New Classics according to someone...

[Mamasteff]

I've been trying to find a book I want to read on our vacation.... and I just came across this post.

 

How many have you read?

 

I have read 27 of the 100... I guess I have a few choices for the road!

[LaMere Academy]

:blush:

I've only read 8 out of those 100...but have several more of them that have been sitting on my bookshelves gathering dust...I need to read them.

That's a good list though, I bookmarked it.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Wow, I've only read 4. I guess I'm behind the times.

 

I went over the list again and picked up one more. :-)

[nmoira]

I've read 23, but while there are some interesting books on the list, I'm not prepared to call many of them "new classics."

[angela in ohio]

I've read two, and only because Joy Luck Club was assigned in my Great Books class in college (crazy, huh? it was to represent modern literature) and because I had an Updike phase in college. I tend toward non-fiction and more traditional classics...

[Vida Winter]

But classics? I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on how you define "classic."

[Lolly]

Guess I am not very current.

[Tweed]

Bridget Jones a modern classic? Oh, yes, Fielding's prose is right up there with Austen. Hard to tell them a part, really. ;)

 

Of that list, I think I've read two but I've seen the movie version to about ten or more. LOL They were all depressing movies, which reminds me why I rarely read modern books.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/myers I will try sharing this article one more time because I think it is that important and worth discussing and thinking about if only to decide the writer has a point or is full of beans. In the context of this list of "classics," I readily spotted several that are worthy of acclaim albeit classic does not spring to mind. I have my opinions regarding the list but having read at least half of them, regret the time wasted on at least 25 of those on the list. This article for me is a call to arms regarding what often passes for serious literature when it is often no more than a literary device, an artifice meant to hide the fact that the novel has no soul. I love books, many genres more authors than one would think but sometimes it is time to call something what it is -horsefeathers. The article posits this far more clearly although not as succinctly as I have. My problem is never with content insofar as it may or may not be objectionable to some but rather with the disingenousness and artificial clap trap passing for genius. For instance, no punctuation, ooh revolutionary-please...flame away if you feel so inclined or agree that this is long overdue regardless I sure welcome a chance to hear what the people here have to say about literature. What makes a work canonical? Revolutionary? Genius? Or to phrase it indelicately what ever happened to calling it as we see it regardless of what the critics or profs may assert? When did the reading public give up the right to call... .... well you know.

[ticklbee]

How many have you read?

 

 

Can you believe zero? :blush:

 

I'm just not into contemporary stuff much.

[Kay in Cal]

I've read 14 of them... kind of surprising, since I really don't enjoy "modern novels" that much. Several other are on our shelves since my dh has read them. Of the ones I've read, I would agree they were pretty darn good, though maybe not "classics".

 

I'm just happy to see all those graphic novels on there... :001_smile:

[E_Edgerton]

I have read: A Heatbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Naked, Angela's Ashes, The Corrections, The Glass Castle, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night time, Holes, High Fidelity, and Fast Food Nation. Gilead and The Road are on my shelf. The ones I read I enjoyed...I feel like many good ones are missing though. Good luck on choosing. High Fidelity and The Glass Castle are both really worth reading.

[Carol in Cal.]

Quite a range in this list. It's a pretty bizarre one, IMO.

[Robin Hood]

Wow, I've only read 4. I guess I'm behind the times.

 

I went over the list again and picked up one more. :-)

 

You're ahead of me. I haven't read a single one.

[Mamasteff]

sorry if I offended you!

[Soph the vet]

Classics? Crazy. I've read one under diuress. I also have another one on the list that my mother handed me and I have not started it yet. It is all part of the "dumbing down of America";) that these are now considered "classics" IMO.

[Kay in Cal]

Persepolis was wonderful too... I haven't seen the movie yet. I know that many people don't realize there are serious autobiographical works in graphic format, so it takes a list to bring it to people's attention.

 

And I read all of Sandman back when it was just in individual comic form. Beautiful.

