One book that immediately comes to mind is a novel, that would now be labeled chick lit I'm sure. Jane's House by Robert Kimmel Smith that I read in the early 80's. I laughed, cried and cheered out loud throughout the book. And when I picked it up last year - it still worked.
A widower with 2 teenagers meets a woman, they fall in love, etc, etc. Certain human emotions and reactions never change, no matter when or where the setting. OK - now I'll try to think of a more "sturdy, noteworthy" book, but thanks for a question that started my day with good memories and a smile.

When I read The Secret Garden I wondered whether its sentimental style still holds up and whether kids today, so tied to technology and gratuitous modern conveniences, would relate to kids like Dickon, Mary Lennox and Colin Craven.

Funny, I was thinking of this topic myself. The first novel that springs to mind is The Green Darkness by Anya Seton. Published in 1972, this book has many fans and others who find it hopelessly dated. Me, I loved it AND found it hopelessly dated. I have been thinking of rereading it just to see if the dated bits are still grating or if they have become quaint and charming.

I just read Wallace Stegner's Crossing to Safety and I found the details of life for the middle-to-upper-middle class academics during the Depression fascinating. Although the book isn't that old, the era that it begins in is over sixty years ago. An almost forgotten disease, polio, figures in the novel as well, bringing back memories of an era just before my time. Polio was gone by the time I came around, but some of my friends had parents or older siblings affected by the disease.

I do like your theory of twenty/sixty years. Also, I think the reader must have some desire to learn about what things were like in a previous time, and that seems to come with age. Not always, of course.

My first thought was "Valley of the Dolls" as not having aged well. My youngest sister who is twelve years younger than me was not old enough to read it until the 1980's. She thought it was awful and reminded my older sister and me often of what lousy taste we had in our teens to have read such junk. We had to admit she was right but, boy oh boy, it sure was fun to read such a risque book on the sly. Recently this youngest sister's own teen daughter read "Valley of the Dolls." She was mesmerized and said it was so interesting the way young women had to face life and careers in the "old days." She often disagrees with her mom about things and agrees with her more ancient aunts.

I read some place that the appeal of certain books will often skip a generation. It feels that my little sister is of a different generation - she often disdained what we older siblings thought was interesting. She is getting a taste from her daughter what she dished out to us. :)

Apparently my niece is not the only present day teen who likes "Valley of the Dolls" either.

This topic is very interesting. It seems almost impossible to predict what will appeal to later generations. I immediately thought of my experience with one of my favourite non-fiction books, Betsy Sheridan's Journals. This delightful book has everything: political intrigue, famous people, social history, love and marriage. It was reprinted in the 1960s to critical admiration. Briefly it must have seemed as if the author's keen observation and sharp tongue had at last found an audience. Alas, the pall of obscurity fell back into place. I am not aware of even one other reader who has read this book.

Jane Austen has to be the ultimate example of the fall and rise (and fall) of a writer. After her death, her books settled into obscurity. The typical overstuffed Victorians did not appreciate Austen's sprightly writing style and overall lack of sentimentality. Her books were circulated among a small group of readers, which included George Eliot and her companion George Henry Lewes. Austen's reputation grew slowly, but irrevocably. Today she is one of the best known writers in the world.

Veronica, it's so satisfying, isn't it, when a book lives up to your memories. I smiled at your description of 'laughing, crying and cheering out loud'. I do that too! Many times I've been caught talking back to the book I'm reading.

Georgia, I don't know how well kids nowadays relate to The Secret Garden, but I suspect many of the less appreciative would think it moves too slowly and is too descriptive. It's funny to me that my brothers and I could read shelf after shelf of adventure novels (even very dated ones), but we couldn't abide Little Lord Fauntleroy in all his prissy clothes. Come to think of it, I was never very fond of Victorian children's literature, but that might have been because I had older brothers who greatly influenced my reading taste.

