Litwit Lounge discussion

Here's the links to my Classics bookshelf here on Goodreads, if anyone's interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list... . It shows what classics I've actually read, and of course links to the reviews of the ones I've actually reviewed (those appear first in the list), so you can see what I thought of them.

We have a few books in common on our classic shelves, Werner. My classic shelf is fluffed out by short stories, children's and picture books. https://www.goodreads.com/review/list...

Charly, it makes sense to me to set it at number of years and move forward with the calendar. Personally, I would go with 60 years.

Janelle, thanks for the link; I've visited your shelf, and liked some reviews I hadn't seen before! You've read quite a few older authors and books I've never heard of, so I enjoy the novelty of your thoughts about them. (It gives me sort of a thrill of discovery. :-) )

For my own classics shelf, I use 1950 as a fixed cut-off date, which doesn't move. A constantly-moving date suggests that all there is to "classic" status is a fixed gap of years since publication; and I think there has to be more to it than that, though age is certainly part of it. (I have trouble thinking of works contemporary with myself --I was born in 1952-- as "classics," for instance.) There's also a certain imprimatur of collective reader's judgment of worth, and I don't see that as automatically conferred every year on a whole new crop of "graduates," as it were. And to my mind, "classics" emerge out of an older cultural milieu, with more time and capacity for artistry and serious reflection. IMO, those qualities tended to be lost, or to become rarer, in the later 20th century, at least in the West.

That said, we're talking about a group thread, not my personal shelf! So for the latter, I'm willing to go along with the collective judgment of the majority (or the majority of those that have an opinion :-) ).

Thanks for the visit, Werner and all the likes. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I can see your point on dating classics. I'll be interested to read the thoughts of other group members.

Janelle wrote: "Thanks for the visit, Werner and all the likes. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I can see your point on dating classics. I'll be interested to read the thoughts of other group members."

You're welcome, Janelle! I've only checked out the first two or three frames of that shelf, so I'll probably be back from time to time. :-)

Charly wrote: "Having said that I think we have to recognize that there were some "landmark" works that might merit classic designation. My thought would be that for anything that is lounge-wide we may want to stay with 1950; but for a member's personal challenge inclusion of post-1950 works is surely up to them."

Charly, I would definitely agree with that! I'm even thinking that for lounge-wide threads, we could consider the 1950 cut-off date as a basic guideline, with some flexibility for exceptions at the moderators' discretion. There are some later works, like To Kill a Mockingbird, which I think can be said to have been recognized over a pretty long time, and by a pretty wide cultural consensus, as having classic literary merit, and which I'd be comfortable with including. (But I'd probably draw the line at James Patterson. :-) )

Seems like a good compromise, Werner and Charly.

Charly wrote: "I had Mockingbird in mind but also had Peyton Place and I know there are others that came to mind. I think we could use this thread for person to pose the book and get a response. from the moderators."

Sounds good to me, Charly!

Sounds good Charly!

It sure is hard to choose a character. I will have to think on it.

I think I'll go as Dorothy from the Oz books. I haven't added them to the classic challenge, but I've been reading and enjoying them this year.

I shall be Joe March from Little Woman. One of the most elegant of all Tom Boys in literature.

I think I'll go as the mysterious, hooded and cloaked leper who appears on the scene in The Black Arrow, ringing his bell to warn of uncleanness. That way, when I approach the refreshments table, I'll scare away all the competition, and be able to load up on all the delicacies I could want. :-)

Maybe I should bring Toto after all... Can't let you steal all the yummies, Werner

Yes, definitely bring Toto! (He's a little dog; he won't eat much. :-) )

a 'sound' strategy Werner.

Thanks, Yvonne! :-)

I just discovered that The Alchemist is being hailed as a modern classic -- it was published in 1988.

I'm attending as Alice (of Wonderland fame). Please look out for me if you should see the Queen of Tarts, er Hearts. Many thanks! ;-)

Please remind me... if someone else read the same classic in the same year -- do both count as two classics? if I've re-read a classic I first read in another year -- does that count?

I personally loved Fahrenheit 451, but I need to read it again, because I only listened to it in my car and my mind can wander... I would love to see the stage equivalent.

First I must apologize for fading out on our group read, but I will finish the beast called Les Mis and then...