[PrairieAir]

None and I'm not ashamed to say it. I've seen Cold Mountain and Bridget Jones' Diary, though. Neither strikes me as the kind of book I would have enjoyed reading and I hated Cold Mountain the movie. I've seen a couple others, too, I think. We watched The DaVinci Code, and I've considered reading it. That does strike me as a book I might like to read--even if I don't believe in all that stuff, it's pretty interesting.

 

There are a few books on the list I've thought about reading. Love in the Time of Cholera is one, but I recently read another of his books and didn't enjoy it, so unless someone can give me a truly convincing argument for it, I think I'll pass. Really, I'd like to hear a good argument for any of these books. I usually need someone to talk up a more modern novel for me to get around to reading it. There are so many old and time tried classics that I haven't read.

[SFP]

I've read 38 completely, less than all the stories in a collection or other titles by an author mentioned in many other cases. I love modern lit. I love classics. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

As for B.R. Myers and his opinions--well, I'm cleaning out the refrigerator at the moment, so my saying he could use a diet with more fiber in it will have to suffice for what I think, unless you want to read what I had to say about him on my blog when I had a bit more time.

 

Bric a brac

 

The pleasures of snarling

[Jenny in Florida]

But, as someone else said, there are a bunch on there that I've heard of and keep meaning to read . . . Do I get points for that?

 

For what it's worth, by the way, these lists from Entertainment Weekly included only books and movies and albums and TV shows and whatever that were released after 1983 (within the last 25 years).

[dirty ethel rackham]

I've only read 6. Two of them were for our mother-son book club.

[kailuamom]

I was getting depressed that I had only read #2 -- the Harry Potter book -- until I saw 3 more towards the end of the list that were decidedly "more adult."

 

(Though I have to admit to enjoying the HP book more!) :)

 

I figure I will be able to sit and read a book in about, oh, 5 years? lol

[abbeyej]

It is all part of the "dumbing down of America";) that these are now considered "classics" IMO.

 

They're not using the word "classic" in the "classic" sense of the word. ;) They're saying "these are some of the important / worthwhile books written in the last 25 years". It's not meant to replace lists that include the true classics of all time. ... EW simultaneously released "new classic" lists of movies, music, and television released in the last 25 years. I found it interesting to see which works released during my memory they considered to be noteworthy...

 

(On the other hand, I've only read about 8 of 'em, lol...)

 

and I hated Cold Mountain the movie

 

I'm not sure what that tells us about the book though. I loathed the movie. I thought it was just dreadful. Badly acted, badly directed, even the setting looked "off". But I've seen enough wonderful books turned into bad or mediocre movies, that I won't judge the book based on the movie...

[Tweed]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/myers I will try sharing this article one more time because I think it is that important and worth discussing and thinking about if only to decide the writer has a point or is full of beans. In the context of this list of "classics," I readily spotted several that are worthy of acclaim albeit classic does not spring to mind. I have my opinions regarding the list but having read at least half of them, regret the time wasted on at least 25 of those on the list. This article for me is a call to arms regarding what often passes for serious literature when it is often no more than a literary device, an artifice meant to hide the fact that the novel has no soul. I love books, many genres more authors than one would think but sometimes it is time to call something what it is -horsefeathers. The article posits this far more clearly although not as succinctly as I have. My problem is never with content insofar as it may or may not be objectionable to some but rather with the disingenousness and artificial clap trap passing for genius. For instance, no punctuation, ooh revolutionary-please...flame away if you feel so inclined or agree that this is long overdue regardless I sure welcome a chance to hear what the people here have to say about literature. What makes a work canonical? Revolutionary? Genius? Or to phrase it indelicately what ever happened to calling it as we see it regardless of what the critics or profs may assert? When did the reading public give up the right to call... .... well you know.

 

 

GREAT article! I printed all 19 pages and took them to bed last night and stayed up till 1 a.m. reading it. I was "in the dark before the day yet was." ;)

[mommaduck]

2 - most of those don't appeal to me, nor would I find them to be "classic"

[NCMom]

Most through book discussion groups... There are 3 more that I started and had to stop, kwim?

 

I've been trying to get a copy of Pastoralia, it looks interesting.

