What are your ten classic books?

Don't leave out Borges! Or Vargas Llosa for that matter.

But I honestly think that ten books is too small given the immense and ever-expanding body of literature we have produced over the millennia.

Oh, and something very important containing a lot of lessons on human nature:
La vida del LAZARILLO DE TORMES, y de ſus fortunas y adverſidades.
 
(---)
The rest of the list I cannot help but agree with.
Now this is something I can't understand.
In the first place, you two can't seriously mean that it is essential to study everything by Plato and Aristotle. Which means that a clarification is in order.
Secondly, on that list I see no philosopher or scientist after Thomas Aquinas. How very odd indeed.
Will post my own list later, but since I hate to do that sort of thing and still more to explain my choices, I will need some time on this one.
 
Once upon a time, I started a thread for CFC's own list of classic books--books that are considered essential to understanding the world in fiction and non-fiction. This time around, you must post ten. No more, no less. Please explain why.

1. The Bible - Let's get this one out of the way. Find yourself a good companion guide and get started on Semitic culture.
2. Shakespeare's works - Arguably the most influential writer ever when it comes to dramatic characterization, storytelling, diction, poetry, etc.
I thought you were going to edit this later. ;)

No argument with the first two. I've never read War and Peace, although my grandparents had a copy. It was just never something I had any urge to try.

Full agreement with everyone who mentioned Dune. It's full of great nuggets of philosophy and advice, and THE BEST example I've ever seen of the illustration of humans striving to become the best they can be without relying on computers and artificial intelligence.

One of my favorites: I, Claudius. It does take a few liberties time-wise, but strives to be accurate in historical events and why they happened. Since much of Robert Graves' prose was based on the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius, it helps to have read those too (which I have). Guess what - the ancient Romans were people just like us, with a myriad of problems both large and small, issues with friends and family, hopes and dreams for the future, and all were flawed people with some redeeming qualities (even Caligula; after all, he did love his horse). Sure, I've seen the miniseries so many times, I've nearly worn out my videotapes. But my books (I, Claudius & Claudius the God) are equally well-worn.

I'm also fully in agreement with Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 being on the list. I've been reading articles and following this U.S. presidential election more than any other, and I'm honestly flabbergasted at what's going on there. So many Republicans and "Republicans" trying to make their dystopian dreams come true... :shake:

This leads me to my next choice: The Handmaid's Tale. Guys, if you haven't read this book, you need to. You need to read it and think about what a society such as Gilead would mean for your mothers, wives, girlfriends, female relatives, female friends and colleagues, and anyone else who isn't part of the ruling elite. It is truly frightening how close the U.S. is to being capable of implementing such a society.
 
Now this is something I can't understand.
In the first place, you two can't seriously mean that it is essential to study everything by Plato and Aristotle. Which means that a clarification is in order.
Secondly, on that list I see no philosopher or scientist after Thomas Aquinas. How very odd indeed.
Will post my own list later, but since I hate to do that sort of thing and still more to explain my choices, I will need some time on this one.

:lol: I didn't realize I'd posted in this thread. I was definitely drunk posting. I hated Don Quixote and I've never read Nostromo, and I don't find Plato particularly useful for anything except understanding parts of Art History, of all things.
 
It felt like the same antics repeated over and over again. I felt so sorry for him, so embarrassed for him. The premise and the first few pages were great. I didn't like it for the same reason I don't like I Love Lucy. It made me uncomfortable to see someone make such a fool of himself and be played by so many people. Similarly, I predict I would hate reading The Idiot, even though I find its premise admirable.
 
Once upon a time, I started a thread for CFC's own list of classic books--books that are considered essential to understanding the world in fiction and non-fiction. This time around, you must post ten. No more, no less. Please explain why.

1. The Bible - Let's get this one out of the way. Find yourself a good companion guide and get started on Semitic culture.

Semitic culture? I suppose when referring to both Judaism and Islam that might be appropriate. But let´s not dismiss Christianity (ergo the Western world).

2. Shakespeare's works - Arguably the most influential writer ever when it comes to dramatic characterization, storytelling, diction, poetry, etc.

