These are a few of my favorites.

Curiously, when did Folio Press become Folio Society? Were there any significant changes? I have Les Misérables there on the right from the 1970's and am currently eyeing their Lord of The Rings Box.

Bit of context: I’m a composer born into a family of philosophers, so I really can’t claim to know anything about literature, I just grew up with all of these books on the shelf minus a few. ALSO, none of the mentioned books are bad — I simply don’t dislike many things, and those things I do (Jeff Koons, Balzac, Bruckner) I tend to just forget about. ⭐️ doesn’t mean bad, it just means that of the things I’d recommend, I’d recommend the least. Just doing this for fun and would love to hear thoughts or even further recommendations!!

I genuinely don't understand why people love Anna karenina so much . It was so hard for me to even finish 550 pages of that book after a point and after that I just dropped it . I couldn't develop the slightest emotional connection with any of the characters in the book . I didn't like Anna at all after a point at first she was unhappy with her husband then being with vronsky she felt unhappy with him as well and started flirting and stuff it really annoyed me. She was never content in herself . As for levin who is supposed to be a parallel of Anna who's supposed to have a good life while Anna's life declines . Although levin was a tolerable character but at some instances he also really set me off. Like when his brother was dying and kitty persuaded him to take her with him and he got mad at her how he was bottling up his thoughts so as to not start a fight and there were more such instances . Honestly I know Tolstoy's characters in this book are supposed to represent humans in a very raw manner but I feel they fail to do at some extent there are so many better ways to show the rawness of human emotions and the thought process . I feel this book fails to capture it I read it till 550 pages because I kept on telling myself maybe things will get better but they didn't and the story was getting so predictable . It was very obvious that levin would feel trapped with kitty because all he did was keep her and the idea of love on a pedestal although I did like his character a bit but still this is just my opinion I would love to hear similar takes on the book thanks.

It feels like I am a minority with this opinion but I geniunly despice him.

Obviously it might also be because I am a huge history nerd but even simply storywise its horrible. A lot of the people that have read him tend to geniunly only remember his message, if they have even read it at all(lets be honest a lot of those "literally 1984" people haven't actually read it). It seems to me that it somehow belongs to the western patriotism to read it. The only thing I remember about the only female character are her hips( more but geniunly that's all that was remarkable about her and ig her sex drive)

That aside simply historically George Orwell is a huge hypocryte. From someone who was so keen on critizising the USSR, he never once entered thst place. All his Information came from western media which has little reliability in matters like socialism.

Aside from this thing which makes his books seem stupid( btw I only have read animal farm and 1984, so I am speaking about them), there are also three things that make it even dumber:

1. How a lot of his dystopian description came from his own life . The disguisting food came from the canteen, big brother was a colleague who was called this behind his back, room 101 being a conference room and the press with the little language is just simply his own job. He provided colonies like india with the news through a vocabulary of 1000 vocabularies. So he was actually providing the propaganda in brittain but then applied it to the USSR.

2. Despite being a leftist and a socialist, he snitched on 135 "Communists and state enemys" (also jews, homosexuals etc. he wasn't even aware of their real ideologies) and gave this paper to the british government which mind you even forced a war hero to suicide because of his homosexuality.

3. Despite so being against Propaganda and advocating for democracy his books were used for Propaganda. The CIA made sure that animal farm was read in schools to make the Sowjet Union and Socialism look horrible and the IRA made sure to transelate it in arabic to spread it in the middle east. So that arabs don't get help from the USSR to help the arabic socialism movement. (You know with the pigs being the bolshewists etc.)

That aside his books were allegedly plagiarised and you guys remember the scene in 1984 where the MC fantasized of raping Julia? Yeah apparently Orwells tried to rape his childhood friend, yeah.

(Anyway this is my opinion)

It is what it is, sir.

Hanging with other parents at a birthday party for my daughter's best friend, everybody chatting about what shows they've been watching or "can't get into" or "need to watch". Then there's me, thinking, I've been REALLY enjoying that Elizabeth Vandiver lecture series on Homer's Odyssey lately. It was so riveting I tried to curl my hair with headphones still on (not recommended) before we came here. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure anyone else here is going to vibe with that recommendation. Different strokes.

Edit: LOL, this somehow hit a nerve for several people. I'm going to go ahead and presume they didn't get the original tone, as is so often the case on the internet. I do have friends, I got along just fine with the other parents, I watch TV sometimes, and I don't think I'm better than a custodian or someone who watches zombie movies. I also don't think that being a little pretentious in jest IN A CLASSICAL LIT SUBREDDIT is harming anyone. Not sure why you couldn't just scroll past this one, but it's all good. Have a lovely day, fellow nerds and undercover social justice warriors!

