11 Modern Classics That You Don't Need To Read

[@joebeamish]

One thing I like about this video is prioritizing books over writers. Agreed! Often you hear someone say, "I like Joyce" or "I don't like Faulkner." But with most authors, it really depends on the book in question. It's better to look at books individually than to try to dismiss (or wholly embrace) the author's full body of work in one go.

[@BookishTexan]

That's a good point. Every time someone says they dislike an author I like I have to stop myself from saying, "Have you read _____ by that author?" That said, I can't imagine their being a book by James that I truly love.

[@joebeamish]

@@BookishTexan I love Turn of the Screw. And I recall being pleasantly surprised by Portrait of a Lady when I read it for the first time only two or three years ago. But I must also confess that I now remember very little of it.

[@BillNessworthyPhotography]

Exactly - I love Virginia Woolf generally, love Mrs Dalloway, To The Lighthouse, The Waves, Orlando was ok, but I'm currently struggling to enjoy Jacob's Room (for its 100th anniversary) - imagine if I had read this book first and dismissed Woolf's oeuvre entirely, I would have missed out on three of my favourite books.

[@BlackJezuz69]

Ok fine. I will give Henry James another try because of this comment 😭

[@BlackJezuz69]

@Trinity M MISS. Yyou must differentiate the author from the work of art.

[@jeremyfee]

You make some good points here. I'd even go as far as to say you could make this a regular series of book non-recommendations. It's fun to hear your thoughts about why people don't need to read them.

[@BookishTexan]

Thanks Jeremy. A series of non-recommendations does sound like a good idea . . . .hmmm.....

[@roqsteady5290]

Reading some of those and others in my late teens (some time ago) did make me wonder if "great literature" was all it was cracked up to be or whether I was missing something. Sometimes an authors reputation is based on one or two works and doesn't transfer to all their output.

[@BookishTexan]

This is very true. Even the greatest writers produced poor works and only a few truly great works. Thank you for your comment.

[@aaronaragon7838]

It is said that there are no second acts in American literature...or something like that.

[@nickcalabrese4829]

@@BookishTexan I think that’s something you should expect though, to be fair. If someone is trying to really do something fresh or something great, they have to run some experiments, and you’d expect that most experiments would fail.

[@BookishTexan]

@@nickcalabrese4829 I think that's true. I might admire them for trying and still not think the result is book that people need to read. Great point though. Thank you.

[@dont-want-no-wrench]

tbh, sometimes a book is overrated, but sometimes it is a matter of not resonating with the life of the reader, or just the reader not being mature enough to get meaning from it. i think of some books i read as a young man that didnt seem like much. some of them still dont, but others...

[@sauerjoseph]

I'm impressed that you answered nearly every comment. I've never seen anyone do that before. And, with well written replies as well; obviously you are a good writer yourself. I enjoyed your video, as well as reading the extra information that you provide in your many replies to the various comments. And was gladdened that you held firm to the facts and your convictions, while also remaining gracious when it seemed appropriate given the context of the other commenter's civility. ... New subscriber!

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you for watching and for your very kind comment. I enjoy responding to comments even those that are not positive or supportive.

[@slatszpoetry6193]

Thanks for the excerpts from Gone with the Wind. They need to be widely published. z

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you.

[@raf155]

So because a book is a product of its time, and contains sentiments that we no longer agree with, we should avoid it?

[@BookishTexan]

Can I ask you when you think GWTW was published.

[@christopherpaul7588]

On the road is not overrated. It inspired an entire generation to hit the road. It's beautiful poetic prose. Amazing passages throughout. And there's something about the writing that reminds me of Steinbeck. Kerouac captured a generation perfectly in On the Road. I read it for the first time when I was about 19 years old and it inspired me to both travel and write. I think the greatest goal a book can accomplish is for it to inspire and On the Road has done that for many people.

[@BookishTexan]

There are some amazing passages in _On the Road_ it’s just not, in my opinion, worth reading the whole book to find them. It did not inspire an “entire generation” to do anything. If it had every young person in the 50s would have been a Beatnik. They weren’t. Most continued to uphold traditional values and chase consumerist goals.It did inspire some young men (primarily) who rejected traditional values and consumerism, but its impact has been romanticized out of proportion. I am glad that it inspired you to travel and write.

[@christopherpaul7588]

@@BookishTexan A lot of people started traveling because of OTR. And yes, there were many many beatniks. Kerouac became an overnight celebrity. The Doors never would have existed. The Beats in general were unique in their influence beyond literature.

[@BookishTexan]

@@christopherpaul7588 A lot of people is not an "entire generation." The Beats like all counter culture groups eventually just became fashion that young people who had no intention of rejecting traditional values embraced for the style and the good time. Btw, I think The Doors are also massively overrated.

[@christopherpaul7588]

@@BookishTexan I don't think you understand the influence Kerouac had. You just don't like him and so your knowledge is skewed. I don't know what literature you're into but it's obvious our tastes differ greatly.

[@BookishTexan]

@@christopherpaul7588 Well I did an independent study on The Beats in grad school that focused on its beginning as a movement lead by writers like Kerouac and linked them to counter culture movements in the 1960s. I don't dislike Kerouac in general. I like _The Dharma Bums_ for instance. But, in terms of lasting influence on literature I think Ginsberg, some of the other poets, and Burroughs were more important. Its not your taste in books I am arguing with. Its your statements about the historical importance of _On the Road_ and the Beats I am taking issue with.

[@zsazsavoom]

I've read everyone on your list & pretty much agree. That said, as a bit of a completist, I often enjoy reading through an author's evolution/devolution.

[@BookishTexan]

I tend toward completist, but at some point (around 10 books usually) I've had enough.

[@johnsilver8059]

@@BookishTexan I feel that way about Dickens. I prefer his shorter novels.

[@lindanorris2455]

I LOATHE WHEN PEOPLE TELL OTHERS NOT TO READ BOOKS. HAS THIS GUY, EVER READ: CHARLES BUKOWSKI? (surely, not!) HARLAN ELLISON? (surely not! ) ROBERT SILVERMAN? EDGAR ALLEN POE? ALAN HUNTER? (uk WRITER) . DH LAWRENCE? OH, PLEASE? UPDYKE? REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDING? YOU SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO READ. NOT ENCOURAGING THEM NOT TO READ!!!!!!!! THE PEARL WAS GREAT. HORIBLE......IN ITS CONCEPT . YOUR READING LIST MUST BE A LIKE COTTON CANDY? WHAT ABOUT TOBACCO ROAD? WHat about the JUNGLE ? NO??????to graphic? Too grisly?

[@BookishTexan]

@@lindanorris2455 Switch to decaf. This video lists 11 books that I don’t think people “need” to read. If you watched the video you know that it is in someways intended to be a fun response to the kind of videos where people tell you “Classics You Must Read.” If you want to find out what I do read you can browse through my playlist of book reviews.

[@BrandonsBookshelf]

Oh man, to each there own. I was on board with Gone With The Wind, I could even understand On The Road, but Portrait! Tied for first place in my heart with The Count. Skippable yes if you just want to know Joyce's writing, but in my humble opinion, a cant miss for the best coming of age story of all time. I think Stephen is such a beautiful soul and it is THE perfect representation of a boy finding himself and his voice against all the outside and societal pressures of family, religion, nation, education.

[@BookishTexan]

Great defense of _Portrait of the Artist_ Brandon. Obviously the book and Stephen Daedalus didn't affect me in the same way but I loved reading your discussion of the books qualities.

[@randolphpinkle4482]

@@BookishTexan I read Portrait as a teenager, and I identified with Stephen D. so much. It is definitely a book to read at a certain stage in your life. I read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged before I hit 20 and those books just messed me up. I definitely left Ayn Rand in the dustbin of wasted pages. Yuck.

[@juliegrimes6910]

I never got past “the moo cow.” I got my summa in Lit and have no place for Joyce in my world. I think I literally pitched the book across the room after “and a very fine moo cow it was,” and I’m a person who thinks people who crack book spines merit at least the 8th circle of hell.

[@BookishTexan]

@@juliegrimes6910 This is easily my favorite comment of the day.😂😂😂 Thank you.

[@therealzilch]

I, too, am a big fan of _Portrait._ I admit it has serious shortcomings, and the story is not as good as _Ulysses,_ but the language is beautiful. It also provides some sharp looks at the "priest-ridden" Ireland of the time. And the description of the filth and corruption of Hell is unparalleled; you can almost taste it.

[@ianp9086]

Great idea for a video! One of the (many) downsides of being a completist is you realize your favourite authors also produce turkeys - and if they had been your first experience of the author you wouldn’t be so fond of them!

[@BookishTexan]

Very true. I’ve been trying to work my way through all of Faulkner and Requiem definitely slowed me down. Thank you Ian.

[@juliegrimes6910]

So true! I tell anyone interested in Dostoyevsky, “Don’t read Crime and Punishment first, or you’ll never read him again!”

[@ianp9086]

@@juliegrimes6910 oh dear - I started with that one but fortunately I loved it!

[@NotInMYName_AntiZionistJew]

@@juliegrimes6910 I loved The Brothers Karamazov.