I think Shakespeare works aren´t a book. Unless you buys the Complete Works, obviously. I´m not sure how the man´s works are necessary to understand the world, though. And who is going to read the complete works?

6. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy - Before HBO character epics like The Wire, there was Tolstoy's look at different parts of Russian society during Napoleon's siege.

A bit longwinded and not as good as Anna Karenina. Tolstoy´s look at society was primarily limited to the upper strata for both books though.

(3) The works of Plato

I´d go with The Republic and/or the Symposion. The stories of the cave and of Atlantis are quintessential to Western philosophy and literature.

5. 1984 (Orwell)

Orwell´s 1984 must be on the list, if only to understand how Newspeak has become part of our world. (Simple example: ´Ministry of Defense´ used to be ´Ministry of War´ - but we don´t like calling things by their name anymore, apparently.)

Euclid's Elements
Dracula (Bram Stoker)

Interesting.

3. Animal Farm by George Orwell

Should probly be on there too. ´All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others´ doesn´t necessarily apply to totalitarianism alone.

7. Las Aventuras del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, by Miguel de Cervantes

I´m not sure if it´s necessary to read the Don Quijote to appreciate where ´fighting windmills´ comes from. Very humorous, though.

Franz Kafka Der Prozesz (The Trial). Kafkaesquer you can´t get. (Written before 1984, mind you.)

I´m surprised nobody has mentioned the Iliad and Odyssey yet.

Le morte d´Arthur probably can´t be missed either.

For number 10 any modern art book might suffice, but I´m going with either a Picasso or Mondriaan survey. Quintessential to explain why the modern world looks the way it does. ;)
 
I think Shakespeare works aren´t a book. Unless you buys the Complete Works, obviously. I´m not sure how the man´s works are necessary to understand the world, though. And who is going to read the complete works?
...

I´m surprised nobody has mentioned the Iliad and Odyssey yet.
Why would you discount Shakespeare but support the Iliad and Odyssey? They're all essentially really long poems.

I've read a lot of Shakespeare. I have yet to make it through the Iliad and Odyssey, although I do own them.

But if we're going for the old stuff, how about Canterbury Tales?
 
Why would you discount Shakespeare but support the Iliad and Odyssey? They're all essentially really long poems.

Which we call epics. Can´t get anymore epic than the Iliad and Odyssey. Shakespeare´s mostly influential on drama and very few of his plots are original. They aren´t meant for reading, they are meant for watching. I´d go with a Sonnet of his if I had to.

I've read a lot of Shakespeare. I have yet to make it through the Iliad and Odyssey, although I do own them.

I own neither but I´ve read the Iliad and Odyssey. Anyway, one must know of some of the stories in there - they are quintessential to the Western world.

But if we're going for the old stuff, how about Canterbury Tales?

Has been mentioned, as well as the Decamerone. But what story in there can´t be missed, I wonder. (I thought of Ovid´s Metamorphoses, but I know it mostly through Latin class, plus Roman authors rarely are original.)
 
Well, I am familiar with a lot of the stories mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey - the Trojan War being the main one. I just never actually read the books. I tried, but had to give it up. Maybe I just wasn't in the right frame of mind.

You're right in that Shakespeare was meant to be seen and spoken, not read. There's a huge difference between merely reading Romeo and Juliet and seeing it performed onstage. But then I do have a live theatre background - spent many years working backstage, mostly on musicals, but also some Shakespeare - and it's much easier for me to pick up a copy of Julius Caesar (for example) and imagine everything happening on a stage in front of me.

This was brought home to me years ago when I tried to read a certain Star Trek novel: How Much For Just the Planet? by John Ford. It's pretty much unreadable to a lot of people, but the key is to imagine the whole thing taking place on a stage, in the style of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. It was an ambitious novel, but should have been written as a play.
 