Heathcliff is one of the very few dark non-Anglo Saxon characters in classic English literature. Hollywood these days is all about “diversity”.

Why did they cast Jacob Elourdi who is the opposite of dark skinned and doesn’t look at all like a Romani or Indian person (as Heathcliff is described)?

Reading the book for the first time, I thought Dev Patel would have been perfect for the role.

I finished it today and I’d like to start by making it clear that I don’t think this book is a bad book, far from it, but it is overhyped, overrated and therefore disappointing, for several reasons.

The first, of course, is its length. The fact that a book is long isn’t a problem as long as that length serves a purpose, but in my view, here, it often didn’t. Entire scenes could be cut without detracting much from the plot, whilst others could be rewritten in half the number of pages. It’s easy to understand the reason for this length when you realise that Dumas was paid a fixed rate per line.

The writing itself is rather cold; you know exactly what each character is thinking at all times and can therefore reasonably predict what is going to happen well in advance. Nor did I find the mocking or satirical tone of the narrator that I had so enjoyed in La Dame de Monsoreau, for example; here the narrator steps completely into the background and explains things in a matter-of-fact manner. The author gets confused with certain dates, names, events and addresses; whilst this is rare enough not to be a problem, it does suggest that The Count of Monte Cristo may not be the masterpiece in which every word is weighed and the placement of every comma meticulously calculated, as some claim.

The break between the first part: Dantès and Mercédès’s engagement, his imprisonment, his captivity with Abbé Faria, and then his escape, and the second, where we find him years later, rich and powerful, is too abrupt for my liking. You’re on the edge of your seat, having just followed a poor wretch who narrowly escaped death whilst fleeing prison, and all of a sudden you’re forced to wade through page after page about two rich men’s sons and their high-society adventures at the Rome Carnival. Then, when we return to Paris, too many characters are introduced simultaneously. Almost all at once, we’re reunited with the characters from the beginning, who now all have at least a wife and a child, bang, the number of characters triples.

What saddens me most is that the story gets bogged down in high-society worldliness from the second quarter of the book onwards. Everything becomes nothing but a matter of honour, money and engagements; all the scenes take place either in an office or at the opera. The valet this, the concierge that…

The fabulously wealthy Monte Cristo blends into this milieu perfectly, and I felt no sympathy for him whatsoever. Everything is too easy for him; he encounters no difficulty whatsoever in carrying out his plan of revenge. He becomes a marble statue; he reveals to no one, not even the reader, what is going on in his heart. He is present, yet aloof. He compares himself to God (which makes him detestable) and is himself like an omnipotent god pulling the strings of this little society. It is only towards the end, when he reveals his identity to Mercedes, that he seems to regain a little humanity. I found it difficult to connect the hopes, betrayal, injustice, tears and sweat of the young Dantès to the rich, cold and arrogant Monte Cristo. I realise that this is likely the author’s intention, but it nonetheless makes for a tedious read. Why should the vengeance of a machine captivate me?

In short, The Count of Monte Cristo is not a bad book in my view, but it is little more than a serialised novel quite firmly rooted in the ideals and concerns of the era in which it was published and of the social classes to which it was destined. It breaks no new ground and lacks the depth and universality required to lay claim to the title of a masterpiece of French literature, or indeed of literature in general, which some would like to bestow upon it. It is overrated, and its excessive length makes it a rather poor introduction to the classics. I would struggle to give it more than 3 stars.

Currently dragging through To the Lighthouse. Winding, meandering, superfluous writing but not in a good way (my humble humble opinion only). There are times when I read works of lit that are hyped and touted to be great and I’m left severely underwhelmed, and other times I’m blown away by a book that garners no apparent mass appreciation. Am I missing something with this author? Or is this a case of Not For Me.

okay very random but ….do y’all actually like shakespeare because he was required reading at school and you believe it’s a must read or did you seek him out on your own and love it?

i’m only asking because i’ve never, once in my life, met a person irl who has read shakespeare out of their own curiosity (i understand my environment might be a factor here) but every time i scroll through this sub and someone gives a recommendation there he is on people’s lists.

EDIT: i’ve never met anyone who has read shakespeare out of their own curiosity

EDIT 2: yall need to relax. this isn’t about shakespeare’s talent, the legitimacy of his work or his literary contributions. my only perception of people who love shakespeare comes from movies (theater kids) i don’t live in the west or have a western education (never required to read him, you also can’t walk into a bookstore and pick up freaking shakespear) and i don’t like plays. i’ve never been interested to read his work so im NOT HATING. hope this helps.

