Thanks for this list. I might give some of these a shot.
I'm an avid reader, but I've read very little fiction in the past ~25 years since high school. I have re-read Lord of the Rings a few times in my adult life, and I realize the older I get, the more I enjoy it. I remember first reading as a teen and basically skipping over the various poems and songs Tolkien created, so that I could get back to the action, but now I thoroughly enjoy those sections.
In the last year or so, I thought I would branch out and try to read more fiction, including taking another crack at trying to read some classics from the pre-20th century. I started with "Crime and Punishment" and got nowhere. I think I've always had a problem with fiction that contains very little action. I tend to find that there is more action in any biography, memoir, or historical account, and in those cases I get to learn about something that actually happened. With a slow-paced novel, it's hard to turn off the voice in my head that says I could be reading anything else.
As a boy, I also had a strong preference for sci-fi/fantasy, which is no longer really present in my taste in movies, but I guess it's still present when I'm reading a novel. I picked up Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" and couldn't put it down, read it in three sittings. I decided to try this with an old novel and picked up Bram Stoker's "Dracula". I found that the first section, set in Transylvania, was a quick read, but it turned into a slog when they got back to England.
When it comes to classics, the one thing I have managed to do successfully is to cover a number of classic Shakespeare plays that I had never been exposed to except in cultural references, e.g. King Lear, Othello, Julius Caesar. These are short and full of action -- much easier to read than a long, slow-paced novel. I suppose the language might be hard for some to comprehend, though it's funny -- as a high schooler, I thought Shakespeare was practically written in a foreign language, but now I can read his plays without any difficulty. I've read that vocabulary is one of the few things that tends to consistently improve with age, and perhaps this can also translate to more easily understanding antiquated dialects of English.
Thanks for sharing. I've found the same thing to be true of Shakespeare plays.
Also, I'm going through the Aeneid right now, and find it far easier to read than the first time I tried 10 years ago. Committing to the Iliad and Odyssey first really helped, I think.
Your choice of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber is a good one.
Most writers of great works also wrote short stories and essays throughout their careers. Starting with these might help someone to get a sense of a writer’s voice and help decide whether to dig deeper without just becoming frustrated.
It might be better to read through a few of Tolstoy’s short stories first, rather than just diving into War and Peace.
Thanks for this list. I might give some of these a shot.
I'm an avid reader, but I've read very little fiction in the past ~25 years since high school. I have re-read Lord of the Rings a few times in my adult life, and I realize the older I get, the more I enjoy it. I remember first reading as a teen and basically skipping over the various poems and songs Tolkien created, so that I could get back to the action, but now I thoroughly enjoy those sections.
In the last year or so, I thought I would branch out and try to read more fiction, including taking another crack at trying to read some classics from the pre-20th century. I started with "Crime and Punishment" and got nowhere. I think I've always had a problem with fiction that contains very little action. I tend to find that there is more action in any biography, memoir, or historical account, and in those cases I get to learn about something that actually happened. With a slow-paced novel, it's hard to turn off the voice in my head that says I could be reading anything else.
As a boy, I also had a strong preference for sci-fi/fantasy, which is no longer really present in my taste in movies, but I guess it's still present when I'm reading a novel. I picked up Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" and couldn't put it down, read it in three sittings. I decided to try this with an old novel and picked up Bram Stoker's "Dracula". I found that the first section, set in Transylvania, was a quick read, but it turned into a slog when they got back to England.
When it comes to classics, the one thing I have managed to do successfully is to cover a number of classic Shakespeare plays that I had never been exposed to except in cultural references, e.g. King Lear, Othello, Julius Caesar. These are short and full of action -- much easier to read than a long, slow-paced novel. I suppose the language might be hard for some to comprehend, though it's funny -- as a high schooler, I thought Shakespeare was practically written in a foreign language, but now I can read his plays without any difficulty. I've read that vocabulary is one of the few things that tends to consistently improve with age, and perhaps this can also translate to more easily understanding antiquated dialects of English.
Thanks for sharing. I've found the same thing to be true of Shakespeare plays.
Also, I'm going through the Aeneid right now, and find it far easier to read than the first time I tried 10 years ago. Committing to the Iliad and Odyssey first really helped, I think.
Nice starter list!
Thank you!
Your choice of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber is a good one.
Most writers of great works also wrote short stories and essays throughout their careers. Starting with these might help someone to get a sense of a writer’s voice and help decide whether to dig deeper without just becoming frustrated.
It might be better to read through a few of Tolstoy’s short stories first, rather than just diving into War and Peace.
Good advice.