McCaffery 20th Century Greatest Hits Reading Group discussion

Not sure if books should be set for a month or two months.
Let us know in the thread below.

... and please could you pick two books from the McCaffery list you see as your priority read for the future. A poll will be created with the nominations to decide on the next read.

Thank you. :)

My next books from the list would be:

Neuromancer

and/or

Midnight's Children

I'm just very keen to compare them to the two books I'm reading right now (Snow Crash and A Suitable Boy).

My two picks would be
The House of Mirth, Edith Wharton
and
The Grapes of Wrath , John Steinbeck
Since some books are pretty chunky maybe we should set it for two month, so we wont have to rush.

poorvi wrote: "My two picks would be
The House of Mirth, Edith Wharton
and
The Grapes of Wrath , John Steinbeck
Since some books are pretty chunky maybe we should set it for two month, so we wont have to rush."

Yes, that is a very good idea. Should we have two books per month then?
One 'lighter' volume for a month and another 'heavier' read for over two months or more? Let me know what you think. :)

There are many I wish to read BUT, In my humble opinion I think it will be best if we read them in order ... there are some taunting books ... I don't know if I'll get to otherwise :)

Daniela wrote: "There are many I wish to read BUT, In my humble opinion I think it will be best if we read them in order ... there are some taunting books ... I don't know if I'll get to otherwise :)"

I agree with you Daniela. I like the structured reads (lists) versus the pick and choose. At times I want to approach works I normally avoid. Like mentioned elsewhere Joyce will be at the bottom of the book bag towards the very end. I also like the light vs heavy suggestion previously in the thread. Lists are fun to read through and one is often taken by the sheer prospect of actually reading them all. Kind of exciting! As the group is new it is probably better to take on a few more popular and lighter items in the beginning. The upcoming holidays are also likely to interfere with our reading time.
What about a light one (although interesting) such as On the Road: by Jack Kerouac?

I also prefer to read them in order. Personal favourites are also to be read in order then. I know myself; I would first read some and avoid others.

Haaze wrote: "Daniela wrote: "There are many I wish to read BUT, In my humble opinion I think it will be best if we read them in order ... there are some taunting books ... I don't know if I'll get to otherwise ..."

What about then a compromise:
one prescribed book (seen as more challenging) to be read within 2 or 3 months chosen by the moderators
AND
one other book chosen by group members to be read monthly or over two months?

I can see this work. :)

Yes, that's an option for me :)

Yes Laure, I think that would be a good way to go about it..

Ok, what about putting 'Ulysses' as a 'must' read then as chosen by the moderators? But giving ourselves 4 or 5 months to read it. There has been quite a a few posts about it already and I don't know about you but it has whetted my appetite for the book!
Let me know what you think. :)

As it is going to be challenging we could have chapter by chapter targets as well?

I bought it ages ago and think that otherwise I will not read it...so, great idea 'the must read'.

Are you guys sure about this? I feel like I just put on my running gear and we are talking about running up Mount Everest? Perhaps it would be wiser to "get in shape" before reaching so high? On the other hand, enthusiasm can carry one far.... Ulysses kind of scares me...!!!

Yes, it scares me too but then I think: 'will I otherwise once read it?' Maybe we must just dive in and try it.

Ok, another idea.
We could have the first wave of 'pioneers' - trying it right now for a few months. Then it could be put back on the menu next year for people that need a bit more time to dive into it?
I mean there are no rules really - what suits. :D

Yes, it's all the same for me. I will try everything.

Annelies wrote: "Yes, it's all the same for me. I will try everything."
I'm way too bias for this conversation: I think reading Ulysses is the most fun thing in all the world!

Well, just like Annelies I'm up for it with both energy and enthusiasm. Although...... I fear I won't understand much of it. I promise to be courageous!

Haaze wrote: "Well, just like Annelies I'm up for it with both energy and enthusiasm. Although...... I fear I won't understand much of it. I promise to be courageous!"

Don't worry about that - I think reading it together will surely shed quite a bit of light on the writing.
... and then we have *wink* Mark to keep us on the right path if we falter. :p

Yes, excellent idea! We will rely on Mark's guidance through Joyce's swamp. A beacon in the literary darkness... ; -)

I just realised something else 'Ulysses' is in second place on the list. For the people who wants to go through the list in order, it makes sense to have it as a long read now... and then we can see. :D

If everyone's ok about it I'll put on the front page with a finishing date for March 2017 - no pressure :D

Haaze wrote: "Yes, excellent idea! We will rely on Mark's guidance through Joyce's swamp. A beacon in the literary darkness... ; -)"
I would love the opportunity to help share in the fun of Ulysses.
(it has been a most interesting day!)
(personally, i think reading this Nabokov and this Beckett will be more difficult than Joyce, but it's just my theory)

Mark wrote: "Haaze wrote: "I would love the opportunity to help share in the fun of Ulysses.
(it has been a most interesting day!)
(personally, i think reading this Nabokov and this Beckett will be more difficult than Joyce, but it's just my theory)"

After we finish them we can have an enlightening comparative discussion.. (if we survive the ordeal!!!). ;-)

It was a brave move to start at the top, but (FWIW) I vote to start at the bottom with #100 and move back up! Makes it easy for those of us craving order.