[@juliegrimes6910]

@@NotInMYName_AntiZionistJew yep, it’s my favorite. I did my summa thesis on the Grand Inquisitor

[@nathalie_desrosiers]

What I like about _Gone With The Wind_ is the strong female character Scarlett O'Hara was. At a time Hollywood depicted women as cute but dumb, superficial and only good in the kitchen, it was a refreshing movie as well.

[@BookishTexan]

Scarlett is a great character in the book and in the movie. I like the movie much more than the novel. Thanks for commenting.

[@hd-xc2lz]

@ Nathalie Desrosiers Disagree with your summary of Hollywood depictions of women late '30s/early '40s, films of Hepburn, Loy, and Davis certainly don't give off that impression.

[@laurenhahn101]

"refreshing" as long as you don't have any strong opinions about the Civil War.

[@EricMcDowellegm]

For me, the only readable Henry James is "Washington Square." It's more of a novella than a full-blown novel and immensely readable (and for James, that's really saying something). I couldn't even get through the first chapter of The Ambassadors! Glad to have discovered your channel. Subscribed!

[@BookishTexan]

Not sure I will try another James, but if I do I will try _Washington Square_. Thanks you for watching and subscribing.

[@juliachildress2943]

Portrait of a Lady is one of my favorite books, however, I was never able to ready any of James' other books. Also, I admit that Portrait of a Lady could be a slog, but I found it worth the time and energy required.

[@missanne2908]

_The Spoils of Poynton_ is also good. It's a novel but a fairly short one.

[@BookishTexan]

@@missanne2908 Thank you

[@Zzyzzyx]

I had to read The Ambassadors for a college class and I could only get to p. 25! So I wrote my paper on just that part and I was such a master of literary BS, I got an A!!! 😅

[@foxedfolios]

May I suggest…. Classics / Modern Classics that one “doesn’t NEED” to read = ALL of them! If you’re not interested in reading a book - so-called canonical, classic or otherwise - just don’t! I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking I ‘should’ read one of the many classics that are highly regarded/widely read even though it doesn’t interest me. Never works out well. 😂😂 To quote the cliché: Life’s too short. (I am fully aware you know this. I just felt like commenting. 😂😂)

[@BookishTexan]

I agree with all of this Ally. There is no book that anyone has to read.

[@innerparty1]

Insane take on Portrait. One of the greatest books of all time. Sorry for just barging like this since I got this recommended but had to comment on that lol.

[@BookishTexan]

No worries. We just disagree about Portrait. Thanks for your comment.

[@annelooney1090]

I loved Portrait; I think it resonated to me personally as someone who grew up Catholic and had to grapple with my feelings towards the Church as I got older. But as I was reading it I could sense that it might not hit home to someone who didn't have that background.

[@BookishTexan]

I can see that. Great point. Thank you for your comment.

[@stef10ziggy]

TOTALLY agree on every word you said about Joyce’s ‘Portrait of the Artist.’ And I caution others too because I made the exact mistake you mentioned by choosing that first from his works and then it took me 5 years to get the energy to attempt another one of his hahaha. ‘Dubliners’ is AMAZING!

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you. Sorry Portrait kept you from reading Dubliners for so long.

[@kevinstreeter6943]

"Gone With the Wind" being racist would not keep me from reading it. Edit: Actually, it makes me more likely want to read it.

[@BookishTexan]

Reading a 1000 page novel just for the racism is a peculiar form of masochism.

[@kevinstreeter6943]

@@BookishTexan No, it is not. And, it does not mean I agree with it. I am not a follower of you or anyone else. I am curious and have to determine for myself. Also, it is a part of our culture. I believe in free speech. If someone has ideas offensive, I do not want them hidden. I will listen to anyone. Here's a shocker for you. I also want to read "Mien Kampf" someday.

[@BookishTexan]

@@kevinstreeter6943 Why would that shock me? I know lots of people who have read it. I've read excerpts from it. Reading books to shock people is silly. And, forgive me, but reading racist books because you think people don't want you to or because you think you have to because it is in someway intellectually good for you seems like the definition of masochism to me. I can support free speech and still try to warn people off of books I don't think are worth the time whether its because they are boring or because they are racist. Life is short and I think we should read what is good and avoid reading books that are bad.

[@kevinstreeter6943]

@@BookishTexan I did not say that reading racist books because I think people do not want me to or because I think it is someway intellectually good for me. Two reasons for reading are having literature or historical significance. Do you also disapprove of Mark Twain? He said a lot that would be offensive today. Somehow reading "Mein Kampf" is ok but not "Gone with the Wind". Being racist or any other offensive thoughts are not good reasons for avoiding a book. If this were so, we would not read much written beyond 50 years ago. Hell. what was mainstream thought just last year is now considered extremist and offensive. I do not get my ethics from reading. I am just trying to understand someone else's thoughts.

[@gardenplots283]

I would expect a book about the spoiled daughter of a Southern plantation owner during the 1860s that was written nearly 100 years ago by a woman of the deep South to have racist overtones and be sympathetic to klansmen and treat slavery as just low paid workers happy to have a job. Why are people only noticing this now? I say read it and be outraged if you want or enjoy it if you want. That's what books are for. To hopefully make you feel and think about what you have read. You don't have to agree with it.

[@BookishTexan]

I don't know that people are only noticing it now. Also, I think its important to remember that Mitchell wrote GWTW long after the Civil War was over and just after the hay day of Klan resurgence. Her favorite novelist growing up was the guy who wrote the novel _The Klansman_ and she excuses racist violence on at least three occasions in the book. I can't think of another work of 20th Century American literature that does that.

[@jackseney7906]

She published that oversized piece of trash in 1936 when it was well known the Klan cowards had lynched countless people, and murdered a Catholic priest during the 1920s. I don't care that it exists, but I have zero intention of ever touching it or watching the stupid movie.

[@allisonoconnor8055]

It's called American history!

[@BookishTexan]

@@allisonoconnor8055 GWTW is a novel and the version of American History it teaches is wrong. Read the quotes from the novel in the video description box.

[@tommiller3017]

I agree about the racism. I think the story appealed to Americans during the Great Depression. Scarlet is a brave, fighting woman, who will do anything - good or bad- to survive.

[@Belshay]

One of the things I find most intriguing about Gone with the Wind is Scarlett O'Hara's relationship with her infant child. Margaret Mitchell portrays O'Hara as a cold, narcissistic mother in the post-birth stage of the novel. But, in reality, O'Hara is suffering from post-partum depression in an era where no one knows that this medical condition exists. It makes O'Hara a far more sympathetic character than she is presented in this stage of the novel. But it also reveals how a different era interprets a particular set of behaviors quite differently than we would. She needs medical care for her depression but is instead misattributed as to blame for her post-partum state of mind. It gives an interesting window into American history, namely the moral category confusion between who we see as a victim versus victimizer.

[@BookishTexan]

Great comment! In my opinion, Mitchell did one thing well: She created a complex and iconic character. I am certain that we are not meant to admire Scarlett and yet Mitchell makes her sympathetic and uses her to explore all the things women had to go through. The contrast between Scarlett and the virtuous Melanie Wilkes is to me the most interesting part of the book.

[@marianryan2991]

Love this idea! I had to read Portrait 3x before I appreciated it and that under a professor's tutelage. I was creating my own take-a-pass list while watching your video--number 1 was Rabbit, Run, and its progeny, haha. I was pretty young and stupid when I read it but in retrospect I believe it was my first feeling of being repelled by literary misogyny. Definitely repelled at any rate!

[@BookishTexan]

Updike’s novels, including the Rabbit books, all feel pretty gross to me now. I read a bunch of his books back in the day thinking there must be something there, but there really isn’t much there. Thanks Marian

[@ramblingraconteur1616]

I’m really hoping that Rabbit, Run and the rest of Updike’s novels fade from discourse and discussion over the next generation. He was definitely held up as a “major contemporary writer” when I was in school.

[@marianryan2991]

@@ramblingraconteur1616 co-sign

[@joreneereads]

Maybe the beautiful and damned is so skippable because fitzgerald hadn’t found Zelda’s diaries yet 🙃

[@FullyBookedMelissa]

👏

[@aaronfacer]

Touché! 😄

[@BookishTexan]

Haha!!! Probably not!

[@carlakiiskila1412]

This was fun, and I agreed with every one. Got any more? This is my first of your videos so I don't know if you do older classics, but you could have spared me the struggle I had with Le Morte D'Arthur, why did I ever think it would be a good idea? THANKS

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you Carla. Unfortunately my reading of the older classics is pretty limited. I don't think I could make an informed video on the subject. On the positive side you have helped convince me to avoid _Le Morte D'Arthur_ 😁

[@jstyler2583]

I completely agree about many of your choices, especially Tropic of Cancer and Portrait of an Artist. The Pearl was the worst Steinbeck I've read (I loved Cannery Row too!) But 'On the Road' is one of my favourite books ever. I love the mad characters, the mood... it's just a wonderful experience!

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you JS. I’m glad _On the Road_ was such a great reading experience for you.

