Post your list with your comments here for discussion.

Thanks for more help procrastinating on real work today!

The first seven I'd classify as classics that I've never gotten around to...These are the ones I'm embarassed not to have read, and will pretend to have read if need be, since I know a lot about them...just haven't actually read them.
Lolita - Nabokov
1984 - Orwell
Animal Farm - Orwell
Moby Dick - Melville
Beloved - Toni Morrison
Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut
Anna Karenina - Tolstoy

A Confederacy of Dunces -John Kennedy TOole -- Referenced by lots of my favorite authors. Sitting on my shelf.

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell - Susannah Clarke
I've started Jonathan Strange a few times, but it's so heavy, and there are no good spots to throw a book mark in and take a break. I've been told I will love it.

A Winter's Tale - Mark Helprin
My sister and my father have both recommended this forever, my sister because she borrowed MY copy about five years ago-- I've had it for at least ten years, but never read it. It doesn't help that my sister says I have to read it on a snowy day, since we haven't had much snow to speak of; also, she hasn't returned my copy.

Left Hand of Darkness - Ursula LeGuin
Something about the first page, or the font, or the phase of the moon. I've just never been able to commit to it.

This is a totally random sampling from my to-read list. I often feel like I want to read everything, and that I’ve read nothing.

Watership Down - Richard Adams
Everyone I know tells me how great this book is. I know I will like it because I love animals and stories about animals. I know I haven’t read it because the old paperback copy I used to have was ugly and unappealing and I am ridiculously superficial about that sort of thing, but now we’ve given it away to someone’s child so I’ll have to get my hands on another copy.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - John Berendt
I really don’t know why I’ve not read this one. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing I like when I want to become absorbed in an easy read on a rainy winter evening.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being - Milan Kundera
I have a nagging fear that I won’t like this book even though it’s been recommended by many friends. I probably should have read it in college…for some reason I worry that I’ll like it less now than I would have then. These are the kinds of nonsense rationalizations with which I occupy my brain.

Speak, Memory - Vladimir Nabokov
No excuse. I’m sure I’ll love it.

The Gormenghast Trilogy - Mervyn Peake
I started this a few years ago and I didn’t get past the first 30 pages. I think it’s a somewhat dense read that I will appreciate when I’m willing to put in the effort, but so far I’ve always found an excuse not to get involved with it.

In Search of Lost Time, I-VI - Marcel Proust
Obviously, I have not read these memoirs because they are impossibly long. I’m noticing a trend here. I aspire to be a calm and patient person, but the truth is I am not.

Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie
Always been curious, but apparently not curious enough.

The following are all “classics” that I put off time and again because I know they’ll always be around some other time, and they’re popular enough that I don’t think I’ll ever forget to get around to them:

Jane Eyre – Charlotte Bronte (ridiculous that I’ve not read this)
Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Middlemarch - George Eliot
The Name of the Rose - Umberto Eco
A Passage to India - E.M. Forster
Finnegans Wake - James Joyce
Women in Love - D.H. Lawrence
Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh

Jane Eyre is an easy read, Christy. I managed it when I was 12 and reread it frequently. Just pick it up. You'll be through it in no time.

The Name of the Rose, on the other hand -- take a sandwich and keep an open link on your computer for Wikipedia. I probably would have understood more of it if I'd had that available when I read it. Interesting book, but heavy going.

Infinite Jest and 2666 are so physically daunting...

I know! I thought everyone had to read it in school, but somehow I didn't. I've also never read Grapes of Wrath but have decided that I'm okay with that.

Sarah -- it's true! Sometimes a book is just physically SO BIG that I feel like I need a forklift to haul it around.

I have found I tend to read those thick classics more easily on my Ebook reader. I don't have to haul a fat tome around with me, since I tend to read a lot out of the house.

That's definitely where a reader would come in handy.

Grapes of Wrath should be on my list too, alas, but I've never forgiven Steinbeck for The Red Pony.

I found Winesburg, Ohio to be a quick read, and easy to read in little bits and pieces, a chapter here and there.

Was The Red Pony made into a movie that I would have been forced to watch in elementary school? It sounds familiar...

I have a memory of watching a movie that was considered sad, and yawning right before the lights came back on so everyone thought I'd been crying because my eyes were watery.

Sarah, that's EXACTLY what turned me off from Steinbeck! Frickin' Red Pony in junior high! HATED that book. I think there was a movie in the 70s, but I didn't see it.

But Travels with Charley was really good. Just haven't liked anything else yet.

