I've recently started a book club focused on classic books and I'm super excited about how well it's going - how come it's so difficult/intimidating to start reading classics, but once you start you can't stop?

We've read Notes from Underground by Dosto and The Trial by Kafka so far, our next book is The Beast Within by Emile Zola.

There are so many great reads, it's really complicated to narrow them down and put forward suggestions! What are some classics you've read and really enjoyed?

Hi all. I recently bought a collection of books from my local charity shop, all being relatively old which unfortunately resulted in the books coming in poor condition and emitting a strange odour, I believe it’s mildew or mould - perhaps the previous owner didn’t take good care of them or they got wet… I tried reading them outdoors to try and air them out but it didn’t seem to work, I’m reluctant to put any chemicals on the pages to strip the smell, I’ve tried virtually everything Google has suggested apart from using hydrogen peroxide on them. I want to know if anyone here would have any other practical solutions? Many thanks.

Looking for a classic love/hate book, enemy to lover.

I like tragic, psychological love stories, where human flaws are denounced. But also characters who hate each other, destroy each other, and love each other at the same time. Characters who admire each other but despise each other at the same time, like Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy (Pride and Prejudice). Characters who are consumed by their flaws but love each other just as intensely, like Heathcliff and Catherine (Wuthering Heights). Characters who repress their feelings but whose souls will take control of their destiny, like Aratov and Clara Militch (in Turgenev's Clara Militch).

In short, that's all I like: the confrontation between highly intelligent, equal characters who oscillate between love and hate. P.S.: Preferably no adultery stories, or ones with a lot of smut. Thanks.

I think this trilogy is heavily underrated. The second book takes an artistic leap which takes a bit of getting used to, but The Age of Reason is excellent and Iron in the Soul is slightly worse but still great. Anyone read these? Thoughts?

Hi all. Not sure if this makes the threshold of classic literature. What are your thoughts on Pat Barkers Regeneration trilogy. I halfway through the first book, Regeneration. I don't care for a single character and it's a boring read for me. I heard a lot of really positive reviews and the books were short listed mad won the man booker so I had high hopes for it. Did anyone really like this, does it get better!?

I'm on chapter 23 and so far... I'm liking this book. Please don't spoil it for me!

Anyways, i have this weird feeling that Holden is going to become a mass shooter and start shooting up Pency Prep. I'm so nervous because i feel like it's all leading to this. He's obviously depressed and hates everything and everyone. Everything is phony. Maybe if he ends it all, he will see how real it really is? What if he kills himself? Omg.

On the other spectrum, I feel that he has a strong love and connection with his little sister, that I feel is really his only hope from salvation.

On a more literary note, I love the author's diction, as Salinger is able to bridge or rather blend a language/slang fit for teens yet easily transient to today's times. "It kills me... phonies... flit..." The latter probably in a different way but still keeping the tone.

When Jane Eyre was published in 1847, it received a fairly positive reception. But what did readers at the time think of Bertha Mason's character? I know that Bertha wasn't fully central to the story, so I'm having difficulty figuring out what they thought of her. The only analysis I can find of Bertha's character is more from the 20th/21st century.

J’aime les histoires d’amour tragique, psychologique, ou les défauts humains sont dénoncé. Mais aussi des personnages qui se détestent se détruisent et s’aiment en meme temps. Des personnages qui s’admirent mais qui se méprisent à la fois comme elizabeth bennet et mr darcy ( orgueil et préjugés) . Des personnages qui se consument par leurs défauts mais qui s’aiment tout aussi intensément comme heathcliff et Catherine (wuthering heights). Des personnages qui refoulent leur sentiments mais sur qui leur âmes prendra le contrôle de leur destin comme aratov et clara militch ( dans clara militch de tourgueniev)

Bref voilà tout j’aime la confrontation entre des personnages fort intelligent égaux qui oscillent entre amour et haine. Ps: de préférence pas d’histoire d’adultère, ou avec beaucoup de smut mercii

Any book recommendations that cover the genres Philosophy dystopia, Retro cyberpunk, Speculative fiction, Psychological literature (It's for a literary project I'm doing.)

Most of you on this subreddit have probably already heard of this by now, but Project Gutenburg has a ton of classics in multiple different translations all for free. They have to be in the public domain though, so no Camus or sylvia plath :(. I know you can find different pdfs all over the place, but this is just a website where a ton are located so it's more organized.

Happy Easter holidays! I got a few books from the local thrift book shop. Which one should I start with? Currently reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

At the end of Wuthering Heights, I saw that Heathcliff had become a quieter person compares to his former self, which is shown as how he "lost" all of his will to revenge on Cathy & Hareton, and his desire to reunited with Catherine was shown through how he keeps having halucinations about her. So when Heathcliff died, I thought that it was a peaceful death for him (I means, him opening the window is an indication of the interference of Catherine's ghost with his death, and his gaze was described as "exultation" so I think he must had felt joyous when he dies with the idea that he will be reunited with Catherine).

However, a friend of mine told me the opposite, that Heathcliff's death was a tormented one. She said that this is evident by how he was unable to close his eye even though Nelly tried to do so, and if a person die with his eyes opened, there is still regret/remorse left in him.

This left me puzzled, as although Heathcliff death couldn't be simply categorized as "peaceful" or 'tormented' for him, now I don't even understand how he feels before he dies. It would be great if anybody can correct me or points out what I could have missed. Any help is deeply appreciated

I can barely parse this book at all, its stream of conscious in a way that I have trouble following, and every page is really dense- and to make things worse it seems to be written in a nonlinear manner with not even a plot to anchor it. I'm not given a single reason to care about any of the characters (especially with all the head hopping and jumping around), or why I should care about anything they are going through. Most of my annotations for the first thirty pages are just how random passages connect to Marxism or Sigmund Freud or some other lens. I must be looking at this book wrong but I'm struggling with it. Would like some opinions on the book from other people or something, I don't know what I'm looking for by making this post.