[@jenhasken]

Agreed, I love Kerouac after looking down my nose for years finally dove in, think he was a genius. I preferred the less famous Capricorn to Cancer where Miller is concerned.

[@djanitatiana]

This probably the most American take on any subject discussed anywhere on KZbin.

[@BookishTexan]

I want to make sure I understand your comment so help me out: You think a video in which I encourage people NOT to read books by primarily American authors is too American? Is that right? Would you be happier if instead, I as an American, suggested works of world lit that people should avoid?

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

While nowhere near the level of "Ulysses" or "Finnegans Wake", I found "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" a good introduction to the character of Stephen Daedalus, and it helps to transition into Ulysses, so that you are meeting an old friend who you know at the start, and then transition to Bloom's story. I agree with your list otherwise.

[@BookishTexan]

That is a good point about Stephen Daedalus. I read _Ulysses_ before Portrait, but I can see where that introduction might help. Thanks for the great comment.

[@meierlinksd4996]

Yes, I agree with you about using "Portrait" as a starting point for Joyce, especially when you see "Ulysses" as "The Stephen Story, part two". Joyce can be good, but I do have one confessional. "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" is my favorite of his. I can still hear the slap from Father Dolan to the little Stephen, punishing him in front of his classmates, because his eyeglasses broke.

[@Dreyno]

Dubliners is the easiest read by Joyce imo. And most enjoyable imo.

[@tacitus7797]

Frankly I didn't realize that "Gone With the Wind" was even considered a modern classic.

[@BookishTexan]

Yep, it is.

[@thesleepvampire]

Thanks for your list. Very much agree on Gone with the Wind. I think I’d add The Catcher in the Rye to your list. I don’t understand the fascination with that book and why it is taught in high schools so often.

[@BookishTexan]

I thought about _Catcher in the Rye_ but I think it is still kind of a cultural touchstone. I agree with your opinion of it. Thanks for your comment

[@milycome]

@@BookishTexan Totally love The Catcher in the Rye. Glad you did Not include it in books you can avoid reading. The book is a masterpiece , ultimate coming of age story and a paean to angst and alienation the main character exhibits towards his surroundings and the world 🌎🌍🌎.

[@georgegonzalez-rivas3787]

Pshaw. Just read the first few pages of CITR and try, just try, to understand what good writing is. Philistine!

[@BookishTexan]

@@georgegonzalez-rivas3787 CITR isn't even Salinger's best book. Good writing is just one element of a good book.

[@georgegonzalez-rivas3787]

​@@BookishTexan That's a surprising thing to read. I think it's his best book and, I don't have a survey, but I'd wager that's the popular theory. Instance: here's Wikipedia's entry: "Jerome David Salinger was an American author best known for his 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye. Salinger got his start in 1940, before serving in World War II, by publishing several short stories in Story magazine." You might be one of those people who think popular success is the antithesis of scholarly value, eg: "LIttle Dorritt" is Dickens' best. But, let's face it, that's just pednatry and snobbery. And "good writing is just one element..." The mind reels. I don't know how to even cope with such a statement. EVERYTHING in a book is written by the author. Plot. Characters. Dialog. Snide observations. Comments on the culture. Etc. They are all 'good writing' if the end result is good.

[@RhondaHaleymaidofthemist]

Fabulous green in that room with the black and white photography..love it. I love all those books you told me to skip.

[@BookishTexan]

Well at least we agree about the paint color.😁 Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@KetevanReads]

Great list! So important to discuss what NOT to read, since there's no way we can read everything.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you very much!

[@joebeamish]

I agree with all of these. Well done. I'd only add that Henry Miller's writing voice -- his rhythm and sound -- is indeed worth checking out if you haven't. In any of his books.

[@BookishTexan]

I didn't get that rhythm and sound thing from Miller. Its possible that when I read ToC that I wasn't paying attention to the right things.

[@larryzink8978]

@@BookishTexan Henry miller and jack london , 2 brilliannt honest naturals.

[@erint6540]

Agree, except GWTW, which has great characters and is just a good read. I don't think I'm a racist because I find Scarlett to be someone everyone knows. Everybody has met at least one Scarlett. Beautiful, spoiled, and conniving but as it turns out has some grit when faced with adversity. And Rhett is fascinating as the man who doesn't agree with the cause of the South but will make a fortune on others misfortune, and sees the loss coming before the war even starts. I loved it. Otherwise, I'd skip all of them. I hated Requiem for a Nun so much, and I'm a huge fan of Faulkner in general. I could barely get through it.

[@BookishTexan]

Reading GWTW certainly does not make you a racist. I think Scarlett May be the least racist character in the book.

[@mrharry448]

May I suggest Heavy Weather by P. G. Wodehouse. I three times had to read a paragraph twice!! Fortunately his other 87 books are the most elegantly written oeuvre in the English language!

[@BookishTexan]

That sounds like a worthy addition to the list. Thanks.

[@annoldham3018]

What ho Mr Harry!😆

[@novelideea]

I read the Pearl very young and loved it. I haven’t reread it as an adult. All the rest of these I can wholeheartedly agree with!!!❤

[@BookishTexan]

It seems like a book written for younger readers. Just felt a bit “preachy” to me. Thanks Deea

[@MAFion]

I like the Pearl as well. Steinbeck's prose is great as ever. I understand the preachiness of it as you said, it just didn't annoy me. That's true. The Jungle is preachy and not as beautifully done. The Jungle can be skipped. I feel To Kill a Mockingbird is rather preachy too, and I think overrated (no offense, I know it's much loved).

[@yosoypatrick]

I'm 45 now and I'm a bit freaked out by how many of these books I read in my late teens/early 20s!

[@BookishTexan]

That's when I read a lot of the too. 😁

[@TheCodeXCantina]

Clutch my pearls! Why did I know you were going to pick Portrait. I need to go eat something sweet now 😂 Solid list. Is there anyone who has Requiem listed as a classic to read?

[@jungastein3952]

Camus adapted it for performance on stage.

[@BookishTexan]

Great Point about Requiem, but I had to through a Faulkner in since I trashed GWTW

[@christophermorgan3261]

You are focusing on the narrative dimension, the story these novels relate, that's important but equally important are each author's influence on subsequent author's literary style, the called '"anxiety of influence" referred to by the literary critic Harold Bloom. They are all stylistic innovators.

[@BookishTexan]

This is a video about specific books, not authors. With the exception of Mitchell who only wrote one novel, I did not tell anyone the authors of these books should not be read. In fact, all I said was that people didn’t need to read these specific books.

[@TootightLautrec]

Truman Capote famously said of "On the Road": "That's not writing. That's typing." I'm fine with all your estimations except Sons and Lovers. That's the first Lawrence I read that set me on a years-long Lawrence jag. I haven't read anything by him in years, but I did think he was a lovely writer--(I know Ros at Scallydandling will wholeheartedly disagree with me on this one). It's good to watch a video of what not to read, especially since I haven't been able to read much at lately for some reason, and it's good t see you and hear your thoughts.

[@BookishTexan]

Great to hear from you. I love that line from Capote. I think there is some really lovely writing in _Sons and Lovers_, the plot and Paul Morel just weren't very interesting to me.

[@clarepotter7584]

Whole hearted agree about Henry James. I had to study 'The Portrait of a Lady' and some of his academic essays on writing and the novel. I would like to rearrange every one of his sentences, what's with his syntax?

[@BookishTexan]

I have no idea where James got that writing style or why, even in the late 19th Century, people thought it was good. Thanks Clare.

[@clarepotter7584]

@@BookishTexan I'm enjoying your content. I haven't read 'Gone with the Wind,' I would recommend Kiana Davenport's, 'The Spy Lover,' I learned a lot about the American civil war from that book. She has a very readable style, although she doesn't shy away from violence.

[@BookishTexan]

@@clarepotter7584 Thank you for the recommendation and for watching and commenting.

[@rodkirsop4291]

I loved “ Portrait of the Artist”, “Tropic of Cancer”, “The Beautiful and Damned” and “On the Road”. I thought they were all brilliantly written and definitely worth reading.

[@BookishTexan]

Obviously I don't agree, but there's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for commenting.

[@lunarmodule6419]

Like Bookish said - the age factor is important I think. As a young man I liked Miller, Bukowski, Hemingway (tried Kerouac and Burroughs but couldn't finish any books lol) But I wouldn't read these kind of books today.

[@lunarmodule6419]

@Jade Oscill ok thx

[@karenryder6317]

@@lunarmodule6419 I think you've hit on the major issue that Bookish had with these books. A reader needs (most of the time, anyway) to be able to identify in some way with the main protagonist of a story and so if you are a young man who is feeling alienated, and who handles that in immature ways, ie. making selfish choices, there will be much to appreciate in the characters of the books you list here. The thing that redeemed the movie "Easy Rider"--one that fits in this theme--for me was when Captain America (Peter Fonda) says "No, WE blew it" showing that he is beginning to see how he was in many ways responsible for his own treatment by others. To me this shows how he is becoming more mature as a person.

