Reading the Chunksters discussion
General Archive
>
Classic Chunkster- Redefined (Discussion Thread)
date
newest »
newest »
I'm surprised and disappointed that you could consider a work published only a few years ago to qualify as a legitimate classic (despite puffers willing to call almost anything an "instant classic"). I don't see how a work published as recently as 1999 can already have become an "essential part of human cultural heritage." It certainly hasn't had the chance to be tested for merit by multiple generations. As to major prize winning books automatically qualifying for inclusion as classics, assuming that you accept the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction as a "major literary award," you would then accept as classics the following works: The Way West by A. B. Guthrie (1950), The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters by Robert Lewis Taylor (1959), House Made of Dawn by N. Scott Momaday (1969), Elbow Room by James Alan McPherson (1978) and many other books which I wonder whether you really would rank as classic literature. (I realize that these are not necessarily chunksters, but they would fit your definition of classics.)
There are innumerable examples of books being acclaimed almost instantly as classics, as literary masterpieces, as books that will be cherished for generations, which almost as quickly fall into virtual oblivion. PR flacks can toss such accolades with abandon, but I think serious readers should expect a book to have shown lasting value over a meaningful period of time before according it the merit of being considered a classic.
But that's just my view, and clearly not that of the moderators here. So I will just accept that many of the books chosen here for "classic" status are likely to be ones I will have no interest in reading. So be it.
By the way, I also notice that you didn't define the "contemporary" set of works. If anything up to 2000 can be considered for the classic group, does that mean that a "contemporary" chunkster must have been written in 2000 or later?
Everyman wrote: "I'm surprised and disappointed that you could consider a work published only a few years ago to qualify as a legitimate classic (despite puffers willing to call almost anything an "instant classic"..."i agree with everything you've said, Everyman. including the question you've posed.
I have no issues with the new definition personally. I think to one degree or another, we've been applying these criteria to our nominations for a very long time. For example, I see how Gone with the Wind or Once and Future King qualify for a classic, because both are considered influential on other literature and are known among general non-reading populace. I see why, let's say, Stephen King's Under the Dome was chosen as a contemporary read. Because it is quite new, yes, but also because it hasn't really made any cultural impact (and probably won't, since King's books usually serve their purpose as entertainment novels, and carry little social or moral commentary).Again, I am not a literary person, with little schooling in literature, being a business graduate and all, but these are my two cents.
I joined this group for the classic reads and must say I am disappointed with the guidelines. The last two selections would be considered contemporary by many standards ... It does not seem that we needed new guidelines to encourage modern works in this category. Perhaps the intent is to use this category to focus on winners of modern book awards? Are the rules implying that literature from the 90s is not "contemporary" if it has literary merit? The categories in my opinion are distinguishing between time periods not necessarily the import of the work. Otherwise it should be classics and light reading, classics and pure entertainment, etc. I'm just confused and bummed.
My question would be why it is necessary to classify contemporary reads as Classic chunkster reads when they would fit as Contemporary chunkster reads? What is the purpose of putting contemporary books into the classic category? If I could understand the objective, then maybe some of the changes in guidelines would make more sense.
Sera wrote: "My question would be why it is necessary to classify contemporary reads as Classic chunkster reads when they would fit as Contemporary chunkster reads? What is the purpose of putting contemporary ..."I agree with Sera. Also with E :) in that I just think of Classics and Contemporary as different time periods. But since I joined this group because I like to read long books regardless of when they were written or what awards they've won, the final distinctions for the categories isn't really a big deal to me in the end as long as I have an interest in the books that are ultimately chosen.
We adjusted the definition in response to members asking for something like this, but from the discussion so far I'm hearing the opposite. We wanted to allow the most freedom for our members, but if the consensus it that the old definition was better, we can go back to that. We aren't trying to disappoint anyone, but instead trying to improve the group. As always we want to do what is best for the group and appreciate all your input!