Mike wrote: "It was a brave move to start at the top, but (FWIW) I vote to start at the bottom with #100 and move back up! Makes it easy for those of us craving order."

Isn't that essentially the same thing as starting with #1 (in terms of craving order)? :)

Mike wrote: "It was a brave move to start at the top, but (FWIW) I vote to start at the bottom with #100 and move back up! Makes it easy for those of us craving order."

Not a bad idea, but the 100th book is really challenging ... in different ways. I would like to leave that one for last actually.

I know it is going to be difficult to find a modus operandi which everyone is going to like - so don't hesitate to make your own reading plan. :)
I have created a folder for this if anyone's interested. I've got my own reading plan already set up. I always find sticking to just the prescribed reading too prescriptive! I think if we can have at least one book in common and take part in the discussions, everyone's a winner.

Haaze wrote: "Mike wrote: "...(FWIW) I vote to start at the bottom with #100 and move back up! Makes it easy for those of us craving order."

Isn't that essentially the same thing as starting with #1 (in terms of craving order)? :)"

I have been assuming that #1 was the "best" book on the list, and thought we ought to build up to the "best of the best". But I only read about 5 of the blurbs on the list, so I could be making a gross oversimplification!

Mike wrote: "Haaze wrote: "Mike wrote: "...(FWIW) I vote to start at the bottom with #100 and move back up! Makes it easy for those of us craving order."

Isn't that essentially the same thing as starting with ..."

To be honest, I think they are going to be all good - maybe we will have preferences but if the books are on the list they must be at least interesting!

Like with any list (like a box of chocolates) we will have our preferences (soft, chewy, milk, dark - do I like chocolates or what?! :)
Mike has a good point. Did McCaffery actually rank the books or are they simply a list of books he placed on the top tier (20th century - written in English)?

I did a little un-scientific study of the list to see if it reflects some kind of hierarchy. I rated books 1-10 and also 91-100. I put each book into one of four categories: books i had read; books i had heard of; authors I had heard of; and books and authors I knew nothing of at all.
The results went like this, from 1-10 I've read 4, I heard of 3, I know 1 author by name, and 2 I've never heard of author or book.
From those marked 91-100, I found: 1 book I've heard of, 3 authors I recognize their name, and 6 books I've never heard of the book or the author.
So I would say that even though my experience with 20th cent. eng. lit. is limited, my survey shows, I think, that the list is weighted: top to bottom. :-)

Mark wrote: "...that the list is weighted: top to bottom. :-)"

Ha HA!!! he said with mock emphasis and satisfaction.

I apologize. I mistakenly thought the discussion about the "list" was
serious. My bad. I didn't mean to sound pedantic. :-(

Mark wrote: "I apologize. I mistakenly thought the discussion about the "list" was
serious. My bad. I didn't mean to sound pedantic. :-("

Mark, you did not sound pedantic at all - I always indulge myself in this kind of reasoning :D - I did do what you did, trying to find out how many of the books I had read. I came to the same conclusion as you. The most well known and the most I have read are at the top of the list. Like you I know little of the books at the bottom of the list - that made it even more interesting to me. :)

I think it was a fun and interesting way to assess the list. Never really thought about it that way. Scanning the list I oscillate between authors and books I recognize and others I feel unfamiliar with. I do recognize most of the authors and titles, but haven't read many of them. I didn't feel like counting - he he..
Some books are completely unfamiliar to me - such as The Four Elements Tetrology (earth: The Stain [1984], fire: Entering Fire [1986], water: The Fountains of Neptune [1992], and air: The Jade Cabinet [1993]), Rikki Ducornet.
I have no idea, but like Laure I find that aspect enticing. It looks like an alluring list for sure (well, then there is Ulysses... ; -)

Mike wrote: "Mark wrote: "...that the list is weighted: top to bottom. :-)"

Ha HA!!! he said with mock emphasis and satisfaction."

Mark, I'm sorry! I'm really glad you did that data-sifting. That was pretty awesome. I just was being un-serious about the fact I was right about the list being ranked.

I would have been cool either way! I just felt like (metaphorically) standing up and shouting Ah HA I Was Right! And then I felt silly for having wanted to be right!

Mike wrote: "Mike wrote: "Mark wrote: "...that the list is weighted: top to bottom. :-)"

Ha HA!!! he said with mock emphasis and satisfaction."

