Awhile ago I downloaded several books including things like War & Peace, Sense & Sensibilities, Ulysses etc.
Some of them are quite thick, and I am wondering if I mostly did so to seem intelligent or smart on some subconscious level.
Have any of you gotten enjoyment or insight from any of these kinds of books? or is it just society and schooling that are telling me these are "good."?
Literature (as well as art, incidentally) mostly makes sense if you think of it as a conversation between authors. When a book is considered pivotal, a classic, or otherwise very good, it usually means that it in some way moved the conversation forward and changed the way authors think about writing (to a degree, anyway).
Classics are fascinating if you want to see some of that conversation in the past, and also give you a great way to see what's changed since then (in terms of writing skills). They're also normally fairly interesting books because they were all popular back then.
How does that work?
wouldn't you be jumping in mid conversation? @.@
Unless you want to study literature for years/decades, then yeah, that's kinda what you'd be doing. But it doesn't mean you can't learn anything useful. And it doesn't mean the conversation's boring.
I guess I just don't know how to view a work of literature as a conversation outside the confines of the novel.
Problem with "the classics" is that there's so much of em that you'll never read the entire canon (if there's really any value in "the canon"). That said many classics are classics for a reason, and are usually genuinely fun reads. But also don't feel like you have to finish an 800 page tome if you're finding it boring or dense or dry as hell. You can start shorter if you like - Portrait of the Artist rather than Ulysses, Northanger Abbey instead of Sense and Sensibility - until you get a sense of the authors and what you like.
Books are cool and good, and the more you read the more you'll vibe it.
There are classics* that I genuinely enjoyed, classics that I didn't enjoy but learned something from, and classics that were a total slog. If you have an interest and aren't reading for a class, I'd say pick one that sparks your interest and give it a try, while giving yourself permission to stop reading if you're hating it. You may be pleasantly surprised or you may decide you hate something and it's a waste of time. Some examples from my own life: the first time I read Jane Eyre in high school, I hated it. I read it again in college and loved it. I've read Wuthering Heights THREE TIMES for different classes, and each time my hatred grows. FUCK those miserable people. I dreaded reading Moby Dick because it's so fucking long and about whaling, something I had no interest in. I LOVE THAT BOOK. Read it, people. It's so good! Edmund Spenser didn't die soon enough and The Faerie Queene was a total slog and I hated every minute. I'm never reading that shit again. Uncle Tom's Cabin is FULL of well-intentioned racism and sparked a lot of thoughts about white liberals for me. Is it good? I don't know. I do think it's important. Pride and Prejudice is a favorite and I've read it more times than I can count at this point.
So anyway, classics are a mixed bag, and yes, it's possible to approach them just as a way to show off your erudition. That doesn't mean that there's no value in reading them though. The nice thing about reading that isn't for a class is that there's nothing forcing you to keep reading if you're not getting anything out of it. I have definitely started books, decided I had no interest in continuing, and quit there and moved on with my life. So anyway, like I said before, I'd advise you to pick a book that you think sounds interesting and give it a shot.
- The question of what belongs in the canon is a whole other thing that I'm not sure I want to get in to unless you're really interested. Minorities, feminists, etc have been working for decades to expand our idea of what even is a classic and why do we have The Canon anyway.
Totally agreed. I've read Crime and Punishment and found it unpleasant because it was TOO GOOD at describing feeling like shit and having a fever, which for some childish reason put me off reading The Idiot. I clearly think Dostoevsky is a very skilled author and I know that those are two different books describing different things, but I still remember feeling like I was having a fever when I read Crime and Punishment so I guess I kind of developed a phobia. If we're looking at the Russian classics I highly recommend The Master and Margarita.
And most importantly I want to add some weight to the statement: READ MOBY DICK! It's fantastic! I started reading it pretty much just because it was one of the classics and expected it to be a bit dry and boring, but within the first four chapters the main character is being spooned by the world's kindest cannibal headhunter because an innkeeper made them share a bed! Also, mid-19th century whaling was legit insane and the detailed descriptions of it are anything but boring! And Moby Dick itself is a fucking kaiju or horror movie monster or something! A white whale doesn't sound scary, but that whole bristling like a hedgehog with old harpoons that failed to kill him thing and the build-up of hearing the stories of everyone who has encountered him really works. Oh, and in the beginning when people say that Ahab is "mad" I had this idea that people were kind of casual with that word during the 19th century and he would just be a bit eccentric... But a sane man baptizes his harpoon in WHAT again?
