The Lord of the Rings, or pretty much anything else by Tolkien. One of the greates authors and an unmitigated genius.
Literature
- Thread starter Fbuh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I liked it before I had to study it, at the age of 14 or somesuch. Now I can never read it again.pigeon_of_doom said:
OT: Douglas Adams' Trilogy of Four, Terry Pratchett and Stephen Fry are some of my favourites, and in reference to your previous post concerning Orwell I have read 1984 and Animal House; preferred the former but certainly understood the latter.
I still need to read more though.
Just finished Frankenstein a few days ago. Currently reading On the Road by Kerouac, and complimenting that with the Penguin Anthology of American Verse.
Frankenstein is good appart from the fact that if Dr Frankenstein was around today he would be considered pretty emo. Its also one fo those books that the public idea of it is completely different to the source text. Dr Frankenstein isn't a mad scientist but more a man whos thirst for knowledge comes back to haunt him, and the monster is well spoken, empathetic and really just a man striking back for the injustices that he has suffered.
Frankenstein is good appart from the fact that if Dr Frankenstein was around today he would be considered pretty emo. Its also one fo those books that the public idea of it is completely different to the source text. Dr Frankenstein isn't a mad scientist but more a man whos thirst for knowledge comes back to haunt him, and the monster is well spoken, empathetic and really just a man striking back for the injustices that he has suffered.
I really don't read too much fiction any more.
That being said, my fave fiction authors are Shakespeare, Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut.
So, out of those gents, I'd say: Hamlet, The Illustrated Man and Slaughterhouse 5.
I'm also big on reading epic poems, like Dante's The Divine Comedy and Homer's works, Beowolf, etc. There's something about works like that that have survived hundreds of years.
That being said, my fave fiction authors are Shakespeare, Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut.
So, out of those gents, I'd say: Hamlet, The Illustrated Man and Slaughterhouse 5.
I'm also big on reading epic poems, like Dante's The Divine Comedy and Homer's works, Beowolf, etc. There's something about works like that that have survived hundreds of years.
I've read them books- entertaining and funny- although i found them a bit cheezy.Wadders said:[I forgot to mention the Flashman Novels by George MacDonald Fraser. Anyone ever read them? They're hilarious, also historically based adventure stories, but very tongue in cheek, rather rude in places, and the history is somewhat altered for the purposes of the story
I think the cheesy-ness is pretty much intended. They're not really supposed to be taken very seriously.Nickolai77 said:I've read them books- entertaining and funny- although i found them a bit cheezy.Wadders said:[I forgot to mention the Flashman Novels by George MacDonald Fraser. Anyone ever read them? They're hilarious, also historically based adventure stories, but very tongue in cheek, rather rude in places, and the history is somewhat altered for the purposes of the story
Yeah i suppose, but if your going to write something cheezy, make it humerous. I don't think the Flashman novels were funny enough for the "cheezyness" that was in it.Wadders said:I think the cheesy-ness is pretty much intended. They're not really supposed to be taken very seriously.Nickolai77 said:I've read them books- entertaining and funny- although i found them a bit cheezy.Wadders said:[I forgot to mention the Flashman Novels by George MacDonald Fraser. Anyone ever read them? They're hilarious, also historically based adventure stories, but very tongue in cheek, rather rude in places, and the history is somewhat altered for the purposes of the story
I've only read The Warlord Chronicles(the trilogy about King Arthur) and found them very enjoyable.Must check out some of his other booksNickolai77 said:
Dracula by Bram Stoker is an absolute classic.Created arguably the most famous fictional character of all time and made vampires probably the most popular villains in horror(then Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer had to spoil it all by turning into whiny emos)
Anything by Tolkien or Alexandre Dumas is also worth checking out
Hmm fair enough, to each his own. Personally I find them pretty damned funny, but hey.Nickolai77 said:Yeah i suppose, but if your going to write something cheezy, make it humerous. I don't think the Flashman novels were funny enough for the "cheezyness" that was in it.Wadders said:I think the cheesy-ness is pretty much intended. They're not really supposed to be taken very seriously.Nickolai77 said:I've read them books- entertaining and funny- although i found them a bit cheezy.Wadders said:[I forgot to mention the Flashman Novels by George MacDonald Fraser. Anyone ever read them? They're hilarious, also historically based adventure stories, but very tongue in cheek, rather rude in places, and the history is somewhat altered for the purposes of the story
Ah Gormenghast. I tell you what, I'd love it to absolute pieces if I could read it at more than three pages at a time. It took me a week to get past the first twenty pages. It's brilliance as a story is only marred, for me at least, by the obsessively detailed passages of description.Wadders said:
As for these two, yes yes yes. Sherlock Holmes stories are some of the most wonderful stories I've ever read, the characterisation is brilliant and the attention to relavent detail without making the solution obvious is wonderful to read.Wadders said:
Brave New world blew me away, I got given it as a present when I was ten and I read it about once a year. Faboulous stuff, the concepts and science fiction ideas are fantastic.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I seem to be the only person in my class (of five) who actually liked that book. It's based on the true experiences of life in a Russian Gulag. Specifically it shows what happens on a single "good day". Not a great deal actually goes on, and a huge amount of detail is used to describe mundane actions and behaviour. But I kind of liked that; Shukhov (the protagonist) is a really likeable, rogue-ish character, and everytime he manages to trick the authorities or find a loophole, I felt like cheering him on. Shukhov does not go on a roaring rampage of revenge. He simply earns little victories whilst imprisoned.