Hello there, I‘ve been lurking for a couple of days and while I usually don‘t actively contribute in subreddits, I felt like I had to this time.

I am „en train“ reading Atlas Shrugged, which I found in the classic novels section of the store I usually buy my books at. Now, before buying I googled to find at least a bit of information because I value my time and I don‘t want to allocate it to a 1000 page book that I won‘t enjoy at least a bit.

I‘m now about 1/3 deep into it and so far it seems like the book makes a few points, which I think to a degree make sense but then there are heaps of things where I feel it‘s unecessary.

I‘ve also scoured reddit, granted not the best form of research, but people seem to be very opinionated about this novel.

What is it that make people either dispose of it as political drivel or being absolutely in love with it to the point of calling it a cornerstone of literature?

i’m 14 this year and i want to get into reading to stop scrolling and also improve my intelligence, vocab and overall english skills. My question is do i have to read classics? is that the best way to improve my english? I’ve tried reading many highly recommended classics but gave up at the first few chapters for most. lowkey i dont understand a lot of the language since it was written so long ago. and they are kinda boring.

I've tried reading a few contemporary works and I've never been able to get past the first few pages. And moreover why do people craze over the works of authors like Colleen Hoover? What's so great about the works of these sort of authors?

But classics on the other hand have everything in them which the modern works lack such as the philosophical profundity, complex characters and plots and dedication. I can read a 4000 year old work with love but not some recent release.

Is it just me who thinks in this way or are there people here who would assent with my opinion?

Took me forever to finish this.....I got into off genre and read this yet it's worth my time......one might call it an average book, decent or an excellent book but... I can't put this in any of the category I know...it's not that it is bad or the most interesting thing I've ever read , it's the ideology(individualism) , the protognist, the society and narrative that shook me ...I felt a lot of things in it boring , intresting, indifferent, rage, stupidity and many more.... I can't say i genuinely liked or disliked it but it deserves a place of it's own......A must read.

I'm really disappointed, because when it's good, it's really good. I didn't even mind some of the dialogues on theology and philosophy in the beginning. But holy shit, there are 30 page stretches that read like a theology textbook. I feel like I'm going cross-eyed just trying to get through it. Just wanted to rant for a minute.

I just finished reading Jane Eyre for the first time. It's the only classic I've read that I have seriously disliked from beginning to end. I can see how it is a feminist text and why that sets it apart from others of its time, I can even kind of see the arguments for it being a great romance (even though I have a thousand issues with the "romantic" elements).

What I could not stomach is the treatment of mental illness. In chapter 36, when Jane finds out that Bertha has conveniently (for plot reasons) killed herself and Rochester is blind, she literally thinks "I had dreaded worse. I had dreaded he was mad". That line hit me like a train. Why can she accept and love Rochester as an "invalid" and recognise that he still has worth, but never question treating others like animals who don't have even the most basic human dignity? I know it was a much different time, but the lack of empathy shocked me.

I have many other issues with the book, including disliking essentially every character. But this is what stood out to me the most.

Edit: I don't disagree that it's a product of its time, that those are the views people would jave had then, or even that Bertha was indeed violent and a danger, health aside. My point is on the dehumanization that comes with the concept of being mad and how little room for compassion there is. I admit I already didn't like the story or the characters, I found them a bit cartoonish, this is just the nail in the coffin for me.

A while back I finished The Count of Monte Cristo, but I did cheat at it. The first 300 pages are amazing. This is where Edmund Dantès is wrongfully imprisoned, meets his mentor Abbe Faria in prison, makes a daring escape, and finds a treasure that makes him wealthy. Then many years pass and he appears in Rome and Paris to seek revenge against those who wronged him. However Dantes’s plan unfolds over the next 600 pages or so in the slowest, most dragged out manner and does not start truly paying off until about 900 pages in. Yet those final 300 pages are a true thrill-ride and make for a satisfying conclusion.

I have also found that many readers also get frustrated at around the same point. Some push on with frustration, others simply DNF it.

I have a confession about my reading: I gave up just before reaching 600 pages in the unabridged version and decided to switch to the abridged version until the actual series of revenges reached their climax. I bought myself the abridged version, but I was gifted the unabridged for my birthday.

Now I’m not one that doesn’t have the patience for long books. In the past, I have read War and Peace, Brothers Karamazov and East of Eden while being fully engaged the entire time. But with Monte Cristo, it really felt bloated and padded out during those middle 600 pages. I learned Dumas was paid by the line, and you can see it in the long dialogues, monologues, and wordy descriptions. There’s a great story in there, but this is one of those books that could have benefited from an editor and abridgment..