...I'd really love for us to attempt another group read. Please post your ideas on this.

Charly wrote: "Pokey Little Puppy? ;- )"

I've read it already.... :-)

lol, partners in crime, i see :-p

Seriously, I'm not opposed in principle to taking part in group reads in this group; I've just never participated in one so far, because I tend to already have so many other reading plans and commitments that it's hard to fit one in. Every year, from August through November, I have back-to-back annual common reads in four other groups where I'm the founding or most active moderator (and the one who suggested doing annual common reads in the first place!), so I usually feel a sense of obligation to take part.

This year, I've also agreed to take part in a common read in yet another group during the month of May, of The Mysteries of Udolpho (which is a very long book). (It's been on my to-read shelf forever, and one of my Goodreads friends in the group invited me --it's not one of their group-wide reads, but a smaller-scale "buddy read.") And I've set a self-imposed goal of finishing the Leatherstocking Tales series this year, which I expect will tie up April and June (I have two books to go, and they're thick ones).

That leaves possible windows of opportunity in July and December. I'm usually out of town on vacation for a few days in early July, and don't get any of my regular reading done then; but I could probably start a book a bit late and still finish before August. For the last few years, I've been reading an older Christmas-themed book in December, in order to contribute something to a thread on Christmas classics in another group; but there's no rule in that group that requires that practice, and I'm not wedded to the idea of doing it every single year.

Charly wrote: "Perhaps we should think about a holiday read for December."

I wouldn't be averse to that idea. One book that we have at the BC library is Gail Rock's The House Without a Christmas Tree (1974). It's a short book; and while it was marketed to younger readers, one of my Goodreads friends found it a worthwhile read for adults as well. (His review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .)

Charly wrote: "Just a couple of notes. As we are closing in on the end of the first third of the year we have a classic count at 20. Close to the pace of 63 that we read in a year during the 250 challenge.

I'm currently reading one, and have another scheduled for July. And whatever book the Vintage Tales group picks for this year's common read in September will add another. Then too, I may manage to read one or two others this year as well.

I have a few short ones on my list, but working on the big one now, yes, Les Mis.

Charly, if you reread any classic this year, I absolutely think it should be included in that count!

Yes, I agree with Werner. I've noticed that Goidreads personal challenges also encourage us to count re-reads.

Charly, in most groups that I've been in, when they do a common read, they plan it to coincide with a calendar month. So I was envisioning it as being scheduled for December, with people able to read it at any point during the month. Does that sound like a viable plan? (I expect to read it early on, as the first book I start in December, though I can't guarantee that I'll start exactly on Dec. 1.) As you noted, it's quite short, and many people can probably read it in a single sitting.

On another subject entirely, for the 2018 Lounge-Wide Classic Count, how do we feel about counting posthumous collections of writings by pre-1950 authors --for instance, The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian by Robert E. Howard? REH died in 1936, so all of his Conan stories were written before that (some were only published posthumously, though this book doesn't include any stories completed by other writers). But the book itself wasn't put together and published until 2002, and, like some other reprints of older material, it has some bio-critical features and other appendices of interest to Howard scholars and fans.

Charly, thanks for posting our new challenge thread for 2019, here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ! This year, I'm planning, among other things, to read any of the works of Jane Austen that I haven't already read; so I should be able to contribute some to our count.

Last year, we officially counted 39 classics read by group members. But I'm pretty sure that, given the size of our membership, we have some members who don't post classics that they read. If everybody will post this year, I'm confident we can achieve a higher total (an even 40 at least! :-) ).

Charly wrote: "...when I was doing the research for the numbers of books we read as a group we have many members who don't put a date read on their books when they finish so they don't show in the numbers."

If I correctly understand how the Goodreads program works, any time you move a book from your "currently reading" shelf to your "read" shelf, it automatically enters that day's date as the "date finished" for you (though you can modify that, if you actually finished earlier). So there's not too much problem with current reads. But with books a person simply puts on their "read" shelf (as I do, for instance, with books read pre-Goodreads), there's no automatic entry of a date. (I typically can't remember the exact date when I read things, and usually don't try to enter a rough date unless and until I do a retrospective review of the book.)

Charly wrote: "Not sure but I think they have to save it also. Either way we have a number of folks who do not post their reads."

