Women's Classic Literature Enthusiasts discussion

So who exactly are the "classic" women writers? What are the "classic" works?

One place to start might be the list of female Nobel laureates in literature:

2015 - Svetlana Alexievich
"for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time"

2013 - Alice Munro
"master of the contemporary short story"

2009 - Herta Müller
"who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed"

2007 - Doris Lessing
"that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny"

2004 - Elfriede Jelinek
"for her musical flow of voices and counter-voices in novels and plays that with extraordinary linguistic zeal reveal the absurdity of society's clichés and their subjugating power"

1996 - Wislawa Szymborska
"for poetry that with ironic precision allows the historical and biological context to come to light in fragments of human reality"

1993 - Toni Morrison
"who in novels characterized by visionary force and poetic import, gives life to an essential aspect of American reality"

1991 - Nadine Gordimer
"who through her magnificent epic writing has - in the words of Alfred Nobel - been of very great benefit to humanity"

1966 - Nelly Sachs
"for her outstanding lyrical and dramatic writing, which interprets Israel's destiny with touching strength"

1945 - Gabriela Mistral
"for her lyric poetry which, inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world"

1938 - Pearl S. Buck
"for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces"

1928 - Sigrid Undset
"principally for her powerful descriptions of Northern life during the Middle Ages"

1926 - Grazia Deledda
"for her idealistically inspired writings which with plastic clarity picture the life on her native island and with depth and sympathy deal with human problems in general"

1909 - Selma Lagerlöf
"in appreciation of the lofty idealism, vivid imagination and spiritual perception that characterize her writings"

That's definitely a good place to start. :)

I know when I think of classics I usually think of "old" but that's not always necessarily the case. I guess classics would be those books that are timeless and will be read for years after their publication?

Alexa wrote: "One place to start might be the list of female Nobel laureates in literature:

2013 - Alice Munro
"master of the contemporary short story"

2009 - Herta Müller
"who, w..."

I have an aversion to considering recent books, even award winners, to be classics. Very good books, yes. But for me, classic requires something more than that it be a very good book. For me, it has to do two things. First, it has to speak to multiple generations, at least three in my opinion. This means I limit classics to books at least thirty and preferably fifty or more years old, that have proved their worth and value to several generations of readers. Ideally, they are books which have remained in print for a great many years, proving that people are still buying and reading them.

Second, I am looking for books that have become part of the "great conversation" of Western thought, that have been influenced by prior thinkers and that have been shown to have influenced writers who have come after. Contemporary books just haven't established themselves in the great conversation yet. Not their fault, but they need to prove their ability to age well.

When you go back and look at, for example, Pulitzer prize winners or Nobel Laureates, some of them have had lasting influence and have inspired generations of readers. Others, well, they are basically not read.

I know I'm an old fuddy-duddy about this, and totally out of touch with the fast pace of the modern world where anything five years old is already ancient, but then I'm pretty ancient myself. So.....

Alexa wrote: "One place to start might be the list of female Nobel laureates in literature:"

Another place to look would be books by female writers which appear in any one or more of the following series:

Penguin Classics
Oxford Classics
Everyman Classics
Modern Library Classics
Barnes & Noble Classics

Keep in mind though, that the Nobel Prize is given for a body of work. So even the most recent prize winner, while indeed still writing, had her first (award-winning) book published 46 years ago. So, not trying to push anything on anybody, but that does fit your definition!

This list might me more to some folks' taste, although it suffers from being exclusively Anglo-American writers: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013...

Everyman wrote: "Alexa wrote: "One place to start might be the list of female Nobel laureates in literature:

2013 - Alice Munro
"master of the contemporary short story"

2009 - [author:Herta Müller|1..."

Hmmm, so I'm thinking that we can have personal classics, those books which speak to us personally and profoundly and do indeed stand the test of our own time, but might not work for everyone else. What do you think?

Absolutely!

The nobel laureates list doesn't equal 'classics' to me. The Guardian list comes a lot closer. To me a 'classic' has to be a well-known book that has been in print for a large number of years but still has a message for a modern reader. They are books that can be re-read at different points in our lives and still 'speak' to us.

I can't believe that a list of great American women writers would would leave off American women writers of color.

Unbelievable.

This list attempts to remedy that deficiency, although many of the books on this list might be considered too recent for this group?

http://www.forharriet.com/2013/02/100...

Alexa wrote: "This list attempts to remedy that deficiency, although many of the books on this list might be considered too recent for this group?

http://www.forharriet.com/2013/02/100......"

Some of them (like 32 Candles) are pretty recent. But there are a couple older ones I've always thought of as classics (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Their Eyes Were Watching God, etc) on that list. Thanks, Alexa!

What are classics? This link gives a few qualities of a classic. http://classiclit.about.com/od/forbeg...