Siobhan: Green Darkness -- that's the one about reincarnation, if I remember correctly. I liked it when it first came out and I reread it a few times, but I never noticed it was hopelessly dated. The same is often said about Daphne du Maurier's The House on the Strand: using drugs as a vehicle to time travel is 'SO nineteen-sixties' to its detractors.

Lydia, yep, I've heard that Valley of the Dolls is resurgent. It's hard to believe after all the maligning. In a way, Valley is a cultural artifact, though not, I think, necessarily of the 1960s. I think it always did harken back to an earlier era -- 1950s or maybe early 1960s. Your youngest sister's reaction was, I think, the prevailing one for a long time, and it's rather similar to the dislike or indifference in the later 1920s and 1930s that readers had toward The Great Gatsby. It wasn't until after Fitzgerald's death that it was 'rediscovered' and given a different consideration: another example of the cultural artifact that suddenly became interesting again.

I've got a question for anyone who is familiar with the 'Angry Young Man' novels, such as those of Alan Sillitoe, Kingsley Amis and other male (particularly British) writers of the 1950s and '60s. My son has been reading several of those, but he asked me if I knew why the characters are so angry. I've read some of them (such as Saturday Night and Sunday Morning), but I have an imperfect understanding of what it was they and their creators where so 'het up' about, besides post-war malaise. Can anyone sketch it for me? I'd appreciate it!

Gone with the Wind remains one of my all-time favorite books. I first read it in my very early teens, at which time I wrote in my diary that I could have written a better ending. The love story was everything to me then. Now, after many, many readings, I have much more appreciation for the book and wouldn't dream of changing the ending.

timallan, Jane Austen has definitely been in one of her up cycles for the past fifteen to twenty years. But I think I am witnessing a falling off, maybe caused by oversaturation of movies and the sillier contingency of her on-line fans. I think her work will always be classic, but the trend followers are looking for the next fixation. Some who just a few years ago were gushing are now making finger pointed at the tongue gagging motions on the mention of Austen or one of her books.

Right now I think the 1980's style books are falling most rapidly out of fashion. E.g. "Bonfire of the Vanities." That would fit the twenty/sixty year theory you propose, friedag.

I do not know the British "Angry Young Men" writers very well but the American male writers of the same period seemed to be motivated by chronic boredom and the feeling that life was nothing but a dead end.

Frieda, you ask about the 'Angry Young Men' who were making literary ripples in England during the late 50's and early '60's . . . Osborne, Amis, Braine, Sillitoe, poet Philip Larkin et al.
These were an educated bunch from both the working and middle class who had 'missed out' by being just too young to be involved in WWII and seem to have disliked the mores of the older generation and the suburbanism, the greyness and the general 'dullness' of England at that time.
Most, if not all, of them seemed to have held very left-wing views and several were probably 'fellow-travellers'. It was very fashionable among that 'set' to search for working-class roots (even where none existed), spend a great deal of time drinking and 'male-bonding' . . . although they would never have called it that. For what it is worth I feel most of them were probably not particularly pleasant characters and often had a low opinion of women.

Re your original question I think books that don't 'last well' are the humorous ones (the same seems to hold true of films thinking of those smart dialogue ones from the '30's eg Bringing Up Baby ). Not long ago I picked up Gentlemen Prefer Blonds from the 1920's and found it totally unfunny. Maybe if I had read it many years ago and this had been a re-read I would have enjoyed it more. Yet the humour of an older 'funny' book, The Diary of a Nobody I appreciated much more.

I had been trying to think of an good example of a classic English story to give to our Japanese D-in-L (she has only read Harry Potter ;-)) and ordered her a copy of The Secret Garden. Hopefully she wont find it too difficult and will get a feel of life in this country a hundred years ago.

I really need to re-read Gone with the Wind one of these days. I've only read it once and I was a teen at the time. I'm sure I would get something different out of it now.

