I just finished one of the Great Courses on the Canon of world literature. There are a lot of great books on the list, but when we hit Henry James and move forward, most of the books are of the sort that would never have made it in the real world without life support from the universities.
So I wonder. If there were no teaching of literature in universities, what would be the canon of books passed from hand to hand, from generation to generation, for love alone? The POPULAR CANON?
The standard is: books that would be read by volunteers.
Here's my first-thoughts list, but I am eager to have people propose others. I don't mean obscure works - I mean works that everybody knows and would continue to know without help from professors.
Lord of the Rings, Tolkien Rebecca, du Maurier Dune, Herbert Pride and Prejudice, Austen Tom Sawyer, Twain Little Women, Alcott Gone with the Wind, Mitchell
There are books that WERE on the popular canon, but have fallen off (perhaps temporarily?): Ben-Hur, for instance.
And in making suggestions, don't confine yourselves to sci-fi and fantasy! all the genres are welcome, as long as people are reading them for love and pretty much EVERYONE should know at least their title, or be thought ignorant by volunteer readers ...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A Wrinkle in Time, L'Engle
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It may already be on the list, but I would add Foundation. I believe it did for science fiction what Lord of the Rings did for fantasy.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand Slaughterhouse 5, Vonnegut Les Miserables, Hugo Count of Monte Cristo, Dumas Catcher in the Rye, Salinger Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald Stranger in a Strange Land, Heinlein The Godfather, Puzo
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Fight Club, Palahniuk On the Road, Kerouac The Road, McCarthy Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nice to see you on this side of the forums.
I'd go with Huckleberry Finn over Tom Sawyer on that list.
I'm still at work so I'll try to do an actual list later.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
To Kill a Mocking Bird, Lee (The Adventures of) Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Albert Camus' The Stranger is still ivy league reading material in some places, its one of the few that I give away freely and happily.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams Watership Down, Adams (a different one)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I know it's not literature, but Calvin and Hobbes is one of those that I imagine will be passed on well into the future.
Posted by Trimegistus (Member # 12663) on :
Would also put in a plug for Les Miserables, Hugo A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens The Forever War, Haldeman The Outsiders, Hinton Candide, Voltaire
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
These lists of critically and popularly determined greatest novels of the 20th century might be instructive.
I agree with several that have been mentioned in the thread already. Additionally, maybe Lord of the Flies, Golding Call of the Wild, London Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Joyce The Once and Future King, White (or maybe Idyls of the King, Tennyson) A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens The Diary of Anne Frank, Frank
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'd put some Nabakov on there - either Pale Fire or Lolita, not sure which. Native Son, Wright Beloved, Morrison The Bell Jar, Plath
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams Watership Down, Adams (a different one)
Decided to go through your library in alphabetical order, and gave up after 2, eh?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Don Quixote Iliad Odyssey Animal Farm 1984 Brave New World Three Musketeers
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
1984, Orwell, White Oleander, Fitch, The Princess Bride, Goldman, (I'll be the first) Ender's Game, Card, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis, The Stand, King Jurassic Park, Crichton Starship Troopers, Heinlein
(for some reason or another quite a few of these are movies, but that's now why they are on my list, just for the record.)
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Definitely many of the major religious texts, if one counts them as literature. That is, I think they would be popularly read and passed on for love, but depending on who is doing the ranking, they may or may not fit the criteria.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (and Through the Looking Glass), L Carroll Anne of Green Gables, LM Montgomery Jane Eyre, C Bronte Ender's Game, OS Card [edit: as above! and good call on TLTWaTW] The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, LF Baum Grimm's Fairy Tales, J&W Grimm
---
Added: so much of what is loved is classed under children's books.
The Phantom Tollbooth, N Juster
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
A few more:
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, le Carre The Beautiful and the Damned, Fitzgerald The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway Red Dwarf: Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, Grant Naylor His Dark Materials trilogy, Pullman
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Harry Potter
I can't believe no one's said that.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think there was a reason. Just saying.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
The Illustrated Man; Bradbury Something Wicked This Way Comes; Bradbury 48 Laws of Power; Greene
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I question several of these as pop literature. Are we sure we aren't just listing books we really like without stopping to think about whether they're really representative of the larger reading audience? Gone With the Wind was either the most or the second most published book of the 1930s, along with Pearl Buck's The Good Earth and The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck. Buck's novel seems to have fallen off the face of the earth in pop reading canon, but in the 30s, everyone who read novels had read it. But even with them in the literary canon, how many people actually sit down to read them that aren't assigned them? I don't know. Some books are big because they speak topically to a time, like Steinbeck and Buck, and then sort of fade away (Stienbeck being the exception perhaps because he IS assigned to frequently in school), and very few have staying power that reaches across time because we're simply a different audience today than we were 100 years ago. I'm wondering if we need to be more discerning in separating pop literature from what we generally regard as the BEST literature. Certainly you can make a big venn diagram with the overlap, but they aren't the same thing at all times.
There are a lot of books I was introduced to by way of college classes that I would have absolutely read if I had known about them before.
The English Patient Ondaatje, really stands out for me. That's one of the ones I actually knew about but never thought to read myself. Also Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf.
Has anyone said The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or any other Narnia books?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Secret Garden just because its okay reading for children doesn't mean its not a good book.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams Watership Down, Adams (a different one)
Decided to go through your library in alphabetical order, and gave up after 2, eh?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I've been waiting for these, but nobody's added them. (Maybe they're too typical of a "great books" list, but I like them.)
Complete works of: Aristophanes Sophocles
Histories (Herodotus) History of the Peloponnesian War Metamorphoses Parallel Lives Divine Comedy Utopia (More) Paradise Lost Gulliver's Travels and "A Modest Proposal" Sherlock Holmes books
And, most importantly of all, the complete works of Plato. I definitely biased there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's exactly the sort of stuff I'm talking about.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I guess I'd be more interested to hear about these books that could not "make it in the real world." What are examples of this literary welfare?
*presses fingers to temples*
William Gaddis?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Has anyone mentioned The Princess Bride by Goldman?
Not only is it clever, it's certainly one that I can already see is being passed down through the generations.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Sherlock Holmes, The Princess Bride, andThe Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are indeed already up there.
Lyrhawn, I'm not sure what you are saying, but I could be misreading you. OSC wasn't asking for the best works but for "what would be the canon of books passed from hand to hand, from generation to generation, for love alone?"
So something that spoke to a particular generation but not others (as you reference in The Good Earth) wouldn't apply, and nor would something that doesn't get passed down significantly for love alone -- even if it is good literature that one appreciates having been exposed to in school. He is asking, I think, for those books that you buy for other people because "you gotta read this!" and because you think that person will want to share it with other people, too.
But that could be your point. I can't tell.
[ October 26, 2011, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
AFAICT, Lyrhawn is pointing to Jon's list and saying, "These are exactly the sort of books that are not in the popular canon."
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Ahhh. That makes much more sense in the flow of the conversation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He is asking, I think, for those books that you buy for other people because "you gotta read this!" and because you think that person will want to share it with other people, too.
This was my understanding of the original proposition as well. It's why the Harry Potter series fits so well-- the first couple books, IIRC, were hardly marketed at all, but became huge best-sellers through word of mouth.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Right. And I think that there is something yet more enduring about beloved children's classics -- they seem to be particularly suited to being handed down, either because they speak to something very deep in us, or because the loves of childhood are even more intense, or some mix of those and more.
I think Harry Potter is going to be handed down from generation to generation. We'll see.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: Ahhh. That makes much more sense in the flow of the conversation.
Tom has it, that's exactly what I'm saying. I think there are already a bunch of books in this thread that might be considered great literature, but will NOT be widely read. I had another paragraph where I specifically pointed one or two out, then cut it because I didn't want to get into a book by book debate with people.
