You know these classics...?
Discussion
They're classics for a reason.
I 'discovered' Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy a few years ago, despite being in my fifth decade and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Just back from a week on the beach where, thanks to posts here in Books and Literature, I was enthralled by The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dracula. Despite both stories being well known to me through film and general knowledge I was kept in suspense by both books. Frankenstein is next.
I think we might draw a moratorium on new books - there is too much to read as it is so no new writing is needed.
I 'discovered' Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy a few years ago, despite being in my fifth decade and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Just back from a week on the beach where, thanks to posts here in Books and Literature, I was enthralled by The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dracula. Despite both stories being well known to me through film and general knowledge I was kept in suspense by both books. Frankenstein is next.
I think we might draw a moratorium on new books - there is too much to read as it is so no new writing is needed.
Edited by LordGrover on Thursday 18th June 13:57
Like all things, personal taste comes into the equation. I like reading Dickens (and really should read more of him) but I have to be in the right mood. I'm definitely a fan of Dracula - it is absolutely nothing like any of the films I have seen. Even the most "faithful" ones play fast and loose with characters and locations, and the original plot rarely gets a look in. Frankenstein was a disappointment to me though. In comparison to Dracula it was just a bit generic and predictable.
The 1980s/90s TV BBC/Granada co-production of Sherlock Holmes is pretty much 100% by the book and definitive. Jeremy Brett >was< Holmes (all too closely as things turned out) and Watson was perfectly believable as an ex military doctor, unlike most film representations. One of the few cases where TV is as good, or even better, than the book.
The 1980s/90s TV BBC/Granada co-production of Sherlock Holmes is pretty much 100% by the book and definitive. Jeremy Brett >was< Holmes (all too closely as things turned out) and Watson was perfectly believable as an ex military doctor, unlike most film representations. One of the few cases where TV is as good, or even better, than the book.
Frankenstein was one of the novels I studied for my A Level English, but luckily nitpicking and pulling the book apart didn't diminish my enjoyment of it at all.
Dracula is a more recent favourite; like the poster above, I knew the story, but had never read the book. HG Wells and Jules Verne too have been favourites for years, but I've got around to reading a handful of theirs.
Dracula is a more recent favourite; like the poster above, I knew the story, but had never read the book. HG Wells and Jules Verne too have been favourites for years, but I've got around to reading a handful of theirs.
Dickens - I hated all the stupid character names.
Hardy - I was FORCED to read The Mayor of Casterbridge as a child - I'm calling the NSPCC later, I'm sure they can get that b
d English Teacher for something!
Austen - I've never read one to be honest.
However, I do have very fond memories of "Cider with Rosie" - I must try that again (And, yes, I do mean the book!
).
M.
Hardy - I was FORCED to read The Mayor of Casterbridge as a child - I'm calling the NSPCC later, I'm sure they can get that b
d English Teacher for something!Austen - I've never read one to be honest.
However, I do have very fond memories of "Cider with Rosie" - I must try that again (And, yes, I do mean the book!
).M.
Gassing Station | Books and Literature | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff