson
Samuel Coleridge
William Blake
Stendhal
Charles Dickens
Herman Melville
Laurence Sterne
Miguel Cervantes
Mark Twain
Walker Percy
Ralph Ellison
James Agee
Eudora Welty
Cormac McCarthy
Thomas Wolfe

[lawpark]

I was just about to mention this, but you beat me to it.

I would really love to know where one gets an unbiased professional opinion. It seems the least bias would be lists that are determined by the votes of anyone, but that's hardly professional, and likely not to steer one in the direction of what most consider "great" literature. Any list is biased by the people who make it, as are anthologies by the editors that put them together. You can't even decide what is great and what isn't without bias. . . .

Professional usually means heavily "trained", or some (I) would say, "indoctrinated". I think unbiased and professional do not exist together, nore do unbiased and opinion. So "unbiased professional opinion" may not exist. But that is just my biased unprofessional opinion, which is something that certainly exists. But funny how including myself, I tend to seek non-existence over existence, in this specific type of cases.

[JBI]

Professional usually means heavily "trained", or some (I) would say, "indoctrinated". I think unbiased and professional do not exist together, nore do unbiased and opinion. So "unbiased professional opinion" may not exist. But that is just my biased unprofessional opinion, which is something that certainly exists. But funny how including myself, I tend to seek non-existence over existence, in this specific type of cases.
Nah professional means does it for a living. So, for instance, a pornographic actor is a professional whereas someone who just tapes themselves having sex and puts it on the internet is an amateur even if the home video is of better quality.

That's the clearest cut definition I can think of.

Everyone to an extent is an amateur writer if they write anything - some people do it for a living, and have a career at least based on it, and have an agent and a history in the profession.

[JCamilo]

Yet, Nabokov was a professional teacher and certainly got money writing about books and giving speeches. Being a professional is quite irrelevant, Some of the best opinions in literature are quite amateurish...

Anyways, everyone is biased, personal opinions are biased. You just have to listen to more than one. Nabokov diss Dostoievisky (so does Tolstoy and Tchekhov, albeit Tolstoy does in a way that Tchekhov once described, after the count said to him that he wrote some non sense, was just one more evidence of Tolstoy greatness), but he do point some problems on Dostoievisky that are not a bad idea to notice. And of course, it wont reduce Dostoievisky greatness at all...

Anyways, it is always good to see a great writer using his time for criticism, not because he is a professional, but because he will give us great texts, that some "professional academic critics" are unable to deliver. Italo Calvino selection of short stories with his comments and even his "why to read classics" or "6 proposals" are a bit like this.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nah professional means does it for a living. So, for instance, a pornographic actor is a professional whereas someone who just tapes themselves having sex and puts it on the internet is an amateur even if the home video is of better quality.

That's the clearest cut definition I can think of.

A better definition surely does not exist. :lol:

[Alexander III]

Professional usually means heavily "trained", or some (I) would say, "indoctrinated". I think unbiased and professional do not exist together, nore do unbiased and opinion. So "unbiased professional opinion" may not exist. But that is just my biased unprofessional opinion, which is something that certainly exists. But funny how including myself, I tend to seek non-existence over existence, in this specific type of cases.

I dont know about you, but If I ever get cancer, I will be dragging my bum to the best and most specialized doctor in the city.

On the other hand, from your post it appear you would rather go to the acupuncturist than the highly trained and specialized doctor...

[mal4mac]

Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare was morally motivated and had little to do with Shakespeare's merit. Had little to do with literary appreciation either, to me, but there you go...


Tolstoy explicitly states that his first reading and rejection of Shakespeare was based on aesthetics, not morals:

"I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium..."

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm

[stuntpickle]

Everyone seems to have gotten in a huff over someone else quoting Nabokov on Dostoevsky. Nabokov's judgments on Faulkner, Dostoevsky and Mann are, by now, well known. I would never recommend Nabokov simply for his critical conclusions, but when someone asks the very honest question of how one approaches literature, I can think of no better advice than to direct him to Nabokov, who will, unlike most others, answer by suggesting that one must REread, use a dictionary, approach each text devoid of preconceptions, cultivate an artistic sense as a reader and address the details of the text apart from outside influence. The opening introduction to his Lectures is, to my knowledge, unmatched in how carefully, considerately it proposes the tools each reader needs. It is also helpful to see, in regards to particular texts, just how closely Nabokov means to inspect the text when the reader sees his hand-drawn maps of England and Dublin, without necessarily agreeing with each last conclusion.

[kinesj]

Everyone seems to have gotten in a huff over someone else quoting Nabokov on Dostoevsky. Nabokov's judgments on Faulkner, Dostoevsky and Mann are, by now, well known. I would never recommend Nabokov simply for his critical conclusions, but when someone asks the very honest question of how one approaches literature, I can think of no better advice than to direct him to Nabokov, who will, unlike most others, answer by suggesting that one must REread, use a dictionary, approach each text devoid of preconceptions, cultivate an artistic sense as a reader and address the details of the text apart from outside influence. The opening introduction to his Lectures is, to my knowledge, unmatched in how carefully, considerately it proposes the tools each reader needs. It is also helpful to see, in regards to particular texts, just how closely Nabokov means to inspect the text when the reader sees his hand-drawn maps of England and Dublin, without necessarily agreeing with each last conclusion.

