Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here.

Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular.

But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best.
I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too.

What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years.
I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes.
To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway.

I highly recommend The Earth, by Emile Zola. Other works by him may be dated, but the characterizations in the The Earth are timeless examinations of human frailties. You can bet Hemingway read Zola. The fact that The Earth came out in 1880 something, is astonishing.

But expecting high school kids to get anything out of the Classics is asking an awful lot of them. Listening to a teacher bang on about symbolism can ruin a good story. I never accepted the idea that real writers and artists sit around dream up ways to disquise their meaning, which is what symbolism amounts to, no matter how subtle.

I just don't think the quality of teaching is there. They are looking at the technicalities of literature rather than its soul.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:13am:

Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here. Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular. But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best. I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too. What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes. To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway.

The Barchester Chronicles (based on Trollop's The Warden and Barchester Towers) was made into a TV series by the BBC in the 1980s. It's a cracker.

Alan Rickmans as Obediah Slop(e), Sir Humphrey Appleby as the Archdeacon, Donal Pleasance as  the Rev Harding, and the incomparable Geraldine McEwan as Mrs ("the Bishop thinks, and I agreeeeee with him") Proudie.

Love it. Just love it.

True, Trollope reads better than Dickens today. But otherwise I disagree about every other aspect of your post.  :)

The only "classic" authors I have read lately have been James Joyce and Lewis Grassic Gibbon.  Slightly later than the other names mentioned earlier.

does Lee Child count as a classic?

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:24pm:

does Lee Child count as a classic?

Somehow I don't think so.

Frank wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:11pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 10:13am: Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here. Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular. But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best. I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too. What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes. To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway. The Barchester Chronicles (based on Trollop's The Warden and Barchester Towers) was made into a TV series by the BBC in the 1980s. It's a cracker. Alan Rickmans as Obediah Slop(e), Sir Humphrey Appleby as the Archdeacon, Donal Pleasance as  the Rev Harding, and the incomparable Geraldine McEwan as Mrs ("the Bishop thinks, and I agreeeeee with him") Proudie. Love it. Just love it. True, Trollope reads better than Dickens today. But otherwise I disagree about every other aspect of your post.  :)

What did you disagree with? Most of it was listing authors and why I liked the classics?

I've got that DVD. Slope is excellent, as is the Bishop & his wife. The Warden though seems as if he would be more at home in a horror movie.
I've never understood why they didn't, perhaps they will sometime, make TV series of the other Barsetshire books. They did do all the Pallisers, which is nowhere near as good.

Wolseley wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 12:46am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 10:24pm: does Lee Child count as a classic? Somehow I don't think so.

in that case I'm out! :D :D

Who the hell is Lee Child?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:35am:

Who the hell is Lee Child?

author ... wrote the "Reacher' series .. you probably know best know the movie "Jack Reacher - One Shot'


I was joking when I asked if he's considered a classic

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 9:12am:

Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 7:11pm: bogarde73 wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 10:13am: Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here. Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular. But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best. I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too. What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes. To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway. The Barchester Chronicles (based on Trollop's The Warden and Barchester Towers) was made into a TV series by the BBC in the 1980s. It's a cracker. Alan Rickmans as Obediah Slop(e), Sir Humphrey Appleby as the Archdeacon, Donal Pleasance as  the Rev Harding, and the incomparable Geraldine McEwan as Mrs ("the Bishop thinks, and I agreeeeee with him") Proudie. Love it. Just love it. True, Trollope reads better than Dickens today. But otherwise I disagree about every other aspect of your post.  :) What did you disagree with? Most of it was listing authors and why I liked the classics?

I don't think you can have a cut off for the classics. The 18-19th century classics come out of earlier ones, all the way back to Homer, Gilgamesh, OT.

Shakespeare is much bigger than you seem to give him credit for. The New Criterion's April 2016 issue is dedicated to Shakespeare at 400 years - he died in 2016 ( the same year Cervantes, another giant of literature died).
http://www.newcriterion.com/

No, well you have to understand I'm a hyperbolist by inclination. But I do think Shakespeare has been pushed down the throats of kids too much generation after generation. And it's so time-consuming because it's so difficult to read.
I've read all the history plays (which are the only ones that really interest me) as an adult and I know I could never have appreciated them as a high school kid.
So that's why I say the cult of Shakespeare.

I did say that, as classics, I myself was talking about 18-19th century and I did say other people could say something else.

I have to admit though I haven't read much pre-18 century.
I've read Tacitus, the Odyssey and maybe a couple of other things but that's it.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

I have to admit though I haven't read much pre-18 century.

I have read a number of short extracts over the years from Roman works but the only pre 18th century text I can recall reading in its entirety (if you exclude some of Shakespeare's plays) is Eusebius's History of the Church, which was originally written in the late 290s, although the translation I read was a revised version from about 20 years later.

