# Favorite Novels?



## Jon Peters

I'm curious as to what people on this list read that is not theological. What are some are your favorite novels? I know Tolkien will be on a lot of lists. But how about Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, James, Joyce, Proust, Mann or Faulkner (just to throw out a few names)?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jon Peters said:


> I'm curious as to what people on this list read that is not theological. What are some are your favorite novels? I know Tolkien will be on a lot of lists. But how about Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, James, Joyce, Proust, Mann or Faulkner (just to throw out a few names)?



I love Tolkien of course, as well as some C.S. Lewis books, namely _Till We Have Faces_, which is an amazing work - very underrated. Dostoevsky wrote two of my top 5 favorite books: _The Brothers Karamazov _and _Crime and Punishment_. I also like Larry McMurtry's Old West novels, especially _Lonesome Dove _and _Comanche Moon_. I also like John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and Tim O'Brien's _In the Lake of the Woods_. My favorite author is Mark Helprin, who wrote my favorite book, _Winter's Tale_, along with _Memoirs from and Antproof Case_, _Refiner's Fire_, and several tremendous short stories.

Good thread - I'm interested to see what others read...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I have never been a fan of fiction novels. The last one I read was "The Name of the Rose".


----------



## larryjf

Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" and "The Idiot" are a couple of my favorites.


----------



## Jon Peters

I too am a Dostoevsky fan. Crime and Punishment is my favoirte of his novels.


----------



## Jon Peters

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have never been a fan of fiction novels. The last one I read was "The Name of the Rose".



Understandable. But perhaps we who love fiction could get you to give one of these favorite great books of ours a shot. We just have to figure out what that one book would be.


----------



## Jon Peters

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what people on this list read that is not theological. What are some are your favorite novels? I know Tolkien will be on a lot of lists. But how about Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, James, Joyce, Proust, Mann or Faulkner (just to throw out a few names)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Tolkien of course, as well as some C.S. Lewis books, namely _Till We Have Faces_, which is an amazing work - very underrated. Dostoevsky wrote two of my top 5 favorite books: _The Brothers Karamazov _and _Crime and Punishment_. I also like Larry McMurtry's Old West novels, especially _Lonesome Dove _and _Comanche Moon_. I also like John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and Tim O'Brien's _In the Lake of the Woods_. My favorite author is Mark Helprin, who wrote my favorite book, _Winter's Tale_, along with _Memoirs from and Antproof Case_, _Refiner's Fire_, and several tremendous short stories.
> 
> Good thread - I'm interested to see what others read...
Click to expand...



I'm sorry to say I've not read Helprin. Where would be a good place to start?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I've read fiction, for school, stuff like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and other "greats". 

Maybe you could get me to read something. I like mystery, preferably "historical" in nature with a good conspiracy theory.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jon Peters said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a fan of fiction novels. The last one I read was "The Name of the Rose".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable. But perhaps we who love fiction could get you to give one of these favorite great books of ours a shot. We just have to figure out what that one book would be.
Click to expand...


I like _The Name of the Rose_ - read it for the first time just last Spring. I think Backwoods Pres would like _Crime and Punishment_....


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jon Peters said:


> I'm sorry to say I've not read Helprin. Where would be a good place to start?



Well, I'd start with _Memoir from an Antproof Case_. _Winter's Tale _is my favorite, but I think it's helpful to see how Helprin thinks before diving into it. He also published a collection of short stories called _Pacific and other Stories_. Some of them are outstanding...


----------



## jwithnell

Jane Eyre is a favorite of mine; also, "All the Kings Men" by Robert Penn Warren. I'm a big fan of John Steinbeck but not Cannery Row and Tortilla Flats. For those who prefer non-fiction, his America and Americans is an interesting set of essays and articles.


----------



## Jon Peters

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I've read fiction, for school, stuff like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and other "greats".
> 
> Maybe you could get me to read something. I like mystery, preferably "historical" in nature with a good conspiracy theory.



If you've read War and Peace (probably my favorite novel) and Crime and Punishment (top 5) and you still are not a fiction fan, I'm not sure what I'd recommend!

I will give the mystery/conspiracy book some thought.


----------



## Grymir

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Jon Peters said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read fiction, for school, stuff like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and other "greats".
> 
> Maybe you could get me to read something. I like mystery, preferably "historical" in nature with a good conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've read War and Peace (probably my favorite novel) and Crime and Punishment (top 5) and you still are not a fiction fan, I'm not sure what I'd recommend!
> 
> I will give the mystery/conspiracy book some thought.
Click to expand...


Thanks.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I've read fiction, for school, stuff like War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and other "greats".
> 
> Maybe you could get me to read something. I like mystery, preferably "historical" in nature with a good conspiracy theory.