On the bright side, I believe my list of recommendations was broad enough to ruffle few, if any, feathers. :biggrin5:

[mal4mac]

I'm in a huff over Nabakov's view of Mann. Buddenbrooks and The Magic Mountain are on my re-read list, Lolita and Pale Fire are not.

Why *must* one re-read and use a dictionary?

If I really enjoy a work I promise myself the pleasure of re-reading it 'sometime', but there's no *must* about it, and I use a dictionary if I'm *really* stuck - using it too much interrupts the flow of reading.

I just read the first few pages of the introduction in Amazon "Look Inside!" and it is fairly interesting - but I don't agree with his idea that you can't grasp the whole & the details on a first reading. Of course you can! Maybe not *all* the details, or the eni
tire ramifications of the whole, but if you have an enjoyable aesthetic experience then that's enough... This stress on collecting detail seems typical of Nabakov, the obsessed bug collector.

These first few pages also seem to reflect the origins as a lecture - he does go on a bit - so the aesthetic experience isn't great. Also, he doesn't really say anything new - I'll probably give it a miss, I could be re-reading Dickens!

[SanderM]

Well I'm still awaiting by books to get delivered, for some reason it takes the bookstore several days to deliver english books. I ordered 1984, Odyssey (penguin edition) and Pride And Prejudice, a pretty broad range of books to start with imho.

Now awaiting my books I'm anticipating on possible other interesting reads, currently looking at The Three Musketeers, The Count Of Monte Cristo, Dracula, Great Expectations and Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, for all of those I ended up at the penguin editions, hardcover where possible.

Now I'd like one more book to try out, Shakespeare, I was told in this thread already that Macbeth is pretty accessible? Well there's literaly over a thousand editions out there, I definately want to read the original text and not a modernized version, however I believe the footnotes are the most important thing for the beginning reader? Which edition would be recommended? I'll be honest and say I'll prefer hardcover, but not to the point that quality of the contents suffers a huge loss.
I found a complete Shakespeare edition from Modern Library, it was suprisingly cheap, and the reviews seem good too. But it's around 2500 pages, and it seems to me this isn't really handy when reading?

On a semi-sidenote: is there any specific way to determine which edition to choose for any book? For now I kept with the penguin editions, they seem like a safe bet from what I've read, but I'm sure I'll come across another book that's not in their series...

Any recommendations would be appreciated, and again thanks for the previous recommendations!

[kiki1982]

Tolstoy explicitly states that his first reading and rejection of Shakespeare was based on aesthetics, not morals:

"I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium..."

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm

As far as I know, Tolstoy found Shakespeare's pieces tedious and repulsive not because of the language alone. Tedious is still possible, but 'repulsive'... You can hardly be really repulsed by any vocabulary whatsoever, unless it is '***' (in the English sense), 'f*ck' and the like, which Shakespeare did not use (apart from '***').

He was repulsed because he found no reasoning in the characters' lots. To him, he who did good should be rewarded (i.e. Cordelia should have become queen or something), and he who did bad should be punished. That is why he was repulsed by King Lear (Cordelia and the Fool die, but why? Because of coincidence), Romeo and Juliet (they both die. Why? Because of coincidence). He could not understand why this happened and why Shakespeare would have chosen to make his innocent characters die. The fact that he could not see God's good judgment in anything of it, made him think that Shakespeare somewhat denied His existence or something. Tolstoy was looking for God his whole life, eventually got disillusioned, because obviously that search depends on yourself, not on material things.

I thought his motives had been studied. Whatever he said about them, they were influenced by his views on morality and religion, although he may have insisted that that was not the case, it is all too evident.

[stuntpickle]

Well I'm still awaiting by books to get delivered, for some reason it takes the bookstore several days to deliver english books. I ordered 1984, Odyssey (penguin edition) and Pride And Prejudice, a pretty broad range of books to start with imho.

Now awaiting my books I'm anticipating on possible other interesting reads, currently looking at The Three Musketeers, The Count Of Monte Cristo, Dracula, Great Expectations and Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, for all of those I ended up at the penguin editions, hardcover where possible.

Now I'd like one more book to try out, Shakespeare, I was told in this thread already that Macbeth is pretty accessible? Well there's literaly over a thousand editions out there, I definately want to read the original text and not a modernized version, however I believe the footnotes are the most important thing for the beginning reader? Which edition would be recommended? I'll be honest and say I'll prefer hardcover, but not to the point that quality of the contents suffers a huge loss.
I found a complete Shakespeare edition from Modern Library, it was suprisingly cheap, and the reviews seem good too. But it's around 2500 pages, and it seems to me this isn't really handy when reading?

On a semi-sidenote: is there any specific way to determine which edition to choose for any book? For now I kept with the penguin editions, they seem like a safe bet from what I've read, but I'm sure I'll come across another book that's not in their series...

Any recommendations would be appreciated, and again thanks for the previous recommendations!

