Planning for our Next Major Read, part 4

[Linda2]

Well, Huck Finn won anyway, if voting stopped at midnight. I'm not interested in reading it again.

[Kathy]

Rochelle wrote: "Is Mallory written in Middle English, or in translation?
I think I just changed the vote.

It's not quite modern English, but it's nothing like Chaucer! Opening at random, here's what I find:
'So sir Palomyde toke his shyppe and drove up to the Delectable Ile. And in the meanewhyle sir Hermynde, the kynges brothir, he aryved up at the Rede Cite, and there he tolde them how there was com a knyght of kynge Arthurs to avenge kynge Harmaunce dethe...'

Once you get used to the spelling being slightly different from ours, it's not too difficult. Makes you realise that between Chaucer and Malory the English language made the leap from something that we find pretty alien (Chaucer) to something that is very much the language that we know today. Imagine throwing away your dictionary and letting everyone make up their own spelling conventions and this is what you might get!
(No harder than reading a Shakespeare text in the original spelling.)

[Penny]

I was OK with reading both but out of the two I prefer Le Morte.

I'm sorry Everyman.

[Laurel]

"All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huck Finn.... There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." (Ernest Hemingway)

[Kathy]

Laurele wrote: ""All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huck Finn.... There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." (Ernest Hemingway)"

What tosh. Hadn't Hemingway read Melville, Hawthorne, Fennimore Cooper, Thoreau, Beecher Stowe, Douglass? There is NEVER 'nothing before'. The very fact that Hemingway wants to believe in the 'nothing before' myth demonstrates that Emerson came before.

[[deleted user]]

Laurele wrote: ""All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huck Finn.... There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." (Ernest Hemingway)"

She says as she votes for...Mallory??? That was a nifty piece of misdirection. Very sneaky.

[[deleted user]]

Oh Man! I smiled when Laurele posted that famous chestnut from Hemingway --who I used to accept as a "great author." Now these comments! I wish we were starting this discussion tomorrow!

Unfortunately (just kidding!) we have a long way to go with some truly great authors from a couple thousand years before. I sure hope Kate, Kathy (and Laurele) and many others will be around if (WHEN) Huck wins.

[Linda2]

Hemingway was full of ...
himself.

[[deleted user]]

Rochelle wrote: "Hemingway was full of ...
himself."

Quite.

[Linda2]

I thought voting ended yesterday. ?

Let's go, people, we have 491 members, we need 2 more for Mallory.

[[deleted user]]

Rochelle wrote: "I thought voting ended yesterday. ?

Let's go, people, we have 491 members, we need 2 more for Mallory."

Rochelle, am I dreaming or aren't you the one that said Jane Austen's books were too long? 1000+ pages of Arthur written in archaic English is not something I would have expected to be at the top of your list :)

[Linda2]

Didn't know that. Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

Rochelle wrote: "Didn't know that. Thanks." Well some of the versions available on line have at least modernized the spelling, but it is still pretty long.

[Everyman]

Rochelle wrote: "Is Mallory written in Middle English, or in translation?"

It's not translated, English in Malory's day was near enough to ours not to need that. However, in my edition, although there is no note to this effect, it looks as though the spelling has been modernized.

Just by way of comparison,Chaucer's Canterbury Tales were written around 1387, Morte was published in 1485, and Shakespeare was writing plays starting around 1590. So Malory was midway between Chaucer and Shakespeare.

[Everyman]

Rochelle wrote: "I don't want to read it in Middle English. Did that with Canterbury Tales in college, and it was agony. No translations"

The edition edited by John Matthews and illustrated superbly by Anna-Marie Ferguson has modernized spelling, so is quite easy to read. Opening at random: "And upon a day Dagonet, King Arthur's fool, came into Cornwall with two squires with him; and as they rode through that forest they came by a fair well where Sir Tristram was wont to be; and the weather was hot, and they alighted to drink of that well, and in the meanwhile their horses brake loose,"

So it has the flavor of the old, but is fluent and easy to read.

[Everyman]

Rochelle wrote: "Well, Huck Finn won anyway, if voting stopped at midnight. I'm not interested in reading it again."

Voting isn't quite over yet. We are clearly not going to read both books, but there are five people who voted for that choice who could switch to either Huck or Morte and swing the vote one way or the other. So if they hurry they can vote for their preference of the two. It's never over 'till it's over! (If you want to lobby, if you click on "show results" then on the link on end of the colored bar where it says how many votes, it tells you who voted for that choice. So if you want to lobby the "both" votes in your book's favor, you could do so. But quickly; the vote will be over soon and that will be it.