I understand your frustrations, dear members, but the adjustment took place to legalize what has been happening for a while. Look at our latest nominations in the poll. The Once and Future King (the winner) was published in 1956, and defined as young adult, fantasy, historical fiction, and it is definitely not a traditional classic novel.
Doctor Zhivago was written in 1957, and again only a modern classic
Kristin Lavransdatter is a saga, published in 1920, labeled as saga, historical fiction, and even romance
Ben Hur is Christian fiction
Arnold Bennett's The Old Wife's tale is somewhat obscure, and its name (the novel) only cursorily mentioned when you take an ADVANCED course of Brit Lit
So your trend to nominate mostly the twentieth century books is quite obvious.
Besides, books by D.F. Wallace, M.V. Llosa, G.G. Marques, W. Gadis, J. Joyce, I. Murdoch, J. Fowles are true classics and required reads for many students as a part of the 20th century literature. They are mind-boggling, challenging, time-and-space bending, artistic, literary, allusive, and visionary.
When we talk about classics, people tend to forget that writers like Shakespeare were very low-brow for his time: theaters were for plebs; noble houses hired their own actors; the language was foul and full of obscenities, and yes, the topics are universal, and the metaphors are brilliant, and the stories are eternal, but he 'recycled' many other popular stories.
Nowadays, because the language has evolved, we do not get all these nuances, but it still does not negate the truth.
Dickens' target audience was middle-class, basically, anyone who could read serialized journals, but now because he reflected the zeitgeist and was socially very active and liberal in his philippics, his works are a part of human heritage.
Our intention is to separate intelligent challenging fiction (regardless of the moment of its actual creation) and mainstream fiction (any period) that will also include all fiction published between 2001-2013
The other argument why we decided to make the definition more inclusive is because the group members were really struggling with conventional classic reads. The Count of Monte Cristo had to be archived and never finished. The Brothers Karamazov took two attempts to complete and only a handful participated. On the other hand, Gone with the Wind was a success, and if you are a purist, you will never call it a classic. We also read The Name of the Rose (the post-modern classic) as a side read when The Brothers Karamazov won the poll.
It is definitely up to you, but then we never actually canceled the conventional classic novels. You nominate them, they win, we read them.
Besides, the moderators have the right to reject the nomination if it is too obscure or genre-biased. And I do trust my group members. Usually the nominations are very interesting.
And guys, I know this is my major oversight because we did not define what a regular mainstream chunkster is, but honestly, the previous guidelines did not contain a definition of the modern chunkster, and it did not prevent you from participating.
My suggestion as a compromise is to give it a try, but if the choices in classic nomination will be sub-par for the next two reads after Les Miserable and will not meet the expectations, then we might reverse to the traditional definition. How about this?
I finished The Count of Monte Cristo and mostly followed the original reading schedule. Unfortunately the threads for each section were typically not opened until long after their scheduled completion dates. The issue with this read was most likely that there was not an active leader for the discussion -- not the "classic" nature of the book. (It is not a challenging read by any means.)Also, I must say that Gone with the Wind had a fantastic discussion leader (thank you Jen!!!)
Kristi wrote: "We adjusted the definition in response to members asking for something like this, but from the discussion so far I'm hearing the opposite. We wanted to allow the most freedom for our members, but i..."I think the key is to make sure that every chunkster would fit into either the classic or the contemporary category, so that there wouldn't be chunksters which wouldn't be acceptable in either group. I think the older one gets, the longer the definition of "contemporary" becomes. For me, books written while I was in school and which I read (or read about) when they first came out are contemporary, whereas to people in or just out of school today might well not consider them that!
Zulfiya wrote: "I understand your frustrations, dear members, but the adjustment took place to legalize what has been happening for a while. Look at our latest nominations in the poll. The Once and Future King (..."
Maybe it's the titles of the groups which is confusing. Those of us who like to consider ourselves to some extent purists of the "classic" label, and I freely admit that there is a potential for literary snobbishness there if one isn't careful, object to, as you say, calling The Once and Future King a classic. But obviously the group wanted to read it.