[@NNnn-zc2bm]

Agree except for Tripic of Cancer (I haven't read The Beautiful and the Damned so I can't tell)

[@tonysplodge44]

Great discourse - please do the list from 12-20. Cannery Row is also one of my absolute favourites - I'd love to know what you thought of Sweet Thursday.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you. Sorry to say that I haven't read _Sweet Thursday_

[@dennyghim]

i appreciate ur courage in coming up with this list. however, i dont like that u got all pc regarding 'gone with the wind'. i loved both the book and the movie. i agree with many of ur other choices.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you. I take issue with your statement that I "got all pc regarding gone with the wind." You may not have thought about this but your statement implies that I called out the racist nature of the book out of a desire to appear a certain way to gain popularity. Essentially you accused me of insincerity. I have an entire review of the book citing specific examples to support my claim. The truth is calling out GWTW as racist is one of the least popular things I have done on my channel.

[@dennyghim]

@@BookishTexan ok buddy. fair enough!

[@andersdottir1111]

I read GWTW at age 13 and loved it; I even wrote a book review on it for grade 8 English class. From memory I got a good mark.

[@BookishTexan]

That’s great. Well done.

[@bespectacledheroine7292]

I don't really approve of the mission here. Validating people who don't want to read classics is undoing years of work on the part of tiptoeing bookworms and is flat anti-intellectual. Rather, I'd have the goal be to say, "If you end up not liking these, many are with you and it's okay." I don't see time wasted just because I didn't like something because finding books you don't like accomplishes two things. First, you can still engage in a dialogue with people about them. Conversations about classics shouldn't be echo chambers. It's fun for there to be an opposing side. Second, there existing stories you dislike makes you appreciate ones you do more, lest it be an endless slew of heaping praise on things. But even more than those two things, assuming you don't like something will always be worse than checking it out and confirming that for yourself. We need less of that in life, not more.

[@BookishTexan]

I enjoyed reading your comment. If I had suggested that readers skip the authors of these books rather than specific books themselves I would agree with you. But I think that for most of the books I listed, I mentioned what I feel like is a better book by the same author or at the very least praised the author. I don't think advising people to read an author's better books instead of their worse books is anti-intellectual any more than a negative book review is anti-intellectual. Life is short and money is finite. I think most of us would like to spend both on books that are worth while.

[@ellenspear50]

I've enjoyed reading Updike's The Witches of Eastwick and Gertrude and Claudius. That said, I haven't read any of the Rabbit books. Sounds like I need to read them. Comment about Gone...Wind: does it really qualify as a classic? I thought it was just a romance novel.

[@BookishTexan]

Glad you enjoyed the Updike you have read. It might be worth it for you to try _Rabbit, Run_ . GWTW won the Pulitzer in 1937 and is marketed as a classic.

[@williamgiovinazzo8523]

I am not familiar with most of the books on this list to comment on. However, when it comes to "Gone With The Wind," the very reasons he says we should read it are the very reasons you should. I do NOT at all agree with those viewpoints, but it is important to read them. He says that the movie sanitizes the book, which is true. It is those parts that are removed that give insight into the thinking of people who have those biases.

[@BookishTexan]

While I think anyone should read anything they choose, I don't think we have any social obligation to read a 1000 page work of racist fiction so we can understand racism in American. Works of history will give you the same information only they will do so accurately. Thanks for sharing your point of view and watching the video.

[@williamgiovinazzo8523]

@@BookishTexan Wow! Really? A person who loves literature does not see the value in a work of fiction? I am not really sure what you mean by "works of history." The literature of a people is a work of history. There is value in understanding how they thought in the period. Understanding not only what motivates them but why their ideas are bad. I find it frustrating when people close their ears to everything contrary to what they think. How can you truly defend your position unless you understand those with whom you disagree?

[@BookishTexan]

@@williamgiovinazzo8523 Wow! Really? You are lecturing me for thinking that a work of history is a much better way of learning history than a work of fiction. GWTW was not written during the period in which it was set. I find it frustrating when people continue to tell me that reading a work of FICTION written in the 1930s but set in the 1860s is the best way to learn about the thoughts and motivations of the people who lived in the 1860s. As a history major and teacher/professor I have read about and studied the Civil War and Reconstruction. _Gone With the Wind_ is not an accurate representation of either of those events or the thoughts and motivations of the people who lived in the 1860s because it is a work of FICTION.

[@williamgiovinazzo8523]

@@BookishTexan Before I say another word, let me make the point that I appreciate the conversation. I believe I was not clear. I did not say that GWTW accurately portrayed the Civil War. What I contend is that it makes clear the thinking of southern racial prejudice. If anything, my recollection of the work is that it demonstrates many of the incorrect romanticized notions of those in the south about the civil war. It shows not only how they look on people of color but how they viewed their cause as just. I assume that you, as a history major and teacher/professor, appreciate how important a culture's literature is in understanding that culture. I am also certain that you, As a history major and teacher/professor, would also understand that we shouldn't close our ears to opposing opinions, that we actually should engage with dissenting opinions. P.S. Lecturing is something I do.

[@BookishTexan]

​@@williamgiovinazzo8523 I honestly think you are just arguing to avoid admitting you are wrong, but,,, 1. GWTW is not a product of the culture that is depicted in its pages. 2. If you are arguing that Southern Culture was the same in 1936 as it was in 1866 then you are misinformed. 3. If you are arguing that GWTW really teaches us about Southern racism in 1936, then that lesson can be taught (without the racist propaganda) by works of history, works of fiction by black authors, and works of Southern writers who did not try to glorify the Klan and the Old South. 4. Based on your statements anyone who doesn't read GWTW isn't open minded and can't truly understand racism in the South in the 1860s and 1870s. Which is ridiculous. Again, there are better, shorter, more effective, less horrendously biased sources, even works of fiction, that can be used to teach about racism in the American past than GWTW.

[@TheSteinmetzen]

I've tried reading 'The Red and The Black', by Stendhal. It was very unreadable to me.

[@BookishTexan]

I thought it was ok, but Stendhal is not a writer I enjoy. Thanks for your comment.

[@RaysDad]

I would add to the list Beloved, by Toni Morrison. This novel about the aftermath of slavery has made many "best novels of all time" lists, and it isn't politically correct to criticize it or show anything less than adulation for it. Beloved is the darling of woke critics, but you won't deprive yourself by skipping it. When The Confessions of Nat Turner by William Styron came out in 1967 it was immediately recognized as a major work of historical fiction and it won Styron a Pulitzer. However, several prominent black authors and critics objected to its (accurate) depiction of slavery, its tragic ending in which a slave uprising is brutally defeated, and the attraction of the title character, who is a black slave, for a young white woman he kills during the uprising. The Confessions of Nat Turner quickly disappeared. Then 20 years later Beloved was penned by a black female author, and her black characters are heroic, and there are ghosts and a haunted house, and it became the mediocre novel all the critics adore.

[@BookishTexan]

I can't agree with you about _Beloved_. About _The Confessions of Nat Turner_ I believe the objections of black authors and critics had more to do with the idea of a white author appropriating a black historical figure to tell the story he wanted to tell which may or may not have been an accurate representation of what Nat Turner thought.

[@darkpoetik5375]

I wasn't planning on reading those books you mentioned, but thanks for pointing them out....

[@BookishTexan]

Always happy to trigger people into reading out of spite.🤓

[@darkpoetik5375]

@@BookishTexan I read things I love to read, I read things no one expects me to read and I read things that will build up my intellect...But there's no point in reading a book if you can't connect with it...I give a book 100 pages and if I don't like it, I pick up something else.....

[@BookishTexan]

@@darkpoetik5375 I misread your initial comment. I am sorry for my snarky reply.

[@darkpoetik5375]

@@BookishTexan no worries, friend...48 percent of people only read a book a year. I read a book a week. Nice to know people still read 🙂

[@jameswight6259]

Finally, someone else who thinks On the Road is overrated! It’s not old man talk - I read it when I was 20 and was seriously unimpressed. Read The Pearl in school and hated it. Thankfully, the next book after that we had to study was Lord of the Flies!

[@BookishTexan]

Glad to know that we agree on these books. Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@rjg2394]

Lord of the Flies, "sucks to your assmar!" I had to read that three times for three different classes while going through school.

[@turtleanton6539]

I like post apocalypse but I was pretty "meh" overall for me really

[@mpgski9598]

Thoughts on David Foster Wallace Infinite Jest? Sometimes poignant, sometimes silly social commentary, sometimes I wondered if there was another subplot in the footnotes that I wasn’t getting, sometimes I felt caught in the mind of someone with OCD or ADHD.

[@BookishTexan]

I read it a long time ago so I have to go off an old memory. I thought _Infinite Jest_ was pretty hit or miss. Some cool ideas and occasionally some beautiful writing. I think its a bit overrated, but that isn't the book or author's fault, it was just really hyped up after DFWs death. Thanks for your question.

[@ReadFineBooks]

Interesting picks you have here and started really, really strong :)) I loved Gone with the Wind - read it in highschool. I appreciate it for the characters and love story, never even thought about the message it sends about kkk ( then again, I'm not American and things like that aren't so obvious for outsiders). Great video!

