The Best CLASSIC novel of ALL TIME!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Will2010

Excellent choice. It was my favorite classic novel until I recently decided that I like Crime and Punishment slightly more.

thank you.
You might like this piece of information.

E.M. Forster in Aspects of the Novel, The Clark Lectures sponsored by Trinity College of the University of Cambridge (1927), is brief and certain

about " ... Tolstoy-that is to say has given us so complete a picture of man's life, both on its domestic and heroic side."

and " ... has explained man's soul as deeply as Dostoevsky."

[Catlady]

Gone with the Wind is tops. Next is The Once and Future King.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Joe Minton

The Old Man and the Sea
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
The Grapes of Wrath (my parents lived that one)
Of Mice and Men
Crime and Punishment
Creatures That Were Once Men
Ironweed
Two Years Before the Mast
Protector
Cannery Row
To Kill a Mockingbird

The list would be different tomorrow.

There can't be just one best novel, there simply can't.

Joe

Good, now that you have your excellent list, do one more step and commit yourself, you may also change your mind in a second time and let us know.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you using it to teach her French, or were you reading an English translation?

I'd always be wary of regarding a translation as a "classic" myself. How much of the original author are you reading, and how much of the translator? Many of Verne's novels were virtually re-written in English translation, and bear only the most superficial resemblance to the French originals.

What's wrong with the French and other foreigners!

Don't they understand that HarryT is right? Write your stupid foreign books in English, darn you!



I had wanted to study Latin in high school. Alternately, I wanted to learn German. Neither was available at that school. Spanish and Italian classes were filled. So I took a little French.

But what do you recommend, Harry? Should we not read a "classic" simply because it was written in a language that we neither speak nor read?

Perhaps the "BEST" translation should be found. And only that version should be published?

The apotheosis solution would be best, but can only be approached by a multi linguistic scholar.

I've read translations of books written in Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, German, and Russian. And I especially like books written in UK English.

But to insist on perfection seems beyond reason for the average person.

[SameOldStory]

Lets not forget The Man Who Would Be King and Lost Horizon.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

But what do you recommend, Harry? Should we not read a "classic" simply because it was written in a language that we neither speak nor read?

Not at all. My question was, how do you know how much of the original author you're reading, and how much of the translator? If you read an English translation of "War and Peace" and think it's boring, is it Tolstoi that's boring, or the translator? I find it difficult to see how one can critically judge a book in translation because you don't know what it is that you're reading. Has the translator made a bad book good, a good book bad, a poor book terrible, a mediocre book reasonable, or some other combination? How do you judge?

I'm not taking about reading for pleasure here, but using translations when judging the merit of a book as a work of literature. Can you make an informed jugement of, say, Tolstoi, if you only read his books in translation?

[James_Wilde]

As far as translations are concerned, they are the only way we can be aware of what is being written and by whom in languages which we don't ourselves speak.

The point is the original author hopefully had a story to tell and/or a point to make, and these, of course, should not be lost. But assuming that these elements are present, it's the quality of the target language which is important, not the accuracy of the translation. There are no two languages which are 100% lexically equivalent, not even variations of English, so however good the translator is, one is never going to experience all the nuances of language used in the original. So why not enjoy a good story in one's own language?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

As far as translations are concerned, they are the only way we can be aware of what is being written and by whom in languages which we don't ourselves speak.

The point is the original author hopefully had a story to tell and/or a point to make, and these, of course, should not be lost. But assuming that these elements are present, it's the quality of the target language which is important, not the accuracy of the translation. There are no two languages which are 100% lexically equivalent, not even variations of English, so however good the translator is, one is never going to experience all the nuances of language used in the original. So why not enjoy a good story in one's own language?

Oh, I completely agree. Eg, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is one of my favourite novels, and I'd recommend its translation to anyone as a cracking good read.

My point is, though, that much as I enjoy the English translation of "The Count of Monte Cristo", I don't feel able to make any judgement of the merits of Dumas as an author because I have no idea how much of what I'm reading is Dumas' work, and how much is that of the anonymous translator of the 1847 English translation.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh, I completely agree. Eg, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is one of my favourite novels, and I'd recommend its translation to anyone as a cracking good read.

My point is, though, that much as I enjoy the English translation of "The Count of Monte Cristo", I don't feel able to make any judgement of the merits of Dumas as an author because I have no idea how much of what I'm reading is Dumas' work, and how much is that of the anonymous translator of the 1847 English translation.