I can't even explain how I could have missed all of Jane Austen's novels as I've seen movies, know the stories, etc. I'd thought I'd read a couple when very young but I don't think so. I don't think I ever even knew much about them until I was an adult. I suspect I'd like them but I've never gotten around to reading them:

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen
Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen
Emma by Jane Austen
Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
Persuasion by Jane Austen

I've wanted to read this ever since I was about 8 or 9 and read Little Women and it was mentioned:

Middlemarch by George Eliot

I've wanted to read this ever since it was published but I've heard mixed things and when I start to start to borrow it to read I've nixed it from my immediate to read list:

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke

I love the story. I love the movie. I've just never taken the time to read it:

Exodus by Leon Uris

I've been told I should read books by this author by people whose taste I trust but I've never felt compelled to actually read them:

The Wind-up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami
Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami

I've meant to read these a thousand times, at least. Most of my friends have read them, and I like Tolstoy as a man but War and Peace is daunting and I know the story of AK already so well:

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

This is one favorite of a friend of mine and have meant to read it ever since she recommended it way back when:

Stones from the River by Ursula Hegi

There was a movie. Sigh.
I read every book with "horse" or "pony" in the title as a child. That one was a gut-wrenching mistake.
(But I have a real red pony now!)

I refused to read Austen for YEARS, Lisa. I had this whole prejudice that Austen was the beloved of Ivy League English Majors who wore pearls and sweater sets -- somehow arch and superior and artificial. Then, yes, all those movies and TV series showed up and I got curious, so I started reading. I've read them all now (and a sad collection of so called sequels by other authors) and I reread most of them regularly (In fact, I'm in the middle of going through the books again right now). They were nothing like I imagined them to be -- much more accessible, more humorous, more honest than I expected.

Sherri, Yes, from what I've heard/read about Austen she is very funny. Glad to hear you think she's also honest.

Wow Sherri - You and I have a LOT of books in common. Did you read the Jane Austen Book Club? It's my least favorite of Karen Joy Fowler's books, but I suspect I would have enjoyed it more if I had read the rest of the Austen books (I've read three...)...much like how I think I would have enjoyed Reading Lolita in Tehran even more if I had actually, y'know, read Lolita.

She had a good eye for the foibles of the people around her, and skill in putting those foibles into her characters. And she's SHARP. Because of the language changes over time, her comments don't always have the same sting now that they did then, but once you get an 'ear' for her, it comes out.

Ko, Just saw your list. Ender's Game (which I really, really want to read) and Cloud Atlas (which I feel I should read) for me too!

Cloud Atlas was fun. So was Ender's Game.

Books you want to read or really think you should read but have not yet read.

The funny thing about this list is that since the person making it hasn't read the books yet, they don't have anything invested in it. I admire everybody's restraint in not saying "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU HAVEN'T READ THAT!" which is the usual reaction to some of these books...I'm using it as encouragement to pick one of them up when I'm done with my current batch of library books.

Sarah, most of us have a "to be read" pile (or shelf, or a whole book case) because everything SOUNDS good, but for whatever reason, some books always get shoved to the bottom, or get passed over.

How people think about books apart from the contents of the books themselves interests me. People will make judgments about others on the smallest details, and the titles of books one has read (or want to read) is among those details, especially among other readers. I think people DO invest in books they haven't read yet, if only by investing intention, or (for some, not all!) by shaping the impression they want others to have of them.

I've noticed, for example, that we tend to feel a little more charitable about folks who indicate some interest in a favorite book of ours than we do about someone who either read it and hated it, or refuses to read it, or simply has no interest.

The books a person WANTS to read can be as fascinating as the books a person hands down REFUSES to read (which may constitute another bookshelf some day).

Refuses to read would be an interesting one, as would the converse of what you're saying, "books that you refuse to admit you've read or want to read."

I have more books I haven't read than I could get to in a lifetime, but I'm giving it a valiant try.

Some months ago we had a couple of threads along the lines of "refuse to admit you've read" in discussions about "embarrassing reading" and the like. Lots of emotion :) Book Shame is a multifaceted thing!

I like to pretend I can't die until I have read all the books I currently own. I figure it will take a few decades :D

Sherri wrote: "Sarah, that's EXACTLY what turned me off from Steinbeck! Frickin' Red Pony in junior high! HATED that book. I think there was a movie in the 70s, but I didn't see it.

But Travels with Charley w..."

Try America and Americans (recently republished a few years back as America and Americans and Selected Nonfiction). If you liked the narrative style of Travels with Charley: In Search of America you will also like America and Americans. Also don't give up on Steinbeck so easily. True, I've been nutso for Steinbeck since I was twelve (there's probably a story there...), but he actually wrote a variety of different...sub-genres, you might say??? You might also like Cannery Row and its sequel Sweet Thursday, also Tortilla Flat -- these are not epic fiction, but more humorous portraits of life...the characters in these three books in particular (as well as the completely absurd plot premises -- absurdly believable, but still absurd) make these *fun* to read. I know what they require one to read in high school -- these are not those books (though I think everyone should read America and Americans).

Kate wrote: "Oh, I loved the Red Pony! And Grapes of Wrath and Travels with Charley.

I've never read any Austen. Terrible, I know. *hides face in shame*"

I'm glad somebody also liked "The Red Pony" -- I was beginning to feel alone here (I also own the 1949 film...Robert Mitchum is seriously easy on the eyes as Billy Buck). Have you read any of the *uncommon* Steinbeck books? In Dubious Battle is probably my favorite (though I've never met anyone else who's ever read it).

If you can "handle" the gravity of Steinbeck, you should try reading Austen -- I think you might enjoy her more than you might otherwise think (I avoided her for about 26 or 27 years, and was sorry I'd waited so long). Start with P & P. The thing about the Austen canon is that reading her works "opens up" a ton of references in film and other literature.

Cecily wrote: You might also like Cannery Row and its sequel Sweet Thursday, also Tortilla Flat... "

I've been trying to read "Sweet Thursday" on a friend recommendation, and I may have to go back to Cannery Row, but what bothers me most is how indifferent I am to the characters. I was completely involved in Travels with Charlie and I liked that voice. It may be that he is an author for whom the fictional narrative voice doesn't work for me. I'll check the other works you recommend, though.

It's sort of like Dickens. I keep trying to read Dickens, and parts are very good and I enjoy them, but as a whole novel, I get so weary with the constant new character sketches for people who then vanish, and the very tedious building up for plot, that I just get irritable and bored. It isn't the 19th century novel form per se, as I've read and loved a few, but just his "paid by the word" style.

I've never been able to enjoy Dickens. I've read a number of his books, but they're all a bit of a slog for me. I am interested in this new book though: Drood A Novel

Sherri wrote: "Cecily wrote: You might also like Cannery Row and its sequel Sweet Thursday, also Tortilla Flat... "

I've been trying to read "Sweet Thursday" on a friend recommendation, and I may have to go back..."

They make a lot more sense if you read them in chronological order. And neither Cannery Row nor Sweet Thursday is the kind of book Lit. professors would assign you to read because they want you to "get all involved" with internalizing the characters -- they are just sort of a hoot to read. That's not to say they are badly written, just don't look for too much "deep" within. Also, the character "Doc" was based on Steinbeck's friend Ed Ricketts (who was the guy who basically "founded" the Monterey Bay Aquarium).

American and Americans -- like Travels with Charley -- is nonfiction. It's also like the "intercessory" chapters in his more epic books of fiction (you know when you're reading along and then all of a sudden you have this weird random chapter that is an essay that has a vague topical connection to ideas in the larger work, and you would wonder why it is there but that it is bound within the book). If the short novels don't "work" for you, I think you would probably prefer America and Americans.

Sarah Pi wrote: "I've never been able to enjoy Dickens. I've read a number of his books, but they're all a bit of a slog for me. I am interested in this new book though: [b:Drood A Novel|3222979|Drood A Novel|Dan..."

I heard about the Drood book on Fresh Air, but not yet convinced I should be interested. Yeah, I would have to say that Dickens probably takes up most of my "ought to read" list (Hemingway's on there too). It's stupid, because after reading all the major works (and most of the minor works) of Thomas Hardy, how bad could Dickens possibly be???

James Fenimore Cooper is also on my "ought" list -- thank goodness Mark Twain brought "the American vernacular" into American literature!!! That early American "formal" stuff is a nightmare. Can you imagine Stephen King writing in the style of James Fenimore Cooper???

I didn't like Cooper either...I'm glad styles have shifted.

Sarah Pi wrote: "I didn't like Cooper either...I'm glad styles have shifted."

Though I have to say, I very much enjoyed Daniel Day Lewis in leather pants in Last of the Mohicans. ;-)

Well, that wasn't so much about Cooper's writing. It's all in the interpretation, I guess :)

Sarah Pi wrote: "Well, that wasn't so much about Cooper's writing. It's all in the interpretation, I guess :)"

Nope, not a bit about Cooper's writing, but still enjoyable. The best hope for a compelling film adaptation is that it will interest folks in reading the actual book.

ANd yet we still flock to see them. "Oh! My favorite book has been turned into a movie! I shall go see it, so that I can practice justifiable bitterness afterwards!"

Sarah Pi wrote: "ANd yet we still flock to see them. "Oh! My favorite book has been turned into a movie! I shall go see it, so that I can practice justifiable bitterness afterwards!""


Sarah -- you made me snort my milk there.

There are a few rare books where I thought the movie was better, although little at all could be done to save Mansfield Park, although they did try.

I shan't discuss Hardy, as I share Jasper Fforde's assessment.

I'm trying to come up with a film that I thought was as good or better than the book it was based on... what are yours?

Sarah, I have a few:

The Children of Men by P.D. James - terrible book, filled with moronic characters making moronic decisions. The movie was just amazing.

The Prestige by Christopher Priest - the book was good, but the movie took the themes in it and really improved on them. Probably my most favorite movie ever.

The Princess Bride by William Goldman - wonderful book, wonderful movie, each with their own strengths.

Kiss the Girls by James Patterson - I love both, the movie manages to cut out parts of the book yet not feel lacking.

Good examples! The Princess Bride is a great example -- I liked the book, but loved the movie. I agree with you on the Prestige as well.

I'm mostly coming up with movie versions that didn't offend me:
What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Into the Wild
High Fidelity
Schindler's List - actually, I think that's an example of the movie being better than the book. I found one!

The Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books to me. Just my opinion!

Jackie, in a lot of ways the LoTR movies WERE better than the books. They brought out the emotions underlying the stories in a way the language doesn't do so well for many in the modern audience.

Honestly, I preferred the movie Chocolat to the book. The book felt like a big ol' cop-out and I was dubious about the movie until I saw it.

I also liked Practical Magic better in movie form. The book was good, and explained some things that puzzled me, but in general I found the movie just made for a smoother story with fewer bothersome but not contemplatable loose threads.

Sense & Sensibility (the Emma Thompson version) I actually like a teeeeeeeeny bit better than the book -- again, some of the long letters in the book I tend to skim over, and there are repetitive bits I read quickly (says the woman who's read the book 4 times). It just did such a good job of bringing the characters to life for me.

Fight Club.

Yeah, I liked the movie Chocolat better than the book, too, Sherri. It was more satisfying, and more fun.

Sense & Sensibility, too. So good! I love most of the Austen films, though, except for the P&P with Greer Garson and the Gone With the Wind style fashions. It's just too silly for me.

One author I like better on screen than off is Dickens.

SO I think what we're saying is that film is a great way to overcome some of the shortcomings of authors whose actual prose does not live up to the themes, characters, or simply the drama that their premise implies.

That's a good synopsis, Sarah.

Also, I think a movie's ability to just show what may take pages of prose to describe is a positive. Books with lots of physical action tend to work really well as movies.

What movies often can't do is include many subplots or a very nuanced plot -- we just won't sit for a movie that long, in general. So, the screenwriter has to pick the strongest plotline, or combine them to make a strong plotline with one or two subplots. Just having that much in a movie can make it feel big, while in a book that might seem a little thin.

Sometimes I get involved in a movie not for the movie, but to see what the screenwriter has had to do to shoehorn the book into the 2 hours of film.

That curiosity always gets me, even when I know that the answer lies in the original Cinderella. Forget the shoehorn: cut off the toe.
Nuanced, complex plots get butchered. Subplots are left on the cutting room floor.
And yet I can't wait for Watchmen next week.

Same here, Sarah Pi. I'm excited about Watchmen, even though I didn't love the graphic novel that much.
I felt like I had joined a story in progress when I read the book, like I was playing catch up. I'm hoping the movie will be easier to get into.

I can see that argument; the structure is byzantine. I read it a second time years later, and it fell into place better.

I read it so long ago that I only remember reading it, not what it was about. Time to pull it out of storage and try again.

Sarah, I can't agree with your Cinderella assessment. Sometimes a nuanced complex plot in a book fails for me, as if the author falls move in love with the complexity than with telling the story. Not that I insist on simple stories, but -- especially in literary fiction -- a good story with lots of depth has floundered under its own weight. Occasionally -- and I will say it is only occasionally -- a movie treatment will underline things that are lost amid the garbage in a book.

Name of the Rose comes to mind. The book was one hard read, and the movie was only barely easier, but at least I finally got the POINT after I saw the movie. While reading the book, I wasn't always certain.

Of course, there are those books turned into movies where I throw my hands to the heavens and please "Why, oh why?"

Another movie I loved more than the book was Girl with a Pearl Earring


I was having trouble understanding some of the characters' motivations in the book, but the actors in the movie, with their expressions illuminating their feelings, made them perfectly clear.

Plus, Colin Firth starred. :D

I didn't mean it as an absolute statement. I think Jackie's LOTR example is a good one, actually. I think Tolkein was so caught up in the language and the land and a thousand incidental characters - many of whom contributed to the lore of the book, but not the plot - that he left out some themes and motivations that would have enriched his characters. I might be in the minority, but I don't mind the absence of Tom Bombadil or the addition of a love story.