For "light" reading you could try _The Eagle has Landed_ by Jack Higgins or _Pillars of the Earth_ by Ken Follet. The former is about Nazi spies in England, the latter is about the construction of a giant cathedral in 12th century England. Neither of them are "great" books, but are certainly entertaining. Also consider _Enigma_, by Robert Harris. I haven't read the book, but I really enjoyed the movie...


----------



## louis_jp

I read light mystery novels, mostly from the "golden age" of detection -- 1920's and 30's. It's a break from the heavier reading that's either theology or work-related. Plus, the values of that era were a little different, so those books are more pleasant to read. I wouldn't touch a work of fiction written in the last 40 years or so, based on what little I've seen.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

larryjf said:


> Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" and "The Idiot" are a couple of my favorites.



The _Idiot_ is my all-time favourite novel.

Other favourites are Jack London's _The Sea Wolf_ and Knut Hamsun's _Growth of the Soil_.


----------



## rjlynam

I journey through the Lord of the Rings series once a year and always pick something new up.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, and The Mayor of Casterbridge to name a few. Poetry of John Dunne and Robert Frost are good reads.

As far as Fantasy/Science Fiction:

Tolkien is great, Heinlein (Before Stranger in a Strange Land) is good, Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, John Ringo's "Aldenta" series (starting with A Hymn Before Battle) - just to name a few.

-CH


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Fred Saberhagen's Sword Series is good.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, and The Mayor of Casterbridge to name a few. Poetry of John Dunne and Robert Frost are good reads.
> 
> As far as Fantasy/Science Fiction:
> 
> Tolkien is great, Heinlein (Before Stranger in a Strange Land) is good, Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, John Ringo's "Aldenta" series (starting with A Hymn Before Battle) - just to name a few.
> 
> -CH



Yeah, _The Three Musketeers_ is great - very enjoyable read. I am currently working through _Arabian Nights _and am really enjoying it. Only half way through and it's already my favorite collection of fairy tales....


----------



## FenderPriest

_The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Brothers Karamazov_.


----------



## jambo

Tolkien and Lewis have done nothing for me. I quite like RL Stevenson, Dickens, Conan-Doyle (the whole canon not just his Sherlock Holmes stuff). I liked Jack Higgins' the eagle has landed but haven't got into his other novels. Of more modern writers I like anything by Graham Green, Somerset Maughan. Of living authors I find Alexander McCall-Smith quite delightful but two of the best I read recently were "The book thief" by Markus Zusak and "Postcards" by Annie Proulx


----------



## MrMerlin777

Bunyan's - Pilgrim's Progress.
CS Lewis - The Screwtape Letters, Narnia, The Great Divorce.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - All of his Sherlock Holmes stuff.
JRR Tolkien - LOR trilogy and The Hobbit.
Douglas Adams - Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Victor Hugo - Les Miserables
Franky Schaeffer - A Modest Proposal.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have never been a fan of fiction novels. The last one I read was "The Name of the Rose".




Excellent book, Umberto Eco.

The movie of it wasn't bad. The book was better.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what people on this list read that is not theological. What are some are your favorite novels? I know Tolkien will be on a lot of lists. But how about Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, James, Joyce, Proust, Mann or Faulkner (just to throw out a few names)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love Tolkien of course, as well as some C.S. Lewis books, namely Till We Have Faces, which is an amazing work - very underrated. Dostoevsky wrote two of my top 5 favorite books: The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment. *I also like Larry McMurtry's Old West novels, especially _Lonesome Dove _and _Comanche Moon_. I also like John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and Tim O'Brien's _In the Lake of the Woods_. My favorite author is Mark Helprin, who wrote my favorite book, _Winter's Tale_, along with _Memoirs from and Antproof Case_, _Refiner's Fire_, and several tremendous short stories.
> 
> Good thread - I'm interested to see what others read...
Click to expand...


Ditto on _Till we Have Faces_, _The Brothers Karamazov_, and _Crime and Punishment_. I also like everything by Jane Austen, especially _Mansfield Park_ and _Emma_. And I like good mysteries.


----------



## Jon Peters

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, and The Mayor of Casterbridge to name a few. Poetry of John Dunne and Robert Frost are good reads.
> 
> As far as Fantasy/Science Fiction:
> 
> Tolkien is great, Heinlein (Before Stranger in a Strange Land) is good, Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, John Ringo's "Aldenta" series (starting with A Hymn Before Battle) - just to name a few.
> 
> -CH



I love Dickens. David Copperfield is my favorite with Tale of Two Cities number two. He is one of the few authors I will read aloud to anyone within earshot (usually my wife). Nobokov has a similar effect on me.