Sorry to interject in this discussion, but I think for the purposes of this thread debating the merits of the author is irrelevant. This thread asks which is the greatest classic novel, not who is the greatest classic novelist. If you read a book and it is brilliant, does it matter that it is brilliant because of the translator or not? If its brilliant its brilliant. Still, I think it is a good idea to the note the translation if you didn't read a book in the original language (or to note which language you read a book in). For my part, I'm throwing my hat in with the Crime and Punishment crowd as the greatest classic novel that I have read. I've never read a book with more philosophical or psychological depth. Unfortunately, I've only read the Constance Garnett translation and not the newer and supposedly superior pevear and volokhonsky translations.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all. My question was, how do you know how much of the original author you're reading, and how much of the translator?

How do you judge?

I'm not taking about reading for pleasure here, but using translations when judging the merit of a book as a work of literature. Can you make an informed jugement of, say, Tolstoi, if you only read his books in translation?

There is only one answer for that, Harry. To truly know, you must not only know the language, but the culture, and times as well. For instance, do you know what "A knock in the night" means to an older resident of the Warsaw Pact countries? I bet you do. But others, especially the young? Probably not

If I told you a translated Yiddish joke from a pre WWII saccharin party would you even understand the "saccharin party" part? Don't bother looking it up. It's not in a Wiki. And if you never knew any big city east European Jews from that time you would never have heard of a saccharin party.

So an "accurate" translation may by fine for an academic, but the understanding of the reader may suffer by a lack of knowledge concerning the idioms used at the time by the author.

If accuracy is the most important rule then there is no reason for me to even attempt to read Tolstoy. Even if you tell me which book is the best translation, I still would not understand mid 1800s Russia as well as I should.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm amused to find that people count Dune, The Lord of the Rings and Catch-22 as "Classic" novels.

I think that for any novel to be judged as the best of "all time", it would have to demonstrate that it had appeal to several generations of readers. And the only way to do that is for the novel to be in print and being read for many, many years. At least 50, and more likely 100.

Which is why, if asked for the best "Classic" novel, I'd tend to only consider pre-WWII novels, or perhaps even only pre-20th Century novels.

But which to choose? My choice rather depends on which one I've read most receently

So if I had to choose just one, at the moment I'd go for Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson.

Yeah, we've been round and round this "what is a classic" in the Book club (among other threads) .

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If I can give a series a nod here, I'll give the nod to the Discworld series. I know it's not old classic, but I would class it as modern classic.

Saw that one coming (only because it came up before).

[kennyc]

Well I think I have to go with

"Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck
but also right up there are the works of Dickens, Jules Verne...

[crich70]

That's a good point. I've never done it myself but I understand it's a whole other experience reading "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" in the original Greek compared to reading it in English for example. Some things don't translate as well as the original language presumably. The same with the Bible I understand. In some parts you will have the same word (in English) though if you know enough to go to the original Greek you find it was two different words with (perhaps) similar meanings. It's like saying "he threw out the idea" and "he threw the man out of the bar." Both have to do with throwing something or someone, but one has to do with expressing an idea for others to hear and the other to do with removing a disruption from a room. Same action word (i.e. threw) but different context.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all. My question was, how do you know how much of the original author you're reading, and how much of the translator? If you read an English translation of "War and Peace" and think it's boring, is it Tolstoi that's boring, or the translator? I find it difficult to see how one can critically judge a book in translation because you don't know what it is that you're reading. Has the translator made a bad book good, a good book bad, a poor book terrible, a mediocre book reasonable, or some other combination? How do you judge?

I'm not taking about reading for pleasure here, but using translations when judging the merit of a book as a work of literature. Can you make an informed jugement of, say, Tolstoi, if you only read his books in translation?

[crich70]

My high school class read "A Seperate Peace" by John Knowles. I haven't re-read it yet but I do have a copy around here somewhere I think.

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Thanks! I'm actually homeschooling my 12yo daughter using a classical curriculum. Around the World in Eighty Days is the first novel in this curriculum and others are Kidnapped and The Diary of Anne Frank. We had a poetry unit which included The Charge of the Light Brigade. I'm enjoying rereading books from my childhood and helping my daughter see the beauty of well written literature.

Slaughter House Five was first assigned to me in high school and it is the only assigned book I ever reread on my own. I've read it at least five or six times. Just about everything I've ever read by Kurt Vonnegut qualifies for classic status.