A list 10 times better than the one produced by Guardian nincompoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Printable View
A list 10 times better than the one produced by Guardian nincompoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Why would you limit yourself to one writer? I don't see why you couldn't read a mixture - they are not mutually exclusive. Also if you read modern authors, then you are going to reach a point where you've read all their stuff. I'm waiting for George RR Martin's next instalment, and Philip Kerr's next thriller. I don't limit myself to modern, classic or by genre. Why would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The books in this list you're all slating are not supposed to be the ten best novels. They are listed in order of publication. The full list is here:Quote:
Don Quixote
Pilgrim's Progress
Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
Tom Jones
Clarissa
Tristram Shandy
Dangerous Liasons
Emma
Frankenstein
http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...atures.fiction
I know I'm going to regret this, but If my 20-something niece (who loves literature, thank God) were to ask me to name ten novels I found especially worthwhile, I would give her a list that looked something like this:
Anna Karenina
War and Peace
The Brothers Karamazov
The Idiot
Journey to the West
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Dream of the Red Chamber
Don Quixote
Tom Jones
Tristam Shandy
The names appear in no particular order. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, and the Odyssey were omitted only because they are not novels. The Golden As s is a sentimental favorite, but it surely belongs in a list of eleven novels I found especially worthwhile.
I have made no attempt at diversity or inclusiveness. There is no need to do so since I am not proposing any kind of canon or standard. As it happens, four of the books are by Russians, three are by Chinese, two are by English, one is by a Spaniard, and none is by a woman. Plenty of novels by women would have been worthy of such a list, but personally I prefer the books I chose. In the case of my niece, I would advise her to get a list of serious novels by woman from someone who knew what she was talking about.
I have also made no concessions to a writer's significance within a given national literature. I love to read Dickens but I have made the unpopular choice of favoring Fielding. For all his genius, I find Dickens tainted by literary association with Richardson's pedantic nonsense, whereas Fielding is the anti-Richardson. Besides, I'm a fool for picaresque novels.
And my apologies to the acolytes of Marquez, Fuentes, Bolano et al., but I really have to hand it to the Don. Because of Cervantes early appearance in the history of the novel, he is innocent of the publisher's mendacious concern for producing a book that could be digested in a few sittings (to followed by the purchase of another). Don Quixote is made to be read over a period of one's life, without concern for how long it takes to finish it (in fact, the longer one reads, the better). The same is true of the Chinese novels, Tom Jones (given Fielding's self-conscious debt to Cervantes), and Tristam Shandy--because how else are you going to read the damn thing? It was also true, for me, of the Russian novels, which I lived as much as read.
No French! No Germans! I haven't read them yet! No Americans! I don't like them enough! One or another can be said of all the other writers I have snubbed. But ten is an arbitrary number--and too small a canon to cause much damage. :)
Lots to agree and disagree with but I liked the description of Ulysses as being more discussed than read.Quote:
Originally Posted by ladderandbucket
I think the description of The Lord of the Rings should have been.... 'nuff said.
1. Don Quixote- Cervantes
2. Madame Bovary- Flaubert
3. War & Peace- Tolstoy
4. The Brothers Karamazov- Dostoevsky
5. In Search of Lost Time- Proust
6. Lawrence Sterne- Tristram Shandy
7. Lolita- Nabokov
8. Moby Dick- Melville
9. Doctor Faustus- Thomas Mann
10. A Tale of Two Cities- Dickens
Yes, a very balanced list of white male writers.
Admittedly I read for pleasure, not out of some misguided notion that my reading choices might somehow correct unfair biases and prejudices. I'd find it difficult to think of a novel by a female writer or non-white writer that is clearly superior to those I listed. Of course my own knowledge and experience with non-Western literature is limited. Even if I believed that the goal of any list of "The Ten Greatest Novels" should be to present a list that is unbiased and offers equal representation to all "minorities" this would be absolutely impossible in a list limited to but 10 books. What about Jewish authors? Muslim authors? Latin-American authors? Native Americans? Gay and Lesbian? Albino dwarfs?