----------



## Jon Peters

Ex Nihilo said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what people on this list read that is not theological. What are some are your favorite novels? I know Tolkien will be on a lot of lists. But how about Tolstoy, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, James, Joyce, Proust, Mann or Faulkner (just to throw out a few names)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I love Tolkien of course, as well as some C.S. Lewis books, namely Till We Have Faces, which is an amazing work - very underrated. Dostoevsky wrote two of my top 5 favorite books: The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment. *I also like Larry McMurtry's Old West novels, especially _Lonesome Dove _and _Comanche Moon_. I also like John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and Tim O'Brien's _In the Lake of the Woods_. My favorite author is Mark Helprin, who wrote my favorite book, _Winter's Tale_, along with _Memoirs from and Antproof Case_, _Refiner's Fire_, and several tremendous short stories.
> 
> Good thread - I'm interested to see what others read...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto on _Till we Have Faces_, _The Brothers Karamazov_, and _Crime and Punishment_. I also like everything by Jane Austen, especially _Mansfield Park_ and _Emma_. And I like good mysteries.
Click to expand...


I think I need to give Austin another chance. But I associate her with my high school English class. I wouldn't read her or the Brontes so my teacher assigned me Salinger, Sinclair and Rand. Thought-altering stuff (at the time).

Speaking of Rand. Someone mentioned Atlas Shrugged. For whatever reason I didn't like that one; Fountainhead was, for me, her greatest and, in hindsight, her most depressing work.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Jon Peters said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think I need to give Austin another chance.* But I associate her with my high school English class. I wouldn't read her or the Brontes so my teacher assigned me Salinger, Sinclair and Rand. Thought-altering stuff (at the time).
> 
> Speaking of Rand. Someone mentioned Atlas Shrugged. For whatever reason I didn't like that one; Fountainhead was, for me, her greatest and, in hindsight, her most depressing work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you associate Jane Austen with the Brontes (perfectly natural if you haven't encountered her since high school), I agree that you should give her another chance. Austen and the Brontes are basically opposites -- Austen is rational and ironic, while the Brontes (though Anne Bronte somewhat less so) are quite melodramatic. Austen is hilarious, and the Brontes are not at all (at least not intentionally).
Click to expand...


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

MrMerlin777 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a fan of fiction novels. The last one I read was "The Name of the Rose".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent book, Umberto Eco.
> 
> The movie of it wasn't bad. The book was better.
Click to expand...


I enjoyed it (the book) too. A book featuring Libraries and mystery. What's not to like!

BTW, "Never judge a book by its movie!"


----------



## py3ak

_Wuthering Heights_, all of Jane Austen but _Persuasion_ is the best; _Tristram Shandy_ by Laurence Sterne is the funniest thing ever written (though _The Diary of a Nobody_ is not far behind). I have enjoyed Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but find that Hemingway was actually right <registers surprise> that it is pretty much impossible to read the Russians again --though obviously one can except Gogol from that, particularly _The Nose_. _Alice in Wonderland_ and especially _Through the Looking Glass_. George Orwell I can read in endless quantities, whether it be in his novels or journalistic books or essays: all have pleased except _Homage to Catalonia_, which is worth reading even without pleasure; but _Down and Out in Paris and London_ and _A Clergyman's Daughter_ were my favorites. _The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_, while quite a foray in narcissism is also a remarkable piece of writing: Joyce was a powerful craftsman. _Night and Day_ by Virginia Woolf is really lovely --a comment not extendable to _Jacob's Room_ or _Orlando_, it's sad to say. Kafka is unique, but can be read with enjoyment. Lewis' Space Trilogy has some of the finest writing he ever did --the rising of the Milky Way as seen from Malacandra is an almost unparalleled piece of descriptive writing. H.G. Wells is very uneven, but _In the Days of the Comet_ is wonderful, and _The First Men in the Moon_ also demonstrates his remarkable abilities. There is one living author who can be mentioned in company with the august dead, and that is Stephen R. Donaldson. None of his books are for the faint of heart, but _The Gap_ series is the finest piece of multiple limited POV writing in existence; and _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ (with the last Chronicles scheduled for completion sometime around 2015) are filled with so much beauty and tragedy that they will take your breath away. Aldous Huxley seems to have been a one-hit wonder, as far as I can tell, but _Brave New World_ is excellent for giving spineless people backbone. Perhaps we ought not include this in the realm of fiction, but Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_ (unabridged!) is a magnificent, pathetic and noble piece of writing. Those who ignore T.H. White are losers thereby.

Although they are not novels, no laudation of literature could be complete that did not mention Anton Chekhov and Katherine Mansfield --the master and the mistress of the short story.

