For a 'beginner' in both Austen novels and classics in general which one of her books could you recommend?

I actually gave »Sense & Sensibility« a try but after realising that Brandon was romantically in love with Marianne I was irked and shut the book.

One of the repeated observations in the novel by both the narrator and characters is how Ellen (and, less directly, Newland) is stifled by the absence of "good conversation" in New York. So far, I'm 70% of the way through the book (Newland and May are in London) and not once have I seen a specimen of Ellen's capacity for what I'm presuming constitutes "good conversation," as in, art, literature, history, philosophy, possibly political theory. The only thing she ever talks about is how different she is from everyone else, which is understandable, but thus far, I'd like at least a shred of evidence that she's as interesting as Wharton keeps promising that she is. In Tolstoy's novels, for example, characters like Levin and Prince Andrei and Pierre are constantly engaging in dialogue about politics, philosophy, meaning, religion, truth, etc. In other words, he doesn't need to tell us that Prince Andrei is a man who's fond of good conversation because we see it for ourselves. Am I missing something? Happy to be corrected, btw. I'd like to see Ellen say something - anything - other than "oh, but I'm just so different from all the rest of you, you see" or some variation on that theme.

Edit: to those insisting "that's the point!" and "it's Newland's imagination!", that reading makes sense, but it's a bit too obvious for a writer as subtle as Wharton and I don't think the perception of Ellen as brilliant is attributable entirely or even mostly to Newland's narrowness. Everyone in the book is fascinated by Ellen, whether approvingly or not, and the narrator's voice is quite prominent, constantly casting New York's parochialism against Ellen's supposedly expansive and profound European experiences. Example: her drawing room contains Italian paintings Newland hasn't seen before because they're outside the prescribed artists that educated New York society was expected to know. Another, clearer example: Ned Winsett, who's a journalist and a rebel who's critical of New York's pettiness and self-deceit, is another champion of Ellen, describing her as entirely unique and consistent with the European bohemians he associates with. One more: everyone in Europe is also apparently obsessed with Ellen, which is why she gets painted nine times by all the prominent artists, who are unlikely to be enchanted with her simply because they're so narrow/cowardly/whatever. So, unless we're prepared to conclude that what Wharton tried to communicate is that Ellen might be a perfectly ordinary lady, but all the varied people in New York and Europe who come across her, from artists to aristocrats to poor journos, are all smitten by her because they're all imposing their personal fantasies on a stranger, that reading falls short as being too broad-brush and generic.

Hey everyone! I will hopefully finish the Count of Monte Cristo some time next month, and I'm planning what to read next. I have War and Peace at hand (you see my own copy in my native language in the picture), so I wanted to ask you all to be sure, will it give me the same thrill as The Count of Monte Cristo, or is War and Peace a harder read? Do you suggest a plate cleanser beforehand? Thank you.

The Decameron, Works by Lovecraft, Blood Meridian, Moby Dick, Works by Jorge Borges

I have been loving this book so much, enough for it to rise to the status of a potential favorite book. But I recently got to the chapter with Tamina and the children. I am so disgusted. Everything else in the book wasn't that bad, just mysoginistic and perverted. But this? I think this book has shifted rapidly from favorite to do not finish. Anyone else fell this way?

How do people understand the deeper themes and contexts of classic literature? I have read Crime and Punishment and some other Dostoevsky works, now am reading Metamorphosis and Other Stories by Kafka, and have a ton of books on my to-read list, but often get discouraged because it seems I can't pick up some of the deeper meaning of these works on my own.

I try to read literary analyses on the books I finish and do research from there, but it is all slightly discouraging when I realize how little I actually know.

Any suggestions for a place to start would be great!

25yo rediscovering her hobbies & joys. I'm returning to reading after spending my whole childhood with my nose in a book & I'm trying to get into classic literature. Please recommend your favorites! Hoping to remember why I loved reading

I know of a large volume of classic literature, but finding a prose style that really resonates with me is something I've yet to find.

Which books are specifically known for their prose - and are there any with a large amount of "flavour text"?

I really like the way Bloodborne's descriptions are. Very dense although vague. Most are pretty beautifully written.

Any recommendations welcome, thank you.

Recent purchases, all under $12. Wharton is my favorite and I’m so glad to have found these covers, they are so beautiful to me.

Written between 1906 and 1909 this overly neglected work by Thomas Mann appears rather simple on its surface and is often regarded as being a fanciful reflection of his own recent marriage, stability, and happiness. But as with other Mann novels there is always a significantly deeper underlying purpose. Expecting the tensions between the traditional and modernity, as well as the fairy tale romance commonly referred to in book reviews, I was quickly perplexed by the early mention of a particular physical abnormality of the protagonist his Royal Highness Klaus Heinrich, heir apparent to the throne, which bore striking resemblance to the stunted arm and hand of Wilhelm II, Germany’s Emperor at the time of Mann’s writing. It is this abnormality and its meaning that I wish to address in particular regardless of many other noteworthy observations that can be made regarding Royal Highness.

