Hi, everyone. I've been reading Calvino's Why Should We Read the Classics?, and it's been really interesting. Unlike many books on literary criticism, which actually seem to criticize rather than analyze text (my own thesis was called "mean-spirited," I'm ashamed to admit), Calvino shows a true love of books. It's really a collection of essays that border on book reviews, all enthusiastically telling you why you should read the books he mentions. That's where I first read about Gadda's writing recently. Last night before going to sleep I was reading about Borges and Queneau, and I'm eager to hunt down some old copies on my bookshelves.
If you look at my list of favorite books, you'll notice The Vicar of Wakefield on the list. Honestly, I don't remember having read it... I may have purchased it and never finished it in the mountains of reading I had to finish in my undergraduate years. However, recently I heard someone pooh-poohing this as a "classic" and pointing to the mid-20th century reading requirement of Vicar for Harvard students. "Has anyone actually ever read this?," she asked disparagingly... kind of throwing the literary gauntlet. Well, it sounds like a hoot when you read the back of the cover, and it'll be showing up on my bedside table soon. Everything old is new again, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and all that.
Write back and let me know what you're reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am rereading Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy and find myself being very critical of the unevenness of the tale. The first book is just about perfect. I find the others to lag in interest and a superfluity of detail. Anna at times does not seem to be the central interest of the book. I may change my mind about some of this as I go ahead and finish the book and am able to see the overall shape of the story.
Post a Comment