From your definitions it seems as though you are really dividing the works into, for lack of better terminology on the spur of the moment, "serious literary chunksters" and "light reading chunksters." There can still be some dispute over which group some works belong in, but it seems that that is more what your definitions were moving toward, if I interpreted them correctly.
There are groups on GR which specifically focus on classic literature in the more traditional sense, so there's no compulsion to use the term here unless we want to. It's just that if we do use it, my personal preference is that it be used in its usual, traditional sense.
I was not around for The Brothers Karamazov so I'm not sure what the issues were with this read. I think the mods may have identified an important area for improvement but perhaps the cause is misplaced. In the blurb about the group (what encouraged me to join) some classics are name dropped. I would think a good number of members are interested in reading books of similar caliber. The categories now seem very lopsided to me. The Count of Monte Cristo should definitely fall into a light reads category. All old lit, serious or non, is grouped together. So why shouldn't a serious, more recent work be chosen for the contemporary read?
Splitting based on a cut off date makes more sense because it is less subjective. Zulfiya mentioned that some recent nominations were from the 20th century, this is true, but they were not from the 90s.
That is why we are encouraging our readers to branch out and read challenging fiction. Many of my Lit professors believed that modern writers are and modern writing is much more sophisticated because authors have the previous cultural exposure and we, as human beings, benefit from it. So, maybe more inclusive definition is not a bad idea after all.
Besides, we might have a thematic thread focusing on big classic chunksters, Richardson for example?
Unless I am missing something there, these more sophisticated, modern works would already have been included in the contemporary category. They get nominated, win, and are read. Right? (It's the same logic used above to explain why shifting focus away from the traditional classics should be OK.)I suppose I can wait to see how things play out with the new rules. I am just bummed because I joined this group to read & discuss books "like Anna Karenina, War & Peace, Les Mis, Don Quixote..." and it seems that these new rules will lead to more choices that I personally am not interested in reading. If I am in the minority here, though, it doesn't make sense to press the issue. The whole point is to read and share with others.
However I do think it would have been nicer to have proposed the new rules as a matter of discussion, so that the mods might hear & respond to other POVs. ( Even the title of this discussion thread "rant thread" implies that this isn't a conversation to arrive at a consensus but rather a place to vent dislike of the rules.. ... .. )
Isn't why we are talking with you, guys? It is definitely not definitive (excuse the tautology) policy. One read is light (mainstream fiction), and the other one is more challenging fiction. Besides, we will soon run out of fuel because the Western canon is by definition limited. When it was called Rant Thread, it was a light-hearted joke, and I might start entertaining the idea that online verbal jokes are not exactly conducive to do what they are supposed to do.
We could have changed things quietly or informed you post factum, and we did not. We were open about it, and the name of the tread was not condescending, but alas, interpretation is totally subjective and we should have stayed neutral and prim and proper.
I strongly believe that literature is fun, hard intellectual work, but fun and pleasure.
We are actually trying hard to revamp the group, re- introducing side-reads, introducing thematic reads, moderators' choice, signing in, open dashboards, but I also see how people can get disillusioned about things :-(
Anyway, I hope our upcoming discussions will be as heated as this thread because if yes, that passion can be addictive and will encourage many people to stay focused, read, and comment.
E:), I appreciate the conversation and we might eventually come to a consensus, but if you are talking about other reads where threads were not posted, you would also acknowledge that neither Kristi nor I was in charge of these reads. The group should be marketable to survive and stay alive and give you and me a chance to read what we want to read.
I agree that I joined this group originally to tackle some of the older and more "traditionally" classic books like Anna Karenina, War and Peace and Les Mis. But I have also enjoyed some of the more modern reads as well. Additionally, if you look at the "classic" reads that have already been done in this group, you'll find that we may have to start repeating books that were read before I joined in order to keep with the more traditional definition! All the ones I can think of have already been read (or attempted) here.
Maybe it would be beneficial to make a master list of classic chunksters the way that we are currently doing for the contemporary ones? And in the master list we could divide them into "traditional classics" and "modern classics". That way we can get a sense of exactly what is out there for us to choose from.
Also, to mention what someone else has said about the threads not being opened up in a timely fashion. Is there any reason we couldn't have two official task leaders for each read? That way if one person is traveling or just forgets the other could open the thread? Also unless this group is set up differently now, I think anyone can open a thread... I know I opened one for Kristi back when we read Vanity Fair and she wasn't available. The mods have said over again (and we should respect this!) that we don't want threads to be opened before their time on the schedule, but if it's late and you are actively reading, why not open it yourself instead of complaining?
Deana, I like your idea, a master list would be a good idea for those of us who aren't as well versed in the traditional Classic Chunksters and a Modern Classic list would be a good idea. Maybe everyone could post their thoughts in the threads that will be coming later today.Here's a thought, as I've been reading through this thread (sorry I didn't chime in yesterday...I have an 11 year old and Christmas is HUGE around my house) I'm seeing 2 things. First I'm seeing that people really do want to read the Traditional Classics, and that members signed up in the group to be able to take advantage of this group's unique way of reading them and tackling them. But I'm also seeing that the traditional cannon is a bit of a limit for some people and that we would also like to read more "modern classics".
What if, every time we nominate we switch between Classic Cannon and Modern Classic? This way the people who are here to read the traditional Classics get the reads they want and the people who are more interested in the modern classics get to read those as well?
Also, as history has seen, this won't be too much of a stretch from the types of books that are nominated and win in this group. Maybe this is a bit of both groups winning, but maybe it's not feasible. Let me know your thoughts.
Deana wrote: "Additionally, if you look at the "classic" reads that have already been done in this group, you'll find that we may have to start repeating books that were read before I joined in order to keep with the more traditional definition! All the ones I can think of have already been read (or attempted) here.Maybe it would be beneficial to make a master list of classic chunksters the way that we are currently doing for the contemporary ones? And in the master list we could divide them into "traditional classics" and "modern classics". That way we can get a sense of exactly what is out there for us to choose from."
That is exactly my point. Repetition is unavoidable because the Western Canon is finite, so why not dilute it with modern chunksters.
We are tinkering with the idea, trying to expand horizons (and expansion does not mean exclusion). All traditional classic novels from the Western canon are still on the agenda; in addition, we are adding modern classics.
I strongly agree you, Deana. Maybe it is a good idea to compile a list of modern classics and ask members to contribute but explain why this is a modern classic.
I will have to discuss this one with Kristi. I believe it might be the starting point for compromise.
P.S. I opened a new thread for UTD. I am sure the delay is only because of the Holiday season.
P.P.S. "The mods have said over again (and we should respect this!) that we don't want threads to be opened before their time on the schedule, but if it's late and you are actively reading, why not open it yourself instead of complaining? "
I do not remember saying this one, but I am new as a mod. I do not see many problems why we can not post some threads ahead, maybe only a week or two ahead?
Zulfiya wrote: "P.P.S. "The mods have said over again (and we should respect this!) that we don't want threads to be opened before their time on the schedule, but if it's late and you are actively reading, why not open it yourself instead of complaining? "This has been our policy, which unfortunately, due to the holidays in the case of Under the Dome this week, sometimes means that the threads are opened late. In the past the reads were led by moderators who weren't around, and I tried to keep up as well I could, and I do apologize again for not doing the best job. As you can see, we have a new Co-Mod who is very involved as well as myself, and should have no problem in the future getting these open.
If you DO see that a thread hasn't been opened promptly PLEASE message the chat leader! We are human, and sometimes are ill or get distracted with mounds of baking and gift wrapping, please be a supportive community member and help us out by messaging us with a small reminder.
I know that in the past we have also had reads that collapsed due to the absence of the leaders, this is something that I have taken steps to avoid in the future, and I hope everyone will hold both Zulfiya and I accountable and let us know if we are failing you all in some way. We are always here, via thread post or PM and we want you to let us know your thoughts.
Zulfiya wrote: "Deana wrote: "P.P.S. "The mods have said over again (and we should respect this!) that we don't want threads to be opened before their time on the schedule, but if it's late and you are actively reading, why not open it yourself instead of complaining? "I do not remember saying this one, but I am new as a mod. I do not see many problems why we can not post some threads ahead, maybe only a week or two ahead? "
It's been a while since this has come up, I think. I tried to find an example but I'm about to head up and it didn't come up instantly, though Kristi did make a recent-ish comment here about Under the Dome... but it's more about not posting spoilers in earlier threads than opening threads early...
Normally it comes when someone is reading ahead in the group and asks for a thread (or a bunch of threads) to be opened early so that they don't forget what they wanted to say. The moderators have said in the past to just keep notes and post them when the thread is opened.
That's what I do in the rare cases that I'm actually ahead (usually I am behind!). Then I can keep reading, and when it's time for that section's discussion I just copy paste my notes out of that file and into the discussion. That way I don't have to try and remember how I felt back then.
I guess I'm not necessarily opposed to opening up threads early... but I do think it loses the feel of reading as a group that way. If someone zooms through a book in only a few weeks, it makes those of us that are actually reading with the group feel left out (or at least it makes me feel that way, I suppose I shouldn't speak for everyone else).
(I should say, occasionally a mod will post a thread a few days ahead when they know they will be out of town or something. Those aren't the cases I'm talking about here.)
Deana wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "Deana wrote: "P.P.S. "The mods have said over again (and we should respect this!) that we don't want threads to be opened before their time on the schedule, but if it's late and you..."Everything you said here is right. In the past we have had people ask to open the threads before the scheduled week, but have not done so because we want everyone reading to feel that they are in it together. That way the people who are behind don't feel completely overwhelmed, and those who have read ahead can keep notes and post them when we get to the section. For the most part people have done well with this, and I really don't want to change how it's been done.
The only exception to this rule is if a Mod is out and opens the posts early to be sure that the members of the read have their thread open. And at the end of books, because we all know that at the end we just want to wiz thru and see how the story ends. So at the end I will usually ope the last 2 threads at the same time.
Other than that we have asked members not to open the threads early, and would like to continue that.
Kristi wrote: "...but have not done so because we want everyone reading to feel that they are in it together. That way the people who are behind don't feel completely overwhelmed, and those who have read ahead can keep notes and post them when we get to the section."That's exactly why I like the rule. Give it more of a "group" feel, rather than just everyone reading however they would normally. Plus it's just so demotivating when you are behind and some speed reader has already posted 10 threads and finished the book! Besides, wasn't the point of the group for those of us who need help being motivated to get through these chunky reads? So the group should be designed toward those people, not toward the speedy ones who would have read it anyway. Just my opinion, of course.
Found one example discussion ... from this discussion it seems like most of the group members (at the time) were also on board with the decision not to open threads early. Kind of puts the onus on the reader to just keep track if they feel like reading ahead, but I think that's ok.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Thanks Kristi and Zulfiya for all your hard work and for being open to these great discussions instead of just making decisions without any input from the rest of us! Much appreciated! This is one of my two favorite groups - great people, great books :)
I think we have reached a certain compromise. We will have to compile two lists - Western Canon and Modern Classic and then take turns, but it also means that we will have to stay 'pure' during the nominations. Only modern classic chunksters or only traditional classic chunksters. As a result of this compromise, I think we should have folders where the members will nominate their books and EXPLAIN why this is a viable candidate and why they want to read it. These nominations could later be used as databases
I also want to quote the final part of our guidelines. "P.S. Moderators are people, not automatons, who believe that reading is the most valuable, beneficial, and rewarding human experience … with the only exception of having your dearest and nearest, their love and struggles. Paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, we can say that we have found two things of priceless worth - loving and reading. Please be patient and do not throw rotten tomatoes if the post is open a day later or if you do not receive an immediate response to your message. "
I know that moderators should be there for you 24/7, but it is only in the ideal world. Message us and let us know about your concerns. And think how we feel when discussion "stumbles" and no one posts. :-)
Zulfiya wrote: "I think we have reached a certain compromise. We will have to compile two lists - Western Canon and Modern Classic and then take turns, but it also means that we will have to stay 'pure' during the..."Having a database of what are acceptable Classics for nominations will be helpful since, as someone with a non-literary background, after reading through this thread I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by the final definitions.