I agree that it is a fairly weighty read. It is a terrible shame when that happens with a book. I have tried to read Tale of a Tub a half dozen times now, but it is written in such turgid and over-convoluted sentences that I can never get into it.Erja_Perttu said:
I'm going to take exception to the word classics, as I have been doing for nearly five years now.
What is a classic? Who defines what a classic is and what a classic isn't? What exactly are the defining traits, which lead to a book becoming a classic?
The biggest litmus test of whether a book is a classic or not seems to be whether Cambridge and/or Oxford university deem them classics, which is a ridiculously elitist stance to take on books. It mostly ignores colonial writers, women writers, anything from after 1950. Sci-fi is basically ignored (an argument could be made for Asimov, Dick and Herbert, but you won't often find them on the 'classical' shelves of Waterstones.)
The concept of needing a definable literary canon, and writing to become a classic, is killing English Literature as a subject, especially at the more elitist and traditionalist universities. Their concept of literature studies is mired at least fifty years in the past, if not older, and is on the verge of being hopelessly antiquated.
Modern books can have all the tenets of 'classic' literature, but for some reason we think that a classic has to be a number of years old. Many women writers should be considered for the label of 'classic' but beyond the romantics, there are hardly any. Post-colonialism is one of the greatest and most unique eruptions of literature in the last century, but while the authors are recognised, they are not seen as 'classics.' Children's literature is nearly never deemed as a classic, but it is potentially some of the most important literature in the world.
This intellectual snobbery must end. The discussion must no longer focus on 'The Classics', and 'The Canon.' This grand and ill-conceived notion of 'Literature'. It must focus on books, and the content of those books. It is not something beyond the reach of people, it must be made accesible once more.
Mark Twain once said that a classic is the book no one wants to read, but everyone wishes they had read to make themselves seem smarter. There should be no book people are put off from because of a title.
What is a classic? Who defines what a classic is and what a classic isn't? What exactly are the defining traits, which lead to a book becoming a classic?
The biggest litmus test of whether a book is a classic or not seems to be whether Cambridge and/or Oxford university deem them classics, which is a ridiculously elitist stance to take on books. It mostly ignores colonial writers, women writers, anything from after 1950. Sci-fi is basically ignored (an argument could be made for Asimov, Dick and Herbert, but you won't often find them on the 'classical' shelves of Waterstones.)
The concept of needing a definable literary canon, and writing to become a classic, is killing English Literature as a subject, especially at the more elitist and traditionalist universities. Their concept of literature studies is mired at least fifty years in the past, if not older, and is on the verge of being hopelessly antiquated.
Modern books can have all the tenets of 'classic' literature, but for some reason we think that a classic has to be a number of years old. Many women writers should be considered for the label of 'classic' but beyond the romantics, there are hardly any. Post-colonialism is one of the greatest and most unique eruptions of literature in the last century, but while the authors are recognised, they are not seen as 'classics.' Children's literature is nearly never deemed as a classic, but it is potentially some of the most important literature in the world.
This intellectual snobbery must end. The discussion must no longer focus on 'The Classics', and 'The Canon.' This grand and ill-conceived notion of 'Literature'. It must focus on books, and the content of those books. It is not something beyond the reach of people, it must be made accesible once more.
Mark Twain once said that a classic is the book no one wants to read, but everyone wishes they had read to make themselves seem smarter. There should be no book people are put off from because of a title.
As far as literature goes, I have a few odd favorites. I absolutely love Hemingway (and loathe Steinbeck), especially The Sun Also Rises. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is another oft read favorite. I also adore Philip K. Dick (he's a lit author, I swear) and nearly everything in his library, though A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are personal favorites. The guy was a genius in using pulp tropes to discuss themes like the nature of humanity, reality, and religion.