I read Samuel Shellabarger's Prince of Foxes this year. It's one of those books that was published in the 40s (I think). I thought it held up quite well. It's probably my favorite of his. I also re-read Captain from Castile which is still a fun read if you like historical adventure, but the chauvensim that was so easily digested back then is more apparent.

Frieda, I grew up with older brothers and most of the neighborhood kids were boys. I couldn't have survived my childhood if I had been a prissy, girly girl. I also learned how to play quite well by myself (which is probably why I turned to reading to begin with).

I read Gone with the Wind for the first time this past fall. I really did not enjoy it. The acceptable bigotry and chauvinsim written into the book made me put it down in dusgust several times. I realize it's a book, but I had a hard time with it. When I finished, I told DH I now hate Scarlett.
The first books I thought of when I read this post were the S.E Hinton books we read in Junior High. But they aren't old enough for what you are talking about. (does that mean I'm not old enough either??)

Lydia, I agree with your observation about how Austenmania seems to be falling off.

At first I was pleased with Austen's growing popularity, until I noticed that most of her new fans read the books only as highbrow romances.

Vee, what you wrote of the "Angry Young Men" reminded me of our own American "Beatniks" who flourished in the 50's and early 60's. They, too, were disillusioned with the dull sameness of suburbia, during the staid Eisenhauer years and sought adventure through drugs, travels, and experiments in poetry-writing (Kerouac, Ginsberg, et al.)

Jungseed (Ruth), I can relate to your reaction to "Gone With the Wind." I think it reflects the culture that Peggy Mitchell lived in with the Atlanta of the Jim Crow years, filled with prejudice. Mitchell was a product of her own era and was strictly about writing a "romance." I grew up in Atlanta, and first tried to read this novel at about age 9 or 10. I later went back to revisit it as an adult and saw the "flaws." What I will say for it is that it has interesting characters and a compelling plot. It's actually also a portrait of the Irish in the deep South. The vignette towards the end about the White sharecroppers is pretty accurate, from what I know of southern history.

Tim, I don't know how I missed your first post, but as soon as I saw Lydia's response I immediately scrolled back to find it. Betsy Sheridan's Journals sounds right up my alley so I went to Amazon and ordered it. Yes, it is baffling that so many other journals and collections of letters have been published and are still in print, but not those of Betsy. I'm somewhat familiar with Richard Brinsley Sheridan (The School for Scandal), and I'm assuming J. Sheridan LeFanu was a later member of the family, but I can't say that I've ever known anything about Betsy. I will remedy that and keep you posted, Tim, so that you can say you know of at least one person besides yourself who has read her journals. :-)

Jane Austen's novels were in ebb when I first read them, and I might have missed out until much later if I hadn't run across a reference to Austen in Dodie Smith's I Capture the Castle that I first read at fourteen. In Smith's novel the seventeen-year-old protagonist, Cassandra, and her older sister Rose have an exchange that goes something like (I have to paraphrase because I don't have the book to hand):
Which would be better? Bronte with a touch of Jane, or Jane with a touch of Bronte?I knew the Brontes, but who the heck was Jane? I latched on to Emma and the rest is my history.

Oh heavens, yes! The dedicated Janeites are fine enough, but the pseudo-Janeites are an obnoxious bunch. Oh well, the sooner the latter fall away, the better, in my opinion. But perhaps I'm just being a fogey because, after all, they're probably only trying things on for size...I did much the same thing.

I have similar feelings about the current popularity (or familiarity or semi-familiarity) of To Kill a Mockingbird. It validates my opinion of the early 1960s when I argued with my grade-school teacher that it was a perfectly fine book to make a book report on. She said it was inappropriate "trash" -- and, mind you, this was Iowa, not the Deep South. However, since TKaM has been routinely taught in schools (as early as seventh grade, in some instances of which I'm aware), the quality of the readers and their conceptions has sure taken a nosedive, IMHO.

