Classics

[Deep Black]

How many of these "classic" books (series) have you read?

http://missdreass.tumblr.com/post/81897744/the-bbc-believes-most-people-will-have-only-read-6-of

I've only read 7 (though there aren't that many more I'd actually like to read)
Notice TMH in at number 93

[claverhouse]

26.................are they really serious with that Dan Brown excrement?

[BeckyH]

66, and the rest I don't care much about. Some of those choices are pretty sad.

[Champagne Socialist]

harry potter does NOT belong on that list.
Life of Pi was very good.
About half.

Why?

[RedKing]

47 - but how does CS Lewis get both The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe in the list, along with a double count from Shakespeare?

Also, the list isn't a list of the best 100 books, it's just a list of what the BBC consider to be widely known, but not necessarily widely read.

[Chiaroscuro]

22.

There are a few on there that don't appeal to me either - the Harry Potter collection and Dan Brown - but I think the only two I wouldn't try would be the Bible and The Wind in the Willows. Had stabs at both of them in the past and found them incredibly dull.

[Halmyre]

I've only read 12, but as Eddie Izzard once said "some people are widely read; I'm thinly read..."

[edash]

10 so far, with another 2 or 3 I'll probably get round to, but the majority I've no interest in whatsoever.

[Deep Black]

Well you've all read more of them than me you girly swots


but I think the only two I wouldn't try would be the Bible and The Wind in the Willows. Had stabs at both of them in the past and found them incredibly dull.

I am trying to work my way through The Bible (currently about half way through, reading it (intermittantly) between books)

[RedKing]

Shall I tell you the ending, Deep, to save you the trouble? :D

[Conscious Bob]

16, I wonder what criteria the BBC used to define these classics?

The Harry Potter series I would call classics, they are the most widely read childrens books today.

Never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles though I've read Jude The Obscure, A Pair of Blue Eyes, The Trumpet Major, Far From The Madding Crowd, The Return of The Native, The Woodlanders and Desperate Remedies.

I wuz robbed.

[Deep Black]

Shall I tell you the ending, Deep, to save you the trouble?

Please tell me Jesus makes it :)

Incidently my wife has read 26 off the list

[Champagne Socialist]

16, I wonder what criteria the BBC used to define these classics?

The Harry Potter series I would call classics, they are the most widely read childrens books today.

Never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles though I've read Jude The Obscure, A Pair of Blue Eyes, The Trumpet Major, Far From The Madding Crowd, The Return of The Native, The Woodlanders and Desperate Remedies.

I wuz robbed.

Does popularity automatically convey merit?
Think of what is acknowledged as being truly worthy of classic status from the arts, theater, music and literature.
It's almost never what was popular at the time.

[Deep Black]

Wasn't the list composed through a readers poll?

[Chiaroscuro]

Well you've all read more of them than me you girly swots

:D

The fact that there are six of Dickens novels in there helped my count a lot.



I am trying to work my way through The Bible (currently about half way through, reading it (intermittantly) between books)

I got bored with all that begatting.

[jag]

I think about 16. Moby Dick was difficult going, The Great Gatsby was over-rated, 1984 was pretty dry and boring and where is Trainspotting?

[Conscious Bob]

Does popularity automatically convey merit?
Think of what is acknowledged as being truly worthy of classic status from the arts, theater, music and literature.
It's almost never what was popular at the time.

Well I would say it does.

In this instance the Harry Potter books which are children's books, have been read the world over by children (and some adults, possibly) so that makes them classics.

[Adamus]

9... am I disqualified from this forum now? :P

[rac]

How odd- I thought I'd posted on this thread... it must have been the same subject on another board...

Anyway, counting On the Road and LOTR, which I gave up on as rubbish, I've read 22. And 8 of them are in the top 10, if that counts for anything.

[Hilarity Unit]

24

5 of which are from the [so called] top 10.

Not much else I want to read from the remainder. Those I might try: Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Cold Comfort Farm, Midnight’s Children & that's about it...

[Champagne Socialist]

Well I would say it does.

In this instance the Harry Potter books which are children's books, have been read the world over by children (and some adults, possibly) so that makes them classics.

I believe classic status can only be conveyed by future generations.
What endures, rather than fads of the time.

I certainly doubt the harry potter series will become the next Narnia, let alone Shakespeare.

[Hilarity Unit]

I certainly doubt the harry potter series will become the next Narnia

I don't.