People like James and Forster and Hardy and Meredith seem all right in their place, but I have not found that they continue to satisfy. Dickens and Hugo, though one might not go back to them, one would be sorry to have missed out on altogether. Other than Hugo the only French book I can think of that is worth reading is _Madame Bovary_; but it is possible that I have not given the French a fair shake.


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo said:


> Austen is hilarious, and the Brontes are not at all (at least not intentionally).



I think the opening of _Wuthering Heights_ is intentionally funny.


----------



## Dwimble

I've read a lot of different genres and some of the classics, but the fantasy genre (and to a lesser degree sci-fi) is my favorite, by far. Here are some of my favorites, in no particular order (Tolkien and Lewis are a given):

*The Pelbar Cycle, by Paul O. Williams* - An excellent seven-book post-apocalyptic series written almost 30 years ago. It was out of print for a very long time (I got two sets at half-price books...one to keep and one to loan out). I just checked Amazon and it looks like it was republished a few years ago, so that's good news.

*Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy, by Tad Williams* - Good "Tolkien-style" fantasy trilogy. The first book is _The Dragonbone Chair_.

*Riddle Master Trilogy, by Patricia A. McKillip* - Completely original. An excellent series that isn't in any way like the standard "Sword and Sorcery" fantasy genre. The books are: _The Riddle-Master of Hed_, _Heir of Sea and Fire_, and _Harpist in the Wind_. I think they are out of print, but are available from a bunch of resellers.

*The Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula K. Le Guin* - I put "Earthsea Trilogy" rather than "Earthsea Cycle," because it was the _Earthsea Trilogy_ for almost 20 years before Le Guin decided to publish a fourth, atrocious book ("Tehanu") and ruin the series. The original three were masterworks...they were truly original and incredible books. The fourth is rambling, feminist tripe that reads like it was written by an entirely different person, and it has little to no resemblance to the original books. Do yourself a favor and read the first three book and pretend that the series stopped there, like it did for everyone else who read them between 1972 and 1990. The books are: _A Wizard of Earthsea_, _The Tombs of Atuan_, and _The Farthest Shore_.

*Terry Brooks' Shannara books* - There are a lot of these books (most of them titled, "The [insert word or phrase here] of Shannara", starting with _The Sword of Shannara_ (1977). The first book is an obvious rip-off of Tolkien, but it is still readable and fun...and thankfully Brooks made the world his own after that first book, instead of continuing to copy Tolkien.

*The Riftwar Saga, by Raymond E. Feist* - In hardback it was a trilogy: _Magician_, _Silverthorn_, and _A Darkness at Sethanon_. Magician was huge and broken up into two books for paperback: _Magician: Apprentice_ and _Magician: Master_. Overall the series is pretty good and fairly original, but towards the end it suffers a bit from what is a common problem in a lot of fantasy novels...the characters become a bit too powerful and you lose the sense of there being any sort of struggle. However, the middle book "Silverthorn" is one of my favorite novels.

*Terry Pratchet's Discworld novels* - There are about 35 of these, and most of them are hilarious. They are full of satire and wit, using the fantasy genre as a backdrop. The humor is very "Pythonesque." These are some of the only novels that I will buy in hardback rather wait for the paperback release, because I want them right away and don't care if it costs more to get them.

There are lots of others, but that's enough for now.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Is Faulkner or Shelby Foote worth reading?


----------



## Ex Nihilo

py3ak said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Austen is hilarious, and the Brontes are not at all (at least not intentionally).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the opening of _Wuthering Heights_ is intentionally funny.
Click to expand...


I forgot about that, but I think you are right.


----------



## KMK

The nineteenth century was the apex of the novel form. Austen was the best at the novel form during the nineteenth century. _Emma_ is Austen's best novel. 

BTW, shouldn't the works of Tolkien and Rand be considered 'epics' and not 'novels'?


----------



## JM

I've been working in a library for that last 15 years, we read across the collection.


----------



## py3ak

KMK said:


> The nineteenth century was the apex of the novel form. Austen was the best at the novel form during the nineteenth century. _Emma_ is Austen's best novel.
> 
> BTW, shouldn't the works of Tolkien and Rand be considered 'epics' and not 'novels'?



That may be true, but the life cycle of the novel would not have been complete without the productions of the first part of the 20th century. Now, the novel has become senile, and in spite of the occasional lucid and wise remark (i.e., Stephen R. Donaldson), most of what is said is meaningless, repetitive froth.


----------



## davidsuggs

Hmm fiction. It's been a while. Definitely The Lord of the Rings and The Chonicles of Narnia. I personally enjoy most of John Grisham's books. Robert Ludlum's Bourne Trilogy and he also has several other books that are very good as well. If I thought harder I might could come up with some more but for now those are the first that come to mind.