Ach! I have to postpone my other replies. I'm relishing the comments of you all!!

Friedag, I am very pleased to hear that you ordered Betsy's book. I really hope you like it.

Betsy's "journal" is mostly made up of the letters she sent from England to her sister Alicia LeFanu (J.S. LeFanu's grandmother) back in Ireland in the mid to late 1780s. Betsy's brother was a close friend of the Prince Regent, so she was privy to all sorts of Royal and political gossip. But she also had troubles of her own.

Not to belabor the LeFanu connection, but I also recommend the delightful Seventy Years of Irish Life by W. R. LeFanu (J. Sheridan's brother). This warm and vigorous book is the perfect antidote to the dark despair of his brother's work.

What bothered me about the Austen revival was that her new "fans" were caught up on the romantic elements of the books to the expense of her dry sense of humor, and her brilliant prose style. Every character, or situation, or setting has some role to play in the unfolding story. Austen's writing displays an amazing tightness of plot and economy of prose. Her lack of popularity during the Victorian era suggests to me that these qualities are not always appreciated.

Friedag's comments on To Kill a Mockingbird remind me of a conversation I had with recently about A Separate Peace, a book which I still think is overrated, but nonetheless was required reading in high school in Canada. Does anyone know if this book is still taught in school?

timallan, I read "A Separate Peace" in school in the 1970's and my daughter did in the late 1990's. But a few years later (mid 2000's) it did not appear on my son's reading assignment list. I was not given a choice; I HAD to read "A Separate Peace," but I do not think it was a particularly good assignment for most adolescent readers. Although the characters are teen-age boys, it is really an adult novel about one man's reminiscence of his youthful years at school during world war II and the guilt he bore for the awful incident that is the pivotal point. It is much too philosophical for most inexperienced readers, and judging by my own and other adolescent reactions it can be drudgery to read. For me it worked better as a re-read and would likely affect a first-time mature reader in a thought provoking way, but not a callow reader. Maybe educators finally realized that, but I doubt it. I figure the list just got too long and they had to bump something.

I thought of another novel, seminal for its time, that did not age very well. "Peyton Place" was already dated when I read it in the 1970's. I read an interview with Grace Slick, the lead singer of Jefferson Airplane/Starship, in which she said PP was "the" novel of her youth. She is now 70 years old.

What came to mind immediately was "Atlas Shrugged." I read it in my early twenties and loved it ... except John Galt's speech, which I skipped over after about ten pages! Then a few years ago we attempted to read it for my book discussion group. We broke it into thirds, but after the first third, the group (mostly middle-aged women) refused to read any further. I was more than happy to agree, as it just didn't appeal to me at all anymore. Hmm

Thank you, Lydia and Vee and Woodnymph, for adding to my understanding of the 'Angry Young Men' novelists. What I told my son was on the right track....American male writers of the same period seemed to be motivated by chronic boredom and the feeling that life was nothing but a dead end.Lydia, I think you encapsulated it. Vee and Woodnymph filled out the British and American aspects, respectively.

Vee, my son also asked about further Angry Young Men recommendations. I thought of Stan Barstow (A Kind of Loving, particularly); but I'm not sure he's of that group of writers, or whether it might be considered an insult or a compliment to think he is.

Hmm, am I noticing a pattern of things that can cause a book not to age well for certain readers:
too much realism
type of humor, the most subjective of the literary senses
the clashing of one generation's sensibilities with those of preceding ones

Vee, I wasn't bowled over with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes either. But I also got a kick out of the lugubrious Mr Pooter -- his name was enough to send my brothers and me into paroxysms. Yeah, with humor you just never know what someone will fancy.

Ruth, my twenty-six-year-old son read several of Hinton's books when he was in the eighth and ninth grades, so I asked him if he thought they would still hold up today for the same age group. He said they probably would be considered dated. So, unless you're under age ten, you're old enough. :-)

I'm with Carolyn in thinking that Gone with the Wind can be read on multiple levels. If Mitchell had no other intent than to write a "romance" (which definition of romance is meant, Woodnymph?), she inadvertently transcended her effort.