And at least HP doesn't come steeped in Christian evangelism (not that I've read any of the Narnia series)

[Champagne Socialist]

everything comes steeped in one ideology or another.
Choose your poison, but don't you dare criticise others for choosing theirs.

[Conscious Bob]

I believe classic status can only be conveyed by future generations.
What endures, rather than fads of the time.

The only true separation between generations is time. I don't think future generations are any more sophisticated than previous ones.

[Hilarity Unit]

everything comes steeped in one ideology or another.
Choose your poison, but don't you dare criticise others for choosing theirs.
Yeah, right... National Socialism was just another lifestyle choice.

[Adamus]

everything comes steeped in one ideology or another.
Choose your poison, but don't you dare criticise others for choosing theirs.

I will dare. Happily so, even. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but they do not have the right to not be criticized for believing stupid shit.

[Adamus]

I don't think future generations are any more sophisticated than previous ones.

I do. Burning red-haired women at the stake because they might be witches does not a sophisticated society make, to mention just one example of the stupidity of 'previous generations'.

We as a species are becoming more educated, more aware, and more sophisticated with every generation. Yes we have our troubles and throwbacks to medieval ideas with alarming regularity, but on the whole we're steadily going onward and upward.

[Conscious Bob]

I do. Burning red-haired women at the stake because they might be witches does not a sophisticated society make, to mention just one example of the stupidity of 'previous generations'.

We as a species are becoming more educated, more aware, and more sophisticated with every generation. Yes we have our troubles and throwbacks to medieval ideas with alarming regularity, but on the whole we're steadily going onward and upward.

That's expanding the argument exponitially I believe and indeed it looks the first post of a good debate. Unfortunately it's only distantly related to what I'm replying to.

For those that have difficulty in tracking back further than three posts we are talking about literature.

In this instance JK Rowling and CS Lewis in the BBC classic book list. I'm talking about reader sophistication not witch burning.

[BeckyH]

couple of different things going on-
classics are often seen as capturing a time and place so well that people reading them come to understand the situation in the story, and see it relating to their lives and circumstances. So a book can been seen as a classic shortly after it's publication. Sometimes a classic is so named because it resonates even long after it was written, or it is found to remain interesting. Sometimes a highly popular book is called a classic because its appeal to so many various people is taken as an indicator that it speaks to humanity as a whole, not just one population in one moment.
Texts that are perceived to say important things about big issues are also called classics.
These definitions are so flexible and fluid that there is no real test for determining what "should" be a classic. Was Hamlet popular in the 1650's because it was a good political story, great poetry, a sad soap opera of madness in a royal family or appealing to the angst-ridden of the era?
Most so-called classics tend to address questions of what being a person means, and how to do it well. There are some not very well written "classics" that nonetheless raise interesting questions and give unexpected answers.
One thing that has changed since literacy became the norm in society is how people interact with books, texts and visual images. The signs and symbols in The Name of the Rose were immediately recognizable to the characters, but the reader needed to be shown what they were and how they interacted. The rate at which people process visual information has increased since the beginning of motion pictures, with cuts that are so short as to be almost subliminal now common. I have trouble keeping up with some movies because they're edited for an audience of video gamers.
So whether we have become more sophisticated as a species over time is debatable-but what we expect to get out of literature sure has changed.

[Champagne Socialist]

I will dare. Happily so, even. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but they do not have the right to not be criticized for believing stupid shit.

You're a mindless bigot and a troll.
Condemning millions of people you don't know over something you patently know nothing about.

[Hilarity Unit]

You're a mindless bigot and a troll.

Out of order Champagne :mad:

[Forum Admin]

Dear All -

Keep it civil, please. I haven't got enough time to referee differences of opinion or ideology, but I have got enough time to click the 'close thread' button...

Admin

[Conscious Bob]

Dear All -

Keep it civil, please.

Admin

Okay big chief.



So whether we have become more sophisticated as a species over time is debatable-but what we expect to get out of literature sure has changed.

Yeah, I agree with that. However literature doesn't seem to get more sophisticated with time in fact sometimes it appears to go in reverse.

I read a lot of old books and sometimes the language of them confuses me. There appears to be a greater amount of description, more complex words and lots of biblical and classical roman and greek references.

I'm not saying the stories are any better but they are a mental stretch.

