Good classics to start with

[stlukesguild]

Speak for yourself and only yourself, when I was at the start pointing of delving into literature, I wish I had writers with as much scope as Faulkner and Dostoevsky have, hell, even such as Proust.

Hmmm... The original posting reads (and I quote): "I have a question, what are the best classics that are best to start with, those that are entertaining yet not very difficult to read." Unless you are Harold Bloom you cannot tell me that In Search of Lost Time would be a classic that is at once entertaining and not very difficult to read for the average person beginning to explore classic literature. The length alone would frighten off most beginning readers of classic literature. Certainly it is impossible to know what to recommend a "starting" reader without having a good idea what he or she has or has not read... what he or she likes... what he or she has experience with. Among the first classics I explored on my own were The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, Steppenwolf, The Glass Bead Game, and An Enemy of the People. Somehow I don't think these would be ideal for most people starting to read the classics either.

[JBI]

Start with Homer, and work down. That's the most "pragmatic" way to learn to read. Of course, though that only deals with one half of Occidental classics - the Bible filling in the other side, even though it wasn't written in the Occident (As, to an extent, Greek work wasn't as well). From there, either move outward, or downward. I prefer outward now, but personally, I moved downward - so you start pounding through first the major Roman figures, then go through middle ages - Generally, Njals Saga, Chretien de Troyes, Marie de France, and a few epics suffice - and then slowly work through the rennaissance, - from there, you can either go down through the 18th century, or skip it - I prefer skip it, though I have read my fair share of mediocre satires. Downward then, to the Romantics - and beyond.

Of course, the best place to start reading is contemporary times, but for classics, up until 1950, this method will provide the most solid grounding.

Now, if I could go back, I would have probably gone outwards - there is just so much more out there, that ultimately one ends up having to decide whether classics are really classics anymore. It's a shame too, that we are bound to translations. There are hundreds upon hundreds of translations. which are ultimately driven by the politics of the market.

[qimissung]

I didn't realize how many of those I've read!!

My reading of the classics started with Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. After that I read Dracula (which was a good read!) and then a few others...I can't remember the order of! But I recommend those along with Fathers and Sons by Turgenev which is really a great story and easier to follow. If you're just starting out, Dostoevsky might be a little much to take in. Conrad is good, but he makes me sleepy (but definitely worth the read). Good luck in your search! Let us know if you decide to pick any up!

Dracula is an excellent read! It's one of my favorites.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

Speak for yourself and only yourself, when I was at the start pointing of delving into literature, I wish I had writers with as much scope as Faulkner and Dostoevsky have, hell, even such as Proust.

Hmmm... The original posting reads (and I quote): "I have a question, what are the best classics that are best to start with, those that are entertaining yet not very difficult to read." Unless you are Harold Bloom you cannot tell me that In Search of Lost Time would be a classic that is at once entertaining and not very difficult to read for the average person beginning to explore classic literature. The length alone would frighten off most beginning readers of classic literature. Certainly it is impossible to know what to recommend a "starting" reader without having a good idea what he or she has or has not read... what he or she likes... what he or she has experience with. Among the first classics I explored on my own were The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, Steppenwolf, The Glass Bead Game, and An Enemy of the People. Somehow I don't think these would be ideal for most people starting to read the classics either.

Now now, I did not recommend Proust but your point is clear and understandable. How can one tell? With that said, I admit I did recommend a bit of Dostoevsky, which as he is the forum's reigning hero (only rival to the golden cow as one had recently deemed him on here, Shakespeare), we all know he is rarely a light or easy read. So I suppose I'm at fault. Conrad and Faulkner both have lighter works, and like I said, are being taught in high school. Perhaps, you'd agree with me, stlukesguild, isn't one of the greatest merits of literature it's actual challenge? Obviously you, and myself, have gone to lengths in search of that. Then again, maybe one is again, simply speaking for oneself.