:lol: I didn't realize I'd posted in this thread. I was definitely drunk posting. I hated Don Quixote and I've never read Nostromo, and I don't find Plato particularly useful for anything except understanding parts of Art History, of all things.
:lol:
Now I like Don Quijote. It might even be on my list. I also find some of Plato's dialogues worthwhile (in my salad days as a philosophy student, I went through them all), even if I tend to take the side of the sophists. .
My own list has to wait. I think it had been wise to make two such threads, one for fiction and one for non-fiction. But let me just give one suggestion; GWF Hegel: The Phenomenology of Mind Basically Hegel¨s account of the development of human consciousness. More specifically a thorough discussion on topics like political philosophy, ethics, history and metaphysics. Controversial but tremendously important.
 
El ingenioſo Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha should be read in Spanish, men.
 
I agree completely. (Even if only because I am Spanish :p) ;)
 
Valka D'Ur said:
I thought you were going to edit this later. ;)

And it is later! I always tell the truth.
 
I agree completely. (Even if only because I am Spanish :p) ;)
A Catalan nationalist admitting he's Spanish? Quoted for posterity.

I don't actually read much fiction, and most of what I do read is garbage, so I don't really have much to say in this thread other than that. Carry on?
 
Well, I have mixed feelings, I said "Spanish" just in case but that's what I am officially, not necessarily what I feel I am :p
 
I´d go with The Republic and/or the Symposion. The stories of the cave and of Atlantis are quintessential to Western philosophy and literature.

Atlantis is from the Timaeus and Critias, not Republic or Symposium. As it happens the Timaeus was by far the most read and most influential work of Plato's in antiquity and had tremendous influence on the development of western religious thought (not for the bit on Atlantis, though), but it's not something I'd generally recommend for actual reading as it's one of Plato's dullest dialogues.
 
Thanks for elaborating, though I didn´t mean to imply to read either the Symposion or The State for those stories. I agree that many of Plato´s dialogues are a bit on the dull side - not being actual dialogues, but merely a means for Plato to explain his ideas. And since I can´t imagine anyone but specialists reading Plato´s entire works (dullness apart), I recommended either The State (for his political ideas) or the Symposion (as it´s supposed to be closest to how Socrates might have been in real life, and because of the Socrates´ apology - actually his defense - for the judges of the tyranny that held trial over him).

By the way, in what sense did the Timaeus exert such influence, do you know?
 
Thanks for elaborating, though I didn´t mean to imply to read either the Symposion or The State for those stories. I agree that many of Plato´s dialogues are a bit on the dull side - not being actual dialogues, but merely a means for Plato to explain his ideas. And since I can´t imagine anyone but specialists reading Plato´s entire works (dullness apart), I recommended either The State (for his political ideas) or the Symposion (as it´s supposed to be closest to how Socrates might have been in real life, and because of the Socrates´ apology - actually his defense - for the judges of the tyranny that held trial over him).

I believe that Plato's earlier dialogues such as the Euthyphro, as well as the Apology, are probably closer to what the real Socrates was like. The Socrates of the Symposium is more of a fictional character who is based to some degree on the real Socrates, who was almost certainly much less dogmatic than he is portrayed in the Symposium and Plato's other later dialogues.

If people want to understand Plato's political views, the text for that is not the Republic, which is really an allegory of the soul, but the Laws. Certainly in antiquity it was always assumed that the Laws were Plato's true political work, and when Plotinus sought to establish a city governed according to Plato's ideas (to be called Platonopolis), it was the Laws it would follow, not the Republic. Unfortunately the Laws are far drier and harder to read than the Republic.

By the way, in what sense did the Timaeus exert such influence, do you know?

It presents the physical world as a product of matter, form, and a creator. The notion of matter itself comes directly from this book. Much of later Platonism and also Christian philosophy can be seen as a systematising of the ideas of the Timaeus.

Also, there's a line from the Timaeus to the effect that the Father of the universe is hard to seek out and, when you have found him, hard to explain to others. When you read any author from late antiquity and see the words "Plato says..." you invariably know that that line is about to be quoted. It must be the most quoted line Plato ever wrote. (This is one of the things, incidentally, that show people at that time didn't generally read the books of Plato and authors like him as originally written - they relied mainly on compilations of quotes - much like medieval people didn't read the Bible or the church fathers, just anthologies.)
 
Top Bottom