tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post1450408313172737822..comments2024-03-27T16:48:21.039-05:00Comments on Wuthering <br>Expectations: Best Books of the Year - 1860 - the mysterious tracts that separate waking from sleepAmateur Reader (Tom)http://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-11812545636762874022010-12-16T09:05:41.930-06:002010-12-16T09:05:41.930-06:00The Oxford Companion to English Literature has 186...<i>The Oxford Companion to English Literature</i> has 1861 for the Rade, too. So, good thing I left it out. Thanks for the note - and thanks for the Reade recommendation. I'm just the sort of madman who might read it someday.<br /><br />The Richard Stang book I mentioned has a bit about Reade, and describes him pretty much like you do. Sort of knocks him up against Dickens for the contrast.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-40187397007014262982010-12-16T01:24:01.919-06:002010-12-16T01:24:01.919-06:00The Cloister and the Hearth was published in 1861,...<i>The Cloister and the Hearth</i> was published in 1861, so one year off. Definitely Reade's most celebrated work; but, since it is a historical novel, not his most characteristic -- he specialized rather in sensationalist exposes of contemporary abuses. He is a slapdash technician -- he should have taken lessons from his bud Wilkie! -- but an engaging writer nonetheless. I'm glad to see that someone even tried <i>Hard Cash</i>, as Reade is little read or reprinted nowadays. I can firmly recommend his odd saga of prison life in England and emigration to Australia, <i>It Is Never Too Late to Mend</i>; the prison scenes are grimly powerful.Patrick Murthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08103905929956454199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-82638423191177111362010-12-15T11:43:17.327-06:002010-12-15T11:43:17.327-06:00Regarding sales figures, you often get announcemen...Regarding sales figures, you often get announcements of 'this sold 50,000' or whatever but I'm not sure about their sources! I'll try and remember to check next time I come across one of those claims. <br /><br />As for Charles Reade, I haven't read the book you mentioned (yet) but I really couldn't get into <i>Hard Cash</i>. Reade seems to have passed me by I'm afraid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-38798089446305102262010-12-15T11:19:28.545-06:002010-12-15T11:19:28.545-06:00Charmed - I'm definitely thinking of critics&#...Charmed - I'm definitely thinking of critics' lists. Anyway, Collins, in spirit, has had the last laugh, assuming "now" is "last." He's doing all right.<br /><br />I'd love to see actual numbers about sales. I should look that up. I wonder where to look.<br /><br />Thanks, Patrick, for the <i>Max Havellar</i> recommendation. That fits what I have read. Someday.<br /><br />I thought about mentioning Charles Reade - <i>The Cloister and the Hearth</i>, his most famous book (I think) is from 1860. But it would be a stretch to say it has many readers now, and the post was already overstuffed.<br /><br />Lifetime Reader - thanks for those recommendations. I will seek them out. But - but! Both of those poets are <i>much bigger</i> than Emily Dickinson or Whitman or Tuckerman! Young is published by Knopf, Trethewey by Houghton Mifflin. Young is in <i>The Best American Poetry</i> of 2008, 2009, and 2010. Trethewey won a Pulitzer Prize at the age of 40!<br /><br />I need recommendations for the 2010 versions of the Whitman and Dickinson of 1860, so to speak, a real challenge, since the 2010 Dickinson of 1860 won't even publish a book until, let's see, 2040.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-90074930419214383732010-12-15T08:03:38.731-06:002010-12-15T08:03:38.731-06:00What an amazing year that was! I read a lot of dia...What an amazing year that was! I read a lot of diaries and letters written in 1860 in the US South, and even though the writers are deeply concerned about sectional tensions at the time, somehow Dickens always seems to come up.<br /><br />Not only do we have "our" Dickens and Collins--but both might actually be on our lists this year. With Oprah choosing Dickens and Collins' new-found popularity, their books are probably pretty high on the sales lists.<br /><br />As for poets, I'll give a nod to Kevin Young and Natasha Trethewey. They aren't as big as Dickinson--but of course Dickinson wasn't big in her day, either.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09543197858284977937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-18624271455697847052010-12-15T02:45:29.774-06:002010-12-15T02:45:29.774-06:00The Woman in White is fully deserving, a quite ast...<i>The Woman in White</i> is fully deserving, a quite astounding example of narrative technique wedded to memorable characterizations and deft prose. Wilkie had it <b>all</b> going on.<br /><br /><i>Max Havelaar</i> is well worth your time. It's quite the experimental novel -- very 20th century for the 19th century, if you know what I mean. <br /><br />Good on you for acknowledging Bjornson and Becquer, too! Those are my kind of authors -- in the second or third rank of fame, they don't always get the wide love and recognition, but I frequently enjoy their stuff immensely. (Charles Reade, Charles Dickens's and Wilkie Collins's excitable pal, is another excellent example of such a writer.)Patrick Murthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08103905929956454199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-16692089973413009232010-12-14T17:06:34.050-06:002010-12-14T17:06:34.050-06:00It's a shame that The Woman in White probably ...It's a shame that <i>The Woman in White</i> probably wouldn't have made the critics' lists simply because it was part of the sensation school. Even Margaret Oliphant admired Count Fosco even if she hated most of Collins' work. <br /><br />I suppose it all depends on whether the critics or the readers decide. Dickens and Eliot would still definitely have been in there if the three-decker and serial readers had a say but also Collins. Then again, I'm quite biased!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com