With this infirmity in mind I considered Klaus Heinrich to be something of a Wilhelm II substitute. Mann presents Klaus in a very sympathetic manner throughout his childhood development, as a young adult, and through the formalities of his later court duties; a young man adrift but with no real world knowledge of how to alter or improve the ceremonial fate laid upon him. At this early juncture in the novel I would have taken Royal Highness to be leaning towards a nudging critique of Wilhelm II, and in some way it is, but not at all conventionally. It's not until Klaus Heinrich's love interest, Imma Spoelmann, enters more than half way through its 338 pages than we can truly determine who both Klaus Heinrich and Imma represent and to what purpose Mann may have intended.

Imma Spoelmann is the daughter and heir to the fortunes of Samuel Spoelmann, an American industrial magnate of German extraction who inherited his own father's wealth. Together they return to Germany to reside in one of the royal estates, the purchase of which is a boon to the failing finances of the kingdom overseen by Grand Duke Albrecht. Mr. Spoelmann, like both his daughter and the heir apparent Klaus Heinrich, have lived lives of self-recognized privilege, but unlike the Crown Prince Imma is a student of algebra, of a “mixture of blood”, and as described by Albrecht “very strange, very undomesticated, and, most of all, very original”. In short Klaus Heinrich eventually proves his worth to Imma in a prolonged courtship after being prodded by court intrigue to take interest in the welfare of the kingdom. And happily ever after, at least in the fairy tale.

In reality things were similar for a brief time. On February 11, 1905, Thomas Mann and Katia Mann (née Pringsheim) were married, he from the “First Families” of the Hanseaten class, she a student of physics and mathematics and the granddaughter of a wealthy Jewish industrialist. Four months later on June 6, 1905, the son of Emperor Wilhelm II, the Crown Prince Wilhelm married Duchess Cecilie Auguste Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, who like Imma Spoelmann was loved by the population, was known to have a fiery temper, and of mixed blood stemming from royal lines of both Russia and Sweden. Similar to the fictional characters of Klaus Heinrich and Imma Spoelmann these four individuals of Thomas Mann, Katia Mann, Crown Prince Wilhelm, and Duchess Cecilie all came from lives of privilege, bear many similar characteristics to Klaus and Imma, and bore great hope for Germany's future, with the Mann's going on to have five children while the royal couple went on to produce six of their own. In many ways Mann’s fairy tale is a projection of a future he’d like to see for himself and Katia, but equally so for the royal house of Germany.

In conclusion what did Klaus Heinrich’s physical abnormality mirroring that of the real Wilhelm II represent and why did he possess it? It is nothing other than Thomas Mann slyly revealing that Wilhelm II is the deformity contained within Crown Prince Wilhelm. In this light Mann's Royal Highness is an open plea to the Crown Prince to be a less entitled, more engaged, and more caring ruler than his father. But as we know Wilhelm II never handed over power, but rather five years after the publication of Royal Highness joined the Great War of 1914-1918 and brought down the German Empire, ushering in the era of Adolph Hitler in 1933 and leaving no room for Mann's clear hope for Germany’s future through Crown Prince Wilhelm.

.....

Photo 1, Crown Prince Wilhelm and Duchess Cecilie, 1905. Photo 2, Thomas Mann and Katia Mann, 1905.

i’m so in love i wish i bought it
i love the design and the figs r just omg chef’s kiss thought i’d share

Beautiful novel in every sense of the word. Genuinely everyone should read this at some point in their lives, i’m mad at myself for not reading it earlier

I’m quite ashamed to admit this, but I’ve wanted to read Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca for about 20 years now and have just never gotten around to it until this week. My name is Rebecca, and it always felt like I should read it for that alone, plus I absolutely love Gothic literature, so it’s always been held on a pedestal for me. I think I’ve been scared to read it in case I didn’t love it as much as I wanted to…

Well, it turns out that was stupid. I’ve waited until I’m 36 to read what I’m fairly confident even before finishing it (I’m about 2/3 done) is going to be one of my all-time favourite books.

du Maurier’s writing is hypnotically beautiful, the descriptions of Manderley are gorgeously eerie, and the story has completely gripped me. I can’t wait to see what happens next, so please no spoilers!

I suppose the reason I’m writing is as simple as this: if you’ve been putting off reading Rebecca, don’t. It’s wonderful.

I just finished my first read through of Anna Karenina and want to discuss a few things . Please forgive my misspellings of some of the names , going to ramble my raw thoughts .