Jon's was just an over the top list. Thucydides, Herodotus and Ovid will never not be published, I imagine, but they simply aren't part of the pop canon. The grand majority of the reading public won't touch them with a ten foot pole, and even speaking as an historian in training, I really don't blame them. There's a serious accessibility issue (well, at least with Herodotus, who makes watching paint dry appear to be an appealing spectator sport).
There are some great ones on here that I think perfectly nail the recent past and present literary pop canon. But there are also some on here that I just can't imagine are widely read unless assigned. I guess we have to define "widely read," but even still, I have doubts.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I'd add Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising to the list. Probably not the other books in the series, though. Oh, has anybody said Charlotte's Web? What about the Little House books?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think Harry Potter is going to be handed down from generation to generation.
Sophie has asked for the first one already. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It may be hard to do this with books that are not nowadays considered young adult classics. Certainly the ones that spring to my mind immediately tend to fall into those categories. It's a more interesting challenge to think of "canon" books that are adult-only.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (well, at least with Herodotus, who makes watching paint dry appear to be an appealing spectator sport).
Heresy!
I would agree though. I certainly do not recommend Herodotus or Thucydides for anyone not in academia. Admittedly, most of my friends are graduate students, so I do find myself recommending them. But in terms of popular literature, I would second a lot of books on this list, with A Tale of Two Cities and Lord of the Rings probably making the top of my list. The Count of Monte Cristo is certainly one of my favorites and one that I recommend, but it also is really long, and unabridged simply doesn't cut it. I'm sure there are others that just don't come to mind right now.
I will say that I agree with Enders Game. I recommend that with alacrity and have never yet had anyone not love it and go on to recommend it to others.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
After the publication of A Storm of Swords I thought that Ice and Fire was destined to become part of the popular fiction canon, but having read books 4 and 5 I no longer think so. I still love the series, but I don't think it's going to be read widely in, say, 50 years.
I agree, by the way, that it's absurd to include Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Plato, and Ovid in this list. I appreciate all of these authors, but they simply aren't part of the pop culture canon. They just aren't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To be fair to University lit, there are many books I have come to enjoy I wouldn't have even heard of if it weren't for it. Like the Old Man and the Sea.
But yeah, second Ender's Game, I feel its fairly definitive of late 20th century science fiction, I'ld also put up the Foundation Trilogy and I,Robot.
In the Mountains of Madness by Lovecraft.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it makes a certain amount of sense to find a lot of books for children and young adults on this list. Most of the books that I would recommend to an adult are works that are new or at least new to me. It would be strange to assume that I needed to "introduce" an adult to a book that I already thought of as canonical.
I agree that including Herodotus et al is pushing it, but I would certainly include the stories that we get from those authors.
Are we talking about just novels here or are we allowed to count poetry and drama as well?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The Hunger Games. Just the first book.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I suppose that I'm just in a weird position for the historians. I was at a party this weekend that lacked a single historian, yet there was a lively drunken argument about whether Thucydides was a moralist, using Plutarch and Herodotus as clear cut cases.
Is it really absurd to include the author of something so well-known as Oedipus Rex, and someone as funny as Aristophanes? Maybe they've fallen out of favor lately, but as recently as the mid-20th century, popular film adaptations were being made. Ovid is, I think, an obvious case in light of not only his influence, but because of the myths that Metamorphoses contains. These are the things that fascinated me as a child.
And for Plato... I just love Plato, so I couldn't make a list without him.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that the Atlantis myth originates in Plato.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The Pawn of Prophecy series, Eddings,
Tarzan, Burroughs,
The Hunt for Red October, Clancy,
The Davinci Code, Brown,
The Client, Grisham,
Murder on the Orient Express, Christie,
[ October 26, 2011, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: [QB] Is it really absurd to include the author of something so well-known as Oedipus Rex, and someone as funny as Aristophanes?[qb]
I think so. Despite loving a lot of that stuff myself, and having become, in college, part of a community of people who would read ancient poets, playwrights, historians and philosophers for fun, I don't have any illusions about the works of those authors being a direct part of popular culture. A lot of the works in question undergird popular culture, I think, but that isn't what's being talked about here.
quote:Maybe they've fallen out of favor lately, but as recently as the mid-20th century, popular film adaptations were being made.
60 years ago the list would have been different, and might have included some of the authors and works you were mentioning.
quote:Ovid is, I think, an obvious case in light of not only his influence, but because of the myths that Metamorphoses contains. These are the things that fascinated me as a child.
Me too. I loved Greek and Roman myth as a kid (and still do, really). I was the kid with a dog-eared translation of Hesiod's Theogony under my arm. The thing is, though, that the list we're coming up with isn't necessarily a list of books we loved as children, or love as adults.
quote:Edit: I'd also like to point out that the Atlantis myth originates in Plato.
Sure. That doesn't mean that a significant percentage of the reading population in this country reads him out of love.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the stories are pervasive enough to count as canon even if the sources aren't. I loved Edith Hamilton's Mythology as a kid and there are scores of books that contain the stories for children and adults that are well loved.
Also, are we counting plays and poetry? There are lots of plays that are canon and at least a handful of poems as well that people know and love.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: ... I agree, by the way, that it's absurd to include Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Plato, and Ovid in this list.
It's interesting what is omitted, the Divine Comedy by Dante. It has a massive role in undergird(ing?) popular culture as you put it, but I have no idea how many people have read it. I wonder if you could make the case for something like the Chinese "Journey to the West." Massive effect on popular culture, but I have no idea about reading statistics.
Then again, how many people need to have read a book directly for us to have a good idea of whether they'll be passed on? You could hit up the list of best selling books and find a few books that (may or may not be on academic life support? Not sure how to get a list of that to cross-reference) haven't been mentioned like, Dream of the Red Chamber, And Then There Were None, Peter Rabbit, etc.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
What a great list! When I write my essay about this, I have no intention of slighting anybody, but my bias is AGAINST anything that is already in the academic canon. What I will use are the books that have survived without any academic intervention. though Austen, for instance, is now taught, her books remained in print during centuries of completely neglect by academia. So you can count on NOT seeing Joyce - or Herodotus, for that matter - in my essay, though I WISH Herodotus were in the popular canon, though I prefer Thucydides!
I'm sticking with novels for my essay; at this moment, there is almost NO poetry in the popular canon. Separate essay, maybe, but tell the truth: How many of you see ANY poems being passed hand to hand without any academic intervention? I think I was in the last generation to be given the tools to understand and love poetry on our own, without being given the academic decoder ring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shel Silverstein? A Visit from St. Nicholas? Lyics to songs?
Any reason we are being so anti-academic in this list? Anna Karenina (for example) may be taught, but I picked it up on my own. Same with Dickens, Austen, and Hugo.
Added: I would also add that the books I did pick up and enjoy myself, I enjoyed more because I had the tools - decoder ring if you must - to understand them that I learned from being taught other great books.
[ October 26, 2011, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Neuromancer, Gibson The Diamond Age, Stephenson
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"I think so. Despite loving a lot of that stuff myself, and having become, in college, part of a community of people who would read ancient poets, playwrights, historians and philosophers for fun, I don't have any illusions about the works of those authors being a direct part of popular culture. A lot of the works in question undergird popular culture, I think, but that isn't what's being talked about here."
I was unaware that we were excluding people who attained such an appreciation during college. I don't think it's so much a matter of the college itself inculcating these desires (though it may help), but college occurring at an age during which these desires would arise. How we are a defining a popular canon is certainly confusing to me. I don't think that the percentage of people who would pick up Three Musketeers (not an adultured version, but an unabridged one) is that much greater than those would would pick up The Republic or Metamorphoses. I know plenty of people who read all three in high school.
I'm not saying these are common books for people to read, but also probably not much less common than The Princess Bride. There is no doubt in my mind that they would have survived without academia, and the initial question was, "If there were no teaching of literature in universities, what would be the canon of books passed from hand to hand, from generation to generation, for love alone?" By that standard, they pass with flying colors. Without universities, there would still be intellectually curious people who would read them. Now, if we are eliminating the universities and intellectual curiosity, then we have a different matter entirely. In that case, however, I doubt we'll get many books at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is why we are getting a lot of books for children and young adults on the list.
