Kevin's Watch

So, a friend emailed me the link I'll put at the end.
It's a list of 20 "Classic" books, about which they say [among other things]

Here are a few great novels you have probably not heard of, but were nevertheless significant influences

I thought I'd covered a lot of territory. Scored really well on the list a while ago of 100 must reads or whatever it was called and am now close to finishing up the ones I hadn't read...[except for the handful that I just simply intentionally refuse to read]

On the list, I've heard of 11 authors out of the 20, only recognized 4 of the the novels, have only read a mere one of the things [the ee cummmings...but I've read everything cummings, I'm a fan] I think I once saw a movie based on one of them ["Cranford"...I think...maybe].

Anyone more familiar with these people/books? Read them? The seem interesting and high quality from the blurbs.

Check link and post me data!

qwiklit.com/2013/04/29/20-classic-novels-youve-never-heard-of/

I have only heard of 5 or 6 of the authors and a couple of the books. I'm not a big reader of 'classic' literature at the best of times

Obviously I know the work of Huxley and cummings (not the novel though). James Stephens is a well-regarded Irish writer, but I never read anything by him. I've heard of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, but again never read it. I have book by Robert Musil, which I haven't read (seeing the pattern here ). I have heard of Roussel in relation to Foucault's work on him (read neither. Jeez, I'm beginning to feel ignorant ). Heard of Pirandello from my Italian students (haven't read). Might have heard of Fournier (or is that Fourier ). (Now I'm just depressed. Vraith, if you ever find a list like this again could you keep it to yourself )

u.

I'm not sure they can even be classics if they are not known.

Here's how I look at it, a classic does at least three things:

1) Stands the Test of Time.
2) Stands the Critical Test.
3) Becomes a source of inspiration.

The first two can happen of course, in any order.

It's also why I would only some of Dicken's, Austin's, Dumas' books classics. Someone might write some classic books but no one can be a writer of classics.

Now, I think I have distracted enough from the fact that I have not read or heard of any of those novels.

I've read only two of them, (The Water Babies (which I own) and Chrome Yellow) and heard of two more.

I think Orlion makes an interesting point. That said however, I didn't know that either of the two I've read was "unknown," and I would probably have referred to both as classics if asked.

So maybe they are classics in potentia, just waiting for somebody to read one and realise...

--A

1 out of 20 I'm afraid. Only the Water Babies have I actually read. Heard of Mrs Gaskell, Huxley but none of the others! I thought I had seen a film called Cranford but obviously not as I don't recall the story line at all.

Thought I had read a lot of classics!

Now everyone else can feel smarter.

You're welcome.

Heard of two of the books - The Water Babies is a well known classic I thought, and the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists has a Penguin Modern edition that I've seen in bookshops - but read none.

read none.

Vraith and Hashi both make valid points.

Hashi is correct: The names of Bononcini, Scarlotti, Pergolesi, Lotti, and Caldara are not on par with Handel and other contemporaries of the Baroque era.

Likewise, while folks know Haydn, as Mozart's contemporary, Paisiello is mostly rememberd only for his tune "Nel cor pui non mi sento" which was set by Beethoven but incredibly famous. His sneezing trio in Barber of Seville (which folks only remember the Rossini), is brilliant, but forgotten by the masses. Likewise, Giordani's music was featured in a Bubble Yum comercial in the last 30 years, but unless you are a classical singer, he is unknown. C.W. von Gluck is often sung, but works mostly unknown. and except for AMADEUS, one would rarely hear Salieri's music today.

And yet, Hashi's choice of Bach instead of Vivaldi or Handel (contemporaries whose Four Seasons and Messiah have been perennial favorites) points to Vraith's assessment, as Bach languished in obscurity for a bit after his death in 1750, where he would have stayed in obscurity had he not been revived again by a composer who is largely known for one oratoro on an old testament prophet ... And mostly because his Aunt was a huge fan and had studied with Johann's son, Wilhelm Friedemann some 75 years after his death.

For what it is worth.

