Favorite Novels?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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'?
 
I've been working in a library for that last 15 years, we read across the collection.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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...
 
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.
 
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.:(
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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. :offtopic: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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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. :)
 
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.

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." :lol:

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

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.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
 
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.
 
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, 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!
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top