If we are talking about books for adults that many adults are reading for fun we should include King, Ludlum, Dan Brown, Danielle Steele, Jackie Collins, Grisham and so forth.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Songs as poetry - we've always kept them separate, but it's certainly the most common form of rhymed language today. Visit from St. Nicholas is definitely in the canon of poetry. Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think that the percentage of people who would pick up Three Musketeers (not an adultured version, but an unabridged one) is that much greater than those would would pick up The Republic or Metamorphoses.
When was the last time you saw Disney film a version of The Republic? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure I understand the difference between "tools to understand" and "academic decoder ring". I know one is good and the other not, but am not sure where to draw the line. Is it the grade level? To me, being taught to read and being taught to read Shakespeare or Chaucer are points on a continuum rather than isolated things. We all stop at different points. (I stopped before Chaucer.) Or perhaps just pause or continue less formally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh The Places You'll Go by Dr. Seuss seems to be classic poetry that most high school/college graduates in the United States have read.
Silverstein should be classic poetry, but I don't think he is passed around at all. Poetry isn't really just read amongst most people today.
I might have missed it in all the listing, but I think Alice's Adventures In Wonderland by Lewis Carol should be on such a list.
It's influence not just as a book, but as a cultural icon is extremely vast. It's a classic by any standard.
I'm on the fence about The Bible. It's not literature, and yet it's poetry and prose have been current within English literature for over a thousand years. It's themes are constantly referenced, and phrases are lifted from it all the time.
If somebody were to read all these other books and then work their way through The Bible, I think your brain would constantly be firing as the references would be nearly constant, with a short break in Numbers. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that the very nature of this board means answers are going to be slanted toward SciFi and Fantasy. Here are a couple that are well outside that genre.
Catch 22, Joseph Heller Angle of Repose, Wallace Stegner
Just about anything by Agatha Christie fits the bill.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"Desiderata" by Max Ehrmann is a poem that seems to get passed around widely without help from the ivory tower.
Kipling's "If" is also in that category.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Kipling's "If" seconded.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lots of Kipling would count, I think. Frost, too. Or Poe. But are we getting into things that we read in school?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I never read "If" in school. I have received it in emails and have been given it on cards, though. I'd never heard of "Desiderata" until I was out of college, and it seemed to have some sort of revival in the media.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I remember "If" from posters at the doctor's office. Almost as ubiquitous as that, "Don't walk behind me" bit of Camus. Frost's "Stopping by Woods..." I certainly knew before studying it, though I knew it better afterwards. Poe's raven shows up all over the place.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have tried passing around Kipling poems, but it doesn't seem to work. But then, that's true of many books I love.
Touching King, Danielle Steele, and so on: I suggest waiting thirty years after the date of publication. There's a difference between being a bestseller in a particular zeitgeist, and being a classic that people will still read when the moment has passed. Perhaps King's "Dark Tower" series would count, at least the first three books, but I don't think I'd put in his entire oeuvre. (Although if I were to make a prediction, it would indeed be that King will survive and Steele will not.)
Getting on to making constructive suggestions, I would put in Robin Hood and Arthur. Incidentally, does anyone know of a retelling of the Robin Hood cycle that could be considered canonical in the same way that White's retelling is the modern incarnation of the Arthur cycle?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Songs as poetry - we've always kept them separate, but it's certainly the most common form of rhymed language today. Visit from St. Nicholas is definitely in the canon of poetry. Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
When I was in elementary school, everyone I knew who actually read books outside of class had read Where the Sidewalk Ends. It's a children's poetry book, so I haven't read it in like 20 years, but I loved it as a kid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting on to making constructive suggestions, I would put in Robin Hood and Arthur. Incidentally, does anyone know of a retelling of the Robin Hood cycle that could be considered canonical in the same way that White's retelling is the modern incarnation of the Arthur cycle?
Probably the Howard Pyle version. Another book for children.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Songs as poetry - we've always kept them separate, but it's certainly the most common form of rhymed language today. Visit from St. Nicholas is definitely in the canon of poetry. Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
When I was in elementary school, everyone I knew who actually read books outside of class had read Where the Sidewalk Ends. It's a children's poetry book, so I haven't read it in like 20 years, but I loved it as a kid.
We passed that one around when I was in junior high, I think.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"When was the last time you saw Disney film a version of The Republic?"
[ October 26, 2011, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Songs as poetry - we've always kept them separate, but it's certainly the most common form of rhymed language today. Visit from St. Nicholas is definitely in the canon of poetry. Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
I'm not sure what you mean by differentiating between passing it along, vs. passing it along "AS poems," but I myself have several of his poems memorized or partly memorized, enough to quote lines when appropriate, and I recently bought a copy of Where the Sidewalk Ends for a friend to read with their kids, as well as reading them to the kids in my life.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Enders Game, Card Old Man's War, Scalzi The Once and Future King, T. H. White Lamb, Christopher Moore
Some of these were written in the past ten years, but they're also modern classics. I only ever read any of these because someone I knew recommended them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I used to have several of Shell Sivlerstien's poems memorized, but when I tried to recall them, I could only remember the beginnings and ends.
I'd love to put one up...but not sure if it would be against the rules...can I post a Shell Silverstien poem BB?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Touching King, Danielle Steele, and so on: I suggest waiting thirty years after the date of publication. There's a difference between being a bestseller in a particular zeitgeist, and being a classic that people will still read when the moment has passed.
Agreed, and well put. I was going to make that point earlier today, but got busy and didn't get around to it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I'd say the same about Brown.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
As I was drifting off during a nap this afternoon, I had a thought about this thread: maybe we could look at movie adaptations of books that did poorly - either in their critical receptions or box office takes. A poor showing in either of these may be due to people caring about the story, holding a book up as a beloved entity... or, yes, the movie may just be bad.
And as a former Classicist, the only ancient texts I'd pass on to a general audience are Homer's epics and Ovid's Metamorphoses, all for the stories they contain that pervade later literature. Sure, Plato and Herodotus and Caesar are excellent references to have, but people, in my experience, don't just pick them up to read casually.
I must finally agree wholeheartedly with Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. I'd hand that off to anyone.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
To highlight the strangeness of this thread, how about we exclude books that we first discovered in class? Either in high school, or in university. Books that were presented to us by friends or family. Preferably, books that these friends or family did not themselves discover in class.
Oh, and only books that you've read cover to cover. How many non-English lit majors have read the entirety of, well, anything by Alexander Dumas?
My prediction: the list will be whittled down considerably. We'll be left with Harry Potter, OSC himself, Dan Brown. . .
quote:What I will use are the books that have survived without any academic intervention. though Austen, for instance, is now taught, her books remained in print during centuries of completely neglect by academia.
Centuries?
Yes, canon-bust, but not in the name of faux-populism.
Edited for spelling.
[ October 27, 2011, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Oh, and only books that you've read cover to cover. How many non-English lit majors have read the entirely of, well, anything by Alexander Dumas?
I think you picked the wrong author to make your point. I read The Count of Monte Cristo in junior high and loved it. I didn't start my English BA until a decade after that. I'm sure a lot of people read that book at the very least around the same time.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: To highlight the strangeness of this thread, how about we exclude books that we first discovered in class? Either in high school, or in university.
Well, so much for my including Ender's Game... Shakespeare, conversely, falls into these criteria. Something tells me that the group discussing this is not exactly a representative sample of non-academic reading.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I think you picked the wrong author to make your point. I read The Count of Monte Cristo in junior high and loved it. I didn't start my English BA until a decade after that. I'm sure a lot of people read that book at the very least around the same time.
Well then include it on your list of candidates.
I asked on the first page for examples of books that could not "survive" without some form of literary welfare. I really would like some examples, because - at least on page one of this thread - there are very few books which I have not seen on a university syllabus, or that would not be obvious candidates. For example, I've read Jurassic Park for a university class (called Popular Culture 100, but still), and while I've never seen The Sun Also Rises on a syllabus, it is not hard to imagine it being on one.