I have heard of 5 of the books, but read only excperts of one. The Spanish Tragedy is far more seminal, but not included. To each their own, I suppose.

Doc

I've only really heard of one of those books. That being The Monk by Matthew Lewis of course. And that's only because I happened to pick it up in a book store bargain section a few years ago.

Other than that I've heard of Cummings, but never read any.

I zeroed out on this as well. A few sounded vaguely familiar but I'm pretty sure I haven't read any, except that Cranford sounded familiar... I may have read it 30 years ago.

I've read some Cortazar, but I don't think I read "Hopscotch" -- although, if I'm not mistaken, it was made into a movie at one point.

I've heard of Mrs. Gaskill because another author or authors I've read sometimes refers to her. But I've never read any of her work -- and in fact, I was never sufficiently interested to look her up and figure out who she was.

I guess in the case of most of these books they are not so old as to have run much of a risk of dissapearing into total oblivion - but what of the really old stuff; classical literature as opposed to classics. Is Homer classic because he is still known, or still known because he is classic [don't upbraid me if I have made a silly choice - it's the idea I'm trying to get across]. As Hashi points out, many musicians of Bach's time are now lost to us because their work is no longer extant, but I'm guessing Bach is still known because he was the best of them. But as you go further and further back the number of individuals whose surviving works remain [from any given period] declines. So all we judge upon is the work that remains to us. At some point judgement will have been made to copy, say Beowulf and not to copy another. Without knowledge of how these decisions were made - what criertion they were based on - it is difficult to know wheter we are indeed reading the classics of the day, or what in our day and age would be the 'also rans'. Age lends a patina of 'classicallity' to a work that it may not be truly deserving of. Perhaps?

pete the ageing savage wrote:So all we judge upon is the work that remains to us. At some point judgement will have been made to copy, say Beowulf and not to copy another.

In Lit classes...especially ones dealing with periods when all works were hand copied...I often argued that there was a damn good chance that much of the work wasn't necessarily the BEST, just the most popular.
I mean, think about it...if we blow up the world, and aliens come exploring in the far future, they are most likely to find surviving copies of things like the Bible, Stephen King [they might wonder if Stephen King and King James are related...at least at first] and Danielle Steele.

That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that written work wasn't really a "popular" cultural thing back them...it was strongly tied to the intellectual class/institutions.

Vraith wrote:

pete the ageing savage wrote:So all we judge upon is the work that remains to us. At some point judgement will have been made to copy, say Beowulf and not to copy another.

In Lit classes...especially ones dealing with periods when all works were hand copied...I often argued that there was a damn good chance that much of the work wasn't necessarily the BEST, just the most popular.
I mean, think about it...if we blow up the world, and aliens come exploring in the far future, they are most likely to find surviving copies of things like the Bible, Stephen King [they might wonder if Stephen King and King James are related...at least at first] and Danielle Steele.

That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that written work wasn't really a "popular" cultural thing back them...it was strongly tied to the intellectual class/institutions.

I think academia is important for older works to be classics. I mean, Beowulf was largely forgotten until 1815 (so, for about 800 years of its 900-1000 year existence, Beowulf was a dust collector). Popular works are likely to survive being lost forever (like, say, Homer's the Illiad) but sometimes it takes a scholar to shine a light on a great work that has survived but been abandoned.

I haven't read a one of them. Maybe that will change someday. Just curious, anyone know if Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time series is a well-known classic? I haven't run into anyone who has read it (that I know of) besides my dad, who recommended it to me.

Holsety wrote:I haven't read a one of them. Maybe that will change someday. Just curious, anyone know if Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time series is a well-known classic? I haven't run into anyone who has read it (that I know of) besides my dad, who recommended it to me.

Heh. I just started that series. Finished the first (of twelve) books a couple days ago.

I am not certain if it is a "well-known classic".... there is definitely a group of readers that would have heard of it and/or read it....but it is not really something most people would list as a classic... at least in the US.

And, to tell the truth, you are only the second person I've heard talk about it that is not John Crowley.

Well according to Wiki, it's rated as one of the classics. Personally, I'd never heard of it.

--A