Recommend me a 'classic' book

[JohnnyOrange]

they demonise both the wrorking class (shelley)

Does Shelley demonise the working class? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm interested in a conversation about the book, not looking for a shitty internet fight) but I thought one of Shelley's points in Frankenstein was that we should be working towards the collective good as opposed to an individual good. The monsters are those who see themselves as an elite (e.g., Victor Frankenstein and indeed Percy Shelley and his foppish cohorts who proclaimed themselves genii. Don't get me started on fucking Wordsworth... ) I could be wrong though. If I am, don't spoil it for me...

 

[DotCommunist]

Does Shelley demonise the working class? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm interested in a conversation about the book, not looking for a shitty internet fight) but I thought one of Shelley's points in Frankenstein was that we should be working towards the collective good as opposed to an individual good. The monsters are those who see themselves as an elite (e.g., Victor Frankenstein and indeed Percy Shelley and his foppish cohorts who proclaimed themselves genii. Don't get me started on fucking Wordsworth... ) I could be wrong though. If I am, don't spoil it for me...

She did espouse many of th humanist ideas in Frankenstien, but i always saw that humanist angle as a very patronising view. Look at the books frankienstiens monster educates himself with. It's all religion/morality

 

[scifisam]

Isn't Candide the one that is a satire on the philosophy of Leibniz?

I think so. I was 16 when I read it, and was so pleased to be reading a highbrow classical work of fiction and actually enjoying it; Voltaire has a much lighter touch than many writers of the time.

I don't think Frankensten demonises the working class any more than it demonises any other class in the book.

 

[Santino]

It demonises mad scientists who dare meddle with nature.

 

[sojourner]

Ha! Writing doesn't need to be true! It should aim to excite a reaction in the reader, whether through beauty or through startlement. Truth is irrelevant, and a will-o'-the-wisp besides


A second recommendation for Hunger btw.

Your statement was an opinion of your own truth. It certainly made me react, although I'm not sure you want everyone to think your opinions are irrelevant

Getting ot a bit though

I just wanted to make the point that there are vast amounts of literature out there that aren't 'classics', and that they are of equal worth and value as the classics, if not more so.

 

[Santino]

I just wanted to make the point that there are vast amounts of literature out there that aren't 'classics', and that they are of equal worth and value as the classics, if not more so.

So really it's the non-classics that are classic?

 

[Lea]

To Kill A Mockingbird - but I dont know if that is considered a classic but it's a great read.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton. I admit that I have not read it cover-to-cover - it's a good book to dip into. But read the introduction (which is only around 100 pages). It's possibly my favourite piece of writing in the English language.

 

[sojourner]

So really it's the non-classics that are classic?

Why use the word classic at all?

It just denotes superiority, which is always subjective anyway

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why use the word classic at all?

It just denotes superiority, which is always subjective anyway

It's irrelevant anyway. Any book still in print over 100 years after it was written is, by definition, a classic.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Anna Karenina - a crackin read!

Now if I could only finish Bleak House....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Although I'm sulking a bit about the anti-Dostoyevskyism, may I recommend Gogol's Dead Souls.

 

[Roxy641]

Frankenstein

Hi Belushi,

I still have my copy from when I had to read it for my English GCSE. Must get around to reading it again. That book is even more relevant today then when it was first written.

Roxy641

Frankenstein, its a great read.

 

[Santino]

It's irrelevant anyway. Any book still in print over 100 years after it was written is, by definition, a classic.

By that definition Mein Kampf will soon qualify.

 

[Brainaddict]

Although I'm sulking a bit about the anti-Dostoyevskyism, may I recommend Gogol's Dead Souls.

No, you may not

 

[littlebabyjesus]

By that definition Mein Kampf will soon qualify.

A seminal text from the 20th century. Depends what you mean by 'classic' really. Do you mean 'good' or 'important'?

 

[Brainaddict]

Your statement was an opinion of your own truth. It certainly made me react, although I'm not sure you want everyone to think your opinions are irrelevant

Ahem, I was just typing bollocks for the sake of it. I didn't mean a word of it

 

[Santino]

Why use the word classic at all?

It just denotes superiority, which is always subjective anyway

Of course superiority is subjective, everything of value about a book is subjective. The only objective facts about a book are the paper and ink they're made of. But some books are subjectively better than others.

 

[Santino]

A seminal text from the 20th century. Depends what you mean by 'classic' really. Do you mean 'good' or 'important'?

I mean 'belonging to the highest rank or class'. A book can be important and still be shit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course superiority is subjective, everything of value about a book is subjective. The only objective facts about a book are the paper and ink they're made of. But some books are subjectively better than others.

Good point. May I refine my definition to allow for the Mein Kampf objection:

Any book still in print over 100 years after it was written is a classic to somebody.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mind you, the 100-year test has not yet been met. There's still time for Mein Kampf to go out of print...

 

[sojourner]

Any book still in print over 100 years after it was written is a classic to somebody.

Was going to ask you about that - where you got the idea from, cos it's a new one on me

 

[Santino]

If it does it remain it print, the reason (most) people buy it is because of its historical interest, not because of its quality.

 

[sojourner]

Of course superiority is subjective, everything of value about a book is subjective. The only objective facts about a book are the paper and ink they're made of. But some books are subjectively better than others.

spoken like a true Orwellian

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Was going to ask you about that - where you got the idea from, cos it's a new one on me

Do you know what percentage of books are still in print 100 years after they were first published? It is a small fraction of 1 per cent. That's as good a 'quality test' as any, I'd have thought.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If it does it remain it print, the reason (most) people buy it is because of its historical interest, not because of its quality.

Not true of fiction.

 

[Santino]

Having said all that, the 100 year idea is a useful rule of thumb.

 

[Santino]

Not true of fiction.

I was talking about Mein Kampf.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was talking about Mein Kampf.

It merely needs to remain in libraries if it of purely historical interest. New copies of Mein Kampf will be bought pretty much exclusively by neo-Nazis, who will presumably think it good.

Having said that, Christopher Columbus's diaries are still in print. It is hard to imagine a worse piece of writing...

I'll refine my definition further by limiting it to fiction.

 

[Santino]

It merely needs to remain in libraries if it of purely historical interest. New copies of Mein Kampf will be bought pretty much exclusively by neo-Nazis, who will presumably think it good.

Whether or not a book needs to be in print is purely a matter for publishers. If loads of students need to buy it for their course in 20th century history then it'll be available in bookshops. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.