Now I really DO have to read this. I'm intrigued because so far we have not really agreed on a book, have we?

I was looking out the train and looking at my (then) beau--we were trying to decide whether to stay together or not. So it sure felt like a darkening unknown landscape!

Had to return Rushdie's Enchantress of Florence to the library as my time was up and I couldn't renew--someone had placed a hold!

Lol, no we haven't! So far we have disagreed about A Passage to India, Sister Carrie, and Brick Lane I believe. I also think you mentioned that you loved Dickens, while I am not crazy about his writing style (though I loved Bleak House).

It certainly would be interesting to compare notes and see what we both like!
Have you ever read 'Vanity Fair' (Thackeray), or 'Mansfield Park'? I am curious becasue those are two of my favorite books.
Do you have any particular favorites?
CMK

I probably have read Vanity Fair and Mansfield Park, both, but my impressions are lost in the mists of time. I'd have to re-read them before I could intelligently converse about them.

I really like a broad range of periods and styles, and find it hard to pin down any favorites. Dickens, Austen, Joyce, Faulkner... I often say that one of the most "perfect" books ever was The Quiet American (Graham Greene) because it has mystery, romance, symbolism, and beautiful, spare writing. But the list goes on and on and on for me (and my house is filled to bursting with the evidence).

I also say that one of the best books I have read in the last 20 years (I know, this always puts one out on a limb) was "The Known World." I thought it was a remarkable work.

Even when I don't care for a book, I can get a lot of pleasure out of analyzing why I think it didn't work. Unless it's a completely repulsive and manipulative thing, like "The Mermaid's Chair" or that horrid author of "My Sister's Keeper"--that kind of fiction makes my skin crawl!

Why did you like Bleak House but nothing else by Dickens? I liked Bleak House too, but I enjoy much of what Dickens wrote.

What are your favorite Austens? I read up all of her novels this year. S&S was my least favorite followed by Persuasion. Emma was all right, but I found it rather predictable.
Most people seem to disliked Mansfield Park and hate the main character Fanny Price because she is too 'whimpish'. I loved the irony of Mansfield Park and did not think it very slow at all. I also liked Fanny. I think the liking of Fanny depends upon weather or not you are like her (and can relate to her), or have a character that meshes well with that sort or personality.

What are your favorite Dickens? So far I have only read Bleak House, David Copperfield, and Nicholas Nickleby.
I suppose the main thing I have against Dickens is his style of writing (though I do appreciate that he influenced many other authors that I like). I don't like particularly how many strange coincidences happen in his books, it makes things just too unrealistic for me. He gets a little to scentimental for my tastes too. And everything always comes together neatly at the end; no loose ends or crimes gone unpunished.

It's hard to describe why I liked Bleak House but nothing else. I think it might be the format Dickens applied to this book. One thing he does in this book is employ a narrator. I think a narator helps (in Dickens' case) us to become more engaged with the characters and what is going on; it keeps things from seeming too 'staged' and aloof from us.
I also think Dickens style of writing fits best in a 'mystery' type format, like Bleak House was. Overly coincidental works in mysteries becasue there are often a lot of coincidences surrounding a mystery. Also with a mystery, everything comes out in the end and justice is done, which is what Dickens always seems to do anyway. A mystery format rather masks some of those bad habits the author has (though for many I am sure these 'bad habits' are really endearing traits).
Have you seen the Bleak House they did on Masterpiece Theater, with Charles Dance and Gillian Anderson (of the X-files)? I saw it soon after reading the book and LOVED it. It is one of the most beautiful book-based movies I have ever seen.

What do you think of the Bronte sisters? Hardy? F. Scott Fitzgerald?
CMK

I like just about everything Austen wrote; I did read Mansfield Park but really, it was too, too long ago for me to recall anything about it. I'll have to re-read it. I don't remember Fanny's character at all, so I can't say whether or not I can relate to her! Alas!

I like just about everything that Dickens wrote, too. I like to read him in the wintertime. I have read Little Dorrit, Bleak House, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Tale of Two Cities, Our Mutual Friend... there are several I haven't read of course.

I like Dickens' style and predictability and sentimentality, all terrific hallmarks of that era. One sees his hand and voice in everything, like a puppet show, but I find it agreeable to let him take over like that. It's so unlike our fiction of today, and that's something I like.

I also like the Bronte sisters, Hardy, and Love F. Scott Fitzgerald. For that matter, I even like Hemingway and Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas.