I agree that it is difficult to decide what should qualify as classic today. I agree with you about the quality of Tolkien's writing and characterisation and that it found a resonance with modern readers. For me this is what will mark The LOTR as a classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I think the same of 1984 - the book has flaws, but the ideas within it have gone beyond the novel and established it as a modern classic. It too resonates with the modern reader through the 20th century with newspeak and big brother.
As for other modern classics, I think it would be difficult to spot what will become one. I think the conversations could be very interesting though. The problems include a work having enough advocates. One of the reasons I cited the Booker is it may provide a rudimentary filter, though this is by no means certain. Narcopolis, long listed which I read last year, was pulpy, though exotic. I don't think it merited long listing. There are some great works being written, but I realise it is hard. Not much is written about the books and so you have to come to conclusions through your own impressions and opinions, whereas we can all read and pontificate about classic works as so much can be found on them. I notice that the thread has quickly reverted to lists of classic books which may be mildly contentious, but also may indicate the classics as a certain comfort zone.
Isn't that exactly what one would want (and expect)? I've never studied literature, classic or contemporary (well, some ancient), but isn't thinking for yourself a big part of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
On a less contentious note, The New York Review of Books (not to be confused with The New York Times) is a good source of opinion on new works.
Yeah, I think that is more the point, the so called "resonance", it is probally where you can start, you as a modern reader of course. I am not sure about the booker list (perhaps it is another comfort zone?), but the resonance is a bit like a cat purring, right? It is a comfortable sensation.
1984 is a good mention. I know it dos resonates, evidences such as effect on world's language is there. I can see why - as it somehow is inside a tradition of distopias - worked at first. Why is working now, I am can especulate that maybe it is not the utopias that ended in this age, so we cannot "dream" about them, but the world is so secure (sic), stable, politically correct, that the distopias also are "dead" in this age, no nightmares are possible, so one we can believe in, like 1984 is strong. I consider this when i see, in Brazil, a minority, but loud and growing in power going to the streets with labels like "communism", "bolivarianism", asking for the return of militar dictadorship - not because you have charismatic leader, but because of supposed merits of the system. To me, their lack of historical context, came from a philosophical lack of reference that distopias can be real.
Anyways, the resonance is like thinking with the gutts, it is about the books you like. Don't you already guide yourself this way?
Well, for chicks you could have gone with Tale of Genji, or Middlemarch. And you might have wanted to throw Asians a bone with one of the four classic novels like say Dream of the Red Chamber. Proust is half-Jewish so you are covered there. In spite of their great poetic output, I can't think of any great Muslim novels besides My Name is Red, Palace Walk, or The Blind Owl and those aren't on the same level of excellence as the other novels we are discussing. I can see someone putting 100 Years of Solitude up for Latin American authors. When it comes to Native Americans it's mostly just Sherman Alexie and Black Elk Speaks. You could throw a rock and hit a gay author, not that you should: Oscar Wilde, Proust, Maugham, Woolf, Capote, Mann, etc. You actually have a lot of viable options if you choose to sculpt the cannon certain ways. Some work better than others, but there is definitely some wiggle room if you need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
darn, had shakespeare writen a novel, we would have covered the jew muslin gay native latin white albino option just as easy...
Why should we justify lists by including non-white, non-male, non-Western authors so consciously and deliberately when the list is meant to be about top works of fiction (from wherever written by whoever) and not a representation of diversity of today's humanity?
Where's that Tamil female writer who went through the trauma of a forced marriage to tell her story in fictionalised form?
I think there is something to be said for trying various combinations and looking at things from different perspectives. A list says as much about the person who compiles it as it does about the subject. Whenever I make lists about movies, books, or music I usually notice that some areas are overrepresented and others are underrepresented reflecting both strengths and gaps in my own knowledge. A careful analysis of such things usually gives me insight into myself and areas where I need improvement and continued study. Frequently, I find that there are whole time periods, languages, or genres I'm startled to find I have overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbles
I'd say yes it is what you would expect but I'm not sure it's as easy as you suggest. One of the reasons the classics are referred to so much is that there is a large and tested body of literature about them. Studying literature is less about coming to your own conclusions but accommodating and commenting on the studies others have done. To do a book justice requires close reading, familiarity with genres and styles, evaluation of the narrative techniques etc etc. That makes studying modern texts, which may only have a few reviews written about them, a bit daunting but nonetheless very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I read the Times and Guardian reviews and have often picked up books from there. The question of how you locate good literary and potentially classic books is also interesting. It's not surprising the Stoner had to be
revived and may qualify after falling out of print previously. Good newspaper reviews are probably essential along with competition nominations. I know that it has been suggested that such competitions are rife with u fair influence, but at least the books have been suggested by literary readers.