Edit: Spelling, again. Argh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: To highlight the strangeness of this thread, how about we exclude books that we first discovered in class? Either in high school, or in university.
Well, so much for my including Ender's Game... Shakespeare, conversely, falls into these criteria. Something tells me that the group discussing this is not exactly a representative sample of non-academic reading.
Ender's Game was first passed to me by a friend of my mother's when I was in, oh must have been early high school. I think it only took me a week or two to get my hands on the three subsequent books. I feel kind of bad that I never gave it back to him...but not entirely. I've since passed the same tattered copy on to someone else. It's currently making the rounds amongst Peace Corps volunteers in West Africa.
I was actually highly disappointed when I wasn't allowed to do a report on Ender's Game in my AP English class where we got to pick our own books. My teacher was awesome, very well-read though with a tendency toward eastern literature, but he had a definite negative opinion on the literary value of science fiction.
I ended up doing the report on Shusako Endo's Deep River, which I encountered in the afterword notes in...I want to say Children of the Mind. I didn't really get it in high school, but I read it again in college and really enjoyed it.
My I went off on quite the tangent there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure I understand the difference between "tools to understand" and "academic decoder ring". I know one is good and the other not, but am not sure where to draw the line. Is it the grade level? To me, being taught to read and being taught to read Shakespeare or Chaucer are points on a continuum rather than isolated things. We all stop at different points. (I stopped before Chaucer.) Or perhaps just pause or continue less formally.
:nod:
I find it to be an artificial distinction, and a way of justifying your own personal rejection of books or other artistic works you find unappealing. I for one, disliked (rather, did not enjoy) quite a lot of the literary cannon I was forced to read as a literature student. But Thankfully I was still able to learn a great deal about literature, and I don't consider having studied those things to have been a waste of my time.
But, since I was also intensively studying musicology and music theory (which requires a *much* more technical and comprehensive review of historically relevant theory and technique than does literature), I had long since learned that my personal enjoyment of a particular work, and its actual significance and impact on art, theory, history, and society, were two somewhat separate things. I learned early on that we were not expected or required to enjoy everything we listened to- just to understand why it was significant.
It's funny, because you can get through a major in English and never learn that lesson. You can get through 4 years of the literary cannon, whining the whole way through, and never have anyone tell you that the purpose of actually *studying* something, is not to learn how to enjoy it. That may come naturally, given the level of exposure, but it is okay if it doesn't. The purpose is to understand it, and to use that understanding to illuminate your view of the whole world, and everything in it.
And I would say that was a lesson taught 1000% better in my music theory courses. In literature, it seemed that the professors actually thought you were supposed to enjoy everything- or that the only way you could properly appreciate anything was by *liking* it, and sharing their enthusiasm for it. They liked it, so you should also like it. If you didn't, you were less enlightened. I think they were just trying to teach the material- but they were going about it in the wrong way. Music was so much more technical, that I think it balanced well against any particular professor's need to impress his/her own tastes on the students. So much energy was devoted to theory and actual brass tacks details of the work, that there wasn't really time for teachers to get political about what kind of things their students actually *liked* listening to.
It's a shame. I often wished in college that my literature courses were taught by music professors. Lit professors seemed to spend most of their time advocating some particular position, but the music teachers taught us about music.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Orincoro, I agree partly with you but I think that's part and parcel of what the study of English literature involves for many (but not all) professors. There are inherent lenses through which literature is looked at by many people.
However, many, perhaps most, of my English Literature professors, however, were more focused on "brass tacks" rather than positions. I never got that impression that you had to enjoy a piece of literature in order to appreciate it. Although, of course, it helps. Sometimes you can be hugely enlightened and experience something great by reading something you will never read again and never would have picked up.
quote:I've never seen The Sun Also Rises on a syllabus, it is not hard to imagine it being on one.
I read The Sun Also Rises in high school.
I've been reading books by John LeCarre recently, as they were recommended to me in the spring by a friend. I had previously read The Spy Who Came In From the Cold as a much younger person and while I enjoyed it, I think I was a little immature to accept LeCarre's harsh world and didn't come back until what probably amounts to a decade.
I think Shakespeare as performed plays would get passed on. I also saw Waiting For Godot performed before I studied it and I would have recommended that based on performance along with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My English Lit experience was more like Teshi's. Obviously all the professors teaching the material loved what was being taught, but they didn't require or expect it of us. I think their enthusiasm for the material was a bonus, but they didn't let it get in the way of teaching the nuts and bolts of what we were reading.
If we were required to like what we were reading, I probably would have died at some point during my two British Lit classes. Thank god for post-colonial lit, I wouldn't have survived much more Bronte without it. Persuasion was about the only book I was expecting to hate that I actually really enjoyed. Joyce's Portrait is actually a pretty good example. I didn't particularly care for the book itself, but there was a lot of neat stuff going on in it that made for good discussion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm afraid I don't admit the equivalency of poetry and song lyrics. The problem, I think, is that adding music can allow meter to be twisted a bit. Take the music out, and the "poem" just doesn't work as well.
Let me note, however, that I'm often pleasantly surprised by the clever twists and turns of rap lyrics. I'm not a terrible fan of the content, but the artistry is often superb.
I'll echo what someone said about Robert Frost; I've passed down a lot a lot of his poetry to my troupe, and to other kids.
quote:I think I was in the last generation to be given the tools to understand and love poetry on our own
My grandmother (92) memorized REAMS of poetry. She can't see or hear very well, but she still is able to recite these wonderful poems at the drop of a hat.
I wonder if the shift in popular form-- from rhyming, highly structured poetry, to free verse-- has made a difference in how poetry is both taught and learned? I find it easier to memorize something that rhymes, for example. And I think that memorization is often the best way to get into a poem. If that's the general case, AND if the poetry being produced today (or modernly) does not rhyme, or have a particular structure, then I think teaching it would be more difficult.
quote:Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
Yeah: us. Or at least 'Light in the Attic' and 'Where the Sidewalk Ends.'
I hate 'The Giving Tree,' though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I also passed on Bernard Cornwell's historical fiction, particularly Sharp's Trafalgar. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I read The Sun Also Rises in high school.
I've been reading books by John LeCarre recently, as they were recommended to me in the spring by a friend. I had previously read The Spy Who Came In From the Cold as a much younger person and while I enjoyed it, I think I was a little immature to accept LeCarre's harsh world and didn't come back until what probably amounts to a decade.
I would wager that you might see The Sun Also Rises in a different light. Though Hemingway's prose is rather simple (clean) from a technical standpoint, that book is particularly nuanced.
I generally feel that Hemingway and Fitzgerald, though friends and contemporaries, are two polar opposites. Hemingway's writing is the epitome of sparse, and Fitzgerald's is extremely lush (less so in Gatsby than in his other books). But both of their books are so deep, I'd imagine that you'd come away with something different every time you read them. Even a really bright high school student can't fully comprehend The Sun Also Rises or This Side of Paradise -- if, for the very fact that one would require some very real experience living in the real world.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Touching King, Danielle Steele, and so on: I suggest waiting thirty years after the date of publication. There's a difference between being a bestseller in a particular zeitgeist, and being a classic that people will still read when the moment has passed.
Agreed, and well put. I was going to make that point earlier today, but got busy and didn't get around to it.
Well, yes, but how do we decide that? Danielle Steele's The Ring has been around longer than Ender's Game. The Harry Potter books don't come close to KoM's thirty year mark. Please note that I am not arguing for or against any of these. I am just saying that people enjoying them without studying them isn't a very high bar.
Orinoco, I agree with you about the music courses. In fact, that comparison struck me last night. I was lucky to have literature and art professors that taught the same way.
Teshi, I loved Jane Eyre even as a kid but got more out of Wuthering Heights from reading it in class than I would have otherwise, I think.