Deana wrote: "Additionally, if you look at the "classic" reads that have already been done in this group, you'll find that we may have to start repeating books that were read before I joined in order to keep with the more traditional definition! All the ones I can think of have already been read (or attempted) here."I can think of many we haven't yet tackled. Assuming that the Read shelf of the bookshelves is up to date, just off the top of my head: War and Peace, The Iliad, The Fairie Queene, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Summa Theologica (not that there may be much interest in reading it, but it's definitely a classic chunkster!), Decameron, Don Quixote, Le Morte d'Arthur, Moby Dick, Orley Farm, Gargantua and Pantagruel, The Mysteries of Udolpho, Proust's Remembrance of Time Past, Daniel Deronda, The Divine Comedy, just in those few there's at least another four or five years worth of reading at the pace we generally take chunksters. And those are just off the top of my head.
Zulfiya wrote: "Repetition is unavoidable because the Western Canon is finite, so why not dilute it with modern chunksters. "It's finite, but we have barely scratched the surface. As I noted in a response to Deana's post.
Everyman wrote: "Deana wrote: "Additionally, if you look at the "classic" reads that have already been done in this group, you'll find that we may have to start repeating books that were read before I joined in ord..."This is why we love having you here! I love that you know all about this and are willing to share you knowledge with us. Would you mind putting these and the others that you know of in the Western Cannon thread when it opens?
Deana wrote: "I agree that I joined this group originally to tackle some of the older and more "traditionally" classic books like Anna Karenina, War and Peace and Les Mis. But I have also enjoyed some of the more modern reads as well. "Which is why the traditional distinction made sense -- it offered both worlds for our consideration.
Under the current guidelines, it's entirely possible that we will never again read a book written after 1950, or even 1980.
Kristi wrote: "What if, every time we nominate we switch between Classic Cannon and Modern Classic? This way the people who are here to read the traditional Classics get the reads they want and the people who are more interested in the modern classics get to read those as well?"Would you then divide what is not the "contemporary" group but seems to be being redefined as "lighter reading" into two groups, modern and classic?
Everyman wrote: "Kristi wrote: "What if, every time we nominate we switch between Classic Cannon and Modern Classic? This way the people who are here to read the traditional Classics get the reads they want and the..."Do you think I should?
Kristi wrote: "Everything you said here is right. In the past we have had people ask to open the threads before the scheduled week, but have not done so because we want everyone reading to feel that they are in it together."For myself, I agree with the past decisions not to open threads early, and hope this policy doesn't change.
Everyman wrote: "Kristi wrote: "Everything you said here is right. In the past we have had people ask to open the threads before the scheduled week, but have not done so because we want everyone reading to feel tha..."I am not going to change this one. I think it helps everyone read together and support each other in their journey throughout the book, therefore greatly enhancing the reading experience in the group.
Kristi wrote: "Do you think I should? [divide the formerly contemporary now lighter group into classic and modern]"Since I'm largely a classicist, I'm in favor of anything that gets us reading more of those wonderful books that have proved their staying power over the generations or even centuries. But in the end, it's what the group wants to read. It doesn't matter if a book wins the poll in a category if nobody really wants to read it and discuss.