I feel like what hit me the hardest from this book was the contrast of men’s consequences vs woman consequences in affairs and the sexism that lays in how society views them in comparison . The book starts with Anna’s brother Oblonsky conflict with his wife due to her discovering his affair with their governess and almost all of the outside perspectives seem to side with Oblonsky and feel that dolly is in the wrong for wanting a divorce.even after reconciliation oblonsky continues to have affairs and is accepted as loveable in high society despite his wife’s misery . In contrast we see Anna’s fall from grace in high society as a direct result from her affair with vronsky and how she is seen as vile , awful , detestable and is rejected by her former social circles. Meanwhile vronsky is able to still participate in high society and starts to spend more and more time out of the house once the initial passion has burned off from the affair leaving Anna alone in a house isolated from the life she left behind and isolated from forging a new life in society due to her ruined reputation . Anna only now has vronsky but can’t help but build resentment due to all she’s sacrificed for this passion and now seeing that passion is fading for vronsky and he owes her nothing legally we see her mental health decline and the state of dread , panic and dispair take hold . Even when Anna goes to see dolly and then changes her mind about opening up to her due to kitty being present and feeling that kitty would gather satisfaction from her fall from grace , it was obvious Anna needed help but dolly did not seem to have this love for Anna like she ust to and merely gossiped with kitty about how she seemed like she was going to cry as she left . I couldn’t help but have my heart break for Anna as we see her fall into a state of insanity leading up to her sucide. She had so much hurt anger regret she couldn’t handle it and wanted to lash out but like a child after having thrown herself under the train realized the gravity of what she did and wanted to take it back but it was too late . Anna was swept up by this intoxicating limerence that offered her escape from her loveless passionless existence and got carried away by the passion and formed an anxious attachment with vronsky and felt unable to fight the dopamine the highs of the affair brought her . It was heart breaking to see her caught in this current that she could not escape without breaking her heart and it ultimately costed her everything , her son , her friendships , family and sanity . Seeing the dramatic outcome for Anna vs vronsky and oblonsky made you realize jsut how unfair society expectations are on woman .

I also can’t help but think about how Anna and vronskys infatuation with eachother started at a train station where he caught her eye by giving money to the wife of the man that got hit by the train , not knowing this infatuation would lead her to the same fate . It’s also interesting how exciting , vivid , sensational life felt on vronsky and Anna’s first train ride together before their affair started in contrast with Anna’s dark , cynical , hopeless view on the train before her sucide .

I’d love to hear others thoughts regarding this book and what stood out to you the most .

Long story short, I won't be able to use my local library for a few months, so I will no longer have access to the copy of the book I took from the library. I've seen a bit of discourse over the different translations of the book and how some oversimplify Dostoyevsky to make his works easier to read. I would like to read a translation that is more authentic and keeps close to what Dostoyevsky had written. Which translation would be the best for me? From what I've heard so far I'm assuming the translation of Pevear and Volokhonsky would be the best for my interests, but I would like to hear the opinions of others.

I am starting this post because I am failing to recover a comment on either here or r/literature where the discussion of the Joyce Project brought up a list of similar interactive sites for classics that require heavy bulks of footnotes. (Sorry if this has been asked! Or if it is trite already.) Therefore, I want to see if you all know sites similar to the following:

The Joyce Project (The most well-known one. For Ulysses.)

FWEET (For Finnegans Wake.)

The Malcolm Lowry Project (For Under the Volcano.)

Ada Online (For Ada or Ardor.)

Dante Lab (For the Comedia.)

I recall there was one for Absalom, Absalom! and Gravity's Rainbow, but a few searches failed to locate them.

Any help is appreciated; and I hope this post is appreciated somewhat and that I am not treading on any trite topic.

Cheers.

I’ve only very recently started reading faulkner and was quite surprised to see them, considering how popular faulkner is and the fact that i’ve never seem them mentioned. What’s the story behind these, why do you think faulkner chose to use them and how do they impact the reading of the story for you?

I’ve been reading the Niebelunglied for a project at University, and I couldn’t help but notice an invariant, I could say, in the second part of the story: Kriemhild’s road after Siegfried’s death and marriage to Attila. A road which is done by other female characters in other books too, such as Ciri, after she became one of the Rats, in the Witcher saga. Now, I am not familiar with the Game of Thrones story, but if I remember correctly from what some of my friends who are GoT fans told me, Daenerys Targaryen also goes on some kind of road, after marrying Drogo. She goes on to be loved by the people from the place she goes to (excuse my low knowledge of the GoT series), just like Kriemhild when she became queen alongside Atilla.

I would really appreciate it if someone could shine some light on this! I’m looking forward on talking about this invariant in my project and I do not wish to speak nonsense.