[Lynne Fees]

Anna Karenina, Gone With the Wind, Rebecca, Great Expectations, Jude the Obscure

[Josh Wardrip]

"entertaining yet not very difficult." Several of the books mentioned thus far don't really meet those criteria. I'd recommend:

Sophocles, Antigone
Petronius, Satyricon

Beowulf
Chaucer, Parliament of Fowls

Marlowe, Edward II
Moliere, Tartuffe

Voltaire, Candide
Blake, Songs of Innocence and Experience

Poe, stories
Baudelaire, Flowers of Evil
Twain, Huck Finn

Joyce, Dubliners
Hemingway, In Our Time
Camus, The Stranger
Beckett, Waiting for Godot
Orwell, 1984

A few unconventional choices, I know, but I think all could be read and enjoyed by a relatively inexperienced reader (some might require a bit more effort than others), and it covers a wide swath of Western literature.

[Janine]

Some Thomas Hardy for certain. I think Mayor of Casterbridge an excellent read, along with Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Far From the Madding Crowd. I wouldn't agree with whoever posted Jude to Obscure to begin with. That story was much heavier and difficult; in fact, after Hardy wrote the novel and had it published, he never went back to novel writing again; but he turned his full concentration to his poetry.

[TurquoiseSunset]

"entertaining yet not very difficult." Several of the books mentioned thus far don't really meet those criteria.

Well really, we all have our own opinion of what's entertaining, etc. Nobody is going to interpret it the same, because it's a very subjective topic.

[fb0252]

start with "The Western Cannon" by Harold Bloom.

[grace86]

"entertaining yet not very difficult." Several of the books mentioned thus far don't really meet those criteria. I'd recommend:

That's always going to be relative on "entertaining"...it just depends on tastes. You did mention Antigone, I'll second that.

If you're into the Classic tragedies, The Oresteia by Aeschylus was pretty good too. Robert Fagles does a translation of that I think...I recommend his translations, they're easier to read through than some others.

Glad you enjoyed Dracula Qimmisung! I found it quite different than how Dracula is seen in Hollywood.

[Janine]

[QUOTE=grace86;741498]That's always going to be relative on "entertaining"...it just depends on tastes. You did mention Antigone, I'll second that.[quote]

Grace, I read Antigone years ago and loved it! Good suggestion.

Glad you enjoyed Dracula Qimmisung! I found it quite different than how Dracula is seen in Hollywood.

I have never read, it but that is good to know. I should read it one of these days. It's on my list.

[Janine]

That's always going to be relative on "entertaining"...it just depends on tastes. You did mention Antigone, I'll second that.

Grace, I read Antigone years ago and loved it! Good suggestion.

Glad you enjoyed Dracula Qimmisung! I found it quite different than how Dracula is seen in Hollywood.

I have never read Dracula, but that is good to know. It's probably a fine book. I should read it one of these days. It's on my list.

[teashi]

Alright, I have a question, what are the best classics that are best to start with, those that are entertaining yet not very difficult to read. I have read Austin, Dumas, and some Stevenson and I loved them, but I don't really know where to go from here. I just want to know some good/easy starting points for my journey into classic literature. Any help will be greatly appreciated. I know this is all subjective but I see what you guys say and take it from there.

Sounds like you've already gone through the 'starting point' to me.
I myself haven't enjoyed many of the classics I try out, and I wonder if maybe I'm just not 'ready' for them and should work myself up too. But I'll suggest To Kill A Mockingbird, it's one of the very few classics I like and it's pretty easy to read.

[grace86]

Hey misterlit which of the books you've read did you enjoy the most? Because you could also pursue authors similar to Austen, or to Dumas, or Stevenson. I mean, they may or may not have been easier reads for you, but one could recommend different books for you based off whether you really enjoyed the romance and literary antics of Austen or if you're more of a swashbuckling/adventure type for Stevenson....I think you understand Like, which ones caught your attention the best?

[eyemaker]

Perhaps Dickens..