Everyman wrote: "I can think of many we haven't yet tackled"My only concern about The Fairie Queene is how readable it is. It is definitely not for me but for members to decide to read or not to read if it is nominated. It is written in Late Middle English (that's how linguists classify it), and it might be quite challenging.
I did read Canterbury Tales in Early Middle English (another term to scratch the heads), and it was a pain in one place with different syntax and unusual spelling, and even the remnants of older declension system.
Time-wise, The Faerie Queene is on par with Shakespeare's works, but Edmund Spenser was a college graduate (at least matriculated at one of the colleges) while Shakespeare's target audience - and let me ignore numerous anti-Shakespearean theories right now - was mostly common folks, so for a reader, Shakespeare is more readable that Spenser. I do not know whether modernized versions for Faerie Queene are available. I know there is one for Beowulf and one for Canterbury Tales.
I am going to set the threads for the two databases later today, send a general info message, and eventually we will change the rules and guidelines based on this intensive process.
Zulfiya wrote: "I am going to set the threads for the two databases later today, send a general info message, and eventually we will change the rules and guidelines based on this intensive process. "Ignore the above statement. Kristi was quicker. Sneakily professional! Thank you Kristi. Please do not forget to explain why you want to include your novel into the database and for our potential group reads in future, and it goes without say that you are allowed to nominate as many as you want.
Ok, if you will all turn your attention to the "Nomination Ideas folder you will now find 3 new threads to be filled with your ideas for our future nominations. You will see that there are folders named:Western Classic Cannon
Modern Classics list
Contemporary Chunksters
Please read the "rules" for each folder before posting your nominations in these folders.
Everyman, please do add to the Western Cannon folder with your knowledge, we would really appreciate it!
Zulfiya wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I can think of many we haven't yet tackled"My only concern about The Fairie Queene is how readable it is. It is definitely not for me but for members to decide to read or not to ..."
Threads are all done...let me know what you think I should add to the "rules" if I missed anything, I tried to add what was discussed in our...um...discussion. lol...that was an interesting sentence.
Kristi wrote: "I tried to add what was discussed in our...um...discussion."Nice. Thanks for setting this up, I'll see if I can add to any of the lists :)
Everyman wrote: "War and Peace, The Iliad, The Fairie Queene, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Summa Theologica (not that there may be much interest in reading it, but it's definitely a classic chunkster!), Decameron, Don Quixote, Le Morte d'Arthur, Moby Dick, Orley Farm, Gargantua and Pantagruel, The Mysteries of Udolpho, Proust's Remembrance of Time Past, Daniel Deronda, The Divine Comedy"WOW!
Off the top of my head, I would have come up with four of those...
Don Quixote (which I read a few years ago and really enjoyed!)
The Iliad (read in high school, did not enjoy, but might be convinced to try again and see if my opinion has changed)
The Divine Comedy (my nomination for the most recent poll)
War and Peace ... which I would love to see as a read here!
I've heard of a few more of these but wouldn't have thought of them when coming up with nominations.
Part of the problem is, I think it may be difficult to convince people to read books they haven't heard of. Maybe I should say we're running out of the "popular" classics? Or maybe we're not and I'm just not as well versed in that type of literature as I should be. Wouldn't surprise me, actually :P
Zulfiya wrote: "My only concern about The Fairie Queene is how readable it is. It is definitely not for me but for members to decide to read or not to read if it is nominated. It is written in Late Middle English (that's how linguists classify it), and it might be quite challenging. "That's a fair point, though he's basically contemporaneous with Shakespeare (Spenser was 12 years older than Shakespeare, but the first parts of the FQ were published at right about the same time as Shakespeare's first plays), so if one can read Shakespeare, Spenser isn't really much of a stretch. But there's also a modernized edition published by Everyman (no connection!) though it's not the whole work (but still a chunkster in its own right at 582 pages), and although I don't usually like reading abridgments or incomplete editions, it would be better than not reading Spenser at all!