Just realised I had forgotten about Gulliver's Travels.

I never read The Travels, but I believe it contains the Yahoos.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:13am:

Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here. Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular. But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best. I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too. What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes. To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway.

theres never enough TIME today boges.....kids are barely learning to read these days...they seem to spend more time on excursions...is that[living the dream]..I dont know anymore...the 3 Rs seem to be crammed in between well sex education for one thing.... ::) ::) ::).. looking round I dont think thats achieved much at all....

and to delve into the classics means time I would think....and of course an excellent teacher....which is rare today...do you think I stand any chance of dragging my 11 year old grandson away from his ipad...and into a classic.....even Harry Potter..at this stage the answer is NO>..

music is another thing fallen by the wayside...and its not encouraged either....

one good thing about Harry Potter it did get the kids reading a book..I read most of the Dickens books but not until I was older........

I have read Gulliver's Travels, The Canterbury Tales, and The Tempest (and Beowulf, but this isn't a 18th-19th century book). I didn't find them anywhere near as interesting as the Greek or Roman texts.

All too true cods. The digital world is killing reading for kids.
Of course I was thinking of say 14+ for kids to be introduced to classics, though at my school we were translating Julius Caesar at about 12. At home though I would have been reading Biggles. Remember him?

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

kids are barely learning to read these days

it's all depends on what the parents do. My 6 yr old is reading 3rd class material (8 yr old). His teacher has asked for a teachers aide because she doesn't want him to get bored and so that he can continue to read at his level while the rest of the class reads at their level.  Right now, while I'm typing this, he's in the lounge, TV off (he turned it off) reading a book on basic mechanics (a 'how things work' book) while my nearly 4 yr old is sitting next to him reading about the solar system. Although I think with the 4 yr old he works more from memory more than actual reading.

We have always read at least 2 and up to 5 books to them, every day since they were about 3 months of age. We were shocked when talking to a mum of a kid in his class once when she mentioned that she had only ever read her son ONE book 3 or 4 times. She should be charged with child negligence in my opinion.

My kids have no ipads, iphones, tablets or any of that crap ... plenty of time for that later. I hope that if I can get them interested enough now, they'll keep it up later.  Ohh, the best bits (in my opinion) they both prefer knowledge books to story books. And the six year old retains a lot of what he reads. He's not just going through the motions

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:

At home though I would have been reading Biggles. Remember him?

And Algy, Ginger and Bertie...

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

I have read Gulliver's Travels, The Canterbury Tales, and The Tempest (and Beowulf, but this isn't a 18th-19th century book). I didn't find them anywhere near as interesting as the Greek or Roman texts.

Beowulf was a chore.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:

All too true cods. The digital world is killing reading for kids. Of course I was thinking of say 14+ for kids to be introduced to classics, though at my school we were translating Julius Caesar at about 12. At home though I would have been reading Biggles. Remember him?

I read every Biggles book I could get my hands on, when I was about 10 or 11.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 10^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 7:23pm: I have read Gulliver's Travels, The Canterbury Tales, and The Tempest (and Beowulf, but this isn't a 18th-19th century book). I didn't find them anywhere near as interesting as the Greek or Roman texts. Beowulf was a chore.

Yes. Not only is the old English hard to read but stories about 'dragons' just doesn't do it for me.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 10:13am:

Some people may regard the classics as things like Plato or the Odyssey, but I am thinking about 19th century and some 18th century books here. Australia has its own classics and I have mentioned some in other threads, authors such as Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant. And America has its classics, Mark Twain, Henry James etc. And there are translations of French classics like Balzac & Zola. I like Balzac in particular. But I still prefer the English classics and one author, apart from Dickens of course, stands out for me and that's Trollope. And from his unbelievable production line I like the Barsetshire series best. I'm listening to one now, Dr Thorne. I've got the books and read them, but listening is good too. What I like about the classics is they show you that people essentially don't change much over time. The rules of society might change but really people's behaviour doesn't. There is continuity which has probably been there for hundreds if not thousands of years. I don't think schools devote enough time to classics. They're difficult and the curriculum is full of bits of everything. And there is the cult of Shakespeare which I think is carried to extremes. To my mind, kids would derive more understanding from a Dickens or Trollope novel than they would from Shakespeare, which they can't understand anyway.

thanks Bogarde -
Quote:

Henry Handel Richardson, Miles Franklin, Kylie Tennant.

Will look into them .

I also liked Boyle T. Coraghessan, Anais Nin is beautifully evocatively poetic,
Joseph Heller was overated.
Vladimir Voinovich is a good Russian author.