Also, there's a really good free audiobook version of Moby Dick on Librivox, so if you have listening time when you can't read, use that!
just made my own comment about how good Moby Dick was, then read this and could not agree more with all points above. Part I of Crime and Punishment is kind of nauseating. I feel sweaty when I read it. Thinking about it now, I still have a sense of what Raskolnikov's room smells like. The prose of the book also mirrors Raskolnikov's clarity - as he regains his social support and place in the world, the writing becomes easier to digest, more leveled, as he moves from his own problems to those of others. Another Dostoevsky book that captures this well is Notes from Underground - the scene with the prostitute and the first part of C&P share the same of sort of uh, intense anxiety about everything
If you ever want to reexperience that sense of feverish anxiety, I'd recommend the Kieslowski movie a Short Film About Killing (or the episode of the Decalogue it's taken from). For most of the first half of the movie, he blocks out part of the frame to give you that idea of immediacy, the inability to understand a situation, claustrophobia, that Raskolnikov feels leading up to the pivotal act. I'd be very surprised if it were not directly inspired by C&P
That sounds awesome in its own way, but after C&P I really didn't want "more of this please"! I'm into another sort of masochism, where I read my old David Eddings-books again and try to map out where it shines through that he was a complete monster.
The Idiot is nothing like this. Well it is sometimes, but I loved it so much more than C&P. The best parts, for me, like any Dostoyevski books, are the those pages and pages freeing themselves from the general story and diving into one aspect, into one character's monologue, or fantasy, or anything. The ones in The Idiot are truly a fucking blessing. And instead of being unpleasant like in C&P, they are simply freeing. Sometimes, they are deeply tortured, but it's not the same aspect here, it goes elsewhere. Read it.
Of course there is value in reading some of the greatest literature ever. But for the love of God do not start with War and Peace or Ulysses. Start with the shorter fiction of Joyce and Tolstoy.
Ok, so I went to a college where we basically read books for 4 years, so I've read a decent chunk of the classics. I want to mention before I forget to that everyone has different opinions on which books are good. So the ones I'm going to suggest aren't necessarily going to be up your alley and you might really love a book that I despise. Now, onto the suggestions:
My all-time favorite book is The Iliad. It really doesn't get better than ancient greek epic poetry. That being said, don't start with this. It can seem a little dry until you're used to reading dry things. Should you decide to attempt it, read the Lattimore translation and for the love of all that is holy, just skip right over the catalogue of ships when you get there.
Oh, I should definitely recommend Grapes of Wrath and Catch-22. In high school I went through a "I have to read the classics to appear intelligent" phase and it was mostly a huge failure. I couldn't get through Don Quixote, Moby Dick, or any of the many Shakespeare plays I started. (Except King Lear, that one was dope!) But Grapes of Wrath and Catch-22 were actually exciting enough to keep my attention. Catch-22 in particular I'll never forget. I'd heard about it, it's a very famous book, and I was expecting it to be dry and "deep". But it wasn't, it was utterly hilarious. I laughed so many times while reading it, it was just a silly romp with some war or other happening in the background. Until the last chapter, when the whole damn book gets recontextualized. It's a masterpiece, is what I'm saying. And suuuuper easy to get into.
Other books that are good, let's see. I really liked Middlemarch. George Elliot is like a better Jane Austen. (Also, despite her pen name being "George", she was a woman.) I responded to you elsewhere about War and Peace, it's really good. Someone else mentioned Candide somewhere, I agree. It's funny, short, and makes fun of Leibniz. Classic. Someone else said Heart of Darkness sucks, hard disagree, I really liked it. It too is short and Conrad is fantastic at painting a picture with his words. Also, English is not his native language, so it's doubly impressive. I know I said earlier I couldn't get through Don Quixote in high school, well, I read it in college and actually really liked it. That's not quite true; I hated the first half and loved the second half, so I'm a little hesitant to recommend it. I just felt bad for the guy in the first half. It is pretty funny though and apparently even funnier in spanish, lots of untranslateable puns and shit.