I haven't voted, and won't unless it's a tie. In which case I will vote for 'oa[09a790n

[[deleted user]]

I haven't voted, and won't unless it's a tie. In which case I will vote for'oa[09a790n

Is that Greek?

[[deleted user]]

Zeke wrote: " I haven't voted, and won't unless it's a tie. In which case I will vote for'oa[09a790n

Is that Greek?"

Heh. Probably translates as "Magic Mountain".

[Thomas]

Zeke wrote: " I haven't voted, and won't unless it's a tie. In which case I will vote for'oa[09a790n

Is that Greek?"

That's a strong aorist nominative participle (active) meaning "changing the poll again."

[Everyman]

Okay. The poll is over. WHEW.

We have a winner. By a nose, but still a winner.

Our next read will be Huck Finn, and then we will get a new set of choices for the next reading. Sorry, Morte lovers, but that's the way the spear shatters.

I will now admit that I'm not personally enthralled about reading Huck. Have read it at least twice and maybe more, and never did see what all the fuss (either positive or negative -- HF is one of the most banned books in America) was about. I'm counting on those who voted for it to educate me as to what I'm missing. And to make it so interesting that it drags Rochelle into the discussion despite her better instincts. :)

Fortunately for everybody, you don't need to count on my leadership, such as it may remain after this poll fiasco, for a vigorous discussion; Zeke will be co-moderating the discussion and doing the heavy lifting. (Okay, I know I should officially make him the sole moderator, but I just can't bring myself to give up total control. Sorry, Zeke, but what is is.)

I will consult with Zeke (translation: I'll ask Zeke and whatever he says will be fine with me) as to how long to allow for the discussion.

Since the book is, at least as far as reading goes (I say nothing about understanding) an easy read, I may only provide a one week interim reading period. I will NOT issue a poll on that, but will listen to opinions as to whether one interim week will suffice or we should go with the usual two weeks to unwind from Oresteia and wind back up for Huck.

[Aranthe]

Rats. I knew I should have signed on during the weekend, though I expect Everyman is glad I didn't, as I'd have changed my vote from "both" to "Morte-only." :-)

Now I have to decide whether to bother with a book I've already read or concentrate on my chronological read for the duration. I hate the thought of dropping a read so soon after joining, but I'd really rather read one of the older works that I haven't read than re-read a newer one that I have.

[Adam]

I'll be dropping Huck. I'll spend the time on clearing (haha like that will ever happen) my TBR shelf.

[Laurel]

Kate wrote: "Rochelle wrote: "Hemingway was full of ...
himself."

Quite."

I agree with you all on Hemingway--just found the quote and thought I'd throw it out there. I'm voting for Moby Dick.

[Everyman]

For those thinking of dropping out of the Huck discussion, why not give Zeke a chance? I suspect he will have some really fascinating issues to bring forward. And there must be some reason, even if I haven't seen it yet, why so many very bright and literate people consider this such an important book.

If any of you are still determined not to join the discussion, though, I do hope you'll keep tabs on the group and see what follows. We need all the bright and articulate voices we can get here!

[Laurel]

Huckleberry Finn takes only about eleven hours to read aloud, probably less time to read with eyes. You can download the complete works of Twain here http://www.amazon.com/Works-Mark-Twai...
and get a good audio recording of Huck Finn free from LibriVox. I like this one: http://librivox.org/the-adventures-of...

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: "And there must be some reason, even if I haven't seen it yet, why so many very bright and literate people consider this such an important book. "

LOL. Such enthusiasm from the Chief!

I'm sure out of 492 members there will be enough for an interesting discussion.

[Adam]

Yes, I'm quite sure the discussion can function properly without me. After all you succeded marvelously without me until last week. I just don't care for the time period, the setting or the characters in Huck Finn. I've read excerpts on many occasions, but like most American Lit other than Hawthorne and Poe, it just doesn't grab me. I don't know what it is about AmLit but Twain, Hemmingway, Melville, Irving, Steinbeck, Capote, none of them do much of anything for me. I think, with most of the more recent ones, their way of looking at the world is just too foreign to my way of thinking (Ironic, huh, since I love the Ancient and Classical and Medieval and Rennaisance and Chinese and African authors?) Occasionally I will find a modern American writer that speaks to me in some way, but I don't know that that makes them classic, more likely timely.