Oh yes, they most definitely have to click "Save" for it to register! (And it's quite possible that some people don't realize that; unfortunately, Goodreads doesn't make any attempt to teach newbies how to use the site. :-( ) And yes, accidental or intentional failure to post reads is a significant problem. (Sigh!)

Charly, I could see a legitimate case for putting it in the classic challenge. Arguably, the date when something was actually written is more significant than the publication date.

So, are we saying that the age of something constitutes it as classic, or the noteworthiness of content, perhaps?

Reggia wrote: "So, are we saying that the age of something constitutes it as classic, or the noteworthiness of content, perhaps?"

I think the age of a work is an important component of what makes it a classic, if we think of classics as works that have stood the test of a significant amount of time. Of course, there are some that have NOT stood the test of time particularly well --so that may be where "noteworthiness of content" come into consideration. For instance, Thomas Dixon's The Clansman An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, published in 1905, is pretty old, but I wouldn't consider it a classic (and don't think it had much merit when it was first published, either!)

Yes, I agree that we need to trust the member's judgment for the most part. And I have complete confidence in yours, Charly!

No problem, Charly!

Yes, agreed!

Charly. I'd say you could use your own judgment about that.

Charly wrote: "I was thinking of using it in my personal challenge if I need it, but wasn't sure about the lounge wide count."

Personally, I trust your judgment. As you noted, much of Christie's literary output is unquestionably in the chronological range we think of as classic; and a book that's been around for some 57 years has stood some degree of the test of time! :-)

So far, I've only contributed three to the list (I read the omnibus volume of a trilogy, but I figured it was fair to count the three novels separately). But I expect to add several more this summer.

My classic count has been very low this year. But I’m currently working on one book.

I hope to read at least two more this year.

I'll soon be adding two books by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I'm reading one now, and will be reading the other one next.

I am one of them. Personally, I think that reading books to keep a tally of what one has read is silly and I've never done it.

I agree that keeping a tally for no purpose is silly. I'm an advocate of reading slow, word for word, so I can never compete with anyone in the 2019 goodreads reading challenge or in any year's challenge.

On the other hand, for me, one of the purpose of reading is to improve my English which is a language I acquired in adulthood. And I find that, by adding these readings in my list, I can easily refresh my memory of some low-frequency words that I encountered in these books and which are associated in my mind to a person or an event in these books. For example, 'ignoratio elenchi' is associated with a character (a crazy person) in Dracula; 'escritoire', a piece of furniture, is used by a Colonel in the book The Day of the Jackal, and 'apron' (an area with a hard surface at an airport) is where Charles de Gaulle's chauffeur took him to catch a helicopter after a failed assassination attempt on his life.

So I not only keep a list, I also keep some of these books on my bookshelf. But that's just me.

Donnally wrote: "I am one of them. Personally, I think that reading books to keep a tally of what one has read is silly and I've never done it."

Li wrote: "I agree that keeping a tally for no purpose is silly. I'm an advocate of reading slow, word for word, so I can never compete with anyone in the 2019 goodreads reading challenge or in any year's challenge."

As I understand it, none of the "challenges," in this group or elsewhere on Goodreads, are intended to be competitive. Rather, they're individual challenges to ourselves, to encourage us to read more, or to read more of a certain type of book. Personally, I don't take part in the annual Goodreads challenges because I don't need to; I already read all that I can without the challenge. But I do sometimes encourage myself to read more of a certain type of book that I feel is worthwhile or rewarding.

Nobody that I know of reads books solely for the purpose of tallying them; we all read for a variety of purposes, but they're all intrinsic to the reading itself. Given that we're reading for what the read itself will contribute to us, though, some of us also find it fun to count the number of books we read in a year, for a certain feeling of accomplishment that has nothing to do with competing with anyone else. And this group's classics challenge is a corporate version of the same thing --both an encouragement to individuals to read more classics that might otherwise be neglected, and a way of seeing an accomplishment as a group over a year.

These thoughts are by way of explanation, not to impose an obligation. Everybody has their own approach to reading; and some might not want a record of their own reading, nor have any interest in seeing how much they read or don't read. For those reasons, participation in any challenge in this group is always strictly voluntary --we figure people join this group so they can enjoy it in their own way, not so they can feel burdened with obligations!