----------



## Jon Peters

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is Faulkner or Shelby Foote worth reading?



The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying by Faulkner are top choices for me. They can be tough reading, but very rewarding. I haven't read Foote.


----------



## Jon Peters

py3ak said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nineteenth century was the apex of the novel form. Austen was the best at the novel form during the nineteenth century. _Emma_ is Austen's best novel.
> 
> BTW, shouldn't the works of Tolkien and Rand be considered 'epics' and not 'novels'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but the life cycle of the novel would not have been complete without the productions of the first part of the 20th century. Now, the novel has become senile, and in spite of the occasional lucid and wise remark (i.e., Stephen R. Donaldson), most of what is said is meaningless, repetitive froth.
Click to expand...


I never really get what comments like this mean. I think in any time, most of what is written is meaningless, poorly written garbage.

Great novels have been written in the 20th century and will continue to be written as long as man can put pen to paper and has a story to tell. Cancer Ward, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Catch 22, The Magic Mountain, Rabbit Run (to name a few) -- all great books, in my opinion.


----------



## py3ak

Jon, of course there is always a lot of trash written (although widespread illiteracy cuts down on that as it cuts down on all written production). But in the light of past history it is unwarrantable to assert that great novels will continue to be written (for there were times when novels were not written at all). In addition, you must distinguish between something being written and something being published. Perhaps there are hundreds of great novels that have been written; but that is no guarantee that they will be published; and if they are not published, they will likely not be preserved. Or look at it like this: when was the last time that someone published a good long (50 pages or more) poem?

And furthermore, it is hardly enough to be able to set pen to paper and have a story to tell. You must also have a novelistic frame of mind in order to tell it as a novel, rather than as an epic. And you must have ability to write well, if the novel is to be great. 
Societal factors make that increasingly unlikely. For instance, the financial clout of the novelist is not in general very great, when compared with Victorian times: that makes writing novels more difficult. People may read when there is no other form of entertainment, but most people would rather play with their Wii, hop on Facebook, and watch TV than read a book. So authors may well turn to writing screenplays instead in order to make a living; but that in turn forces them to put passages of description and exposition into dialogue form, and thus some forms of writing rather vital for a novel may come to perish utterly. 

In addition, whether you chalk it up to the presence of background noise in many forms, or simply to inadequate attention to the matter, or whatever other cause might be listed, the decline of the ability to hear the inner music of language militates against some crucial aspects of good writing.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jon Peters said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but the life cycle of the novel would not have been complete without the productions of the first part of the 20th century. Now, the novel has become senile, and in spite of the occasional lucid and wise remark (i.e., Stephen R. Donaldson), most of what is said is meaningless, repetitive froth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never really get what comments like this mean. I think in any time, most of what is written is meaningless, poorly written garbage.
> 
> Great novels have been written in the 20th century and will continue to be written as long as man can put pen to paper and has a story to tell. Cancer Ward, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Catch 22, The Magic Mountain, Rabbit Run (to name a few) -- all great books, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree with Jon. I like the stories and the "worlds" created by Dickens and Austen, but their prose is very verbose and the scope of their plot usually quite limited. There are plenty of authors today who could match them. It's an unpopular idea because they wrote "classics," but the authors of the 19th century wouldn't be particularly exceptional compared to most good modern writers. 

That said, there is probably a higher proportion of trash published today compared to 200 years ago...


----------



## py3ak

Jane Austen verbose? It must be an idiosyncratic definition of verbose that can find unnecessary words in the Empress of English.

Dickens was paid by the word, so no doubt at times he could have pruned: but it is the essence of his genius that you should have the details. Leaving them out would have turned him into quite a different person, and deprived us of much of the essential human smallness and snugness of his works. 

Faulting either of them for having a limited scope to their plots (in addition to ignoring the massive webs of some of Dickens' books) is like faulting a string quartet for not being a symphony: the composer would have failed if his string quartet had been a symphony.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

I've decided to go more modern with my favorites.
J K Rowling
Neil M Gunn- a Scottish author,
Khaled Hosseni- The Kite Runner, A Thousand Splendid Suns 
Mark Twain
John Steinbeck
Harper Lee- To Kill A Mockingbird
Susan Howatch

Have no problem reading older authors like Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens, etc.
Wish I had more time for reading for pleasure.