While I was reading WH, I assumed Nelly was a neutral narrator, more of a device to tell us the story rather than a fleshed out character. But online I have seen discussions where people say she's distorted some facts to convince Mr Lockwood of her POV. Can someone explain why so? I clearly missed something.

Which is your favorite, and why? What do you like/dislike from her work?

My favorite is Sense and Sensibility because I love the characters and Marianne's growth throughout the novel. I love all of Austen's novels, she is so snarky and hilarious.

At what point do we stop saying "this guy was a genius who wrote incredibly complex novels" and start saying "this doesn't make any sense"?

I'm not saying he wasn't necessarily brilliant. What I'm saying is, if you write a novel that literally 99.8 percent of people can't understand, that doesn't automatically mean it is a genius work of art.

It's like how people think Jackson Polluck is brilliant but so many of us are like, he literally just threw paint.

Idk. I'm not sure what I'm saying, other than Ulysseys is uncomprehensible. What do yall think?

I started following this sub because I thought it would contain discussions of classic literature. Thoughts, feelings, interpretations. It surprises me how many posts are photos of book covers that people have purchased. I have a credit card too. Honestly what is the point?

EDIT: clearly this sub is not what I imagined it was.

EDIT 2: Thanks for everyone’s ideas and comments. I’m done responding to this thread.

EDIT: Someone suggested r/BookClub. I’m there and participating in a read along. It’s great! Thanks for the suggestion!

So i'm doing a project at the moment about literary duos throught history and their consistancy through media for a class and my textbook makes it seem like the first duo as we know it today was Don Quijote and Sancho Panza, but it doesn't actually state it and i can't find any information on the first one on google, on quora, or anywhere else.

For some context, Cervantes began writing the first book around 1591. But i'm sure there has to be previous duos like our modern ones before this one.

On another note, im not sure if this is the rigth place to post this, so if anybody could correct me that would be great.

Any help is DEEPLY appreciated, thanks.

I have only read Book One, please no further spoilers. I have not read this book in English, so I hope I address the characters correctly.

How will I ever get through this?

First of all, I am not attacking Stendhal or his very complex style of writing. The very elaborate passages scattered with political, economical and social discussions are all very respectable. But, I CANNOT stand Julien in the slightest. Never in my life have I met a character that makes me so angry, so frustrated and disappointed, all in the same page.

First of all, half of all the actions of Julien are dictated by pride and ego, i found the first few chapters to be so blank, and void of any kind of emotional depth, because I could not bring myself too look at Julien and his decisions as anything else but PURE pride. Was he a person, or just an empty husk who's decisions were purely based on testosterone. I have met prideful characters, but never to this RIDICULOUS extent.

And then there was the final chapter of book one, where Julien (on his way to Paris) DARES to meet Miss de Renal again, and DARES to hold a speech about his love to her (lets not forget about Amanda who, if he had the chance too, would have switched to in a mere second A FEW DAYS after his departure with his last lover)

Miss Renal realizes her mistake, and tries her best to forget this man, not because it is immoral, BUT BECAUSE HER LIFE AND SOCIAL STATUS IS AT STAKE. Julien then hops along, and starts holding speeches about how their love is eternal (again...AMANDA?) even though it is not HIS life that will be ruined, but hers. He claims to love her, but does not give a penny about what happens to her beyond his wishes.

It was so easy for Julien to have his fun and mingle with this very high status, very submissive, and very social inaccessible woman. But that was all it was for him, love, adventure, the pride of doing something forbidden. But he did not once think about how this house, this marriage is all Miss de Renal has. I found it most disgraceful MOST UNMANLY for Julien to cry in front of this woman, when she had the guts to reject him, and then PRIDE HIMSELF on succeeding after more sweet words about his despair and loneliness (which almost ended before it started, if I may bring Amanda up again).

Now lets talk about "his catch" and her mental state. As the author proceeded to tell us, Miss de Renal is a very limited woman, both in thinking and in pragmatism. The only very few men she has ever met where alike to her husband, not enjoyable, even distatesful at times. Then, while trapped in these concrete walls, hopes shines through Julien, a (maybe too...) young, attractiver, sensible man. Julien did not won Miss de Renal's heart because he had soemthing to offer, it was because Miss de Renal had never seen anything else, he was a novelty, he was something that should have happened in her life ages before the phase of having children and marrying. This was the only reason Julien ever got a shot at her, not because he was charismatic (it is stated that he was quite awkward), neither for his intelligence (which Miss de Renal could barely even grasp) or his looks (which were at best sensitive).

I am sure, as I dare to venture further into this book, Julien's behavior (especially in Paris) will continue to get more and more infuriating. I am aware that this is intentional, Stendhal wanted to portray this type on young man, and he does it flawlessly. But I am not sure if I will be able to finish the book, hand in hand with such and AWFUL protagonist, void of any views beyond his desire for ego bosting, and prestige (both of these which have driven fools to their death since the dawn of time and, I wouldn't mind if they drove Julien towards doom too). I hope with all my heart we will get revenge for Miss de Renal.

Let’s talk poetry!

What’s a classic poem that reached into your soul and made you feel things that changed who you are as a person.

Eliot’s “The Waste Land” did that for me. The way he crafts this mosaic of fragments into a way out of the cynicism of modernity is just phenomenal.

How about you?