Yes on a personal level there is the gut feeling, but that's also opinion. Even a classic list is difficult to agree on though, which makes the in fighting and promotions of books in competitions like the Booker more understandable. I think you have to take recommendations where you can find them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Ah accommodating the views of others! Sounds like the lit crit biz to me. So the people you need to accommodate don't know what to think about contemporary literature because the ones they accommodated never told them--so they can't tell us what to think. I understand, really, and it makes me extremely glad to be a common reader who only needs to worry about finding a bond with an author; and to be free to form my views without the permission of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
In fact, a motivated reader could do all those things. Keeping up with the current lit on the current lit isn't really necessary to do a book justice, is it? A career maybe, but not a book. Literature is democratic in that respect, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Please don't misunderstand me. I respect what you are saying, and I respect what you seem to do for a living. I am just grinning at the irony that a person like me, an old man reading through his retirement, is freer to decide what I think about contemporary literature than you, an apparent professional.
You know, I think that Stoner and William's other two books were revived, as you say, specifically because of a publishing project by the New York Review of books (called New York Review Vintage or something). I don't know if it is available in Coventry, West, but I think it would be exactly what you are looking for. It's not connected to a newspaper, by the way. It is very much sui generis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
In any case, thank you for responding. I understand what you mean now.
Unfortunately I'm not in the lit crit biz and am more like yourself - an interested reader. Some of the other posters - St Likes, JCamilo and JBI are more learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I merely meant that to fully study a book, without much input from other writers, is more involved that forming opinions. It takes some close analysis. I also didn't mean to suggest that the interested reader couldn't do that. It's just a question of time and on this forum many of us interested readers are working and pressed for time. As a consequence I think it likely that discussion about modern literary works is more difficult. I think it would be worth it though. I like to look forward rather than just at the past classics where a lot of analysis has already been done leaving room for interesting but limited personal opinion.
I wonder if a thread where lit netters could post candidates for future classics would be interesting? Perhaps a short review with reasons why it might qualify as a classic. Who knows - we might actually spot one.
Wasn’t it Stephen Fry who said of contemporary poetry ‘Nothing of note has been written for the last fifty years’ a bit strong but I see where he’s coming from; who reads today’s poetry, other from those who write or talk about it?
When I read quotes such as’ Never prostitute your art for mere public recognition’ and ‘Poetry doesn’t require to be understood’ I feel pretty close to Fry’s views. What happened to the old maxim ‘ Never loose your audience’
it's not true though is it? Poetry by reputable authors is published and read, though by a minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
It doesn't get much press, but it's still going on. And yes, there is a lot of stuff written by amateurs.
Thanks. I'm a newb here, so I'm still figuring it all out. St. Luke's indeed seems learned. I'm sure the others are, too, and look forward to reading their posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Perhaps, for me, it's a question of quantity. I'm a great believer in holding unpopular opinions. Also I try to avoid looking at much analysis of a work before I've actually read it. I prefer to remain a virgin as I approach a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Good point. I've got the time and many don't. In fact, I believe I'll order another cup of mocha before I write another word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Ah lovely! :)
Sounds great. How do we get one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Well, the point is that the pratical distinction of Prose and Poems, as a form and way to explore the poetic language, is not relevant to quality as it was centuries ago when poems were the aesthetic ideal of any aspiring writer. It is not about having "worst poetry", it is about prose strong evolution, exactly for dealing with the limits imposed by poetic language. In prose, there is a lot of accomplishment in poetry. (And 50 years ago, major poets were writting, just not in english, but in spanish, portuguese...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
Those sayings about not giving up his "art" for fame is present already on Keats (she is a wayward girl), Byron jokes about it in Don Juan all the time, Emily Dickinson as well, heck, I recall an anedocte with Ovid refusing to change a few verses in a poem, despite the "warning" of his close friends, which pretty much illustrate the poet not bending to public opinion.