----------



## bookslover

Jon Peters said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nineteenth century was the apex of the novel form. Austen was the best at the novel form during the nineteenth century. _Emma_ is Austen's best novel.
> 
> BTW, shouldn't the works of Tolkien and Rand be considered 'epics' and not 'novels'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but the life cycle of the novel would not have been complete without the productions of the first part of the 20th century. Now, the novel has become senile, and in spite of the occasional lucid and wise remark (i.e., Stephen R. Donaldson), most of what is said is meaningless, repetitive froth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never really get what comments like this mean. I think in any time, most of what is written is meaningless, poorly written garbage.
> 
> Great novels have been written in the 20th century and will continue to be written as long as man can put pen to paper and has a story to tell. Cancer Ward, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Catch 22, The Magic Mountain, Rabbit Run (to name a few) -- all great books, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Jon: Did you know that _Cancer Ward_ will be republished next year? One of the last things Solzhenitzyn did before he died was to approve and help edit a completely new English translation of the entire novel. It will finally be published complete and unabridged - unlike the 1968 English translation, or the 1964 Russian original, for that matter.


----------



## Vonnie Dee

*I must admit my list may seem (is) girly*

I love to read. However, in recent years I have completed my masters degree and taught my first year of teaching. Those periods of time did not afford me the luxury of long afternoons reading on the couch. Someone mentioned to me a website that reads, word for word, books in the public domain. Of course, if they are in the public domain they are classics (old). 

I have "read" Emma and most of the Anne of Green Gables series this way. They are all funny and enjoyable.

I also read Farinheight 451 and The Giver, last year. They were both interesting. BTW, has anyone else read The Giver? Do you have any doubt that the new giver died at the end?

Old favorites of mine are Stepping Heavenward and Hinds Feet on High Places.


----------



## Grymir

Micheal Moorcock - Elric of Melnibone'
Roger Zelazny - Amber series
Camber of Culdi series by Katherine Kurtz
Dragon Riders of Pern

These are the ones that I thought were the best.


----------



## bookslover

Any of the 47 novels by Anthony Trollope (1815-1882). He was the greatest novelist of the Victorian era, period. (Yes, better than Dickens.) His six novels of the "Barsetshire Series" are usually considered the best political novels of all time.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

py3ak said:


> Jane Austen verbose? It must be an idiosyncratic definition of verbose that can find unnecessary words in the Empress of English.
> 
> Dickens was paid by the word, so no doubt at times he could have pruned: but it is the essence of his genius that you should have the details. Leaving them out would have turned him into quite a different person, and deprived us of much of the essential human smallness and snugness of his works.
> 
> Faulting either of them for having a limited scope to their plots (in addition to ignoring the massive webs of some of Dickens' books) is like faulting a string quartet for not being a symphony: the composer would have failed if his string quartet had been a symphony.



But writing a concerto and writing a symphony are two different things. Wouldn't you agree writing the larger work with all the instruments is a much greater task than a piece for strings only? Dickens did have some sophisticated plots, especially _Great Expectations_, but Austen's are relatively simple. 

In terms of verbose, I was speaking mainly of her prose itself. She's not as bad as Dickens, but there are still many unnecessary and passive clauses in her writing. By the way, she clearly is a great writer and I like her novels, but there's a reason her style was abandoned within half a century of her writing...


----------



## christianyouth

John Steinbeck's _The Grapes of Wrath_ and John Steinbeck's _Of Mice and Men_ are both great!

EDIT : Can't forget the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## KMK

ColdSilverMoon said:


> But writing a concerto and writing a symphony are two different things. Wouldn't you agree writing the larger work with all the instruments is a much greater task than a piece for strings only?



I do not agree. Rimsky Korsakov, Richard Strauss, Wagner could all sound great with 80 instruments to work with but by and large could not write a meaningful quartet. Only the greatest can do much with very little.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> In terms of verbose, I was speaking mainly of her prose itself. She's not as bad as Dickens, but *there are still many unnecessary and passive clauses in her writing*. By the way, she clearly is a great writer and I like her novels, but there's a reason her style was abandoned within half a century of her writing...



That statement reminds me of the Emporer in Amadeus saying, "There are too many notes. Just cut a few." 

Agree that there are reasons that no one has written like Austen since. It is because no one can.


----------



## Jon Peters

bookslover said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but the life cycle of the novel would not have been complete without the productions of the first part of the 20th century. Now, the novel has become senile, and in spite of the occasional lucid and wise remark (i.e., Stephen R. Donaldson), most of what is said is meaningless, repetitive froth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never really get what comments like this mean. I think in any time, most of what is written is meaningless, poorly written garbage.
> 
> Great novels have been written in the 20th century and will continue to be written as long as man can put pen to paper and has a story to tell. Cancer Ward, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Catch 22, The Magic Mountain, Rabbit Run (to name a few) -- all great books, in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jon: Did you know that _Cancer Ward_ will be republished next year? One of the last things Solzhenitzyn did before he died was to approve and help edit a completely new English translation of the entire novel. It will finally be published complete and unabridged - unlike the 1968 English translation, or the 1964 Russian original, for that matter.
Click to expand...