Scott, I am with you on The Giving Tree. Poor deluded thing needed a sassy gay friend.
(Language warning)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
How is it that no one has mentioned the instant class that is Tyra Banks Modelland?
To think! that the idea just came to her, a story where young people go to a school where they learn magic! Aren't we all lucky that she is such a good writer that this impeccable story somehow found a publisher despite no guarantee that it will sell a single copy?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The poem "Cat" by JRR Tolkien is one I learned from a friend and which I have passed on many times.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am just saying that people enjoying them without studying them isn't a very high bar.
Of course, that's not what the OP stipulated as a parameter. Enjoying is one thing; enjoying a work enough to pass it on is another.
"Popular canon" here, I think implies a collection of work that a population of folks have been passing around.
My favorite book of the last couple years is Walk on Water. It's a bit exclusionary of me, but I only recommend it if the subject of pediatric cardiac surgery comes up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. For me, enjoying and recommending or passing on is just about the same thing.
I am starting to conclude that, should we want to determine a real popular canon, this is a pretty small and skewed sample group. It might make more sense to go to forum that isn't devoted to the works of a particular author in a particular genre.
I wonder if there would be a way to pose this question at a place like Goodreads? That might be more useful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wonder if there would be a way to pose this question at a place like Goodreads?
Start a list (Listopia).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Popular canon" here, I think implies a collection of work that a population of folks have been passing around.
I don't know. If you exclude children's books, this strikes me as sort of like asking "What wine and cheese pairings do most people enjoy?"
I could be wrong, but it seems to me (and everything after this is just my opinion) the answer is none. Passing on books across generations is not something most people do.
This is especially true if you're taking away books that need a "decoder ring". Without this, people don't appreciate good writing. Their reaction to the story then relies on their emotional investment - usually how much they can insert themselves into the main character a la Harry Potter or Ender's Game, the twists, and how titillating it is.
Books as the medium of narrative fiction is in the process of being superseded by TV/movies. Consider, for example, The Song of Fire and Ice. If this story gets passed on, I believe it will be in the HBO TV series as its primary medium, with people maybe picking up the books after seeing the series. As we get better at translating books into formats more palatable and with lower barriers to enjoyment for the majority of people, I think more and more enjoyable narrative books are going to become like The Wizard of Oz.
---
For myself, I have no illusions that enjoying books the way I do and wanting to pass them on is an elitist thing.
I find for narrative fiction, I mostly pass on authors more than books. But, again, I live in an elitist world where I assume people are reading books a lot, so I don't expect them to just pick up the one book I would recommend. And, for the next generation, there's a reason I'm keeping my library of books around. I expect them to go through most of it.
Authors I push on other people (in no particular order): OSC (natch) Neil Gaiman Terry Pratchett China Mieville Octavia Butler Chaim Potok Luis McMaster Bujold William Gibson
I find when I'm recommending individual books, I'm mostly talking about non-fiction books or ones that are "hard" to read. Usually, it's not that I love the book, so much as I appreciate the effect that reading it had on me.
To paraphrase JFK, I read these books, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. I suspect a lot of those would fall into the apparently bad category of "academic", though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This is especially true if you're taking away books that need a "decoder ring". Without this, people don't appreciate good writing. Their reaction to the story then relies on their emotional investment - usually how much they can insert themselves into the main character a la Harry Potter or Ender's Game, the twists, and how titillating it is.
Without a decoder ring people don't appreciate good writing.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are you defining "decoder ring"? To use an extreme example, without being taught the "decoder ring" of reading, people will probably not appreciate any writing. Unless one is taught more advanced vocabulary, people are not going to appreciate books that rely on those words. Without being taught something of history or context, people aren't going to be able to appreciate good writing that depends on knowing something of that context. Without being taught about literary themes or the use of, say, foreshadowing, or metaphor, people are not going to appreciate good writing as much as they might otherwise. Where are you and OCS drawing the line?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm using Squicky's words, kmboots-- is your question addressed to him or me?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anybody. I think that Squicky was using OSC'c words. That is where I got it and I still don't have a clear idea what this means.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
OSC used "decoder ring" in regards to poetry.
quote:I think I was in the last generation to be given the tools to understand and love poetry on our own, without being given the academic decoder ring.
Squicky used it in regards to prose:
quote:This is especially true if you're taking away books that need a "decoder ring". Without this, people don't appreciate good writing.
I wonder if most people feel there's a difference.
For me, there is: I'll read novels that are artsy and full of academic trappings. Bring on the symbolism, the off-the-wall asides, everything; a novel has the girth to support eccentricities.
I find it difficult to enjoy poetry that employs some of the same devices. I don't know-- it just seems counter to what I believe poetry is good for. Poetry, to me, is meant to be crisp and simple; the art of poetry is to convey as much meaning in as few words as possible.
The older I get, the more I believe the above. Which is why I find Whitman so obnoxious these days.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think poetry can convey concepts in few words that also happen to involve lots of symbolism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:nod:
That's certainly true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is true for some poetry, certainly not all of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As to decoder rings, I think books like The God of Small Things are a good example. It's a masterful book, it really is. But without the proper tour guide to help you understand the terms and themes being portrayed, it would be extremely hard to really understand what the heck is going on.
It's not like the English words are made up, but they are used to create concepts that only make sense if one understands some Indian history, sociology, and geography. It's filled with symbols that most readers won't understand, unless again you are given the codes.
[ October 27, 2011, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I don't know if these lists are allowed to include nonfiction as well as fiction, but I think there are a number of important nonfiction books as well. If I had to limit my list to between 5 and 10 works, it'd probably include the following:
1. The Autobiography of Malcolm X, As Told to Alex Hailey
2. Animal Farm by George Orwell (This novel used to be much more widely studied, but it seems in recent years it's become less recognized.)
3. The Green Mile by Stephen King (Part of this novel's popularity is certainly due to the film adaptation as well, but I feel, of King's massive bibliography, this is one of the most personal and heart-breaking works by the author. It becomes even more powerful when reading the originally serialized versions separately (as it was originally published in reference to the serialized works of Charles Dickens).
4. The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells ORThe Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (These early, darker, and almost Gothic works are simple yet refined morality tales (a la Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe) wrapped in the clothes of horror and science-fiction. Both novels explore the complex experience of being a human being.)
5. Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein OR the collection of short stories Welcome to the Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut ( Starship Troopers is the only book I've read twice from beginning to end back-to-back. Though maybe not Heinlein's most popular or influential novel, it's for many the most succinct summary of his style while still maintaining the thematic cues which informed much of his work. Many other people's lists have included other works by Vonnegut, but many of his novels become over-blown and long-winded as the page count increases. His short stories are much more fierce and hilarious.)
6. A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick (Though a somewhat challenging read for many, this novel's text is a clear indication of science fiction's ability to be used as a tool to point out fallacies of our own culture. The honest yet entertaining portrayal of the effect's of drug culture remains relevant as substance abuse and dependence is a psychological malady to which there is no widespread cure.)
I may think of others later, but that's all I've got right now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I must say I am surprised at all the Heinlein fans that would choose Starship Trooper as their pick.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think for the idea of "popular" canon it seems best to pick a more accessible work. Much of Heinlein's catalog can become a more demanding read. Starship Troopers is just as smart as his other work and can be just as thought-provoking, but it's also more of an entertaining read for a hesitant reader (and is, for many, the Heinlein starting point).
Edit: I would be just as likely to pick Stranger In A Strange Land or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, but Starship Troopers's satire of the military and martial law seems more relevant to me most of the time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:This is especially true if you're taking away books that need a "decoder ring". Without this, people don't appreciate good writing. Their reaction to the story then relies on their emotional investment - usually how much they can insert themselves into the main character a la Harry Potter or Ender's Game, the twists, and how titillating it is.