[@BookishTexan]

I can definitely see that about GWTW for non- American readers. The story itself is pretty great, I just can’t get past the racism. Thanks for commenting.

[@mattlien5844]

Have you ever read Loius L'Amour's poem No I Haven't Read Gone With The Wind? It is a great comedic poem written when GWTW was new. And I liked A Portrait of the Artist... I thought it was much better than Catcher in the Rye. But not as good as Of Human Bondage.

[@BookishTexan]

I have not, but it sound cool. I agree Portrait is better than Catcher. I haven't read Of Human Bondage. Thanks for watching.

[@edwardmeade]

I think the biggest problem with so many of these 'classics' is that keep us from reading many really great modern books that are flying under the radar. I'll offer three books that are not well known here in the states but are well known overseas and are excellent reads. The first is Yasar Kemal's "The Wind from the Plain" about a poor Turkish village's struggle to survive. The second is Vassily Grossman's "Life and Fate" about life in Russia during and just after WWII. The third is Giorgio Bassani's "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" about life in an Italian city during WWII. All are available in excellent translations.

[@BookishTexan]

Thanks for watching and commenting. And thanks for the recommendations!

[@aaronaragon7838]

I suggest Eat a Bowl of Tea, No No Boy, A Canticle for Leibowitz. I rate a classic book by this criteria: The author must be dead by at least ten years, the book must be in print for twenty years, or rediscovered. Anybody out there find Roth and Oates, Delillo, crushing bores?

[@AndalusianIrish]

I haven't read Kerouac but I think he comes into the same category as Salinger's 'The Catcher In The Rye'. They are OK when you are at a certain stage in your life but don't age well. 'Cannery Row' is my favourite Steinbeck too but I did enjoy 'The Pearl'.

[@BookishTexan]

I agree completely about Kerouac and Salinger

[@fcv4616]

I actually enjoyed The Pearl. I think it's a good book, it may be a simple, familiar story, but it's executed well.

[@BookishTexan]

Fair enough.

[@wehaveasituation]

@@BookishTexan Of course it's fair enough--you total Woke fraud idiot. It's apparent from your vapid takes on various great authors that you neither understand nor appreciate them. How dare you stand in judgement of Steinbeck? Suggesting that a particular work of his is "not worth reading"? You're a disgusting punk pretending to be literary. Ugh..

[@BookishTexan]

@@wehaveasituation Did skip you your anger management session this morning? Every time I see or hear someone use the term “woke” as an insult I chuckle. At this point use of the term say a lot more about you than me. I dare to criticize Steinbeck because I’m a human being with free will, opinions, and a KZbin channel. You don’t have to agree.

[@wehaveasituation]

@@BookishTexan You chuckle at the obvious fact that "Woke" indicates a mental disorder? An affliction which renders someone into a diligent stooge of Politically Correct nonsense--including but not limited to, dismissing Steinbeck's The Pearl as worthy of being ignored? And why? Of course a Woke stooge can't actually cite a reason.

[@BookishTexan]

@@wehaveasituation I think you have some kind of a comprehension issue. In the video I described _The Pearl_ as simplistic and a story that most readers have heard before in one fashion or another (that's two reasons). I did not mention any reasons related to "political correctness" for not needing to read it. AND, I listed several other books by Steinbeck that I think are good. I chuckle because I imagine you sitting in front of your computer watching KZbin videos waiting to pounce on anyone who expresses any idea remotely related to acceptance, inclusion, and compassion and then screaming "WOKE! WOKE! YOU'RE WOKE!" over and over again while spit flies from your mouth and your face turns read. Its a funny picture and your last comment made it even more vivid.

[@OldSchool1947]

I was just going to pick up a copy of “On the Road.” I missed reading it 50 years ago so I KNOW I’m way to old to relate! Whew, thank you.

[@BookishTexan]

Maybe you are younger at heart than I am😁 I certainly think there are better books to prioritize, but there is no harm in giving it a try. Thanks for your comment.

[@jamesomeara2329]

Kerouac is one of those odd ones. Several of us read him in our twenties. He's kind of one of those authors you read at a certain point for inspiration of a sort, but then kind of outgrow. There are books, or other modes of entertainment that are part of a meaning in the moment, and eventually you move on to other considerations. Does that make sense, I hope?

[@BookishTexan]

Makes perfect sense. I think that hits pretty close to my own feelings about the book. If it had other redeeming factors- powerful, excellent writing for example- I might hold it in higher esteem. I think for most people beyond their twenties or so the book has little appeal or value. I do think that people who read it in their youth and loved it can reread it as a kind of exercise in nostalgia and still enjoy it. Thank you for your great comment.

[@timkjazz]

Read Kerouac at 16 and really loved it but would never read it now, I'll keep the great memories I have at the perfect time to have read it.

[@BookishTexan]

@@timkjazz I think that is very wise. Some books have their place in our lives and our older selves may not fully appreciate what our younger selves did. I haven’t reread The Lord Of the Rings for that reason

[@timkjazz]

@@BookishTexan Me as well, I think we'd both find LOTR less than stellar now.

[@larryzink8978]

@@timkjazz Otr influenced WRITERS; ie the american rhythymic style. You need to take some drugs.

[@Toggitryggva]

This was fun! My top candidate for this list would be The Catcher in the Rye, at least if you are not a teenager. As for Updike, I quite liked The Witches of Eastwick, and loved Gertrude and Claudius (probably my favourite novel-reworking of Shakespeare). Haven't read any Rabbit, but probably should.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you. _The Catcher in the Rye_ has been suggested as a candidate for this list by several people and I agree. I never read _Gertrude and Claudius_, but I remember being intrigued by the idea when it was published.

[@laurenhahn101]

Gertrude and Claudius is a brilliant novel! It caused me to rethink Hamlet, especially Updike's take on Polonius. Good stuff!

[@debashishmukerji]

About Updike, I can't agree - I loved the Bech series too, especially the first one "Bech - A Book"; also "The Centaur", "Couples", "Witches of Eastwich", many of the short stories. His use of the English language is phenomenal - right up there next to Nabokov. Re "Portrait of the Artist", initially I thought your comment blasphemous, but now thinking about it... Surprised you haven't mentioned any of Thomas Hardy's novels, which don't work for me at all...

[@BookishTexan]

I thought about including Hardy, but I think his novels are not necessarily bad, but just not for me. We will just have to agree to disagree about Updike. I did forget that I liked the stories in both _Bech: A Book_ and _Bech at Bay_. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@CourtneyFerriter]

Great idea for a video, and I loved the list, Brian! I'm pleased to say that I've read none of these books! 🙂

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you Courtney! Great to hear from you and glad you have spared yourself reading these books.

[@donjindra]

I have no desire to read Gone With the Wind because I didn't like the movie. Maybe that's not a good reason but I don't see much the book has to offer above that. But your reason for avoiding the novel seems like a political one which I think is a pretty thread-bare reason. I liked On the Road very much. It's a must read, imo. It's a thoroughly American novel.

[@BookishTexan]

Not sure why disliking the racism is a "thread-bare" reason, compared to not liking the movie and not reading the novel, but ok. Agree to disagree about _On the Road_.

[@donjindra]

@@BookishTexan I seek out books that have a POV I may find disagreeable. I think it's important to get another perspective.

[@BookishTexan]

@@donjindra Fair enough. I try to read books that challenge me. That doesn't mean I can't explain why I don't think they are worthwhile after I have read them.

[@_Peremalfait]

I think you're wrong to dismiss Kerouac. Try reading Dr. Sax. It is a weird book, but parts of it, especially when he writes about growing up in Lowell are as good as Joyce.

[@BookishTexan]

Did I dismiss Kerouac or just _On the Road_ ? I actually liked his _The Dharma Bums_. Thanks for the recommendation.

[@_Peremalfait]

@@BookishTexan"Dismiss" was probably the wrong way of putting it, and now I have time to think about it I kind of have to agree that the beat writers as a whole are probably overrated, though Ginsberg maybe has earned a place in the canon for Howl. I think Kerouac could've been great, like on the level of Faulkner great had he been more disciplined as opposed to the beat idea of poetry and prose flowing like jazz, improvisation. It's said that Kerouac wrote On the Road on one long roll of paper while fueled on Benzedrine and that's how it reads. One gets a bit of that rush when turning the pages which is why I think the book will endure more as a snapshot of that time than for its literary merit.

[@tuco1099]

11 modern classics that social justice campaigners shouldn't read

[@BookishTexan]

What is a “social justice campaigner”?