Who's the better poet, Lord Byron or Ted Hughes?

Who's the better playright, Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams?

Our technological advancement seems to blinker us to the fact that literature has always been sophisticated.

[Adamus]

However literature doesn't seem to get more sophisticated with time in fact sometimes it appears to go in reverse.

I think it's more a case of more literature being published now than ever before. Which will of course include many works of lower quality, but also many works of a high standard.

We have the luxury of expanded choice, which wasn't necessarily the case for readers half a century or more ago. More books of a wider variety of quality and content. I believe we still have much sophisticated literature, but sophistication is also a matter of taste.

[Conscious Bob]

We have the luxury of expanded choice, which wasn't necessarily the case for readers half a century or more ago. More books of a wider variety of quality and content. I believe we still have much sophisticated literature, but sophistication is also a matter of taste.

I'll concede that with every book published the choice increases but go back fifty years and you find:

William S. Burroughs - Naked Lunch
Robert Bloch - Psycho
Robert A. Heinlein - Starship Troopers

I say we have access to more books not necessarily better ones.

[Adamus]

I say we have access to more books not necessarily better ones.

That ties in to a discussion we had at work today about cultural saturation - i.e. all the good ideas have already been made into books/music/film/whatever, and all that contemporary culture can do is build upon this foundation. A truly original idea is exceedingly rare and may even become impossible at some stage.

In the literary world almost every new novel is built on a variation of concepts, plots, and ideas from earlier works. The author of the new book may not even be aware of this. The Matrix for example has influences from dozens, even hundreds of cultural sources, but the Wachowski bros surely haven't consumed all those sources directly themselves.

[BeckyH]

The economics of publishing have been to sell as many units per title as possible. That means that complex texts or texts of limited interest have a harder time getting published. Before literacy was seen as a common good the people reading fiction were the rich and the powerful-they were they only ones with the time.
As for the question of new ideas, it's been said that there are only seven stories to be told:
1 - [wo]man vs. nature
2 - [wo]man vs. man
3 - [wo]man vs. the environment
4 - [wo]man vs. machines/technology
5 - [wo]man vs. the supernatural
6 - [wo]man vs. self
7 - [wo]man vs. god/religion
I forget right now who came up with this list, but I like it.
All stories have been told all ready. What an author can do is tell one version of a story so well that the reader is pulled into it. To never write a romance because romances already exist? It's the intersections between writers and readers that make literature timely and potent.
That the manufacturers of "major entertainment" are too lazy or scared to move away from their preferred formulas-to the extent that an idea goes from film to stage to comic book to novel to film, or even, sadly, from 10 year old film to "remade" film doesn't meat that culture has saturated, just that it isn't getting enough stirring about.
Also-things used to fade with memory. Now they're preserved. Musicians are now compared not just to their contemporaries but also to performers of the last 100 years. It's much harder to be an opera star when you have to be better than someone who died 70 years ago. Stories are held down on paper or in e-files, instead of being recycled as they are supposed to be. So some of the increased sophistication is just trying to be more noticable than the stuff that's all ready around.

[Adamus]

All stories have been told all ready. What an author can do is tell one version of a story so well that the reader is pulled into it. To never write a romance because romances already exist? It's the intersections between writers and readers that make literature timely and potent.

I like that idea, I like it very much. Not so depressing as cultural saturation. We still have some great stories to look forward to then. :)

[Deep Black]

Aren't there meant to be only 7 different stories or something? Everything else is just a re-telling

[rac]

Aren't there meant to be only 7 different stories or something? Everything else is just a re-telling

http://fiction-plots-pacing.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_seven_basic_plots

[edash]

The economics of publishing have been to sell as many units per title as possible. That means that complex texts or texts of limited interest have a harder time getting published.


Which is were small press publishers come in. Some of the best stuff I've read is from the likes of them, such as PS Publishing.

[rac]

Small press publishers are great!
http://www.futurequake.co.uk/fq/index.html

Ahem...

[Champagne Socialist]

cafe press, have yourself professionally bound and published

[RedKing]

have yourself professionally bound

Sounds like one of the more specialist publications, if you ask me.

[BeckyH]

And when everyone who wants to is publishing, how do you tell if a book is any good? Just word of mouth? Critic's websites? One reason for naming something a classic is that it's been read by many, and can be used to illustrate events or other writings. References can be made to it, with the idea that people will know the reference.