Which classics have you read?

Knut Hamson?

I wouldn't know him if he up and bit me in the ass.

On the subject of the Russians, i read a minor novel that ought to be a classic, because i have read few novels (except, perhaps, La Meute[/i[) which understood dogs so well--that was [i]Faithful Ruslan, by Georgy Vladimove, which is a marvelous novel, and very, very sad.

Dostoevsky's novels, except for for the early ones--Poor Folk, Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment--all amused the hell out of me. Those three early novels were "serious," but i think he was laughing up his sleeve at Russian society in his later novels, and i laughed uproariously all the way through The Brothers Karamosov (sp?). There was one novel which was short and sweet, and obviously intended to be funny and understood as funny, which was The Friend of the Family, which i highly recommend.

I'm late going to get the Girl from the subway station, so i gotta run.

John Fonte- Ask the dust

Charles Bukowski- Ham on Rye

Aldus Huxley- point counter point

Kurt vonnegut- Mother night, cats craddle.

Fonte, have heard of him but not read him.

William Trevor - I liked one compilation of short stories in particular, a nice thick compilation, but I leant it to someone, and it flew away, so I can't pinpoint a title. Somewhat his opposite, but also loved by me, Alice Munro and her stories.

Did anyone ever read "Johnny Got His Gun"????? I'm not sure if it is considered a classic, but it was written after WW I and regained popularity during the Viet Nam era. Sobering view on war casualties.

Your from L.A. ( or were at some time)

Here is a link to he the movie.

http://www.askthedust-movie.com/enter.html

Yes, I read Trumbo's book. (of course I did...)

I'm still from LA, always will be, though I am living in a new place.

On Trevor, he makes diamond carats of old stone...

On Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, the book was strong to me, but it's been decades since I read it, hard to say if it's classic. I won't say it isn't, I'd have to read it again. As I remember the book, it wasn't thick, was a paperback.

No, I have it read it but I think alot of people would call it a classic. I also think people reserve the "classic" ranking for older historical signficant grand masterpieces. Like..... James Joyce, etc,etc.

It is inevitable though that we just start talking about very good books we've read by dead guys because to us they are classics, Why not.

I got one! Joseph Conrad ?

I really liked Emile Zola's "Nana". I first read it as a teenager after seeing a PBS version and got hooked on his series about earthy French workers.

Spent a lovely summer in a treehouse reading "Our Mutual Friend" by Dickens with I was about 13.

I've read many a Balzac, all of Jane Austin, and probably the majority of Tolstoy's short stories, but never I finished War & Peace and now I use it as a flower press.

Classics I DIDN'T like or couldn't complete because I kept falling asleep:
Mill on The Floss (Setanta will back me up on this one)
Vanity Fair (I hated everyone in that book)
Anything by James Joyce (zzzzzz!)

Johnny Got His Gun - the book - had power. As I say, I'd have to look at it again.

Nobody has mentioned Catcher in the rye . I think it is grossly overrated

Osso, I still have a copy of the paperback version of "Johnny Got His Gun". It is still relevant and still disturbing. My nephew just finished reading it and he was struck that the book was actually written after the 1st World War. It still depicts the horror of war, that's a message you always remember. When you read the book, you are certain that it describes a current war, but it is timeless.

Amigo, if your last post is supposed to mean that i've not read all the classics because i've not read some joker named Knut Hamson whom you have happened to be impressed with, then i suspect that your definition of classic is so loose as to be meaningless.

In the first place, my remark about having read all the classics, except for those that really, really annoyed me was intended as humorous. Had anyone attempted to press the point, i'd simply have said that this or that really, really annoyed me, or simply have denied that it were a classic. However, it was not intended as a serious remark.

If you are going to play a game of who has read what "classics," you're going to need a good working definition of classic, and one problem that you'll run into is that what constitutes a classic cannot realistically be applied to the works of authors who are still living, or who have recently died. So, for example, the works of Anthony Trollope only barely qualify, because dusty literary types force unsuspecting college students to read one of the most boring authors who was popular in the tasteless era of Victoria. By contrast, Jane Austen, who died 20 years before Victoria ascended the throne, continues to be a best-seller, and not simply because college professors assign her books in lit courses. Her works continue to be made into motion pictures and television series, which are commercially successful.

On such a basis, Joseph Conrad (and i believe i've read all of his novels) can probably be considered a classic, because his novels still sell, apart form being assigned in college lit courses, especially The Heart of Darkness and Lord Jim. Even if not as many people read him as was the case in the late Victorian and the Edwardian era, he still remains a strong influence--Apocalypse Now was so transparently based on The Heart of Darkness that it was almost embarrassing. His influence remains strong. However, it is still possible that within a century, he may be largely forgotten outside of literature courses, in which case it would be a mistake to define his work as classic.

Your boy Vonnegut is small potatoes--maybe he'll stand the test of time, but personally, i doubt it. I was far less impressed with him when i was in my 30s, and made the mistake of re-reading some of his stuff, than when i was in my 20s, and thought the sun shone out of his ass. Aldous Huxley might qualify, but he does not remain a big seller, except for Brave New World and Island, and i suspect those are starting to fall off in sales except where assigned by university courses. Personally, i enjoyed Antic Hay (as a youthful novel) and Eyeless in Gaza (his best, in my never humble opinion) than Point Counterpoint. To get a real feel for the type of "society novel" which is the genre of Point Counterpoint, i suggest you read Those Barren Leaves--if you can wade through that and enjoy it, then you are a true devoté of the society novel. One of his best is The Devils of Loudon, an historical novel which i believe is his only entry in the historical novel genre.

But, even Huxley might in time prove not to be a "classic," although i suspect he will long enjoy respect in academic circles, which will assure that some of his stuff gets printed for years to come. Sadly, it will probably be Brave New World and Island, neither one of which approach his best writing.

Earlier, Jespah listed among her "classics" some works of history that i first read more than 40 years ago (some of them almost 50 years ago now). Titus Livius (Livy to most people in the English-speaking world) finished his history of Rome 2000 years ago--and it remains a decent enough seller that it continues to be printed, at least in excerpts (usually the first five books, or the books which concern Hannibal's invasion of Italy), and you can find them in ordinary book stores, and not just university book stores. Herodotus finished his history well over 2000 years ago, and it remains a steady seller, and as popular work, not just something you get assigned in college. Seutonius and Polybius probably survive thanks to history nuts and university professors, but Thucydides remains a steady seller almost 2500 years after he wrote his History of the Peloponnesian War.

When you're in that kind of company, it's a little premature to claim that people such as Vonnegut, or Conrad or Huxley deserve to be called "classics"--only time will tell.

Your boy Hamson? . . . as i said, i wouldn't know him if he bit me in the ass.

(adding late, I like Denisovic too...)

I'm not going to argue with you on timelessness, Set. I'll write down the names to check out. This is fun for all of us to furl in the air what is classic or not. None of us will be around to tell if Trumbo or Trevor made a grade.
Might have been the grade of paper.

The Zola series to which you refer is the Rougon/Macquart series, which entails, i believe, 20 novels. I've read about half, in French, which is not easy to do, since Germinal and Nana are about the only ones you can find, in French or English, in American book stores. Great stuff, and i suspect his work deserves the title classic, because it continues to sell on it's own merits.

The Mill on the Floss is undoubtedly the worst Victorian novel which remains in print, which is saying a lot, given that so much of Anthony Trollope's work is still available.