I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Jon Peters

py3ak said:


> Jane Austen verbose? It must be an idiosyncratic definition of verbose that can find unnecessary words in the Empress of English.
> 
> Dickens was paid by the word, so no doubt at times he could have pruned: but it is the essence of his genius that you should have the details. Leaving them out would have turned him into quite a different person, and deprived us of much of the essential human smallness and snugness of his works.
> 
> Faulting either of them for having a limited scope to their plots (in addition to ignoring the massive webs of some of Dickens' books) is like faulting a string quartet for not being a symphony: the composer would have failed if his string quartet had been a symphony.



Paid by the word or not, I have never regretted a word I have read that he has written. He is one of the best ever.


----------



## Jon Peters

bookslover said:


> Any of the 47 novels by Anthony Trollope (1815-1882). He was the greatest novelist of the Victorian era, period. (Yes, better than Dickens.) His six novels of the "Barsetshire Series" are usually considered the best political novels of all time.



You always sound as though you have written the final word on the topic!

Nonetheless, I will maintain my view of Dickens (against whatever forces may be) but shall read some Trollope.


----------



## Jon Peters

py3ak said:


> Jon, of course there is always a lot of trash written (although widespread illiteracy cuts down on that as it cuts down on all written production). But in the light of past history it is unwarrantable to assert that great novels will continue to be written (for there were times when novels were not written at all). In addition, you must distinguish between something being written and something being published. Perhaps there are hundreds of great novels that have been written; but that is no guarantee that they will be published; and if they are not published, they will likely not be preserved. Or look at it like this: when was the last time that someone published a good long (50 pages or more) poem?
> 
> And furthermore, it is hardly enough to be able to set pen to paper and have a story to tell. You must also have a novelistic frame of mind in order to tell it as a novel, rather than as an epic. And you must have ability to write well, if the novel is to be great.
> Societal factors make that increasingly unlikely. For instance, the financial clout of the novelist is not in general very great, when compared with Victorian times: that makes writing novels more difficult. People may read when there is no other form of entertainment, but most people would rather play with their Wii, hop on Facebook, and watch TV than read a book. So authors may well turn to writing screenplays instead in order to make a living; but that in turn forces them to put passages of description and exposition into dialogue form, and thus some forms of writing rather vital for a novel may come to perish utterly.
> 
> In addition, whether you chalk it up to the presence of background noise in many forms, or simply to inadequate attention to the matter, or whatever other cause might be listed, the decline of the ability to hear the inner music of language militates against some crucial aspects of good writing.



I think you make some very good points. However, a great writer turning from novels to Hollywood screenplays is like Michaelangelo giving up marble for balloons. You simply can't write in a screenplay what you can write in a novel (that is, of course, not to say that there are not fantastic screenplays and plays, etc). 

I'm arguing a bit out of my pay grade. Good stuff though, thanks!


----------



## py3ak

ColdSilverMoon said:


> But writing a concerto and writing a symphony are two different things. Wouldn't you agree writing the larger work with all the instruments is a much greater task than a piece for strings only? Dickens did have some sophisticated plots, especially _Great Expectations_, but Austen's are relatively simple.
> 
> In terms of verbose, I was speaking mainly of her prose itself. She's not as bad as Dickens, but there are still many unnecessary and passive clauses in her writing. By the way, she clearly is a great writer and I like her novels, but there's a reason her style was abandoned within half a century of her writing...



No, I don't agree with your line of reasoning in the first paragraph. Being excellent in many genres, of course, is a testament to an author's or a composer's power. But that is not to elevate one genre above another (though of course we may have preferences). But I should find it quite impossible to choose between chamber music vs. opera vs. pieces for large orchestra. And if it were the size, or length, or number of instruments that determined the greatness of the task we'd have to say that Beethoven's piano sonatas are rather paltry in comparison with Bernstein's _West Side Story_.

Passive clauses can be the most precise or elegant way to make a point. I've never found an unnecessary remark (do you have any examples?), but rather a beatifully lucid expository style and a feminine grace in her writing that is unequalled. 

Jon, I wouldn't encourage someone to turn from writing novels to writing screenplays (though as you say there have been some pretty fine screenplays); but a writer's stomach is as large and needy as an administrative assistant's!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Ditto to Dostoevsky. 