Which reminds me, I left the Canterbury Tales off my earlier list of classics we haven't yet read, but the same objection of language would apply there (but there are several modernized versions, but NOT the Ackroyd version, which is a travesty).
Kristi wrote: "Ok, if you will all turn your attention to the "Nomination Ideas folder you will now find 3 new threads to be filled with your ideas for our future nominations. You will see that there are folders ..."May I ask that you consider editing the first post in the thread to include just the titles and authors of all the works which have been mentioned later in the thread? The later posts will be valuable for the comments on why books should be read, but it would be nice to have the list all in one place for ease of consultation.
Everyman wrote: "Which reminds me, I left the Canterbury Tales off my earlier list of classics we haven't yet read, but the same objection of language would apply there (but there are several modernized versions, but NOT the Ackroyd version, which is a travesty). "I think travesty was an intentional post-modern trick, but at least it was not a sex-laden cinematographic version of Paolo Pasolini
Everyman wrote: "Kristi wrote: "Ok, if you will all turn your attention to the "Nomination Ideas folder you will now find 3 new threads to be filled with your ideas for our future nominations. You will see that the..."Yep that is my plan, I will probably update the list once per week. That way we can have an overall list to reference.
I think that the compromise Kristi proposes sounds great! This will add even more variety to the group!The conversation has moved on so I don't really want to rehash anything, I just feel that I need to be clear on one point. I am not upset or "complaining" about the past discussions / reads. I really enjoyed reading The Count of Monte Cristo with the group!!! I only brought up the issues with this read in response to the supposition that it failed due to members "really struggling with conventional classic reads". I also note that this read was contrasted with the success of Gone with the Wind which had a very active discussion leader. My point is that the discussion leader is an important factor in the success of any reads, and this is a factor worth considering if you are evaluating the success of past reads.
I really appreciate the time and work that the moderators put into leading discussions and making the group work. I love the concept of the group and really look forward to future reads and discussion.
E:), we set the threads where you can nominate your classic chunkster and modern classic chunkster. We are creating the database, and it will help to avoid repetitions and confusing during the nomination. Any big mainstream fiction will fall into the modern chunkster category. Everman has nominated interesting big books in the classic chunkster thread, and I nominated a couple in the modern classic thread, so hopefully we will have a solid database, and we will take turns with the classic read.
Pretty much everything I think has already been mentioned in this thread, but I did want to say thank you to the mods; I in the last few months ended up, with another mod, taking over a different group and we had to do a lot of re-vamping and changing things around to liven things and up make the group work better. It's a lot of work and lots of discussion and ideas go on behind in the scenes, and we have welcomed input from the group members, but ultimately, the mods have to make the final decisions and it's impossible to make everyone happy. I just want to say you're doing a good job; try something, if it doesn't work or needs modified, do so. If it works, great! We'll adjust as you do :)
Alana wrote: "Pretty much everything I think has already been mentioned in this thread, but I did want to say thank you to the mods; I in the last few months ended up, with another mod, taking over a different g..."Thanks Alana! I agree with everything you said, and We love to Mod this group! It does take a lot of work, but it's fun and rewarding too.
Reading the Chunksters
Books mentioned in this topic
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)Gone with the Wind (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
Gone with the Wind (other topics)
The Brothers Karamazov (other topics)
More...
As you can see after reading the guidelines for the group, we reworded and edited our guidelines, changed our policy, and added thematic reads and moderators' choice reads, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, we have expanded the definition of a classic chunkster.
Let us know what you think about these new guidelines and particularly about the new definition of a classic chunkster
Feel free to be open about. It is very important to know your opinion because as the Latin proverb says, vox populi, vox veritatis.
And let me pre-emp some of your apprehensions. We will read traditional Western canon, and if we see that our current reads have become too modern, the thematic reads or moderators' choice reads will be focused on 'classic' classic chunksters. Besides, do not forget about the side-reads. Our upcoming side read is as classic as classic goes :-)