[@67Parsifal]

I've read all of these, with the exception of GWTW. I'd agree that none of them are essential. The only one I enjoyed was The Beautiful & Damned, which is not one of FSF's better novels, but I remember was highly readable because of his marvellous prose style.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you for watching. Fitzgerald was a very stylish writer and his style is on display in the B&D. Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@davidlupher3322]

I find this a peculiar list. While I am not in the habit of calling any book not written in classical (Greco-Roman) antiquity a “classic,” and I’ve never understood what is meant by a “modern classic,” I do know that people use these terms. But few use them for the majority of the books you trash here. I submit that your 11 books fall into four categories, only one of which (the last) could plausibly be termed “modern classics”: 1) minor works by major authors: - Faulkner, “Requiem for a Nun”: This was a trashy sequel to an equally trashy novel (“Sanctuary”), both of which Faulkner wrote strictly for much-needed cash. No one considers it one of his major works. - Fitzgerald, “The Beautiful and the Damned”: This is not on anyone’s list of Fitzgerald’s best work (for which see “The Great Gatsby” and “Tender is the Night”). - Hemingway, “To Have and Have Not”: This is notoriously one of Hemingway’s weakest novels, far inferior to the Bogart-Bacall film. - Lawrence, “Sons and Lovers”: This early novel of Lawrence is far inferior to his major novels (esp. “The Rainbow” and “Women in Love”), to say nothing of his best short stories. It is important for literary history. It is in no sense a “classic.” - Updike, “A Month of Sundays”: I have failed to find any pundit who ranks this among Updike’s major works (e.g. the Rabbit Angstrom tetralogy or “The Centaur”---though in my own view Updike was at his best in his short stories). - Steinbeck, “The Pearl”: Though I don’t regard Steinbeck as a “major writer” in literary terms, his work had considerable social significance, so I’m including him in this category. Apart from high school teachers who love short books in simple language about Big Moral Issues, no one considers this novella an important work in Steinbeck’s oeuvre. 2) major works of minor authors: - Kerouac, “On the Road” - This is important for understanding the phenomenon of the Beat Generation. It is no sense a “modern classic.” - Miller, “Tropic of Cancer” - This pallid rip-off of Céline’s “Voyage to the End of the Night” was important in its day for challenging literary taboos. That doesn’t make it a “classic.” (At least it’s vastly better than the rest of Miller’s dismal output.) 3) trashy works of popular fiction: - Mitchell, “Gone with the Wind” - Who on earth has ever called this a “classic”? (One could charitably call the film a “classic.” I don’t, but there are those who do.) 4) major works of major authors: - James, “The Wings of the Dove” - Joyce, “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” Here, and only here, do you discuss books that one could, with a straight face, call “modern classics.” That’s two out of eleven! I can’t really respond to what you say about those two legitimate “modern classics.” You say little more than that you found both “tedious.” That tells us something about you, I suppose, but it says nothing about these books. I could say that I have found both novels (which I have read more than once over the years) interesting and indeed deeply moving, but those, too, are purely subjective terms that say more about me than about the books. “Tedious” is not a legitimate critical term---nor, I grant you, is “interesting” or “moving.” Words such as these indicate the speaker’s personal psychology, temperament, or attention span. They say nothing about the book itself.

[@BookishTexan]

As for the term "modern classic" my criteria was simple: These books are marketed by their paperback publishers as "modern classics" and/or often referred to popularly as such. I made it clear that I was making the video in the spirit of fun as more negative version of the " ___ Classics You Must/Need To Read" videos I had been seeing a lot of lately. However, I happily yield to your pedantry. In that same spirit, tedious, according to Webster means "tiresome because of length or dullness." It may not provide you with the insights you seek in a less than one minute review, but it perfectly describes my reaction to the books I used it to describe.

[@davidlupher3322]

@@BookishTexan When my mother would pronounce a certain book "tedious" or "boring," I would have some sense of what she meant, for I knew her and had a good sense of her taste. I couldn't always predict that I would find interesting what she found "tedious," but it was often a safe bet. Since we (or at least I) don't know you, it isn't very helpful or informative to be told that you find a book "tedious." What does this tell us about the *book*? I do admit to not being amused when some sort of public figure (a loose category that for me includes both blogsters and teachers) take it upon themselves to inform others what not to read. Recall Frederick Crew's devastating parody of F.R. Leavis in "The Pooh Perplex"---"Another Book to Scratch Off Your List." As a teacher myself---"pedant," you will surely say---I think of moments like the time a bright enough first-year college student informed me that he wasn't going to even *try* to enjoy Joyce's "Ulysses," for his beloved high school teacher had assured him that "Joyce was a crazy man, and there's no point in trying to make sense of him." Thanks a bunch, Mr. Beloved Teacher.

[@BookishTexan]

@@davidlupher3322 Ah, but you could have gotten to "know" something about my ideas about literature before lecturing me (twice now) about the use of tedious in what amounts to a one minute review of each book. I have been making BookTube videos for years and sharing my thoughts about and reviewing books over hundreds of videos. You might think it is unreasonable to expect you to watch a bunch of my videos before commenting and I'd agree with you except for the fact that you presumed to lecture me without first doing your research. Tedious has a specific and easily defined meaning which I already shared. But if it helps, I'll use it in a sentence: "I found the commenters pedantic lectures about my choice of words tedious."

[@davidlupher3322]

@@BookishTexan Fair enough. I won't bore you with further "lectures." You want me out of here, so I'm gone. I've got a lot more Henry James to read---and re-read, so I won't be bored.

[@BookishTexan]

@@davidlupher3322 If I wanted you out of here I would have blocked you. I have enjoyed responding to your comments. I hoped that my comments might clue you in to how rude it is to lecture someone you don't know about a subject you assume you know more about than they do in a way that is designed to make them feel small. I welcome all comments, but that doesn't mean I have to take rude and presumptuous comments meekly.

[@civilwarwildwest]

LOL I remember The Pearl was required reading in middle school.

[@abdullalhazred3365]

8 Mins in you convinced me I would be wasting my time by hanging around this playpen.

[@BookishTexan]

I as it the _On the Road Section_ 😂😂😂😂. Probably best that you stay in the playpen you currently occupy

[@abdullalhazred3365]

@@BookishTexan no that's when I said "that's enuff."

[@BookishTexan]

Fair enough. Welcome back to my playpen.

[@nolongeramused8135]

I've read thousands of books, but avoided all the ones on your list. I've never felt like I was missing anything by skipping them.

[@BookishTexan]

Well done. I don't think you are missing much. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@turtleanton6539]

Nice

[@historyandhorseplaying7374]

“Apologize for the South”? Wow… thanks, but we southerners need no apologies. I really hate how anything southern is now hated by many northerners. It’s like war is going to be re-fought.

[@BookishTexan]

I think I said Mitchell uses her novel to apologize for the South and the Klan. Which is evident (see the quotes in from GWTW in the show notes) I'm from the South btw and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. So I'm not a Northerner who hates the South. I'm a Southerner who refuses to ignore the reality of Southern history.

[@ramblingraconteur1616]

Someone brought the heat! I suspect a Greek physician would worry about the choleric nature of this list, but I’m with you on so many of these. I do wonder what contemporary audiences ever found in Henry James. DH Lawrence’s The Rainbow and Women in Love are both much better than Sons and Lovers, though his best stories and poems are also strong, same for Updike’s stories. On the Road and Portrait might only work a spell on impressionable minds. I definitely fell for the latter for a four year period in my twenties. Faulkner and Hemingway are classic “modern” writers, but are those two books modern classics? Sanctuary sometimes pops up, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard Requiem or To Have and Have Not praised. The adaptation of the latter, a bizarre Bogart & Bacall film that dispenses with Hemingway’s melancholy to create something watchable, is probably a classic Hollywood film. I might need to vent my gallbladder with a list now, Brian! Cheers, Jack

[@ThatReadingGuy28]

I’d love to see what kind of list you come up with!

[@BookishTexan]

Probably unfortunate that I read _Sons and Lovers First_. I just find much of Updike to be unpleasant on reflection. I don’t specifically recall any of his stories. I think _To Have and Have Not_ is more often read than Requiem. Neither is probably a classic, but they get labeled that because of their authors. After trashing GWTW again I thought I should throw in some of my favorites.🤓

[@BookishTexan]

I love the movie adaptation of To Have and Have Not.

[@karenryder6317]

Gosh-there are so many responses here! "Classics" is a broad topic. I'd like to see these broken down into early, middle and late 19th, 20th and 21st century

[@JackWard66]

Yeah, considering my Mom and I talked about Gone with the Wind, as being an incredible book for character development alone and it was a keen conversational piece between her mom and her, would underline these are just personal preferences. I would edit the title if I were you. They are key books written by brilliant writers in a very particular time. The suggestion that people should STOP reading books simply because our society has moved past some of the values of the time seems a very weird post-post-modernist take that people have nowadays and limits their ability to actually grasp and appreciate time and place in the grand visage of history. It's kind of like telling people not to read Harry Potter because obviously the dwarves represent Jews.

[@BookishTexan]

First, thank you for your comment. Second, I don't think you read the title card completely. I says unless you want to and the title itself says you don't need to read them. It doesn't say dont read them. It says you shouldnt feel obligated to read them. I didnt say people should stop reading GWTW or any of these books. Third, Mitchell did create some great characters, but I'm not sure I would call her a brilliant writer. Fourth, the racism of GWTW (for examples see this videos description box) was so out of step with the time in which it was written that when they made a movie of it three years later they edited out the N word, Rhett's murder of an "uppity" Black Man, and all direct references to the Klan. Even Americans in the 30s recognized and found its racism unacceptable. Fifth, its cool that you and your mom and she and her mom could connect over a work of literature.