Now there are some other books I wouldn't necessarily call "classics" that are good. Dune, for example, although the characters are really just cardboard cutouts. But the world-building is amazing and it actually really works because it's sort of the founding myth for a civilization. Oh! How could I forget Charles Dickens? A lot of his stuff is good, but I'm going to recommend A Tale of Two Cities. Yes, it's like his most famous book, but I think there's a reason for that, it's damn good. Really makes you feel for the characters. Also, if you've never read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings, do that. Sure, the morality is a little black and white for my taste and there are hints of racism with how the humans from the south and east are portrayed, but still, it's a good time.
And lastly, I will never not recommend anything and everything by Ursula K LeGuin. Most especially Left Hand of Darkness. And if you're feeling up to a little philosophy and political theory sprinkled into your sci-fi adventure, The Dispossessed is super fucking good. In a similar vein (although I like him less) you can't go wrong with Asimov. His Foundation series in particular is quite good.
Ok, well, now that I've basically written a novel for you to read, I'll stop. Good luck in your reading adventures comrade! And if you ever just don't like a book, stop reading it, even if other people think it's life-changing or earth-shattering or whatever. Not every book is for every person.
Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην
You are only allowed to read the Iliad in original Homeric Greek, anything else is counterrevolution
My degree is in English Literature, all I can say is that if you want to invest time into reading something long, go for it. However they're not for everyone and tend to be verbose and difficult for the average reader. If you haven't really read many long ass old books then just read Steinbeck, he's dope and Grapes of Wrath is crypto-Marxist af. But yeah as someone else says if you aren't super into reading absolutely do not start with the books you listed there.
It took me a long time to realise this, but no. Not unless you enjoy reading them, of course. Just read things that you're interested in, as well as some leftwing theory and histories because that'll help you understand the world better. If you're anything like me, forcing yourself to read the classics (if you don't enjoy them) will just put you off of spending time reading, which sucks because it can be really fun
In terms of fiction, I recently finished Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan series, which is incredible and I'd definitely recommend (the opening few chapters are maybe a little slow, but it's really worth sticking with because it gets so so good. The characters are really well drawn and relatable, but also there's a tonne of interesting socio-political stuff). China Miéville's books are really fun. Le Guin is great. Cory Doctorow's books are really cool (lol, I'm realising that half of these authors are leftists). Before the Ferrante, I read Han Kang's 'The Vegetarian', which was interesting and also pretty short and easy.
What kinds of things do you like to read?
Like two years ago I was in a cabin for a trip with my family and read The Pillars of the Earth nonstop, but I never finished it because I am a social media addict. I've also been reading some of The Witcher books after playing the games and like them, but again I never finished because of above. I was going to check out Le Guin after someone here linked one of her short stories.
How far did you get in The Pillars of the Earth? I really liked that one and thought that the payoff was pretty good, having gone through so many characters.
Um...it was shortly after the guy became head of the Monastery and the Bishop died.
First of all, congrats on downloading these books and wanting to read them.
I can't read much anymore because of an eye problem, but I used to read a lot, mostly "classics", and majored in English, and these are my tips for it:
If you're reading one of these books and feel discouraged 50 pages in, skip to another book. Forcing yourself to read a book that you're not enjoying will set your progress back. You can go back to the book later.
If you feel the same thing with the next book, take a break and read something that you can breeze through and know that you'll enjoy (e.g. Vonnegut or Stephen King) so that you don't get burnt out, but are still in the habit of reading.
Maybe save Ulysses for later. It's really hard, even for the people who are best at reading it. Like, everyone who has read it knows that Pete Buttigeig has not understood it at all and is just posing, even though he built his brand around being the Ulysses guy. It's also full of references to other "classics" that will just be dead spots in the book to you if you don't know them. If you want to read it now, though, because I know it's tempting, read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Hamlet , and The Odyssey (or at least a spark notes of it) first. Lots of Ulysses is about Hamlet. Ulysses' structure, characters, references, etc. come from The Odyssey, so you'll be missing out on a lot of jokes if you don't know it well enough. I can see The Odyssey being really boring if you're not specifically into that stuff yet (you will be eventually if you aren't yet) but I read the spark notes as a kid and they were as fun as anything. Ulysses is a sequel to A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man will teach you how to read Ulysses, since it uses a lot of the same literary techniques in a way that's a lot easier to understand. It's a book about a boy growing up and being cringe and thinking that he's better than everyone around him. A good example of the cringe is when the main character is late for school or something, and his dad calls him a bitch. The main character is like "Heh. Wrong. A bitch is a female dog." This main character ends up being one of the 2 main characters in Ulysses, and the cringe continues.