Without a decoder ring people don't appreciate good writing.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Mostly. It's more like, without a decoder ring (i.e. an understanding of writing outside of the experience of narrative), people generally just don't appreciate good writing. They lack the palate for it, much like the uneducated wine drinker really doesn't appreciate good wine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I must say I am surprised at all the Heinlein fans that would choose Starship Trooper as their pick.
I would as well, although it would be close between that and Citizen of the Galaxy, which nobody ever seems to talk about. It's not the best book in the world, but it's a prime example of a civic-minded allegory with a huge author tract.
Also, the Sun Also Rises was a book that for me, at the age of 20 or so, epitomized the sense of confusion I had about social relationships, jealousy, friendship, and love. It suggested to me that I was not the only person who felt this way, which was a welcome insight.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
From a (writing) craft perspective, I found Starship Troopers to be his poorest novel. I can understand, however, that the themes and ideas are intriguing, and the film tie-in only adds to that. I remember reading that he wrote it in only ten days or so, and that he was very surprised when it won the Hugo.
If Stranger in a Strange Land is too boorish for people, I'd be hard pressed to decide between The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Have Spacesuit, Will Travel.
Has anyone else read For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs? It's his first novel, but it was published posthumously. It condenses many of his philosophies and ideas, expressing them in much more detail than any of his other works.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have. I agree with you about Troopers. I thought it was weak compared to a lot of what he wrote. I don't know that For Us could be said to be true to his philosophies as he got older. I think that the Soviet Union really sort of freaked him out about anything quite so left as his economic theories in that book.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think, ultimately, the question isn't whether or not to include Heinlein. It's simply a matter of which, of the many, Heinlein works to include. Agreed?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I love Starship Troopers...and I put it on the list...if I must pick only one...but The Moon is Harsh Mistress is also up there, and Glory Road, as is The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (despite a horribly written ending, if you can call it that). Again, if I had to pick just one, it's Troopers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, that's the thing. We love Heinlein but we are a biased sample.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's more like, without a decoder ring (i.e. an understanding of writing outside of the experience of narrative), people generally just don't appreciate good writing. They lack the palate for it, much like the uneducated wine drinker really doesn't appreciate good wine.
Can you explain what you mean by "writing outside of the experience of narrative"?
I think I disagree with you; do you distinguish between skillful story-telling and skillful writing?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think you're grouping that sentence wrong, Scott. It's not "understanding (writing outside of the experience of narrative)" it's "(understanding writing)(outside of the experience of narrative)."
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See, that's the thing. We love Heinlein but we are a biased sample.
I feel like it could be relatively easily debated that part of the reason would be a biased sample is just that one could assume many of the Hatrack users are better read than the average person. So, it certainly isn't a random sample. But when it comes to picking something like important literature which should be studied or passed down, wouldn't you rather receive the opinions of a better read demographic?
Edit: Admittedly, many of the lists have been very heavily slanted towards science fiction, including my own, so this sample may be a bit too specialized.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok - so trying to do this without cheating and looking at anyone else's list first.
The biggest one to jump out at me was "To Kill A Mockingbird".
But others:
The Whole Narnia Series Night Good Omens The Giver Jane Eyre Pride and Prejudice Jurassic Park The Oedipus Plays A Secret Garden Bridge to Terabithia Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
I'm really don't know what else. There are too many books that are passed along with great love. I really wanted to add both "The Hunger Games" and "Harry Potter" but they're both too new to know for sure. I really thing the Hunger Games will end up standing the test of time better than Harry Potter because I think it IS more likely to be brought into a school curriculum at some point.
[ October 27, 2011, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: DDDaysh ]
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nice to see you on this side of the forums.
I'd go with Huckleberry Finn over Tom Sawyer on that list.
I'm still at work so I'll try to do an actual list later.
I would tend to agree.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Songs as poetry - we've always kept them separate, but it's certainly the most common form of rhymed language today. Visit from St. Nicholas is definitely in the canon of poetry. Don't know about Silverstein; does anyone pass along poems of his AS poems?
When I was in elementary school, everyone I knew who actually read books outside of class had read Where the Sidewalk Ends. It's a children's poetry book, so I haven't read it in like 20 years, but I loved it as a kid.
We passed that one around when I was in junior high, I think.
I've read 3 of his books of poetry from start to finish and loved them all. We had "Where the Sidewalk Ends" and "A Light in the Attic" when I was a kid, and he came out with "Falling Up" when I was in college. However, to this day, the first thing I think of anytime anyone mentions his name is "Uncle Shelby's ABZ Book". It's NOT a children's book, but I didn't know that and it was one of the first books I ever read. lol...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:This is especially true if you're taking away books that need a "decoder ring". Without this, people don't appreciate good writing. Their reaction to the story then relies on their emotional investment - usually how much they can insert themselves into the main character
There is an opposite effect, though, in that certain books can't have the impact that they have when you "figure it out" without the decoder ring. Like a really funny joke, sometimes you have to just let someone figure it out themselves no matter how much they beg you to explain the punch line. Sure, they can understand that it's funny, but they won't actually laugh.
One book that I suspect OSC would claim has not been kept alive through the popular Canon, is Moby Dick. It certainly is studied in academia, but having read it entirely on my own, and "figured it out" myself, I have to argue that it really can't be kept alive by academia, because studying it in class is like explaining the joke.
So, of the people out there who read it and really "got it," I have to argue that it was their own journey that got them there, not the support of academia. Also, the book was widely panned, fallen into disrepute, only to be rediscovered many years later. It was a popular groundswell that brought it to the attention of academia, so I would definitely say that it achieved it's reputation as part of the popular canon.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: The Whole Narnia Series Good Omens Jurassic Park
Good picks. I think it'd be safe to say that either The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia would be necessary.
Speaking of lords of things, I also realize that Lord of the Flies by William Golding is a book which I would include as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw got my meaning. I think appreciating "good" writing generally requires an understanding of writing that is...more abstract, maybe, than that of experiencing the narrative.
I'd agree that there is a significant difference between writing and storytelling, good and bad. However, it seems to me again that again, lacking a refined palate for story telling usually results in people valuing storytelling based on the three aspects I noted before.
Serving up a delicately crafted meal doesn't really work when your audience just wants McDonalds.
---
And that's sort of my point here. There's, I think, a distinction to be made among the reasons why the elitists who read books seriously enjoy the books. There are those that are primarily enjoyed for their story telling. There are those that are read more for the effect that reading and working through them has on the reader. There are a host of other reasons for enjoyment/benefit.
But, if we're talking about the elite, limited population that actually passes on non-children's books that may endure, the appreciation of these books is largely coming from education. Referring to it as a "popular" canon is a misnomer.
To quote the eminent sage, Strongbad: "Popular Science. No such thing. They should call it Nerdular Nerdence."
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: The Whole Narnia Series Good Omens Jurassic Park
Good picks. I think it'd be safe to say that either The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia would be necessary.
Speaking of lords of things, I also realize that Lord of the Flies by William Golding is a book which I would include as well.
Oh yes, how could I have left that off?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I feel like some people could contend that much of Lord of the Flies's popularity is derived from it's use in schools, but I would disagree. In fact, I feel that, in many ways, using that novel in school is a disservice to text. It's much more sophisticated than the confines of a freshman high school English class.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
How could you include Good Omens and not mention American Gods?!?!?!
For high school books, I'd include Flowers for Algernon and the Giver (I know that the Giver isn't read in a lot of places).
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I actually didn't like American Gods all that much. I'm pretty sure Pratchett was my favorite half of Good Omens. Mostly though, I included Good Omens and not American Gods because I've had dozens of people tell me I needed to read Good Omens, and only a handful ever recommended American Gods.
I really like Gaiman's kid stuff though. That reminds me, I need to get out the Graveyard Book to read with the kid this weekend.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps it's because Good Omens is far superior to American Gods? Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I actually enjoyed both Good Omens and American Gods both very much.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I read Jack London's Call of the Wild independently of school, and would recommend London's books to the list. His story "To Build a Fire" is still one of my favorite short stories.