 

georgia

[Crissy]

I've only read 14 of those, but many more of them are on my shelves waiting for me.

[homeschoolmom]

Sandman is a 'classic' now? Wow. I'm a big fan but it's a comic regardless of its innumerate literary, historical and mythological references.

 

This list just blows my mind and I can't say I agree that these books are on par with 'true' classics such as Candide, Great Expectations, Three Musketeers, etc. Good reads sure but not 'classics'.

 

I wonder how this list was compiled/agreed to. Ahhh, I think I see - they defined the best (most popular?) books as classics.

 

Thanks for sharing. A lot of books I should check out. :)

[Soph the vet]

They're not using the word "classic" in the "classic" sense of the word. ;) They're saying "these are some of the important / worthwhile books written in the last 25 years". It's not meant to replace lists that include the true classics of all time. ... EW simultaneously released "new classic" lists of movies, music, and television released in the last 25 years. I found it interesting to see which works released during my memory they considered to be noteworthy.

 

Sorry, I guess I interpreted the word wrong.

[Sasharowan]

I've read 2.

 

answering elizabeth: I believe that a work needs to be able to cross lines to be a classic. Does it speak to old and young, poor and rich, conservative and liberal? We still find plenty of value in Shakespeare's works, Aesop's fables are still morals that we teach out kids. etc.

[OnTheBrink]

The Da Vinci Code is a classic? Huh. An interesting read, but I thought Angels and Demons was better and neither struck me as "classic" in any sense of the word.

[Hillary in KS]

I've read 18, from start to finish.

 

Another 10, or so, of those I started but never finished. (Life is too short for some books.....)

 

There were lots of good books on that list, but many I was surprised to see.

[Mamasteff]

The Da Vinci Code is a classic? Huh. An interesting read, but I thought Angels and Demons was better and neither struck me as "classic" in any sense of the word.

 

This is one I read but would never have called a "classic." There are so many things literarily wrong with it... it may be on an interesting subject, but it truly is poorly written. There are certain books I would recommend to so many readers... "Holes" for upper elementary and beyond all the way to adults, is so WELL written, tying in so many plot threads. "Harry Potter" is both popular and well written, though reading the whole set together can be trying as you begin to see her plot twists coming a mile away, and again, entertaining and literate enough for adults, though it is considered a "children's" book.

 

As I said previously I love "Maus" and "Maus II," and will be using them to soften the sting of Nazis for my 5th grader this year.

 

It is interesting to see people debating "classic," "new classic," etc. Maybe they should say "Popular," but "Classic" seems more erudite somehow, even if they didn't quite get it.

[swellmomma]

I have only read 1. I tried to read the poisonwood bible a couple times but never could get into it. The handmaid's tale I have read that is it.

[Kelli in TN]

I've only read 6, though I just started Eat, Pray, Love and it is on the list. So, almost 7.

[Kelli in TN]

 

. Love in the Time of Cholera is one, but I recently read another of his books and didn't enjoy it, so unless someone can give me a truly convincing argument for it, I think I'll pass. Really, I'd like to hear a good argument for any of these books. I usually need someone to talk up a more modern novel for me to get around to reading it. There are so many old and time tried classics that I haven't read.

 

 

I did not enjoy Love in the Time of Cholera one bit. Gilead, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, The Kite Runner would be some of my favorites from the list. The Kite Runner is heartwrenching, you might want to schedule a fun read to follow it.

[Mommy22alyns]

while there are some interesting books on the list, I'm not prepared to call many of them "new classics."

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

I generally have a hard time with the phrase, "new classic" anyway. Really. The Da Vinci Code? It was a fun read, but hardly a caliber I would call classic. :glare:

 

"Popular" and "classic" are not interchangeable.

[nmoira]

 

I generally have a hard time with the phrase, "new classic" anyway. Really. The Da Vinci Code? It was a fun read, but hardly a caliber I would call classic.