The Odyssey, Hamlet, and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are all "classics" themselves, and they're all public domain.
Something that took me a long time to figure out is that no author is perfect at everything, and that you should mostly judge books on what they're good at. If you read a book, and it's the saddest thing you've ever read, it should get huge points for that even if everything else about it is bad. If you read something where every metaphor blows your mind but the plot is boring, it still gets huge points for the metaphors. Eventually, you'll see the best of everything, just not all in one book. Every "classic" has something amazing in it, but can also have a lot of garbage. You have to be like a gold prospector looking for the gold in every book, and not dumping out a pan with big pieces of gold just because there's a lot of dirt in there too.
I don't really want to recommend anything, because a book can be good or bad depending on when you read it, but Moby-Dick is the GOAT, as other people here are saying. It's on the same level as Ulysses, but doesn't have a bunch of references to other books that you need to read first. You do probably need to have read a bunch of other "classics" first just to understand how to get the most out of Moby-Dick when you're reading it, but there aren't as many references to specific books. If you grew up Christian or know a bit about the Bible just from hearing about it, there's nothing specific that you have to read before Moby-Dick. You'll be ready to read Moby-Dick before you'll be ready to read Ulysses, and Moby-Dick is THE BEST.
I think I've read most of the main classics. Here's my ranking:
Life-Changing: Moby Dick, The Magic Mountain, Ulysses, Beckett's three novels, The Man Without Qualities, Stendhal's The Red and the Black, Against Nature, Maldoror.
Exceptionally Good: The Trial, The Sleepwalkers, JR and The Recognitions, The Book of Disquiet, ISOLT.
[everything else]
Vastly Overrated/Shit: 1984, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Wurthington Heights, Madame Bovary.
In Search Of Lost Time by Proust. I've only read the first three books because its a massive undertaking but its worth it
Maximalism baby! That line about literature comforting the disturbed and disturbing the comfortable is especially relevant here and I'm not sure which I am but I know this stuff is worth it. Don't start with the huge books tho.
Well for me the books I listed actually changed my life but people are inclined to hyperbole when it comes to literature and saying a book they just liked changed their life so I'm saying that for me and other people it really did but for some people they might just say it did. It's a stupid joke.
Although I'd agree that it's overrated, I found 1984 changing in that I became interested how language is used to form opinions and how it reflects the culture that uses it. Since I was a teenager reading it and hadn't come across anything of the sort, such a "revelation" isn't that surprising.
But I'd be interested in how Moby Dick affected you. (Since I assume it didn't have such an obvious aha-moment)
Of course there is value. There is a reason people have been reading these books for decades or even centuries. I think it's important to understand history and seeing the evolution of culture and ideas is important. And a lot of the classics are just fun to read.
I would say try a variety of eras and countries. I fell in love with 19th century Russian literature but I hate 19th century English literature. Also probably start with stuff that is popular around places like Reddit. Ulysses shows up on lots of classic lists but isn't popular on Reddit because it's not an easy read. Someone like Steinbeck is a good place to start.
Gives you cultural understanding in certain sectors
America is no longer a literate country, so it means less, but still
Moby Dick is genuinely one of the funniest books I've ever read and probably one of my three favorite books ever. Give the first like, 5 chapters a try and see how it goes - you especially should try and reach Chapter 3 because the very neurotic narrator has to contend with his closeted homosexuality. I've also included below one of my favorite jokes from the book, though I understand it's not to everyone's taste:
First: The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish. In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnæus declares, “I hereby separate the whales from the fish.” But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnæus’s express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan.
The grounds upon which Linnæus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: “On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their movable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem,” and finally, “ex lege naturæ jure meritoque.” I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug.
Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me. This fundamental thing settled, the next point is, in what internal respect does the whale differ from other fish. Above, Linnæus has given you those items. But in brief, they are these: lungs and warm blood; whereas, all other fish are lungless and cold blooded.