My mom read us The Secret Garden when we were little, and that book belongs on the list as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: Edit: Admittedly, many of the lists have been very heavily slanted towards science fiction, including my own, so this sample may be a bit too specialized.
That is kind of my point. The question is being asked on a forum hosted and dedicated to a science fiction author. Of course we are going to think that Ender's Game or Heinlein should be considered "popular canon". And we might be right. But imagine the question asked on, say, a web site dedicated to Stephen King or John Grisham or Ian Fleming.
To our credit, we did come up with some non speculative fiction suggestions, but most of those were children's books. Or stuff that, even if we didn't read it in school, lots of people did.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The Many Lives and Secret Sorrows of Josephine B. by Sandra Gulland.
Fantastic book.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
The jungle book, Kipling, To kill a mockingbird, Lee,
I liked Anansi boys>Good Omens> American Gods.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The question is being asked on a forum hosted and dedicated to a science fiction author. Of course we are going to think that Ender's Game or Heinlein should be considered "popular canon". And we might be right. But imagine the question asked on, say, a web site dedicated to Stephen King or John Grisham or Ian Fleming.
To our credit, we did come up with some non speculative fiction suggestions, but most of those were children's books. Or stuff that, even if we didn't read it in school, lots of people did.
I feel like you could almost make the claim that science-fiction fans are more likely to pass books around in mass on the basis of word of mouth. My family are all big readers (with me being the only one with a bigger love for science fiction), and I rarely hear them talking about notable new works or influential older ones outside of the stuff already regularly studied. And trust me when I say it certainly isn't due to a lack of variety or exposure to different works.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You could make that claim but is there any real data to back it up?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
As this is simply for an essay on literature, I'm not sure it'd really be necessary to approach it statistically. If we were to approach it from that angle, then we'd have to take into account best-seller's lists, and that would certainly disqualify a number of the suggestions as well as, most likely, a number of the already studied novels.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As to decoder rings, I think books like The God of Small Things are a good example. It's a masterful book, it really is. But without the proper tour guide to help you understand the terms and themes being portrayed, it would be extremely hard to really understand what the heck is going on.
It's not like the English words are made up, but they are used to create concepts that only make sense if one understands some Indian history, sociology, and geography. It's filled with symbols that most readers won't understand, unless again you are given the codes.
That's one of the reasons I love that book actually - not only is it wonderfully written, but it does expose the (western) reader to whole different world.
I also love (some) Salmon Rushdie for the same reason - Midnight's Children and The Ground Beneath Her Feet in particular.
Posted by Yebor1 (Member # 1380) on :
Here is my list
Roots- Alex Haley The Outsiders- S.E Hinton Shogun- James Clavel Csardas- Diane Pearson The Yearling- M. K Rawlings Addie Pray(paper Moon)- Joe David Brown The Adventurers- Harold Robbins Mrs. Frisby and the Rats Of NIHM- Robert O'brien Where The Red Fern grows- Wison Rawls The Merlin Trilogy- Mary Stewart Watership Down- Richard Addams The Belgariad and Mallorean- David & Leigh Eddings Maps in the Mirror- Orson Scott Card The Far Out Worlds of A. E Van Vogt The Past Through Tomorrow- Heinlen Prydain chronicles- LLoyd Alexander Isles Of The Dead- Roger Zelasny The Chimps of Mt Asserick(also known as The ForrestDwellers in Great Britian)- Stella Brewer
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
List of what? List of books you like? Because I have not even heard of 7 of those books. The Prydain Chronicles are candidates for a popular canon?
For a forum full of people that love to praise their own intelligence, there has been a disappointing lack of analysis in this thread.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow, that was kinda harsh.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: List of what? List of books you like? Because I have not even heard of 7 of those books. The Prydain Chronicles are candidates for a popular canon?
For a forum full of people that love to praise their own intelligence, there has been a disappointing lack of analysis in this thread.
What's disappointing is the lack of humility, courtesy, and manners in your post. If I may so myself without distracting from the topic of the thread.
Edit: Felt it important to add that I meant no disrespect of my own in this response. Simply that there has been plenty of discussion of the academic validity of some of people's suggestions without resorting to name-calling.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'd like to add Of Mice and Men to the list.
And I'd personally like to see Jules Verne get more respect from the world at large. I have very fond childhood memories which involve a pillow fort, a flashlight, and a copy of Journey to the Center of the Earth.
natural_mystic, glad to find someone else who enjoyed Anansi Boys. There are parts of American Gods that I found to be better, but I enjoyed Anansi Boys more overall. I loved the IDEA of Good Omens but it felt too much like two authors writing. It was very distracting.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
If we're going to include Jules Verne, then I feel like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should be included too. The stories of Sherlock Holmes have held such a legacy that something as iconic as "The Hound of the Baskervilles" or other stories should be recognized.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In thinking about this, I've decided that modern audiences are too fragmented outside of school for concepts like "canon" to really work -- and the distinction between "popular" and "good" is itself rather important. What would we call the canon music of the last ten years, for example? There's simply too much content for everyone to have experienced the same bits, once they escape school and are thus no longer held to a common curriculum.
That said, it might be possible to look back after several decades and see what has endured; that is, after all, how our concept of iconic '80s music has evolved from what was actually on the radio to the New Wave you generally hear on '80s retrospectives. If I go TOO far back -- and I was tempted to go to the '20s, because so many of the books I love are from the '20s and '40s; I mean, Wodehouse -- I wind up running into works that are now part of the academic canon, and that's what we're trying to avoid. So I'm starting in the '70s, and avoiding books that are explicitly for children and/or young adults. I was torn about including comics, because those have really become an important medium -- but I'm going to exclude comic strips, even though it pains me to leave out Calvin and Hobbes.
The '70s and '80s, then, give me this list (which isn't necessarily reflective of my favorite books from the period, but ones that I think fit the definition):
Watership Down The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Dune The Selfish Gene All Creatures Great and Small Rendezvous with Rama The Shining IT The Stand Song of Solomon Jonathan Livingston Seagull Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Shogun A Scanner Darkly Wizard of Earthsea Watchmen The Princess Bride Ender's Game Speaker for the Dead The Name of the Rose The Pillars of the Earth Interview with a Vampire The Dark Knight Mort One Corpse Too Many Sandman: Season of Mists The Hunt for Red October Red Storm Rising
I'm a bit nervous moving into the '90s, not least because we have to mention some young adult books here. It's also recent enough that I worry my memories are skewing my mental list. I also find myself having to include some authors that I hate, but which had a legitimate impact and are well-regarded. I cannot -- cannot -- bring myself to mention anything by Tim LaHaye or Dan Brown, though.
Harry Potter The Dark Tower Fight Club Good Omens Guns, Germs, and Steel Sophie's World Jurassic Park Snow Crash Cryptonomicon Generation X Life After God Microserfs A Game of Thrones Doomsday Book The Wheel of Time The #1 Ladies' Detective Agency Bridget Jones' Diary Like Water for Chocolate Infinite Jest Wicked The Hours Angela's Ashes The Road High Fidelity Posted by Yebor1 (Member # 1380) on :
posted by Foust
quote:I guess I'd be more interested to hear about these books that could not "make it in the real world." What are examples of this literary welfare?
I think seven of my list fit your criteria since you havn't even heard of them.
Believe me I shall be passing these down to my children step children nieces nephews and anyone else that has a love of reading becasue these works are worth preserving.
yes i went slightly out of the thread starters criteria.....
quote: pretty much EVERYONE should know at least their title
....however I included them because I love reading these works, (some from childhood) all are in my own collection, and they are My Popular Canon that I wanted to share with this forum.
I don't believe you have shared a single title on this thread. You are one of the reason I quit posting here as much as I posted in the past. Too much criticism and not enough acceptance. You may now point out all the errors in this post if that is what gets you off when you enter this Forum. That is all I have to say and will have to say in reply to your post or anything else you post on this topic.