As poetry needing to be understood, it is true, it is also an old motto in the sense art by art, how poetry is supposed to be closer to music, this abstract art (and once said the most pure of art forms). Of course, it does not need, but this imply, It can be understood or Dante would not worry to explain his creative proccess like he did. As all texts, some are understood a bit too much, how many understandments Kafka suggests to us? But neither this or the quesiton about "Popularity vs.integrity" allows any text produced to be good or bad.
I'm with Stlukes, we should study and talk about whatever books we like, and what we are most interested. It so happens that there's lot's of lovers of classic literature on here, and I don't think it's necessary to artificially try to talk about new literature just for the sake of it. To be quite honest, I don't think it's particularly true anyway, as there's been lots of topics over time that have talked about modern literature.
Also, I personally have learned a great deal from the posting about classics and the history of literature from this site. If I wasn't a long-time lurker back in the day, I actually would have been in the dark about a great many classics and interesting authors from the past.
Plus, modern literature gets a very fair shake of it around here compared to poetry and theatre, which unfortunately gets talked about little.
I have to agree with you that there's been lots to learn. I've had loads of recommendations. I'm also interested in seeing how literature develops. I didn't intend an either or attitude but a mix, and I don't think there's the same focus on new stuff. On the other hand I also agree that people should read and discuss what they want. Hence this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
I agree that theatre gets little talked about. I don't go near the poetry thread. I've my own views. I may be irredentist even nasty but I ain't argumentative. Geddit? Naw. I just reckon some folk are biased before they read. So on a site like this you Godda do a bit of filtration. And I'm well filtered by a lot of the Reglars. I regularly act as an editor for a real poet who has never heard of this site and knows little at all about the inderundernet. I like the lists as I'm autistmale. I like the Genwine dilettante views. And yep there's always a bit to learn but don't get taken in by the bull****ters who like the "imaginary" sounds of their own voices as they take studious time-out from their "dissertations"
We can just start a new thread on the topic of nominations for future classics. I suspect it's difficult, if nigh on impossible, to predict what will become a modern classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I'm currently finishing a book called The Kills by Richard House. It is a very interesting read, though I reserve judgement about whether it will become a classic until I finish it. I've mentioned it earlier in this thread. It was longlisted for the Booker, which is how I heard about it.
Aspects like it's 1000 plus pages may well mean it is not read so much, or it could be that the political setting is too transitory and it fails to sustain interest or relevance. On the other hand it could be a seminal book with its use of the internet to deepen the reading experience, or it could become a brooding classic film.
There's no way to tell except how it is read. It would be good to predict a future classic don't you think?
I'll start the thread when I've read it - or someone else could in the meantime if they have a nomination.
That's absolutely a fantastic idea! Even because I think that disscusing classics is - from a particular point of view - rather easy. It's the biggest challenge to state your own theories and interpretations, especially about works which are fresh and weren't already analyzed in the past.
Thanks Hart -I agree with you that it is easy and comfortable to discuss the classics. Writing about modern classics does lay you open to dispute, but I find that idea interesting. It's a safe sort of speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Härt Noiz
So start the thread already, Paul. You should do it since it was your idea. Here are some suggestions, none too new since I don't think everyone reads the Booker list as faithfully as you do, and we need books people have read or no one will post on the thread. Please turn all diversity filters off--this is not a comprehensive list:
A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth
Beyond Black by Hilary Mantel
Every Day is Mother's Day by Hilary Mantel
Vacant Possession by Hilary Mantel
The Risk Pool by Richard Russo
Nobody's Fool by Richard Russo
Butcher's Crossing by John Williams (or Stoner--I haven't read it, but you talk about it a lot)
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthay
Outer Dark by Cormac McCarthay
Child of God by Cormac McCarthay
The Road by Cormac McCarthay
The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton
The Quincunx by Charles Palliser
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke (for the fantasy fans)
A Long, Long Way by Sebastian Barry
Lost Memory of Skin by Russell Banks
I'd have something to say about any of those (and many more) but use what you like.