See? I like just about everything, for one reason or another.

Well wouldn't you know it, lol! Whenever I read Dickens it is around the summer!

Jane Eyre is one of my favorites! I have read most of the novels by the Bronte sisters. All I have left is The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (which is being held at the library as we speak), The Professor, and part of Shirley.
I appreciate thier uniqueness, but can't say I have enjoyed any of thier other works besides Charlotte's Jane Eyre. I didn't care for Wuthering Heights, tough I do plan on reading it again in the near future, and simply loathed Vilette. For me, reading thier books is like being caught in a feverish dream. It is not exactly a nightmare, but it is certainly not a dream you would like to repeat. I started a thread about them not too long ago...

So far I have only read Tess of the D'Urbervilles, by Hardy.
I thought the plot incredibly interesting, but did not like the way Hardy carried it out. I thought the book would have been better without his strange metaphorical comments. I am giving Hardy one more chance though; Someday I will read Jude the Obscure. I also wrote a review of Tess here a few months ago.

I like Fitzgerald too. So far, as I have likely said a hundred times before, I seem to prefer his short stories to his actual novels (I have only read the Great Gatsby and The Beautiful and the Damned).

Yes, you do seem to like a lot of books! But I am one to talk, I seem to dislike much of what I read!
Christin (CMK)

If you didn't like the "metaphorical comments" in Tess than don't read Jude...the comments ARE Hardy.
I get the feeling from reading your critiques that you are much more a modernist-F. Scott Fitzgerald writes spare, modern prose. Hardy and Dickens are some of the best examples of their time in literature, and to try to put a modern template over them just doesn't work.
Personal taste is going to dictate what we do and don't like-but you can't take the writer out of his or her time, place or circumstance. To say that Dickens had "bad habits" as if his style was somehow amateurish or improper is like saying Austen is too superficial a writer because she had her characters concentrate too much on their position in society-that WAS what people of her ilk concentrated on during the time she was writing. You have to read with that understanding.
Dickens' time WAS sentimental-the Queen went into mourning for her husband and stayed in it for 40 some years. The middle class was coming into being and the growing manufacturing industries had opened up two new roads of opportunity-for money to be made and for workers (many children) to be abused. Dickens had lived it (the second way!) and used some of his stories to bring this to the public consciousness. Many of his stories were written first as newspaper or magazine serials and the strange plot twists and cliffhangers and coincidences were ways to prompt people to buy the next issue. And neat and tidy endings were required. (family legend says that my great great grandfather, who worked for a printer in London, was often engaged in recopying Dickens' manuscripts because he had abysmal handwriting and the typesetters couldn't read him.)

Oh, I think this is nicely put, ccrd. I do agree that in order to really understand a writer, one must consider the writer's time, place, and circumstance. It is possible to read without doing so, of course, but to arrive at a greater appreciations and understanding, I think we must cast a wider net.

What a terrific claim to fame, a great-great-grandfather who may have had first-hand experience with Dickens' manuscripts! Lovely!

-cc, well yes and no. It is true that there are certain styles I find myself liking over others. But I would not make so broad a statement as to say I mostly just like mondern writing. I DO like Fitzgerald for their spare and stream-line writing. And I like Twain for his simplicity too.

I judge a book on its individual merit, not on who wrote it. If I had based my like or dislike solely on the author then I would not have liked Bleak House. If I find there is a book I like I will often read another book by the same author.
And if I do not like the book they have written I always give an author another try because I DO want to like them. Just because I did not care for one of thier books doesn't mean I will dislike all of them.
I often note how many books I have read by a particular author so people will know that I am judgeing their writing only on the books I have read and the overall impression I get from it.

But also note that I like Tolstoy who, as we all know, was greatly influenced by Dickens. Without Dickens we might not have Tolstoy as we know him!
Tolstoy is just as philosophical as Hardy. I mean Tolstoy wrote entire chapters on noting but his philosophy! But, in my opinion, Tolstoy's musings were more logical and understandable than Hardys. What I am trying to say is that I have nothing agains philosophical books. And I do sometimes like a metephorical book...

And do not forget that I also said I liked Thackeray (well, at least Vanity Fair, The History of Henry Esmond Esq. wasn't my favorite, but thats only because I was unfamiliar with that time period).
Thackray has often been compared to Dickens. Even I could see how like Dickens he was in certain areas of his writing.