Also:

_Moby Dick_ by Herman Melville
_To Kill a Mockingbird_ by Harper Lee
_Great Expectations_ by Charles Dickens
_Watership Down_ by Richard Adams


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

py3ak said:


> No, I don't agree with your line of reasoning in the first paragraph. Being excellent in many genres, of course, is a testament to an author's or a composer's power. But that is not to elevate one genre above another (though of course we may have preferences). But I should find it quite impossible to choose between chamber music vs. opera vs. pieces for large orchestra. And if it were the size, or length, or number of instruments that determined the greatness of the task we'd have to say that Beethoven's piano sonatas are rather paltry in comparison with Bernstein's _West Side Story_.
> 
> Passive clauses can be the most precise or elegant way to make a point. I've never found an unnecessary remark (do you have any examples?), but rather a beatifully lucid expository style and a feminine grace in her writing that is unequalled.



I agree with you that a piano sonata shouldn't be considered "paltry" compared to a great musical or opera. But I would consider the latter a greater achievement. Austen's books are good for what they are: simple, light stories that are enjoyable to read and to immerse oneself in her world. But is _Pride and Prejudice_ an accomplishment on the level of _Crime and Punishment_ or _Anna Karenina_? Or to compare to English writers, the LOTR books or _Tess of the D'Ubervilles _or _Till We Have Faces_? I would argue not. But maybe you're right - it could be personal preference.

Again the point isn't to put down Jane Austen or Dickens, just to say their writing isn't the apex of English literature or the novel.


----------



## py3ak

Well, unless you're willing to say that murder and suicide are of more vital importance than getting married, I don't actually see the objection to placing Austen somewhat above Tolstoy. And I would definitely place her above Thomas Hardy.
I take it that in general the topic of the novel is humanity. And humanity is as much on display in Lady Catherine de Burgh or in Marianne Dashwood as in Levin or Razumihin. If it were the kind of life lived, rather than the person living it, that provided the interest of the novel, then honestly C.S. Forester would be the greatest novelist of all time; but that's pretty far from being the truth.


----------



## asc

Dwimble said:


> I've read a lot of different genres and some of the classics, but the fantasy genre (and to a lesser degree sci-fi) is my favorite, by far. Here are some of my favorites, in no particular order (Tolkien and Lewis are a given):
> 
> *The Pelbar Cycle, by Paul O. Williams* - An excellent seven-book post-apocalyptic series written almost 30 years ago. It was out of print for a very long time (I got two sets at half-price books...one to keep and one to loan out). I just checked Amazon and it looks like it was republished a few years ago, so that's good news.
> 
> *Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy, by Tad Williams* - Good "Tolkien-style" fantasy trilogy. The first book is _The Dragonbone Chair_.
> 
> *Riddle Master Trilogy, by Patricia A. McKillip* - Completely original. An excellent series that isn't in any way like the standard "Sword and Sorcery" fantasy genre. The books are: _The Riddle-Master of Hed_, _Heir of Sea and Fire_, and _Harpist in the Wind_. I think they are out of print, but are available from a bunch of resellers.
> 
> *The Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula K. Le Guin* - I put "Earthsea Trilogy" rather than "Earthsea Cycle," because it was the _Earthsea Trilogy_ for almost 20 years before Le Guin decided to publish a fourth, atrocious book ("Tehanu") and ruin the series. The original three were masterworks...they were truly original and incredible books. The fourth is rambling, feminist tripe that reads like it was written by an entirely different person, and it has little to no resemblance to the original books. Do yourself a favor and read the first three book and pretend that the series stopped there, like it did for everyone else who read them between 1972 and 1990. The books are: _A Wizard of Earthsea_, _The Tombs of Atuan_, and _The Farthest Shore_.
> 
> *Terry Brooks' Shannara books* - There are a lot of these books (most of them titled, "The [insert word or phrase here] of Shannara", starting with _The Sword of Shannara_ (1977). The first book is an obvious rip-off of Tolkien, but it is still readable and fun...and thankfully Brooks made the world his own after that first book, instead of continuing to copy Tolkien.
> 
> *The Riftwar Saga, by Raymond E. Feist* - In hardback it was a trilogy: _Magician_, _Silverthorn_, and _A Darkness at Sethanon_. Magician was huge and broken up into two books for paperback: _Magician: Apprentice_ and _Magician: Master_. Overall the series is pretty good and fairly original, but towards the end it suffers a bit from what is a common problem in a lot of fantasy novels...the characters become a bit too powerful and you lose the sense of there being any sort of struggle. However, the middle book "Silverthorn" is one of my favorite novels.
> 
> *Terry Pratchet's Discworld novels* - There are about 35 of these, and most of them are hilarious. They are full of satire and wit, using the fantasy genre as a backdrop. The humor is very "Pythonesque." These are some of the only novels that I will buy in hardback rather wait for the paperback release, because I want them right away and don't care if it costs more to get them.
> 
> There are lots of others, but that's enough for now.



I read a lot of Fantasy growing up, and the Earthsea triology and the Riddle Master trilogy are among my favorite.


----------