I don't want to give the wrong impression that I'm as widely read as I'd like to be. I've read a a few booker nominations including some in your list. I think it and other awards and reviews might direct us to what could be good nominations for a modern classic though.
So I'll start the thread. It could generate some interesting discussions, not least what features might qualify a book as a modern classic.
What a moron you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
There's a great deal of diversity in genre, form, style and era in stlukes list, so yes, I would say it's very balanced.
Show me a top 10 list written by female writers that tops that, and I'll show you a just as biased list unlikely to hold up to the standards of time and scholarly close scrutiny such as these works have. Great literature is great literature regardless of the gender of the author.
Well, not necessarily:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
The Tale of Genji
Poems of Emily Dickinson
Emma
Poems of Sappho
Poems of Ono no Komachi
Middlemarch
To The Lighthouse
Wuthering Heights
Poems of Elizabeth Bishop
Poems of Xue Tao
My point here is not that there are as many great female writers as male writers - though one could speculate whether the balance would change if we were able to determine the gender of anonymous authors, as Harold Bloom did with the Torah. My point is merely a sociological one. It is doubtless that circumstances such as reduced rates of literacy and infrequent access to publication have hampered the genius of many a female author in history. I feel, though, that those who would say that we remain unaware of many historical female authors because of a patriarchal literary system, are rather ignoring the sociological impetus behind cultural developments. To say that a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius has always existed is certainly true; to say that a gender-balanced ratio of expressed literary genius is just as certainly false.
I doubt there is any proof whatsoever that there is any serious evidence that there has always been a gender-balanced ratio of literary genius, expressed or not. I'm all for equality between men and women, but in almost every artistic realm it is dominated by men. Obviously womens' contribution throughout history is greatly diminished in comparison to men, due to their essentially subjugated status, but this does not guarantee that had women throughout history been on equal footing with men that the ratio would be balanced. That's like saying men and women are exactly alike and so can produce the same results, which isn't necessarily true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lykren
The writing I have read by the greatest female authors, which seems to me on a level with anything I have read by the most-respected male authors, is sufficient demonstration, to my mind, that women face no intrinsic handicap when it comes to producing artwork of the highest quality.
Who said they possess a handicap? My point was that there isn't enough great work, or canonized work as of yet, to make the claim that women have equal literary talent to men. I never claimed they don't, but their isn't enough works that are considered true classics to make a statement that they are equal. I'm not talking about now, I'm talkin about the past up to now, which isn't arguable by listing off a dozen works by women.
There will never be a Faust written by a woman. There will never be a War and Peace, or Moby Dick, or works of Plato, or Nietzsche, or The Grapes of Wrath, or Shakespeare and on and on, by a woman. Look at multiple 100 greatest novels ever written lists and see the percentage of men vs. women. Look at top 500 lists. One cannot claim that women would have produced these works. I'm not saying they "couldn't", but that they didn't, and it is not realistic to automatically assume they would have. Based off everything I have seen in the arts, women cannot make the claim to be the equal of men within these disciplines, at the highest levels. Look at painting, writing, music, and tell me there is parity. There isn't, and until such time in the future as there is enough great works of comparable merit, I don't accept statements that basically say women would have been equal if not superior had they not been held down. Not only can this not be proven, but it almost seems like an attempt to diminish the achievements of men. There is a strong feminist undercurrent that is popular within western culture right now, and I'm ok with that for the most part. Women have been held back for a long time, but claims they would have achieved the same things as men is either wishful thinking, or not backed by history.
Given the inequality of the past, then what you would do is extrapolate backwards from the present where the relationship is more equal. Then you can see that women in the west now do produce as much quality work as men, and it is safe to assume that they would in the past. That they didn't is down to inequality.
On the original point, St Lukes is free to form whatever list he likes given it is personal preference.
Extrapolations and assumptions are just that.
Given that women produce fine work now that they have the opportunity to do so makes the assumption safe in my view. That is of course unless you think there's some other factor involved?