It seems many people believe I take the author or characters out of thier time period or element. I do not. I often read about the life of a classic author before reading thier book so I can better understand thier points of view. I always make allowences for what goes on in a book as part of that particular time period.
All I do is read a book, and judge the writing of that book upon its merit and my own feelings.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion of a book. One either likes or dislikes a book, or finds it just in the middle.
I love reading the classics because I love history. I love looking at different time periods thru the medium of literature. We may like the look at the time period and the story without actually caring for the writing, and vise versa.

I do not try to convert people into disliking a book just because I did. I am truly glad if they got enjoyment or understanding out of it that I didn't. All I do is give my impressions of the book.

It IS important, especially with classic books and great authors, to try to see thier accomplishments. I always appreciate what an author has contributed to the literature pool, even if I do not care for thier writing. It is importnat to realize WHY a book...

It is too funny but until this post I have assumed that you meant the epic poem Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia when you first mentioned that you were reading it. I connected it to your reading Ovid and was quite impressed. I'd never heard of Joan London's book.

mariannese-I know--I will definitely have to read Joan London's work if only to figure why she chose that title.

CMK-I don't think cc is saying you will only like more modern authors, but (here I am putting words in her mouth) I think she's saying that you are bringing a more modern aesthetic to bear in your readings of writings from other eras.

I think that appreciation of different styles of writing requires a kind of suspension of one's whole outlook, not just linguistically, but stylistically and socially. It requires a kind of submersion and acceptance of another viewpoint, NOT just the historical period but the entire aesthetic of an era and a person, and the influences (beyond literary) that entails.

It means (for example) coming to terms with the whole notion of an author being a kind of deus ex machina, like Dickens is, and understanding the range of reasons why that might be.

It doesn't mean you have to LIKE his work, or a particular work, but to understand that Dickens is sentimental, and his endings are neat and tidy for a reason that is much larger than his writings. To say these things reflect bad habits might be true from our more antiseptic and pragmatic period and outlook (feelings are messy and not everything turns out nicely in the end) but if we understand all the limitations and echoes and ramifications of the author's life and times, it is perfectly clear why his works reflect these characteristics.

It's fine to have strong opinions about books, I agree. I know that I do. But perhaps those opinions might be more tempered if we let loose the moorings of our modern perspective to immerse ourselves in other perspectives. I think it takes an understanding that is dimensional, beyond weighing a work in terms of "Did I like this story or not?" It makes reading more work, true. But it can result in an appreciation and understanding of an author's work that takes us beyond like and dislike, into something more nuanced. Does that make sense?

-mariannese, I am surprised you remembered that I was reading Ovid! I have been reading bits of it inbetween other books. It helps to keep things from getting too muddled! So far I am in the fifth book (which means I am a third of the way into the book). I have to say I really like it! But then again I have always had a love for Greek Mythology.
I probably should read Gilgamesh (the original epic) someday. But next on my list of 'good for me and interesting too' reads is Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. It is the story of Siddhartha "The Inlightened One" who eventually became Buddah as we know him now.

-Kay, I THINK I understand your meaning. I agree with you to a certain extent.

I am not sure if what I am saying makes sense either, but I shall try (I am afraid I have never been able to express myself very well!).

I agree that we should try to truly understand the author's mindset so we can better understand the book itself and its direction. That is agreed. BUT I think it is rather limiting to only look at it from the authors perspective alone. We should look at it from ALL angles.

I ALWAYS try to go into a book as neutral as possible. I try not to let influences outside of this book (the one I am concentrating on) dictate what I think of it.
BUT I do not think it is sound to "suspend one's whole outlook" for the sake of trying to see the author's point of view.

You said that it requires a kind of 'submersion'. I think one should get as 'wet' as possible (meaning we should understand the author's point as best we can) but not drown out our own opinions.

I rather think one should, while reading a book, keep one's opinions fully intact and still keep an unbiased look at it. If you forget your perosnal views entirely you cannot question what you are reading; if you do not question you will never learn to understand another's point of view. We should always challenge what we read, and what we ourselves know too.

It is like you and me. We both hold very differnet views on most things. We debate what is said to better understand ourselves and what the other knows and what we can learn from them. We provoke deeper thinking by asking questions.

One should have an equal balance between understanding the author's point and personal opinions. In the end we should judge a book for both for what we have learned (in many ways) and our individual tastes, because both are important.
CMK

I too read London's Gilgamesh a couple of years ago and found the story quite 'different' with an unusual look at WWII as seen by a young Australian woman in Central Europe.

