What books do you read and read again?

i've come to the conclusion that spendius is actually morrisey

or kate bush

Who is "morrisey"? One of my old pals was a Morris Dancer. He was morrisey when he got his kit on and had 10 pints.

I know who Kate Bush is though. She can get elemental but not like Emily could.

They wouldn't have killed her if I had I passed that way.

oops, spelled it wrong

Morrissey is the former lead singer for The Smiths

Morrisey's songs started off as teen angst but descended into self parody.

" Some are mathematacians, some are carpenters wives"

This statement may be true or it may be false, but if you are thinking about the reality you are missing the point: beauty should be loved not analysed. The Yorkshire moors are cold, Alaska may be colder if you have a thermometer, if you have a soul you can feel Cathy's Icy fingers tearing at your heart.

No wonder I didn't know. The haircut put me off.

It was too much like Henry Spencer's in Eraserhead.

Some are ministers of illusion
Some are masters of the trade
All under strong delusions
All their beds are unmade.

I must re-read Catcher...I haven't read it since I was a kid (quite a bit younger than Holden) and I would be interested to see what I think of it now.

LOVED To Kill a Mockingbird......interesting that Dill is kinda Truman Capote...

I have friends who worship the Brontes.....but are likely too proper to lie on Emily's couch.

Haworth is almpost a pilgrimage to them...

I agree, spendius. Deconstructing a book isn't my favorite way of enjoying that book. I majored in English - didn't get a degree but I found I was enjoying my favorite books less because I had to pick them apart. I think books are meant to be read and enjoyed and I refuse to assume I know exactly what the author had in mind when he/she wrote a book.

Harry potter series.

Ah...a Potter fan.

Welcome nkjskj.

Book mark

I actively disliked Catcher in the Rye and didn't finish reading it. Holden's point of view (if he had one) was beyond my understanding - I found it disagreeable.

To Kill a Mockingbird is good but overrated in my view. Aidan said it was “wordy” " probably so. It was the combination of saccharine sentimentality in little things with tragic injustice in big ones that put me off. Many others like it, perhaps for the same reasons.

I believe that great literature occasionally provides us with new understanding or the grasp of a different perspective on familiar things. More often though merely good literature provides us the opportunity to replay common or universal emotions, pieces of the experience of life, in a comprehensible and vivid way. In that context, I believe the debate about the relative merits of Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy is better understood. They were all very good and, as has been thoroughly described by others here, they dealt with and described different things, different elements of life’s tapestry. I’ve never been able to get past a chapter of Hardy’s at a sitting; always found Austin very readable and briefly entertaining, but also insubstantial and a bit boring. The Bronte’s were a different matter, mysterious and evocative of vague but strong emotions. I suspect the difference in our reactions to them has more to do with our individual tastes and interests in these things than the writers themselves.

As usual, I found Setanta’s essay about the relative insularity of Britain during the turbulent era of the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, 1790-1815 both interesting and illuminating. It is noteworthy here that Britain was in fact little affected by all these struggles in Europe, -- apart from some inconvenience in her European commerce; the extended naval blockade of France and campaigns in the Mediterranean; and the military campaign in Spain. These things, momentous as they were, affected relatively few people in Britain. Moreover the economy and public interest remained engaged with the empire, and unaffected by the turmoil on the continent of Europe. Finally Britain began actively shipping its potentially revolutionary or criminal young men, and those in Ireland, off to death or, if they were lucky, penal servitude in Australia early in the period. There was little indeed to disturb their complacent self-preoccupation.

I have almost read Catcher in the Rye more than one time, but never got around to it. I still may get a copy, even though I read some place that it is appealing mainly to the young among us.

I NEED to re-read it.

Haven't read it since I was a little tacker.

clever

I have a bunch of things I re-read when I am really sick, or, as over the last week or so, in intense pain.

These are never great literature!!!

It used to be, of all things, the Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder.

Sometimes it was Patricia Cornwall's early stuff, when she was good.

Occasionally, an Anya Seton.

Sometimes thingummy Auel's better books....

This time, it's been Pearl Buck! I purchased a bunch of her stuff for nostalgic reasons a while back. She's probably my best quality sick or injured author.

a lot of your favorites are by American authors deb. I was wondering if you had an Oz writer that you've re- read ?

Hell yeah!!!


And lots of my favourites are English, too.

I'll talk about some Ozzians when I get home from work.