[@itsaUSBline]

So just curious here. What exactly do you mean when you say "tedious?" You use that as a descriptor a lot when talking about these, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean a slow-paced narrative? Just asking because that could mean a lot of different things.

[@BookishTexan]

Good question. Most often I mean tedious to mean that a book belabors its point, unfolds its plot too slowly, or is written in an unnecessarily dense and descriptive style.

[@SluggishReader]

I had The Pearl as an assigned reading at secondary school. Looking back it makes sense why it was chosen for the curriculum - it's easier to teach a simplistic story. I read DH Lawrence many years ago and I can't seem to remember anything 😂

[@BookishTexan]

I think you are right about why _The Pearl_ is sometimes taught in school and I actually think that it can be a good book for younger readers.. Thanks Freddie

[@doreenarcher8543]

Just discovered your channel. This is great. I’m a subscriber.🌻🌞🌻🌞

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you Doreen. That is very kind.

[@gcndc]

Wings of the Dove is one of my favorite books. I have probably read it 5 times. I love this book.

[@BookishTexan]

Fair enough. It just wasn't for me.

[@MarilynMayaMendoza]

Hi Brian, I got hooked on DH Lawrence by a play he wrote in around 1912 called the widowing of Mrs Hollroyd. It's definitely based on his life but when George Bernard Shaw watched the play he said that the words made him ashamed of being a writer. I think I read women in love and some of his poetry. I'm about to read Lady Chatterley's Lover this year. Sending you positive vibes from Hawaii

[@BookishTexan]

Maybe I'll give Lawrence another shot. I didn't hate _Sons and Lovers_ I just thought it was kind of boring and pointless. Thank you Maya.

[@MarilynMayaMendoza]

@@BookishTexan Hi Brian, if you can get the play, the Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd or see it as a play (I’m still looking for the Adaptation that I saw on PBS) you to see a stripped down Lawrence. At least my 25 year old self thought it was romantic and poetic.It’s also very short lol. Sending aloha your way

[@meropale]

I love this kind of book discussion video, even if I don't always agree. I read Gone With the Wind while in Middle School and remember it being entertaining although somewhat of a soap opera, a rather easy book to get through for its hefty length. I now want to re-read it to see what my opinion is of it in middle age! I just see it as the story of a woman trying to survive during her own times and never saw it as apologist. I agree about Henry James. He's not to everyone's taste but I do enjoy him after reading The Portrait of a Lady. Normally I'd be annoyed that someone doesn't just get to the point but for some reason he doesn't bother me. I jusr enjoy the journey.

[@BookishTexan]

I'm always interested in how my own thoughts and the thoughts of others change when they reread a book they read at a younger age. My opinion of the books is usually lowered by the experience. There are a number of people who enjoy James' style. I think that's great. We can't all like the same things. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@erwinwoodedge4885]

ALL Updike's Rabbit books are excellent.

[@BookishTexan]

Obviously I don't agree with this statement, but that ok.

[@southernbiscuits1275]

I have no problem with your disliking these books. However...One of the reasons I only intermittently watch any BookTube videos is the tendency of content providers to place themselves in a position of knowing what's best for their audience. Had you referenced your video as 11 modern classics you wish you had not read, there would be no problem. But, you referenced your video as 11 modern classics that the viewers don't need to read. The title and your narrative come from the position of knowing what's best for other readers. I don't think this manner of subjectivity does anyone any good and defeats the higher purpose of BookTube, open dialogue concerning books without personal bias. Nevertheless, you have interesting things to say on your channel. This video just didn't strive towards that higher goal.

[@BookishTexan]

I always enjoy and respect your point of view. Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@haroldcampbell3337]

I see your point about GWTW, but there are also many other English-language novels from the late 19th and early 20th centuries that are just as or more racist than GWTW. Can we skip them, too? Not being snarky, just curious.

[@BookishTexan]

Can you name another 20th Century novel that is marketed as a classic in which the author, in their authorial voice not a character’s voice, compares black people to apes, promotes the racist idea that the Klan was created to protect white women from black men, and justified the lynching of a black man. No snark, I just can’t think of any.

[@georgegonzalez-rivas3787]

Bottom line: You don't seem to understand that the characters in books aren't real. You need to evaluate them based on how they're portrayed, and developed and how powerfully you react to them. YOU"RE NOT supposed to judge fictional characters as you would judge your neighbor. Wolf Larsen, for example, is a great character but not a good guy. Please don't teach literature until you understand what it is.

[@BookishTexan]

What the heck are you talking about? I feel like I walked into a conversation at its conclusion without having heard anything else.

[@georgegonzalez-rivas3787]

@@BookishTexan You start by bashing the KKK from a 2022 self-righteous perspective rather then trying to understand people in 1865 who are trying to push back against what they see as an occupying and oppressive army. Bedford Forrest helped start the KKK as a resistance force and he left it when it morphed into a terror force against groups it resented. And don't even try to twist this historical truth into an accusation of racism. You have to understand characters in a book for their context... you can't just read Madame Bovary and think "I'd never act like that". One test is whether the character arouses your passion, hatred or vilification counts. That means the character was WELL WRITTEN -- not evil. It's a work of fiction and not a local police blotter.

[@BookishTexan]

@@georgegonzalez-rivas3787 Forrest was only the leader of the KKK for a year. It morphed quickly into one of several terrorist organization designed to intimidate the formerly enslaved and the government organizations that were trying to assist them. It was a terrorist organization in the 1930s when Mitchell wrote GWTW extolling its virtues as a defender of Southern women. At no point in my discussion do I attack the characters in the novel. Their behavior is perhaps in keeping with the setting of the novel. I attack the author who created them and wrote the Southern/Klan/ racist violence apologizing claptrap that fills its one thousand pages in the mid 1930s. Its ok to be wrong. But I have to admit that I get a huge laugh out of people who are so arrogantly sure that they are right who are so completely wrong. Thanks for the chuckle.

[@georgegonzalez-rivas3787]

@@BookishTexan Only fair. I've been LMAO about you.

[@BookishTexan]

@@georgegonzalez-rivas3787 Are you going to resort to the old "I'm rubber your glue" schoolyard retort next?

[@tomlangton782]

My favorite literary criticism ever: Truman Capote on On The Road: “That’s not writing. That’s typing.”

[@BookishTexan]

That is a classic. Thanks

[@mescalito]

This video is tedious.....

[@fredneecher1746]

I found the first part of Portrait of a Young Man fascinating and definitely worth reading if stories of early life interest you, but the second part about his time at the seminary I found really dull (which is NOT the same as saying it IS dull).

[@BookishTexan]

Fair enough.

[@gs547]

Gone with the Wind is a wonderful read. The attitudes are okay because they relay how people actually thought. Reality is that people were different then.

[@BookishTexan]

Name another book written in the 20th Century in which both the male hero characters commit racist murders. Name another book written in the 20th Century that justifies honor killing of a white woman who was “insulted” by a black man. Name another book published in the 20th Century that makes the Klan put to be heroes protecting white women from black men.

[@maxalberts2003]

@@BookishTexan There is no "honor killing" of a white woman in GWTW.

[@wcsxwcsx]

An accurate characterization of _The Pearl,_ but it's still very readable. It's nice to see that you don't consider _Atlas Shrugged_ to be a classic. That says it all.

[@klausmaccus4397]

Stopped listening when you called someone "problematic"

[@BookishTexan]

No problem 🤓

[@karenryder6317]

Brian's answer is best but just being curious, why shouldn't someone be called "problematic" especially if what they say or do causes a problem for themselves or others?

[@klausmaccus4397]

@@karenryder6317 Dismissing someone as "problematic" because they think differently than you is childish. Doing it to someone who lived decades before you is cowardice. Not only do you have the advantage of time over them but they cannot even defend themselves and clarify what you could very well be misinterpreting. It's also extremely naive. All human beings have deeply rooted biases, whether they know it or not, and want to admit it or not. If you're calling someone "problematic" you probably don't know yourself very well, or you do and are just a moral fraud.

[@snezanaboskovic8781]

Thank you very much!! My thoughts exactly!!! Slaughter of the sacred cows!!!