I'll second Cece's comment on Jude the Obscure. If you aren't a great lover of Hardy, give this one a miss. Too full of misery and angst.
I'd also go along with cece's comments about Dickens. He was read and enjoyed in early/mid Victorian England much as some of us today enjoy the latest who-dunnit or popular writer of women's fiction.
Interesting about his handwriting. When CD was a young man wasn't he one of the Parliamentary reporters who had to take-down MP's speeches in a form of 'shorthand'? His writing probably suffered as a result.

what kkay said.
I do think you need to suspend your own modern viewpoint when reading classics. If you keep your own opinions intact, you can not be unbiased. Opinions are bias.

-cc, I do not deny that perhaps I should not have so high a standard when judging a book. Perhaps I even throw in too many own thoughts.
But opinions are not biased if the facts and ideas have been carefully weighed. You can be both unbiased and opinionated.

It is unjust not to try to understand the author. But it is also unjust to deny oneself of having an opinion. If I were an author I would want my readers to say what they really thought and not what they 'ought' to think.
One should also say more than just "I liked it", or "I didn't like it". They should be able to explain WHY they did or did not like it.

It is not quite fair to judge another persons understanding of classical literature (or any literature) only on the books they did not like.
If I was biased always to the modern view then I would not have liked and understood Anna Karenina, Vanity Fair, Pride & Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Bleak House, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (& Tom Sawyer), Jane Eyre, The Beautiful and the Damned, Northanger Abbey, and David Copperfield (to a certain degree, not quite as much as Bleak House). And the list goes on.

If I had been only of a modern mindset I would not have understood some of the points made in Mansfield Park (taking that particular book just as an example). I would not have understood how important marriage was back then for a woman, how important inheritances were, and the class issues of that place and time. Nor could I have picked up on some of the subtle feelings the characters had (that many people had then).

Can one not appreciate a book without liking everything in it? Can one not be inspired by the message without liking how it is carried out? And can they not understand the meaning of the author without agreeing?
I do not like Dicken's writing and certain other things. I do think he provides good insight into the poverty and class differences of that time. Those are both subjects I find fascinating.
I did not like all of what Hardy did (though I liked the underlying plot) but I can say that he was revolutionary in his themes. He was ahead of his time.
But everything is open to interpretation.
Hope you all have a good day.
CMK

For some reason, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not in the least discussing your liking or disliking books-that is your perogative. However, you did ask for our reactions to your book critiques.
I maintain, though, that opinions are bias-that is what the word opinion means to a lesser degree, unless we are talking law or medical. Opinions are not right or wrong-they are making a value judgement or a choice about one side or another. If you are opinionated about any topic, that means you have strong feelings-a bias-one way or another. You can be open-minded and have opinions-but you can't be opinionated and unbiased at the same time. They are antonyms in a way.
Maybe it is all semantics. I work with the minute differences among words all day-the denotations and the connotations. Sometimes I latch on to someone else's usage and give it too much weight. We disagree, and that's fine.

-cc, you are right. I should have been more specific and said 'open-minded', not 'unbiased'. I am sorry if I misinterpreted something you said, it was not intentional.
All I was meaning was that I thought personal opinions were important and should not be completely disregarded in trying to judge a book. Thats all! ;-)
Take care
CMK

cc-are you an editor, too?

K

I do edit occasionally, but I do more writing and teaching. I write for Pearson-they are an educational publishing company-and I do some freelance stuff now and again. In the other quarter of my life (there's the wife and the mom parts, too) I am a very busy substitute teacher (upper elementary) and I tutor students in writing.

Oh, my, it's a small (publishing) world! I work for Pearson, too. I'm a freelance editor, usually for their West Coast operation. I work out of my home office (and juggle my wife and mom parts as well).

no way! I used to write for Harcourt, but we were "acquired" by Pearson. Are you an acquisitions editor or a publication editor? We may have spoken on the phone at one time or another!

I know, what a coincidence! I work as a developmental editor and as a production editor. Mostly I work on anatomy and physiology and biology texts. I worked in-house for Addison Wesley and then Benjamin Cummings, then went freelance when we moved here (15 years ago).

Pearson had some layoffs up in the Boston office, so I hear, and a dear friend's husband lost his job there. She (my friend) is an author and editor for Pearson, too!

We have not crossed paths-I mostly write assessment materials, out of San Antonio and Florida. Have done some writing and editing for Continental Press, too, and for a local magazine.