Scarlett is, I think, one of the most widely misunderstood characters ever created. Mitchell was perverse enough to give a bunch of book readers a main character "who had not willingly opened a book since leaving the Fayetteville Female Academy." What was Mitchell thinking, making her heroine spoilt, self-centered, and a complete fool for thinking she was in love with the wrong fellow? Scarlett is only sixteen years old at the start of the book, but in the next eleven years of the story, the reader should be able to discern that Scarlett is a complex character: She still may seem spoilt and self-centered, but then there's that contradiction of her selling herself, essentially, so that her family (including the ex-slaves) wouldn't starve. And that's just one example! Now, tell me, would the story be as compelling if Melanie were the main character? I think not, though Melly is an excellent supporting character.

Woodnymph, why is the emphasis on the Irish? Scarlett, after all, was half French. The O'Haras' planter neighbors were of English descent (the Wilkeses and Tarletons) and French (the Fontaines). Perhaps the Calverts were Irish (maybe they were English), but the Irish hardly seemed to have dominated the region, at least not at...

Frieda, there were a lot of Irish who settled the state of Georgia. A lot. When I was growing up there, almost every other person claimed Irish descent. This was particularly true in the smaller towns and in the Savannah area. Even many of the towns in GA have Irish derived names (e.g. Fitzgerald, Dublin, etc.). I don't know how you can claim that the Irish seem not to have dominated the region. There were, as well, many sharecroppers of Irish descent. And I was thinking of Gerald O'Hara, who was quintessentially Irish in his tastes, his outlook, his love of "the land." Margaret Mitchell herself was Irish Catholic.

Woodnymph, I think I must have botched my query to you -- it was late and my whole head was still buzzing after three hours of French horn playing. :-)

What I was responding to was your comment: It's actually also a portrait of the Irish in the deep South.

The portrait, I assumed, was Mitchell's book: Gone with the Wind. So I was curious and asked, why the Irish? Why Mitchell's emphasis on the Irish and not the French side of Scarlett's background? And I wasn't saying that the Irish didn't dominate that region of the real state of Georgia, but I meant that they didn't seem to dominate the landscape Mitchell peopled in this particular book -- that's why I named the planter families who were the O'Haras' neighbors (most of whom were not of Irish descent).

I hope I cleared up my intent in asking; because, judging from your response, it must have been clear as mud. Anyway, I think you answered my main question with: Mitchell herself was Irish Catholic. So then she naturally gravitated that direction. Thanks, I think there's a lot more going on in GWTW than can be read and understood by a first-time reader -- or a third, sixteenth, or fortieth-time reader...you get my point, I hope. :-)

I think you are correct. Each person reading GWTW seems to come away with something different. I also think it would follow that each time a person re-read it they would change their thoughts on it.
When Scarlett sold herself in marriage to Mr. Kennedy, I didn't feel that was for the good of anyone but Scarlett. If she had let her sister marry him, the money for Tara would have been forthcoming anyway. I felt she did it because he was now rich and she wanted it for herself. No matter who she hurt. It was better marrying him that staying on Tara and working to re-build it with his money.
No, it would not have been the same story if Melanie was the main character, but it might have turned out a love story.
In the end when Rhett walked out. I really said out loud "Hah, you got just what you deserved".
I think I'll write myself a note to try it again when I get to about 50 and see what I think then. Maybe I'll be more sympathetic.
Ruth

No, it would not have been the same story if Melanie was the main character, but it might have turned out a love story.LOL! Ruth, that's a good 'un.