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 10:57am: kids are barely learning to read these days it's all depends on what the parents do. My 6 yr old is reading 3rd class material (8 yr old). His teacher has asked for a teachers aide because she doesn't want him to get bored and so that he can continue to read at his level while the rest of the class reads at their level.  Right now, while I'm typing this, he's in the lounge, TV off (he turned it off) reading a book on basic mechanics (a 'how things work' book) while my nearly 4 yr old is sitting next to him reading about the solar system. Although I think with the 4 yr old he works more from memory more than actual reading. We have always read at least 2 and up to 5 books to them, every day since they were about 3 months of age. We were shocked when talking to a mum of a kid in his class once when she mentioned that she had only ever read her son ONE book 3 or 4 times. She should be charged with child negligence in my opinion. My kids have no ipads, iphones, tablets or any of that crap ... plenty of time for that later. I hope that if I can get them interested enough now, they'll keep it up later.  Ohh, the best bits (in my opinion) they both prefer knowledge books to story books. And the six year old retains a lot of what he reads. He's not just going through the motions

Does my heart good to see there is still hope left in the world.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

I have to admit though I haven't read much pre-18 century. I've read Tacitus, the Odyssey and maybe a couple of other things but that's it.

Many of the great before the invention of the novel by Cervantes are in verse form - Dante, Chaucer, Homer, Virgil, Gilgamesh, Mahabharata etc - and even after  - Milton, Goethe, Byron, Shelley etc - and so I think they should be first heard, not read.

I did read Don Quixote & Canterbury Tales but they would have been modern English translations I'm sue and in any case they are gone from the memory now.

For Sprint I will add my favourite Russian novel is probably And Quiet Flows the Don. What a sweeping epic of the Cossack experience before and after WWI.
And also another Aussie author worthy of note is Ruth Park.

Binary wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 5:05am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 8:47pm: cods wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 10:57am: kids are barely learning to read these days it's all depends on what the parents do. My 6 yr old is reading 3rd class material (8 yr old). His teacher has asked for a teachers aide because she doesn't want him to get bored and so that he can continue to read at his level while the rest of the class reads at their level.  Right now, while I'm typing this, he's in the lounge, TV off (he turned it off) reading a book on basic mechanics (a 'how things work' book) while my nearly 4 yr old is sitting next to him reading about the solar system. Although I think with the 4 yr old he works more from memory more than actual reading. We have always read at least 2 and up to 5 books to them, every day since they were about 3 months of age. We were shocked when talking to a mum of a kid in his class once when she mentioned that she had only ever read her son ONE book 3 or 4 times. She should be charged with child negligence in my opinion. My kids have no ipads, iphones, tablets or any of that crap ... plenty of time for that later. I hope that if I can get them interested enough now, they'll keep it up later.  Ohh, the best bits (in my opinion) they both prefer knowledge books to story books. And the six year old retains a lot of what he reads. He's not just going through the motions Does my heart good to see there is still hope left in the world.

Me too. And a round of applause for John & his family, who themselves and their children will always remember with fondness & pride the effort, if that's the right word, they put in.

I've read a few of those.
Some are very good.

'Moby Dick' was good.

'Down and Out in Paris and London' was gritty

"Animal Farm' was futuristic. Written simply, very deep.

'Lolita' was one of the more beautifully written books I have read. Despite the topic.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 5:13pm:

I've read a few of those. Some are very good. 'Moby Dick' was good. 'Down and Out in Paris and London' was gritty "Animal Farm' was futuristic. Written simply, very deep. 'Lolita' was one of the more beautifully written books I have read. Despite the topic.

Classics are very good - that's  what makes them classic.


Is anyone an Audible subscriber?

The most notorious and thoughtlessly repeated remark in English about translation is the chestnut attributed to Robert Frost: “Poetry is what is lost in translation.” Though Frost’s authority on the subject is dubious, his remark—like the Italian phrase traduttore traditore (“translator betrayer”)—lends epigrammatic zing to the old notion that the translation of poetry is an impossible task. Arthur Schopenhauer, ever the pessimist, declared that “Poetry cannot be translated.” The great Peruvian poet Cesar Vallejo said simply that “everyone knows that poetry is untranslatable.” And Roman Jakobson, the Russian linguist, argued that “poetry is by definition untranslatable.”

Such claims—many other philosophers, poets, and linguists have made similar ones—are so prevalent in part because they contain a kernel of truth. To the degree that the essence of poetry is embodied in its actual words and their particular sounds, poetry certainly does get lost in translation: all the original words and their sounds disappear. As the noted linguist Steve Martin remarked after a visit to Paris: “Chapeau means hat. Oeuf means egg. It’s like those French have a different word for everything.” Martin’s joke gets at the serious difference between originals and translations that Vallejo, for example, had in mind: poetry is untranslatable, he explained, because “translated into other synonymous but never identical words, it’s no longer the same.”




I agree with Frost - although some translations are better than the original.

Depends on the translator?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10^th, 2025 at 2:49pm:

Depends on the translator?

What does?

How well a translation appeals.