I tried to read that ages ago. I'd just finished Infinite Jest, which is not an easy read by any definition, and I couldn't even get out of the first chapter of The Da Vinci Code; I just couldn't get past the poor writing and I felt a rather perverse kind of failure at that... still do in a way. At least I can read (and rather like) Jasper Fforde (sp?).

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I've read 23, but while there are some interesting books on the list, I'm not prepared to call many of them "new classics."

 

I agree. I also find something perverse in EW putting out a reading list at all, but that is probably my snobbish nature.

 

A couple things struck me. One was that while there were several books I would consider edgy or avant garde, there were fewer that I consider very good reads but that aren't so edgy. There were several books that were marketed towards youth (and I'm not sure that they were really that great of books). Very few science fiction books, despite how important that genre is. Maybe the very fact that it is a popular genre argues against the inclusion of these books.

 

But then, I have always thought that these lists were mostly populated by books that people thought they should have enjoyed. I can't believe that the people who keep putting Joyce's Ullyses on great books lists have ever read it without the use of heavy medication.

 

Since I'm working on packing up my books, I may have to make my own list as a side project

[Mrs Mungo]

I've read thirteen or so of them (I stopped counting and just skimmed) with one more in my "soon to read" pile.

 

Looks like new Classic=they've made a movie out of it, are making a movie out of it and/or someone on tv wrote a book?

 

I definitely would not consider most of those "classics."

 

Sebastian-I'm with you on Ulysses, not my favorite Joyce.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

Looks like new Classic=they've made a movie out of it, are making a movie out of it and/or someone on tv wrote a book?

 

 

 

 

This is exactly the thought that struck me as I read the list!

 

I have read somewhere between several and many of the books on the list but I wouldn't consider them classics.

 

Somedays (not as often as they would like) the kids get to eat at McDonalds. I know it doesn't improve their diet, it won't improve their palates, and it is not gourmet cooking (or even really good "home cookin' "). But it is fun every once in a while. Kind of like the books on EW's list. I enjoyed them and had fun but...I'm not sure too many of them added to the beauty of the English language. Sometimes such list makers need to understand that a classic cannot always be judged within 25 years of its creation, sales rankings/profits are not the test of great prose, and just because it creates a lot of water-cooler talk doesn't make it Shakespeare.

[kailuamom]

I've only read 6, though I just started Eat, Pray, Love and it is on the list. So, almost 7.

 

 

Ohh...I liked Eat Pray Love. Made me want to escape to a yoga retreat in India (even though I don't even do yoga -- I think I just really wanted the peace and quiet. :))

[unsinkable]

I've read:

 

2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling (2000)

3. Beloved, Toni Morrison (1987)

6. Mystic River, Dennis Lehane (2001)

9. Cold Mountain, Charles Frazier (1997)

11. Into Thin Air, Jon Krakauer (1997)

14. Black Water, Joyce Carol Oates (1992)

16. The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood (1986)

21. On Writing, Stephen King (2000)

24. Lonesome Dove, Larry McMurtry (1985)

25. The Joy Luck Club, Amy Tan (1989)

33. The Year of Magical Thinking, Joan Didion (2005)

34. The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold (2002)

36. Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt (1996) {couldn't finish it...}

47. World's Fair, E.L. Doctorow (1985)

48. The Poisonwood Bible, Barbara Kingsolver (1998)

50. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen (2001)

55. The Glass Castle, Jeannette Walls (2006)

57. The Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe (1987)

60. Nickel & Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich (2001)

65. The Giver, Lois Lowry (1993)

69. Secret History, Donna Tartt (1992)

72. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Mark Haddon (2003)

73. A Prayer for Owen Meany, John Irving (1989)

74. Friday Night Lights, H.G. Bissinger (1990)

77. The Remains of the Day, Kazuo Ishiguro (1989)

84. Holes, Louis Sachar (1998)

86. And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts (1987)

92. Presumed Innocent, Scott Turow (1987)

93. A Thousand Acres, Jane Smiley (1991)

94. Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser (2001)

96. The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown (2003)

99. Practical Magic, Alice Hoffman (1995)

 

32 plus some of Angela's Ashes.