Expediency. Scarlett needed the money for the extra taxes on Tara immediately, or she and her family would be turned out to starve or they would be broken up and at the mercy of charity of more distant kin; and either way Tara would pass to the hands of the hated Slatterys. She vowed that would not happen. She tried and failed to charm Rhett into helping her (which he couldn't, even if he hadn't seen through her ploy). But, as luck would have it, there was Mr. Kennedy. Scarlett couldn't trust Suellen: Suellen and Mr. Kennedy had dilly-dallied for years and, besides that, Suellen might not have the same feeling of responsibility to save Tara and its human dependents. No, Scarlett wasn't going to wait; Scarlett was going into action. Even if it meant that she herself would be removed from Tara, Tara would still be in O'Hara hands. Which is exactly what happened. (That's my interpretation.)

Ruth, I'm pretty sure Gone with the Wind will still be fascinating and confounding and repelling readers for a long time.

Sarah Canary, I recall Atlas Shrugged being discussed here at RP several years ago. Those who hadn't reread it, remembered it one way; and those who had reread it, thought of it differently -- and usually not admiringly.

Tim, I'll consider all recommendations! And Seventy Years of Irish Life does sound delightful. Thank you.

Lydia, Peyton Place was still received well enough in the early sixties to spawn a television series, starring Mia Farrow as Allison MacKenzie and Ryan O'Neal as what's-his-name. Did you ever see any of it? It was nothing but a glorified soap opera; and the book was too, I suppose. But it's also one of those slice-of-life books that have always fascinated me. I haven't reread it in a while. I think I will, just to see if I can stand it. I recall it's very seductive opening lines: Indian summer is like a woman. Ripe, hotly passionate, but fickle...

Grace Slick is seventy! Well, she ought to know about the 1950s, then.

I well remember Peyton Place, book and TV. I didn't particularly love the book, but I sure was hung up on the television program. I'm normally a very truthful person, but there was one woman who used to call me regularly on the night of the program, and I told her any number of fibs as to why I couldn't talk to her--not wanting to admit the real reason. I thought the actress (whose name I can't remember) who played Barbara Parkins' mother was gorgeous.

Lydia, firstly I can not believe that Grace Slick is seventy! (I wonder if she's obsessed with quilting, like my mother who is about that age too.)

Secondly, I thought your comments on A Separate Peace were very interesting. I wonder if the reason it was such a popular book among educators was that it concerned adolescent boys. Male students would not be expected to read a book girls, could they? I sometimes wonder if this reasoning might also partly explain the popularity of Lord of the Flies in high school English classes. The John Knowles book left me pretty cold at the time, and even now I can barely remember what it was about.

Peyton Place is sitting on my night table amidst other TBR titles. I suppose its considered a bit trashy now, but in a fun way. I'm looking forward to reading it.

The discussion of Gone with the Wind reminds me of our late friend Marco, who greatly enjoyed it. He told me once that he thought it was the ultimate "anti-love story". I have a battered copy from the 1930s which belonged to a deceased great aunt. I should read it one day. Movie books are almost always fated to age badly, since people only seem interested in reading it while it is still current. For example, does anyone read Doctor Zhivago anymore?

Speaking of Jane, that is one author whose work has actually improved in my eyes as time goes on. I do think that if you read only for the love stories, the books wear thin after a while. But she was doing so much more. Recently in the Wall Street Journal there was an article describing Jane as a moralist. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rosefolly

Here is a link that might be useful: What Would Jane Do?

Another book I have a note to reread in another 10 years is The Elegant Gathering of White Snows by Kris Radish. At this point in my life, I laughed out aloud, cried with a whole box of tissue on the table next to me and generally saw all my friends and myself in the book. I'm waiting to see if it was just timing or timeless.
Here's hoping I age half as well as some of the books mentioned in this thread!

Tim, I remember a riff that Marco did on the so-called 'greatest love stories' that included GWTW. I wish I had saved it because he nailed it, as he did many literary and other things, with his inimitable style....does anyone read Doctor Zhivago anymore?I don't know but one or two readers who ever managed to get through Doctor Zhivago. I think many tried but were flummoxed, as it didn't correspond with the film version. I tried at fifteen to read it and didn't finish it until thirty years later. I have no current desire to reread it.

Rosefolly, it's an interesting article. I think I was always aware (unless I'm fooling myself) that Austen could be didactic, but I never really minded. Of the six books of hers that I've read, I think Mansfield Park and Persuasion 'improved' the most for me, while Emma and Pride and Prejudice improved the least. It was the latter two that I loved first, though.

>too much realism

>type of humor, the most subjective of the literary senses

>the clashing of one generation's sensibilities with those of preceding ones

friedag, those are the Big 3 reasons most evident, I think. The first one in your list is interesting to me. People "say" they want realistic depictions in books and movies of what things were in the past, but I doubt that they really do. Too many times when things are presented truthfully and accurately, later readers are offended or incomprehending. What they want is "idealistic" realism. It is why contemporary novels of one period may not age well. Many readers prefer a historical novel depicting the same period over one that was actually written in that time. The historical novel can re-do things and make things the way they "should have been."

timallan, I think 90% of the books I had to read in school were about boys or men. The boys of my generation were not used to reading books with females as the main characters. The one book about girls was assigned to the girls only-the boys got to read "The Mouse That Roared" instead. I had to read "Lord of the Flies." I never thought to protest against reading it, although I despised it.

Lydia, I've run across that phenomenon repeatedly and I'm guilty of it myself. Perhaps it's just human nature to want to tidy things up a bit and fit things into slots of what we already know. I've been floored lots of times when reading a contemporary novel (contemporaneous to the era in which it was written) to find out that what I thought I knew was really off. The other day my son was reading one of the British 'Angry Young Men' books I talked about above. Suddenly he exclaimed to me, "Whoa! They actually had sex back then." -- facetiously, of course, but I think he didn't know that sex was actually described, other than extremely obliquely, in books of the time.

Jungseed, The Elegant Gathering of White Snows: what a gorgeous title!

A famous Canadian literary journalist, Robert Fulford, wrote a newspaper piece several years back about the most famous books no one's actually bothered to read. Doctor Zhivago was near the top of the list. Maybe I should try to read it. If I could make it through The Magic Mountain, I feel like I can handle anything.

The issue of gender and assigned school reading might account for the recent popularity of books like The Bridge to Terabithia, which has both a male and female main character. The book is very popular in schools, though is often objected to as one of the children die in the book. (Heck, we wouldn't want children to know the world is actually a dangerous place.)

I never read any of the so-called "Angry Young Man"novels, though I can certainly sympathize with their disappointment in post-war life. Whenever I see British movies from the 1950s and early 1960s, I am struck with the almost Stalinist grimness of everyday life.

For me The Grapes of Wrath has aged very well.

Wuthering Heights plus Jane Eyre, will always be,I am sure.

I have only "recently" read Georgette Heyer, the past couple years or so, and have been startled by how fresh and captivating some of her books are. These Old Shades was written in 1926 and is as interesting, witty and readable as anthing today- better in many ways.
Another author I have lately picked up (again) is James Clavell. Again, his books seem undated and still highly entertaining and readable. King Rat (1962) was one of the best books I've read in a year or so.

My favorite book as a young reader was Lion's Paw by Rob White (ages 9-12). It was out of print for a while but is back in print now.

Veer, if your Japanese DIL struggles with "The Secret Garden", how about Edith Nesbit's "The Railway Children" (although my personal favourite is "Five Children and It" :-) )?
I reread "The Once and Future King" (the whole thing) every ten years or so, it's about time to pull it out again.
I think PG Wodehouse stays funny, but maybe I have a warped sense of humour, I can live with that :-)
I seem to be one of the few who read "Dr Zhivago", but as I didn't see the film I had no preconceived notions. I also read GWTW long before I saw the film.