Mark, I'm sorry! I'm really glad you did that data-sifting. That..."
That's cool! I over-reacted. It was my mis-understanding. Thanks.

Haaze wrote: "I think it was a fun and interesting way to assess the list. Never really thought about it that way. Scanning the list I oscillate between authors and books I recognize and others I feel unfamiliar..."
Yes,...there is Ulysses! (I still think, potentially, it will be the easiest
and the most entertaining of any of the top ten books, here.)

Manda wrote: "I automatically assumed the list was in order of best top to bottom with Ulysses at number 2 on this list and number one on the modern library or whatever it was called list, you know the original ..."
I agree. I have four favorites shelves and also a non-fiction one, and to put them all together, 55 books, and then rank them 1-55...? I can start: Ulysses, Don Quixote, Brothers Karamazov, Proust?, Moby Dick?, why not Walden or Thucydides...? It's just too hard to measure them against each other, accurately.

(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most disliked books ever published?)
So, then, my top ten:
Ulysses - Don Quixote - Brothers Karamazov - Moby Dick - Remembrance of Things Past - The Peloponnesian War - Walden -
The White Goddess - Wise Blood - Waiting for Godot. :-)

Manda wrote: "Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top ten:
Ulysses - D..."
It's not only the book they don't like, but they also seem to aggressively dis-like those that would champion it; or, even more interesting to me since it applies to Ulysses also, that when someone says they like a book, the argument today is that they are just lying, afraid to tell the truth...something...weird.
then from your list I've read: 1, 2 (thought it was great), 3 (only read half), and 9. (I just remembered what I was trying to remember, there is a new book, called The Ulysses Delusion, where the author's main argument is that anyone who says they like Ulysses is lying. Very ODD!

Moby Dick is still on my to-read list. But I definitely can agree with Dracula, The New York trilogy, Brideshead Revisited and Wuthering Heights. Also loved Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis and The Master by Colm Toibin and the Dutch book by W.F. Hermans 'Nooit meet slapen'.

And then I forgot to mention Middlemarch. Sublime!

Annelies wrote: "And then I forgot to mention Middlemarch. Sublime!"
Middlemarch has always been my nemesis. There is something about her syntax or style that I've never been able to connect with.

Manda wrote: "Mark wrote: "Manda wrote: "I automatically assumed the list was in order of best top to bottom with Ulysses at number 2 on this list and number one on the modern library or whatever it was called l..."

My votes go to ..
Brideshead Revisited - love that book!
... and of course anything by Dickens or the Brontes is brilliant.
I've not been able to finish the New York trilogy - I tried twice! :(

Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top ten:
Ulysses - Don Quixote - ..."

Great list! I was in my teens when I read Don Quijote, The Brothers Karamazov, Moby Dick and Remembrance of Things Past - I remember liking them very much at the time, but really I need to read them again. Quite fuzzy now of course.
I still have to sample the delights of the last four in your list ... and of course 'Ulysses'!!

Laure wrote: "Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top ten:
Ulysses - D..."
That's amazing! I could not have read any of these books when I was a teenager. Actually, I'd never even heard of any of them when I was a teenager. It sounds weird saying that today.

Manda wrote: "Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top ten:
Ulysses - D..."

I'll buy you several beers one afternoon and explain the hate in detail, if you're ever on the East Coast with some time to kill.

Readers who like it? They are fine and wonderful folks, unless and until they try to evangelize on its behalf :). Then we haters change the subject to something more cheerful. Like Ulysses....

Mark wrote: "Laure wrote: "Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top te..."

haha, not at all, I 've always loved reading and there were no other books than the classics available to me at the time (because pretty much the only books in the house!) - so I read what I could. Plus the French education system is very 'challenging' that way (well used to be) loads of classics you have to read - French ones anyway. So, nothing really extreme there. On the other end I spent nearly 10 years or so of my life with only reading a few books! Life is strange. :D

Carol wrote: "Manda wrote: "Mark wrote: "(It's funny, but from my limited experience with GR's reviews, Moby Dick is one of the most "hated" and I mean rabidly "hated" books ever published?)
So, then, my top te..."

haha, well, I have no feelings towards Moby Dick - I won't rate it the best or the worst of books I 've read. Not sure what all the fuss is about tbh!

Laure wrote: "Plus the French education system is very 'challenging' that way (well used to be) loads of classics you have to read - French ones anyway. So, nothing really extreme there."

I wish we had that approach here in the US. It seems as the current "rules" deem anything older than 1950 as pointless (apart from Shakespeare of course) and most novels (e.g. 19th century ones) are too difficult for high school students. *deep sigh*
Is that just my imagination or some local phenomenon in my area (California) or is this an illness that has permeated all of the US at this point? I believe that challenging reading experiences are important as one grows up. A mixed diet of kid books, comics, nonfiction and classics. :)