[Selina]

I tried changing my vote at around 4am Eastern time on 20th September, but couldn't. Perhaps the poll really ended at 0 hour.
I voted both books and wanted to change my vote to read Huckleberry Finn only. I'm glad Huckleberry Finn still wins.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "I have to try to get you to appreciate Huck!!!! It's not Tom Sawyer. The bible is in there. Rousseau is in there. Don Quixote is in there. And most of all America is in there. It's SUCH a great book! "

See. I knew there would be grounds for a great discussion if only I knew more. Rousseau, eh? I can hardly wait for you to show me that. (Did Patrice just volunteer to co-co-moderate with Zeke? :)

[Aranthe]

Everyman wrote: "For those thinking of dropping out of the Huck discussion, why not give Zeke a chance? I suspect he will have some really fascinating issues to bring forward. And there must be some reason, even ..."

Please don't think me ungracious if I don't read Huck. I'm sure Zeke will do a wonderful job. Without him, I might have missed some of the lovelier lines in PL in my haste to catch up.

I'd feel the same way about Huck if both had won. I voted for both was because the initial vote had been so close. It only seemed fair to allow those who wanted to read it a chance to do so, and reading it first would likely have pushed the Mallory beyond the holidays, which are always time-intensive for me.

Like Adam, I've never been a big fan of American literature; when my time is limited, I'd rather concentrate on reading the works that I've never read from classical and late antiquity or the medieval period than re-read an American novel that I have read. (Truth is, I'd have felt much the same about the Mann. I read him in a graduate seminar on 20th century thought which confirmed that, with a few bright exceptions, I find the 20th century self-absorbed, overly politicized and depressing—not where I want my head to live.)

I'll definitely follow the Huck discussion, just to stay abreast of what's going on, though. I haven't been around here long, but I'm thrilled to find a group like this and I've enjoyed every minute of it.

[Kevin]

I voted for Huck because I already own it, and I have only read it once and that was twenty-plus years ago. Hopefully we have a better list to vote on next time.
Not trying to upset the apple cart, but maybe limitin people to, say, five choices for the bookshelf. The current system seems to favor spamming the bookshelf with a ton of choices in hopes that one of an idividual's choices has a better chance of being selected. Maybe limiting entress would help the cream rise to the top a bit?

Again, as a newcomer I am not trying to upset the established order - just tossing out a suggestion.

[Everyman]

Kevin wrote: "Hopefully we have a better list to vote on next time. "

Interesting. I thought the initial list for this round was amazingly robust, with choices that would interest almost anyone. Was there nothing on the initial list that aroused excitement in you?

I haven't seen spamming the booklist as a problem, though maybe others have. From time to time I have removed items that were worthy of reading but didn't meet our criteria. Do you really see a number of books there that don't deserve consideration in a classics group? If so, I invite you to send me a private message and I'll certainly look at them. But so far I haven't, personally, seen abuses. And of course having a book on the booklist is no guarantee that it will get chosen if it's put up for vote, and if it does come out the choice of the group isn't it good that it was put there, no matter how many other items the person may have posted there?

This may indeed be an issue of future concern, and your point that I should keep an eye on it is certainly valid, but so far I haven't seen the sort of abuses that you suggest. And I think the range of books the group has chosen has been remarkably varied and of uniformly high quality and interests.

So I do appreciate your raising the issue, as I encourage any group member to feel free to offer suggestions, but on this matter, unless other group members chime in disagreeing with me, I don't see that there is yet a problem to worry about.

[Kathy]

I agree with Everyman. I don't think there was any problem with the original list - I would have been happy to read any of them, except Huckleberry Finn. The bookshelf is, however, suffering from multiple entries of some of the same books. Can people check before adding a new book to make sure that it isn't already there?

[[deleted user]]

Kathy wrote: "I agree with Everyman. I don't think there was any problem with the original list - I would have been happy to read any of them, except Huckleberry Finn. The bookshelf is, however, suffering from ..."

It keeps happening Kathy. I think part of it is a GR problem due to many of the classics being entered slightly differently and therefore showing up as separate books. Maybe the best thing to do is flag the ones you find the moderators?

[Everyman]

Kathy wrote: "The bookshelf is, however, suffering from multiple entries of some of the same books. Can people check before adding a new book to make sure that it isn't already there? "

Thanks for that. The best way to check is not to look for titles, but to sort the list by author. Sometimes different editions will use slightly different titles, which means a book can be there in multiple listings. But almost always the author listing is correct.

