Not entirely certain if this is Cafe Society material. I rather think it’s more mundate and pointless.
So in an effort to make myself an more well read and rounded person I seized a list of classics which I commited myself to read before the end of the year.
The list consists of:
Robinson Crusoe (Defoe)
Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne)
Three Musketeers (Dumas)
Walden (Thoreau)
Silas Mariner (Eliot)
Moby Dick (Melville)
Adv. of Sherlock Holmes (Doyle)
Great Expectations (Dickens)
Count of Monte Cristoe (Dumas)
Last of the Mohecans (Cooper)
Treasure Island (Stevenson)
And last but not least, a book I chose to start with,
Picture of Dorian Gray (Wilde)
Half way through Dorian Gray, I’m at serious risk of poking my eyes out with a sharp implement. What a load of homoerotic, self indulgent crap! I though Ayn Rand had the gift for torturing a point to death but I now see she’s not the first to attmpt to bore the reader into a catatonic stuppor. Get the fuck on with it Wilde… Yes, Dorian is beautiful, perfect and a complete self centered upper class twit who’s got two old queens trying to get into his pants. One keeps wanting to paint him and the other keeps wanting to date him. I can’t take much more of this. Just have them blow eachother and get on with the plot. Which by the way is fucking dull.
Is this what I have to look forward to with the rest of the books on my list? Just a never ending stream of over written self indulgent tripe?
'Cuz if it is, I may just move on to Dostevsky, Gogol and Tolstoy so I can just slice open my wrists all the sooner.
Dumas is not self-indulgent, although he’s a wee bit longwinded. I don’t like Hawthorne much (he’s like an anti-Wilde), and I only read a child’s version of Crusoe many years ago (at least, I think it was a child’s version). I can’t say anything about the rest.
I couldn’t get through The Picture of Dorian Gray either, for the exact reasons the OP listed. Wilde is a good writer and very witty and quotable, but that story just sucked. I hated The Scarlet Letter back when we had to read it in 11th grade AP English class, but that was mostly for the unreadable and long introduction, “The Customs House.”
I also think Tolkien is a windbag, and couldn’t get through the second *Lord of the Rings * book. If I were you, I’d just watch the excellent movies and save yourself a lot of florid prose and intense boredom.
I couldn’t read, The Scarlet Letter. The first page alone bored me to tears. The Count of Monte Cristo, on the other hand, I enjoyed greatly. In fact, I’ll most likely read it again soon.
Hmmm… both my wife and I really enjoyed Picture of Dorian Gray. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, though I havn’t read it in 10 years, so I don’t know if I’d like it as much this time around.
I don’t think one has to “torture” themselves with long-winded nineteenth century novels to be a well-rounded person. Except for Doyle I don’t enjoy any of the writers on that list. I bet if you tried reading more recent “classics” you’d probably enjoy them a lot more.
I remember reading somewhere that many novels written in the 1800s were long-winded and description-stuffed on purpose, because they were designed to be read aloud to large groups (books were expensive, not everyone knew how to read), so five-page-long descriptions of someone crossing a ford were like built-in bathroom breaks. The Last of the Mohicans was one of those books.
I would recommend reading Doyle though; he’s one of the main influences on all modern fiction, especially mystery fiction, and his work doesn’t feel dated at all. For that matter, also read Poe–his work translates well almost 150 years later.
Silas Marner was the most excruciating torture I’ve ever encountered reading the English language. It was the only time I ever read the Cliff Notes on a book required for high school. In Hell, the only book in the library is Silas Marner.
I read Moby Dick in one night when I was working a 16 hour shift. I decided to read it on my own because I really liked the John Huston movie. Most of it I found boring. It told me far more about the business and techniques of whaling than I wanted to know. In fairness to the book, the conditions were not the best for reading great literature. My tiredness had to have an effect on my enjoyment of the book. I’ve always meant to give another try under better conditions as people whose opinions I respect have urged me to do. It seems unlikely that I will. There are so many other books yet to read.
I enjoyed both the Dumas books and Stevenson’s. I’ve not read Cooper. After reading Mark Twain’s essay about him I don’t think I could take anything he wrote seriously. I love Dickens. I don’t find him overly wordy which is a common complaint. Some books may be more accessible but I’ve read them all and enjoyed them all. I’ve not read Defoe. Thoreau was hard to plow through but worth the effort. Sherlock Holmes is essential and wonderful. It has never grown stale for me. I read it periodically and always enjoy it. The story that were written before the visit to the Reichenbach Falls are the best but it all is worthwhile.
There is no earthly reason for anyone to ever have to read Dickens. None. Ever. I don’t really know where my loathing for Dickens started…I’ve read everything he ever wrote, I think, and I find most of it to be utter garbage. On the other hand, I love Dumas, Stevenson and Defoe. Oh, well. Good luck with your task. Better you than me.
I would skip Thoreau’s Walden if I were you. It doesn’t realy have a point, or go anywhere. It’s just sort of, “I was in the forest, and I thought about some stuff. Then I wrote about it.”
You have assuaged the personal guilt I have harbored for nearly 60 years in not having read most of these aforementioned literary classics. I dunno’ that I can be assured of transitioning this earthly realm as the proverbial “happy man”, but every little bit helps.
Three Musketeers – fine book. Of course, I read it in French, but any problems with it would most likely be due to a poor translation.
Walden – interesting, though not a favorite.
Silas Marner – meh.
Moby Dick – as good as people say it is. The trick to to understand two things:
list=1]
[li]Melville was written in the sentimental novel tradition. If you get a chance to read one (See if you can find any of the works ofr Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth), you’ll understand more where Melville was coming from.[/li][li]The book is really three books: the story of the friendship between Queequeg and Ishmael (short), Captain Ahab’s search for the whale (a bit more), and an essay on whaling (the major part of the book). The essay is fascinating and probably the best nonfiction account of the ins and outs of the trade.[/li][/list]
Sherlock Holmes – required reading for everyone.
Great Expectations – also a truly great novel, though you probably have to be around 30 to begin to appreciate it.
Some of the books you’ve got on the list are a good deal less ponderous than Dorian Gray. Actually, so is everything else by Oscar Wilde. “Great Literature” isn’t a genre or a style, it’s just a haphazard list of stuff other people liked. How did you come by this specific list, anyway?
It seems like gathering a bunch of books because you know they’re famous isn’t exactly setting yourself up for a good time. That being said, you might like Dumas or Stevenson because they are adventure stories. On the other hand, all 19th century prose is going to seem stilted and take some getting used to by the standards of today’s potboiler, so be patient.
You’ll get a wide range of opinions on just about every book on that list, ranging from people who love the work in question to people who hate it with a passion.
I liked Dorian Gray. I suggest reading it with a hiliter handy; WIlde is a great one for throwing in quotable remarks, witticisms, etc.
Walden, also, is a good one to hilite. It shows Thoreau’s several sides: there are descriptions of nature, philosophical musings, countercultural scolding… depending on your tastes, you may find some of these facets fascinating and others boring. But it is a great American book.
Sherlock Holmes is great entertainment, and probably the fluffiest and funnest book on your list. (Some would say the same of Treasure Island, but personally, I found it, not bad, but overrated.)
The Scarlet Letter I didn’t get much out of, but that could have been because I was too young when I read it. I did like The House of the Seven Gables, though, and Hawthorne wrote some of the best short stories of his century.
Three Musketeers: I’m only familiar with the candy bar, and I’m sure a lot was lost in the change of media.
Robinson Crusoe is good if you like that kind of thing: reading about the day-to-day details of how someone might go about surviving by himself on an island.
Toss out Silas Marner and The Scarlet Letter. (The Illustrated Classics version of The Scarlet Letter is great, though.) You definately won’t like them, I’d be willing to bet. You’ll probably hate Moby Dick - I tried once and failed. I loathe Walden too, but a lot of people like it.
I can’t understand all the hate that always comes up for Great Expectations though. I think people get forced to read it too young. It’s really a lot of fun, particularly if you understand that a lot of it is supposed to be funny. I couldn’t stand David Copperfield, though, so different strokes for different folks.