P.S. i left the errers in hear just four you!
Posted by Yebor1 (Member # 1380) on :
Good list TOMD
I was also pained about not including: Calvin And Hobbes Doonesbury Lil' Abner dailies collection The Dark Knight Returns
all are also in my collection at home.
Posted by JoeAlvord (Member # 12665) on :
I acutally have bought multiple copies of OSC's Enchantment specifically to give away to friends. I love that book.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are we limited to fiction? And if so, does Guns, Germs and Steel count?
[ October 29, 2011, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I believe TomDavidson suggested Guns, Germs, and Steel, and I suggested The Autobiography of Malcolm X, As Told to Alex Haley. So, I think we kinda just assumed nonfiction options would be acceptable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man, somehow I put Snow Crash on there and left out Neuromancer, which was considerably more influential even if it's a worse book.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
King of the Wind Little House on the Prairie (the series, though a recent perusal indicates to me that On the Banks of Plum Creek would be the single volume I'd probably recommend. I think it illustrates the character of the series which is Pa's quitessentially American optimism in the face of dire poverty.
I never would have read The Great Gatsby if it weren't so thin. So I used to be baffled at Card's holding it up as a specimen of "take your medicine" literature. I think in the end it just speaks to something different in our backgrounds that I love it and he doesn't. Maybe it has to do with the immigrant's love affair with the American dream.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
Scott writes:
quote:as long as people are reading them for love and pretty much EVERYONE should know at least their title, or be thought ignorant by volunteer readers
Tons of the above books do not qualify as a book that people are reading for love alone.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned my gripping tale: LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT Power Programming: Robotics in C. I mean, surely we all love to read a book about programming languages and LEGO robotics?!?!?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I never would have read The Great Gatsby if it weren't so thin. So I used to be baffled at Card's holding it up as a specimen of "take your medicine" literature. I think in the end it just speaks to something different in our backgrounds that I love it and he doesn't. Maybe it has to do with the immigrant's love affair with the American dream.
I think The Great Gatsby works both as a straight narrative and as a work that Fitzgerald put in a lot of the symbolism and other "academic" things that OSC seems to have a problem with.
It's one of the books I'd pass on if the people I would pass it on to hadn't already read it in school.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't read Great Gatsby since high school, never really cared for it then. Might be something I pick up sometime in the future if I have the time, just to see if my perspective has changed on it.
Anything written before, oh, I don't know, 1930 is somewhat hit or miss with me. There's a certain plodding narrative style that a lot of older writers took that throws up a huge road block to my ability to enjoy the material. I think that's also why I find most, but not all, Victorian literature so trying to my patience. It really depends on the author.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I read The Great Gatsby in, I think, high school, but it made absolutely no impression on me - at the moment I could not tell you what any of the characters' names are, or anything about the plot. Something about a party? To me this suggests a novel that struck a chord with its particular zeitgeist and has been surviving on reputation since then. There's such a thing as being "famous for being famous"; Einstein is a lot more well-known than even his (very real, very large) accomplishments can strictly account for. Even in fields with highly objective measures of skill, say baseball, the difference in reputation between #1 and #2 is often much larger than the difference in skill; and sometimes random fluctuations - maybe just a lucky interview at the beginning of a career - can influence the fame. I think TGG had some such stroke of luck.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It was all about the parties.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Someone mentioned Catcher in the Rye...worst...book...ever. Hated nearly every paragraph. No character development, nothing interesting really happens, the main character is nearly impossible to relate to he is so juvenile and selfish. I seriously hated that book and do not understand even a little why it is considered a "classic" or for that matter, why people even like it.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I suspect that people who are going through an angsty stage during their teens relate to it. Once that stage of teenage angst is passed, they remember fondly how they related to it.
While I hate the character and the plot, I think that it nicely captures that slice of life. I'm not sure that a book can do much more than that, so it's a reasonable inductee.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think any novel really ever hit the nail on the head as well when it comes to that alienated idiot we all like to pretend has never been a part of our own brains.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
That's the problem. You have to understand angst before you can "get" Catcher. I'd contend that you have to have lived through your early twenties and "found yourself" before you can understand Gatsby.
I'd still say, however, that Fitzgerald's OTHER book, The Beautiful and the Damned, is a far better book. And it tells a pretty similar story. F. Scott's contemporaries agreed . . . Gatsby didn't get popular until years after Fitzgerald's death.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I thought Catcher in the Rye was a pretty good book. I'll have to go back and read it again and see if I still do. When I read it the first time I found myself talking like Holden Caulfield for days afterward. I don't think I ever felt I related to the guy, but I thought Salinger inserted plenty of repeatable wisdom into the narrative. Maybe I won't find all that this time.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will make my own list I think would be in the "popular" cannon. Some I was introduced to in school, but they are ones that I actually see people reading or at least talking about outside of academia. It helps that my wife is a librarian so she actually knows what people from the community are checking out (sort of a hint where your research on this kind of topic might start). I must also admit that people generally go with authors more than individual books.
Just about anything from Mark Twain. His wit mixed with serious themes continue to be loved at any age.
Shakespeare's Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and Macbeth. Not novels and so not sure if can be included, but they continue to be treasured.
Franz Kafka. Some of his stories, particularly Metamorphosis, are just strange enough that those who read him end up loving his style.
Just about anything by the Bronte sisters, Jane Austin, and the less well known yet just as well liked Elizabeth Gaskell.
Edgar Allan Poe of course. Creepy is cool.
John Grisham is more than a bestseller. The question won't be if he survives as part of the canon, but what books.
Stephen King's early works before he decided to bow down to academia by writing Bag of Bones.
Tom Clany's early works ending once his alter-ego Jack became president.
Ray Bradbury's Dandelion Wine, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Fahrenheit 451, and the Martian Chronicles.
Ayn Rand has become an institution and almost religious figure.
some single works might include:
Enders Game. Not more to say than that.
Moby Dick is not without it's fans. They are a select few, but aren't directly tied to school enjoyment.
Beowulf is equal to a lot of action movies, but has deeper themes. Those who find it love it.
Lord of the Flies without a doubt.
Harry Potter series will endure. It has staying power. I'm sorry to break it to everyone here who is going to cringe, but the Twilight books will also be here in the popular culture for the next 50 or more years.
Lord of the Rings is almost a no brainer to include. It will have its cycles, but end up on top. The Narnia books have the same way about them.
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carol is fun for both adults and children.
Frankenstein and Dracula have a life of their own.
Dune might be one of them, but its hard to say. Its a lot like Moby Dick with a fan base just big enough to be called popular.
Mythology by Edith Hamilton is bigger in the popular culture than the actual stories.
The Will Durant history books. Love them or hate them, they are often sought after as THE source of history among the non-academics.
The Hero With A Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell is always read and checked out by somebody.
To Kill a Mockingbird is hands down part of the reading culture.
(I wanted to say The Great Gatsby, but really its not that popular. I like it, but recognize enough people don't. Same with Jurrasic Park that changed things, but I don't know if its actually going to endure as a book along side the movie franchise.)
Catcher in the Rye comes close to the same of the above impression. However, it gets read a lot with some historical and yet tragic proof of its popular power. I think it loses focus once he actually gets to New York, but that is not important to this discussion.
Another controversial statement is that not all religious books are going to be in the public canon. The ones that will be included are The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Koran. Others just don't have the numbers of readers and influence for the Western audience that are most likely the focus of this discussion.
addendum: Emily Dickinson continues to be the Poet of the popular reader. This is followed by Mary Angelou in the modern era.
[ November 05, 2011, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I just wanted to say...that Dune is in a three way tie for my favorite book of all time (with EG and Starship Troopers), but I am not a fan at all of the sequels. I actually hate them quite a bit. And I'm not even talking about Herbert's son and that other guy's prequils, I mean the real sequels. I admit to not reading all of them, since I hated the 2nd, 3rd and maybe 4th (who remembers anymore) so much.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But then, that's true of many books I love.