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@h.calvert3165]

Totally wrong about Gone With the Wind. The writer actually knew veterans of the Civil War, both males who were on the battlefront & the women who were on the homefront. Incredible amount of historical research went into the writing, & you'll learn an enormous amount about America in that time period, if you have an open mind (which you obviously do not). Also, the Klan was a reaction to a harsh period of Reconstruction which had a later counterpart in post WWI Germany. The overly punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles led to WWII, so I think the rise of the Klan needs to be viewed in this light. That's NOT an endorsement of the KKK, just an attempt to put it in historical context. Abraham Lincoln had a much gentler, less punitive plan for reuniting the nation after the war, but his assassination left everything in the hands of men with axes to grind. In the novel, Rhett Butler actually says that there's even more money to be made in the destruction of a civilization than in the building of one. And he was right. The men in Washington who imposed the savage terms of the Reconstruction on the South proved that. I'm not a Southern apologist, BTW. Just a Canadian who loves history. 🍁

[@BookishTexan]

Let me ask you some questions: Do you think the Civil War veterans and the women on the homefront that Mitchell knew and used as sources for her novel were unbiased on the subject of slavery, the Klan, and Reconstruction? Did you know that one of Mitchell's favorite writers as a young woman was Thomas H. Dixon who wrote a book called _The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the KKK_ and that Mitchell was influenced by that book. Did you know that book btw was the basis of D.W. Griffith's movie "Birth of the Nation" which glorified the KKK and justified racist violence. Mitchell would have know all of this. She repeated the justifications for the Klan and slavery and the Civil War almost verbatim from those who promoted the myth of "The Lost Cause." In her novel her two male heroes both commit racist murders and go unpunished and she justifies the killing of another black man by a relative of Scarlett's by saying if he hadnt been lynched the girl who he insulted's family would have had to kill her rather than have her face the shame of being in court with the black man. To put it kindly, your knowledge of GWTW, the Civil War, and Reconstruction is flawed.

[@h.calvert3165]

@@BookishTexan No, it's not. I knew all that. And accurate reporting on the feelings & thoughts of a people, which captures an accurate picture of the times, is not "flawed", no matter how distorted or even evil the behaviours & philosophies are. It's just an accurate portrait of a reality that existed. How can we understand the present which sprang from that past, unless we understand that past itself? That applies to the Old South or to Nazi Germany or to Stalinist Russia. What do you suggest? That we ignore history altogether, or just whitewash it?

[@h.calvert3165]

@@BookishTexan BTW, it's not a relative of Scarlett's who commits that murder. It's a neighbour from Clayton County, one of the Fontaine boys. You are so prejudiced against the book that you don't even remember "facts" accurately.

[@BookishTexan]

@@h.calvert3165 Would you defend a book published in 2010 and set in Nazi against charges of antisemitism if that book: A) repeated Nazi propaganda about Jews? B) repeated Nazi propaganda about why WWII started? C) Whose two most significant male characters killed Jews and then faced no consequences and justified those killings by saying the Allies treated Germany harshly after the war? If you knew everything I mentioned about GWTW and Mitchell but we’re still capable of defending the book as “well researched” and an accurate depiction of life in the South before, during, and after the Civil War you are a victim of Lost Cause propaganda. Your knowledge of Reconstruction is laughable.

[@BookishTexan]

@@h.calvert3165 Thank you for the correction. My prejudice against the book is the result of the books legacy of convincing foolish people that it is an accurate portrayal of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction.

[@robertprokop1649]

I cannot agree with you about On the Road. I've read it maybe 4 times now, and I find something new every time I return to it. And I'm 70 years old, so it's definitely not a "young man's book".

[@BookishTexan]

Perhaps you are younger at heart than I. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@BookishTexan]

Perhaps you are younger at heart than I. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@idgitreadsandrambles7090]

Turn of the Screw frustrated me to no end. Maybe the only book I've finished that I truly hated aside from Bukowski's Love is a Dog From Hell. I've never read a writer who wrote such labyrinthine prose yet conveyed so little personality. Also, Screw's approach to psychosis is offensively boring. I actually have to study Daisy Miller this semester. Can't skip 'em all. Alas.

[@BookishTexan]

I don’t disagree with you about Turn of the Screw, but I still think it’s better than The Wings of The Dove.🤓 Thanks Quentin

[@tarquinmidwinter2056]

Another one for you list: The Catcher in the Rye. When I was at college the most obnoxious of my fellow students had this with him all the time as if it was his Bible; I'm sure he must have read it on the toilet. Later I read it myself, and while I found it to be just a rambling tale about a weekend in the life of an overprivileged brat, it did at least explain one thing.

[@BookishTexan]

Your description of _The Catcher in the Rye_ is pretty much in line with my assessment of that book. Thanks for watching and commenting

[@orver1]

The fact that you don’t like the politics in GWTW is irrelevant. Stick with the literature.

[@BookishTexan]

Racism and the justification of racist violence and racist terrorism isnt politics. I am not reading anything into GWTW that Mitchell didn't put their intentionally. And disliking a book for what you call "its politics" is as valid a reason as any.

[@orver1]

@@BookishTexan I'm not skipping a book because it doesn't align with your political views. It's like telling us not to read Confederacy of Dunces, by Toole, because you don't like New Orleans. Even the political opinions of the author are irrelevant. I'll consider it on literary merit.

[@BookishTexan]

@@orver1 Great! I never told you not to read GWTW. I said people don't need to read it. On the show card where it says "Don't Read These Modern Classics" it also says "Unless you want to." But your first comment told me how to read based on your opinion. Like you I will read what and however I choose.

[@karenryder6317]

@@BookishTexan So well said! Racial violence and whites-only entitlement are social problems. Political policy is merely what one particular government at one particular time enacts to respond to a societal problem. If an author glorifies what I consider to be a social problem, that's the best reason in the world for me to want to avoid it.

[@Dreyno]

There’s an awful lot of books in the world that are considered classics. People are amazed I haven’t read “Ulysses” or “War and Peace” but I’m amazed they haven’t read “East of Eden” or “Les Miserables”. I’ve found that most people who’ve read “all” the classics have done it as a box ticking exercise so they can say they’ve read them. Those people bore me.

[@BookishTexan]

This is definitely an anti-boxticking video. Glad you got that its main point was to save people who feel obligated to read all or as many classics as possible from feeling that obligation in the case of these books. Thanks for your comment.

[@Dreyno]

@@BookishTexan In school I had to study “Wuthering Heights”. It was at that point I realised that not every “classic” deserved their accolades. Thankfully the next book we studied was “the Great Gatsby”.

[@johncrwarner]

LOL, I am definitely not reading (or technically finishing reading) Gone With the Wind - it is sadly a well-written seductive racist apology and should be on the restricted list in public libraries. Most of the rest I haven't encountered and am unlikely to read except the Joyce as I have read the Dubliners and am listening to Ulysses as a 24 CD audiobook. Definitely I find Joyce easier to listen to than read. I like to hear the word play and puns - a bit like seeing Shakespeare in the theatre rather than reading it.

[@BookishTexan]

I may have to try listening to Joyce. It never occurred to me that that might be the thing to do. I agree with everything you said about GWTW though I don’t support limiting access to any book

[@johncrwarner]

@@BookishTexan The rate of puns and word play that depends on the Irish / Dublin accent so Armorica (a Latin name for part of Celtic Gaul the bit where Asterix came from) and America in the second paragraph of Finnegan's Wake was something that made me aware of the language play and verbal nature of Joyce's writing. This is not related to Joyce but a writer / performer who wrote in a style with multilayered puns was Vivian Stanshall. He wrote and performed "Sir Henry at Rawlinson End" which is funny, bizarre and entertaining at the same time. I bought the album in 1980 and can still quote passages by heart LOL. I would describe it as a BBC Radio 4 Book at Bedtime read by someone who has taken acid.

[@johncrwarner]

@@BookishTexan I chose putting GWTW on the restricted list rather than "committing it to the flames" as I have been to several of the sites in Germany where I live where the Nazi book burnings took place. There is a plaque in the ground with a quote from Heine "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen." ("That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.") spoken by a Muslim when he hears the Christians had burnt the Qur'an in the market place of Granada. I think it should be like Hitler's book available but not readily available.

[@BookishTexan]

@@johncrwarner Sir Henry Rawlson End sounds wild. I’ve always felt, probably unfairly, that Finnegan’s Wake is an example of a writer taking an experiment too far and forgetting the reader.

[@BookishTexan]

@@johncrwarner I understand your point better now, thank you. I definitely think GWTW has done real damage in the US in part because it’s racist propaganda packaged as a romance novel. So many people, even when confronted with the evidence refuse to see that. Thank you for your comments John.

[@billr848]

Stumbled on this. Excellent and I also agree with most of what you said. May I suggest reading the poetry of D. H. Lawrence that is neglected but wonderful; e.g; ‘Piano’. Softly, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me; Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you for the kind words and the recommendation. I have only read a little of Lawrence's poetry, but even his prose in S&L was sometimes quite beautiful

[@GregLoutsenko]

this guy prob supports the ukraine

[@BookishTexan]

Yup.

[@meesalikeu]

this was pretty much right on. although i do like portrait i agree go with dubliners to get into joyce. its funny how tastes change with age, but you were clear about that.

[@BookishTexan]

I sometimes wish I had recorded my thoughts about novels like _On the Road_ as the time I first read it so I could compare my thoughts as a a younger man to those of today. I think I probably give myself too much credit for seeing the flaws back then, but ignoring them because I was swept up in the idea of the novel. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@bookssongsandothermagic]

OOh an anti-TBR for classics!! Brave man haha - I love this - I need to watch the 2nd half later as my lunch break is just finishing but had to comment because I love the first few minutes and the concept.

[@BookishTexan]

Thank you Gareth. I like to stir things up from time to time.

[@bookssongsandothermagic]

@@BookishTexan but always with reasoning and humility. Love it.