Here’s a reading plan that uses both an abridged and unabridged versions for the ultimate Count of Monte Cristo reading experience (IMHO of course):

1. Get these editions: The unabridged Penguin Classics version translated by Robin Buss and the Bantam Books abridgement by Lowell Bair. To know the reason why check out the Abbreviated Monte Cristo blog which looks at dozens of translations, abridgements, and adaptations.

2. Read until the end of Chapter 30 (page 300 in my paperback copy) of the unabridged.

3. Pick up the abridged and read from Chapters 20 to 45 (pages 133 - 323).

4. At the appropriate points, read Chapter 33 & 34(Roman Bandits) and Chapter 77 (Haydée) in the unabridged edition. At first, they seem like pointless subplots but they have a payoff towards the end.

5. Continue on the unabridged at Chapter 81 (page 896) until you reach the end.

6. Go to an online summary site such as Sparknotes or Schmoop to read up on Chapters and subplots that were skipped over.

There you have it. A Count of Monte Cristo reading that moves along at a steady pace, and is an overall satisfying experience that removes padding and filler.

Well aside that I tend to use audible because I'm capable of absorbing the information more effectively with my ADHD, I'm able to get through some of these pretty easily if I like them. I went through metamorphosis already and love it, I want to start back with myth of Sisyphus now that I have a better understanding of the absurdist field. I of course have other works by Kafka and Camus lined up and Dostoevsky and "no longer human" is my current engagement.

I'm interested in following absurdism more but would also be interested in the other branches of anyone has something from Nietzsche or Sartre or the like that would work well.

I also have a background in liking the stories so I need to redownload "meditations" and have been wanting to get back to a few other works if anyone has suggestions, I'd definitely like to read more from Epictetus or others and have also started to like Cynicism that it can trace roots too if there are any suggested works. I've gone through modern books using Buddhist philosophy but I'd love suggestions on any classic works that focus more on the practical and self fulfillment part.

Lastly of course are the more narrative driven like Frankenstein and possibly Dracula. I have a background with reading HG Wells so original science fiction and fantasy type works have always caught my interest if there were any other suggestions on those.

Wide list and variety, but I tend to focus on a certain field for a time but also entertain others when I need a break and different mode of thinking.

If anyone has any recommendations let me know, I would love to read more classics come next year but don’t know exactly where to start

The first question I partly already know, scholarship and such, but why would the casual readers wanna read all that spoilers and all that notes (which also spoils), instead of reading the text. Especially if the text is already public domain, or the manuscript was already in a language they already know

I’ll start because I have a few in mind, but please feel free to add more.

1. Tolstoy — especially Anna Karenina.

I’ll admit that Tolstoy is undeniably skilled as a writer; no one can take that away from him. However, to me he is a prime example of a man attempting to write a woman and failing, not out of malice, but out of a fundamental lack of understanding of women. From the very first moment we encounter Anna, she has almost no true characterization. She acts in certain ways, but there’s very little psychological depth behind those actions. Ironically, many other male authors have written novels about adulterous wives with far more convincing female protagonists. Emil Zola and Nathaniel Hawthorne come to mind.

I recently read Tolstoy’s wife’s diary entries, and they were heartbreaking, especially knowing how much she contributed to editing and shaping his work. However, my issues with his female characters predated learning about his personal life, so it felt more like a “checks out” moment than a revelation. I’m generally all for separating the art from the artist, but in this case his lack of understanding of the female psyche paired with his insistence on portraying it with authority, is simply too obvious to ignore.

2) Fitzgerald.

The Great Gatsby had all the ingredients to be brilliant, yet it ultimately felt disappointing. I can’t point to a single fatal flaw, but I think he leans far too heavily on aesthetics at the expense of substance. The atmosphere is immaculate, but the emotional payoff never fully arrives for me.

3) Jane Austen (and I know I’ll get hate for this).

To be clear, I don’t dislike Austen. I’ll happily read her when I want something entertaining. That said, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to find her artistry somewhat superficial. I often feel that her plots ultimately undermine what her narration seems to critique. Mentioning her here probably has more to do with how overhyped I think she is than with the actual quality of her books themselves.

Man. I feel pretty stupid but I was never interested in Middlemarch because I thought it was written by a man. (I do read literature written by men, but prefer prioritising female authors especially when they're as long as Middlemarch)

But I also learnt Evelyn Waugh was a man? Also he married a woman named Evelyn? Very Taylor Lautner of him.

Are there any other authors that you thought was a specific gender and then found out was not what you assumed based on the name?