Thanks to this discussion I am re-reading "Gone With the Wind." It is quite different from what I remembered. I am afraid that I remember the movie better than the book. The movie left out so much. I did not recall at all the backstory of Scarlett's mother and how she came to marry Mr. O'Hara. In the book we get Scarlett's interior thoughts, something that would have been difficult to do in the movie. It was funny how Melanie and others misinterpreted Scarlett. In the movie Melanie was such a paragon, and she was in the book too, but she also comes across as underneath not having such a simple, pure heart. She could be devious when she had to be. Ashley is not nearly so obnoxious in the book either - I can almost see why Scarlett thought she was in love with him. I did not notice the depth of Mitchell's characterizations when I was younger...as Carolyn said, it was all about the love story then.

Friedag, going back to the book that inspired this discussion, I wonder if future readers will not have much the same reaction to "Bridget Jones' Diary." All of Bridget's obsessions over her weight and how many cigarettes she had each day could be relics (I hope they are) and readers will not have the understanding or patience to put up with her whining and probably will not think she is amusing.

Here is another for you, Friedag - "Summer of '42." When I read it high school I thought the nostalgia was touching and funny. Some people now though are actually hostile when discussing the book (or the movie, as is the case with many).

Friedag, if you are still checking this discussion, I want to let you know that I finished my re-read of "Gone With the Wind." It held up much much better than I ever expected. There is so much more in it than I remembered. Thank you and everyone in this discussion who turned me on to reading it again.

jungseed,

My bookclub read TEGOWS about a year ago. We are of varied ages, from 40-56. All of us are or have been married, and all but two of us have children, so we've "been there" as far as storyline. I predict that it was timing for you, and when you return to the book from the other side of the characters' ages, it will speak to you very differently.

Lydia, thank you for letting us know. I'm glad you enjoyed your reread of GWTW. It's a helluva a story, in my opinion, in so many respects.

My apologies for not responding to your post just previous to the last one. I didn't finish Bridget Jones's Diary. I couldn't stand her whinging -- what was it, ten years ago? -- so I doubt I would tolerate her any better now. I have no idea if future readers will think she's "so 1990s/2000s", or whatever dismissive phrase they invent. But I think you're right in noting the similarities between Bridget and her ilk and the snarkiness of the characters in Georgy Girl. Whatever is trendy in a contemporary novel is bound to be old hat to successive generations of readers -- even when they like vintage styles. Something you, or someone, said above (or elsethread) struck me: (paraphrasing, since I can't locate it to quote directly)
readers like historical novels written in their own times better than preceding generations' contemporary novels because the sensibilities have been redone to suit what the writers and readers want those times and the characters to have been.The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that's right.

Let me guess about Summer of '42: Are the readers nowadays hostile about the young boy losing his virginity to the older woman? I can see how that would be a 'modern' take. It sure didn't seem to be awful to Raucher's character in 1942...Hermie, I think was his name. And I don't think it was considered obscene back in the early 1970s when the book came out, but we have become sensitized to the 'issue' of cougars since. (Even the term cougar is ugh-worthy!)

I loved "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", Anita Loos had such a sly wit. She had a very interesting life too, writing movie scripts at such a young age and mixing with so many of the characters of that era.
As remarked, humour doesn't always wear well but I have just finished "Leave it to Psmith" written in 1923 and cracked up at the Wodehouse turns of phrase.
"Mrs. Ames" by E.F.Benson written in 1912 is a favourite of mine, along with his later Mapp and Lucia books. The only thing that is "wrong" to me now is when the opera diva recommends that Lucia learns to smoke, when she lights up!

For me in England a cougar is another name for a puma. Why would I not use it in the US, unless I was hunting or maybe in a zoo? Has it become a vulgar word that cannot be used in polite society?

Veer - in the U.S. "cougar" is now a term that indicates an older woman who pursues younger men. It is definitely not meant as a compliment. I'm not sure how the term got started, but it's been around for a while now.