To sort by author, just click on the bookshelf, click on the "to-read" link on the left (when it first comes up it's just listing books we've already read), then click on the top of the author column. For some reason it tends to come up in reverse order, so I click on it a second time to get it in standard alphabetical order. Then just navigate to the author you are interested in (I estimate using the page numbers at the bottom of the page, then go forward or backward from there) and see whether the book you want to add is already listed.

Make sure that your additions are appropriate for a Western Canon discussion group. It is very unlikely that any book written after about 1950 will yet have achieved the status of a "classic classic" or will have established itself as deserving of a place in the Western Canon. And there are many excellent Eastern works of literature, but those are outside the scope of this group. There are many discussion groups on GR where these sorts of books can be profitably discussed, but this group has a very specific focus.

Also, keep in mind that the shelf should only contain books that will be of interest for a major read. So, generally avoid short story collections, poetry collections (individual full length poems are fine, such as Paradise Lost), single plays (suggest them for interim reads), collections of essays, and other books which won't sustain a discussion of at least four weeks.

Thanks!

Thanks!

[Everyman]

My comment that I was not personally enthralled about reading Huck seems to have struck more nerves than I had intended by what was half a throw-away remark.

I've thought a bit about it, and I realize that one thing behind my thought was that I've never really gotten beyond thinking of Huck Finn as a children's book. I read it first as a child, as I suspect many of us did, and since I was then too young to have any respect for literature as literature, it settled on my mind as just an adventure story -- a very good one, to be sure, but still just an adventure story for children.

But several things have happened since then. One, this evening I was reading the Paris Review interview with Earnest Hemingway, and he included Huck among the works which helped fuel his "juice." Huh? Then on almost a whim I went over to my Great Books of the Western World shelf, and lo and behold, Huck is right there in the same volume as Moby Dick. The only two American novels in the entire set (except for those in the six volumes of 20th century writing which were added later).

Now, anybody who knows me well, and many who know me a bit, know that I revere Adler and Hutchins wisdom and work on the Western Canon. If they selected Huck Finn as part of the Great Books, then I have to believe that there is something there well worth my studying, much more than a children's adventure story.

In the Great Books set there is an index which Adler prepared which links each author's work to the topics in the Syntopicon (his encyclopedic linking of the Great Books to 103 Great Ideas) to which it is relevant. So I looked up Huck Finn, and here are the topics which Adler finds it contributes wisdom to:

Angel, Animal, Aristocracy, Art, Beauty, Courage, Custom and Convention, Desire, Duty, Education, Family, Habit, Happiness, History, Honor, Justice, Language, Law, Liberty, Life and Death, Logic, Love, Man, Memory and Imagination, Mind, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Opinion, Opposition, Pleasure and Pain, Poetry, Progress, Prophecy, Punishment, Religion, Rhetoric, Sense, Sign and Symbol, Sin, Slaves, Temperance, Truth, Virtue and Vice, Wealth, Wisdom.

Whew!

If, for example, I go to the Syntopicon entry on Poetry, I find in the cross-reference section that Twain is listed, for example, under the subtopic "The inspiration or genius of the poets..." with references to pages 313-314, and going to the book itself I find myself in Chapter 17, which is titled in part "Stephen Dowling Bots -- Poetical Effusions" and beyond that you can go yourselves.

(HF also shows up in the Poetry subcategory "Spectacle and Song in Drama.")

One more example: Rhetoric takes me to subcategory "The orator's consideration of character and of the types of audience: the significance of his own character" which takes me to pages 331-332, chapters 21 and 22.

Those are just two examples, and picked at random probably not the central ones. But if Adler can find so many references to the great ideas in Huck Finn, this has to be a book I need to take a much closer look at.

And so, I hope, will many of the rest of you think.

[Alias Reader]

Is there an approximate start date for HF. I'm not reading the current group selection and I don't want to miss the start date.

Thanks !

[Kathy]

Yes, I believe that anyone who doesn't think that Huckleberry Finn is a great book should definitely read it (again, if necessary) and I can't think why anyone would regard it as a children's book - except, of course, in the way that Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe have also been so (mistakenly) designated! There is a basic plot to be extracted that could be made accessible for children, but there is so much more! The only reason I'm not going to read it is because I studied it in some detail at university, read it three times, went to a lecture, participated in a seminar - even wrote an exam question on it, I expect. On an American Literature course in a British University, it was certainly regarded as one of the the major achievements of the nineteenth century, alongside such works as Moby-Dick, The Red Badge of Courage and The Scarlet Letter. So, while I don't feel I have the time to read it again, when there are so many other books out there that I need to tackle, I would urge others to give it a go.