The thing about Shakespeare is that the language can be difficult for anyone not rigorously reading it. For anyone really interested in READING Shakespeare, I would recommend first getting the two volume Shakespeare's lexicon, which is simply a dictionary geared toward Shakespeare. From what I've read in this post, I think you might be more interested in getting a decent quality theatrical production on video--again, NOT a movie, but a recorded theatrical production. There are tons of videos available on Amazon. There's a fairly interesting production of Lear from Shakespeare in the park with James Earl Jones (Darth Vader) playing a ferocious Lear; even though Jones is far too young and vigorous, it's an interesting production with Raul Julia playing Edmund (guy from the Adams Family movie). If I recall correctly, Netflix has a number of BBC productions you can stream online. Don't worry about not actually reading at first; Shakespeare was meant to be seen.

[Melysnl]

For sheer entertainment value I wouldn't recommend reading Shakespeare outside of a classroom if you haven't been inclined to do so already. If you want to get the best out of Shakespeare's work, rent the movie version of Hamlet with Mel Gibson in it and you'll probably enjoy it far more than reading any of Shakespeare's plays. As tormented and screwed up as Gibson is now, he showed exceptional, raw talent acting as Hamlet and made Shakespeare's work a he!! of a lot more captivating than when I read the play years earlier in school.

[lawpark]

I dont know about you, but If I ever get cancer, I will be dragging my bum to the best and most specialized doctor in the city.

On the other hand, from your post it appear you would rather go to the acupuncturist than the highly trained and specialized doctor... QUOTE]

I am with you when I said "I would seek non-existence over existence" ... meaning that I would still try for "unbised professional opinions" even though I know such things do not exist.

[QUOTE=JBI;1069217]Nah professional means does it for a living. So, for instance, a pornographic actor is a professional whereas someone who just tapes themselves having sex and puts it on the internet is an amateur even if the home video is of better quality.

That's the clearest cut definition I can think of.

Everyone to an extent is an amateur writer if they write anything - some people do it for a living, and have a career at least based on it, and have an agent and a history in the profession.

haha ... yes, but if someone does something for a living without the training, is he still called "professional"?

[NiMROD]

Tolstoy's motives aside, I do agree with some of the criticism for Shakespeare. My issues don't really stem from the language (which can be understandably difficult starting out but rewarding) but I honestly don't believe anything that's happening. Nothing I read ever felt organic to me, it felt totally constructed. If this sentiment is nonsense I would love to be shown the light.

[mal4mac]

Now I'd like one more book to try out, Shakespeare, I was told in this thread already that Macbeth is pretty accessible? Well there's literaly over a thousand editions out there, I definately want to read the original text and not a modernized version, however I believe the footnotes are the most important thing for the beginning reader? Which edition would be recommended? I'll be honest and say I'll prefer hardcover, but not to the point that quality of the contents suffers a huge loss.
I found a complete Shakespeare edition from Modern Library, it was suprisingly cheap, and the reviews seem good too. But it's around 2500 pages, and it seems to me this isn't really handy when reading?

On a semi-sidenote: is there any specific way to determine which edition to choose for any book? For now I kept with the penguin editions, they seem like a safe bet from what I've read, but I'm sure I'll come across another book that's not in their series...!

Macbeth is a great place to start.

The "RSC shakespeare" have good notes for the adult general reader - they don't get *too* bogged down with excess scholarship, but the editors (Bate & Rasmussen) have impeccable scholarly credentials.

There is a really nice hardback edition of the complete RSC Shakespeare - not too bulky - plus the plays are being made available individually - they have got as far as Macbeth...

Go to your local bookshops and library and try out a few editions. Use Amazon "look inside". You can learn a lot just by reading a few pages - but don't miss out the RSC edition! It's the best I could find, for me, using this method...

In my experience, penguin have some great editions of some classics, and they also have some clunkers. The same goes for any other publisher I've looked at! So treat each book on a case-by-case basis and get tips from Amazon reviews, this forum, anywhere else... and sample a few page of the most likely candidates

This is only really necessary for difficult works & translations - you can't really go wrong with any edition of straightforward writers like Dickens, Hardy, Austen, George Eliot... - in these cases I wouldn't choose penguin unless the library have a copy, or my favourite publishers don't have a copy.

If you want quality then try "Everyman hardback" editions, they are little more expensive than penguins and paper quality is superb. "Wordsworth" paperback editions are very inexpensive, and the paper quality & type is generally about as good as Penguin or Oxford classics.


The thing about Shakespeare is that the language can be difficult for anyone not rigorously reading it. For anyone really interested in READING Shakespeare, I would recommend first getting the two volume Shakespeare's lexicon, which is simply a dictionary geared toward Shakespeare...

This is the Nabakovian, nit-picking approach. If, like Nabakov, you like to spend endless hours mounting & classifying bugs, then this approach might suit you. But a good edition of a complete Shakespeare comes with sufficient notes and word definitions for the general reader, and can save endless hours wading through dictionaries and lexicons. For a first experience you should try and get as close to enjoying Shakespeare as you would enjoy reading any book - just read it, don't turn it into a scholarly exercise. You will need notes and word definitions, but a few lines for each page should be enough!