[[deleted user]]

@Kathy--I hope you will follow the discussion and chime in, even if you don't reread Huck Finn. What a great perspective you bring as a British reader.

I also hope that there will be some lively back and forth as readers who conclude that the book is not worthy of the status cited by Eman and others above share their evidence of where and how it falls short. (Beyond, "It's just a children's story.")That kind of discussion could help make all of us better readers going forward.

[Everyman]

Alias Reader wrote: "Is there an approximate start date for HF. I'm not reading the current group selection and I don't want to miss the start date.

Thanks !"

The Oresteia discussion runs through October 26. We will then have an Interim Read, which is usually two but sometimes three weeks long -- intended as a somewhat lighter break between major reads, as a chance to read something which wouldn't justify a full major read, and to give some interim time to start reading the next book so that people don't have drop out of the current discussion in the later weeks to get started on a book which starts right after the current book (I really dislike that in other groups, so decided to design against it in this group).

So to cut a long answer down to what you really asked, the Huck Finn discussion will start probably on November 10th and possibly on November 17th.

[Alias Reader]

Everyman wrote:So to cut a long answer down to what you really asked, the Huck Finn discussion will start probably on November 10th and possibly on November 17th.
.."

-------------
Thank you ! I'll mark my reading calendar.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "message 196

I don't understand how Adler and Hutchins omitted the most important topic. Equality. "All men are created equal", I would say that is the most important theme of the book and of Ame..."

Equality is not one of the 102 great ideas. I suspect, if I looked, that I would find it subsumed under some broader concept, perhaps Relation, perhaps Same and Other. Don't know.

Here's a web page that will tell you all about Adler and his great ideas.

However, let's not get into too many specifics about the book and its meaning until we get to the discussion. I know, I started it, my bad, but let's wait for the discussion. There's still a lot of meat to go in the Oresteia!

[Kathy]

I have just been to see a play about Galileo and it has made me wonder whether his book The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems would be a viable read for this group. Has anyone ever read it? Would it be accessible to readers without a deep knowledge of maths and astronomy?

[Everyman]

Kathy wrote: "I have just been to see a play about Galileo and it has made me wonder whether his book The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems would be a viable read for this group. Has anyone ever read it..."

I have it, but haven't read any Galileo for nearly half a century.

[Andreea]

Kathy wrote: "I have just been to see a play about Galileo and it has made me wonder whether his book The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems would be a viable read for this group. Has anyone ever read it..."
I wouldn't read it simply because I don't think it's not a classic. The Western canon includes works of exceptional artistic merit and Galileo's books are nonfictional (thus there's no artistic merit to talk about).

[Kathy]

Artistic merit? Is that the criterion? There seem to be quite a few non-fiction books on the bookshelf of this group. I hope that if we read Charles Darwin or Newton, it won't be for their artistic merit, but for their participation in the development of Western civilisation.

[Everyman]

Interesting question -- does a great book have to have artistic merit, and can nonfiction books have artistic merit?

As to the first question, I would just note that both of the series I have claiming to represent the great books -- the Britannica Great Books of the Western World series and the Harvard Five Foot Shelf of Books include numerous non-fiction works. I do take a somewhat broader view of the Western Canon, and would personally include in it works which have advanced the state of Western thought, which includes many nonfiction works.

As to nonfiction not having artistic merit, I guess that's partly a matter of how you define artistic. I consider Plato's Dialogues to be masterfully structured, to be some of the most poetic works written in a non-verse form.

[Kathy]

And I consider Darwin to be an extemely accomplished writer - On the Origin of Species is a wonderful book for anyone to read, not just those of a scientific persuasion. But I would think that artistic merit would not be the FIRST reason for its place in the civilising books of the world.

[Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.)]

I completely agree with the following notions: (1) great books of the Western Canon most definitely include non-fiction; (2) we should read great books for their subject matter alone; (3) some non-fiction can also be extraordinarily artistic; and (4) reading a non-fiction book that is also artistically exquisite is an added bonus.

[[deleted user]]

I like including non-fiction. We had Newton's Principia on the selection list a couple of months ago. These kind of works aren't very likely to be selected for a group read, but just their presence catches people's attention and lets the curious pursue (or do I mean peruse?) them.