It says a book must pass the test of time. However, what that time period is, is debated. Like I said in another thread, 50 years or about two generations, satisfies my definition of "passing the test of time."

What do others think? Should we be reading J. K. Rowling?

I think of J.K. Rowling as a classic, hehe, because I think she'll still be read in two generations.

That being said I don't think we should read her in this group, only because there are plenty of older English writers to choose from.

I think I like 50 years as a general rule of thumb, but am occasionally open to going as recent as 25 years for what might be an exceptional work of art or underrepresented authors/subjects.

Can't see J.K. Rowling there yet though!

Many people consider J. K. Rowling a poor writer. Since I have never read any of her books, I can't judge.

Just winning an award for a book doesn't mean it is a classic. Just go back and read some of the books that have won praise and accolades. See how many books and authors you recognized from this listing of Pulitzer prizes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer...

Man Booker awards are given for some of the worst books I have ever read. Their listing is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Book... See how many you would recommend!

What many people consider a classic today, will be obscure to readers 50 years from today.

I generally shy away from the award winners for that reason. It's so annoying. Sometimes it seems they purposely look for the worst book possible.

As for classics, I think 50 years is a good cutoff. I am open to newer books though. I consider books from that time frame as 'modern' classics. I think of To Kill a Mockingbird and Faulkner's works as modern classics. Of course, at my age 50 years seems not that long.

☯Emily wrote: "Man Booker awards are given for some of the worst books I have ever read. Their listing is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Book... See how many you would recommend!"

Uh-oh, I don't think I've read a single book on that list.... (I feel like I should've, lol).

Perhaps we can have two categories of classics:

1) Classics--50yrs?
2) Modern Classics

Martha wrote: "I generally shy away from the award winners for that reason. It's so annoying. Sometimes it seems they purposely look for the worst book possible.

As for classics, I think 50 years is a good cuto..."

It is hard to consider something years younger than oneself as a classic!

Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "Perhaps we can have two categories of classics:

1) Classics--50yrs?
2) Modern Classics"

We are planning on having six monthly themes next year. That could be one of the suggestions, e.g., A modern classic that is less than 30 years old.

☯Emily wrote: "What many people consider a classic today, will be obscure to readers 50 years from today. "

True. And OTOH, it may be back in favor in 100 years. Even Shakespeare went through a period when he was not respected or much read.

But in general, I do agree that classics must stand the test of time.

For me, the term "modern classic" is an oxymoron. I would love to see somebody define what a "modern classic" is by any even reasonably objective criteria. (As you noted, books that win awards and therefore might be considered by some "modern classics" often fall into almost total oblivion. And books that are tremendously popular for a brief period, again, can often just as quickly die into meaninglessness. (Does anybody still read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? But in its short heyday I'm sure some people would have called it a modern classic if that term had been around then.

So -- what IS a modern classic, and how do you determine which books are and which aren't?

Martha wrote: "I generally shy away from the award winners for that reason. It's so annoying. Sometimes it seems they purposely look for the worst book possible. "

I'm not sure they're looking for the worst books, but their criteria are not those, I think, of most readers. They like literary books, books that "serious scholars" can analyze and write erudite essays about. Whereas most readers are looking for good stories well told with interesting characters, without any regard for whether they are "literary" or "sophisticated."

Everyman wrote: "So -- what IS a modern classic, and how do you determine which books are and which aren't? "

I think you will get a different answer from every person who answers.

These were some of the ideas I came up with though:

1 A classic that's not old enough to be considered a classic (say if you use the 50 year rule of thumb) but continues to touch people several decades after it's written.

2 I think it might also be a way of saying "this new book was really good and lots of people read it". A better term might be: modern hit.

3 A book you're predicting will be considered a classic in 100 years.

Anastasia wrote: "I think it might also be a way of saying "this new book was really good and lots of people read it". A better term might be: modern hit."

I agree with modern hit. Otherwise, many people would call Fifty Shades of Grey a classic.

I just got cold chills.

Everyman wrote: "I agree with modern hit. Otherwise, many people would call Fifty Shades of Grey a classic."

Perish the thought, I hope that never happens.

Everyman wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "So -- what IS a modern classic, and how do you determine which books are and which aren't?"

I researched this for a blog post once. Apparently, Penguin Books considers 100 years the cutoff date for a modern classic, so Of Human Bondage and The Voyage Out (both published in 1915) would still count.

Anastasia, in my blog post I also came up with 3 criteria: human interest, timelessness, and well-crafted prose. I’ve never read Fifty Shades, but I’ll bet that last one would be enough to keep it off the list.

LG wrote: "Everyman wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "So -- what IS a modern classic, and how do you determine which books are and which aren't?"

I researched this for a blog post once. Apparently, Penguin Books consi..."

I've read excerpts and I agree, lol.

Anastasia wrote: "LG wrote: "Everyman wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "So -- what IS a modern classic, and how do you determine which books are and which aren't?"

I researched this for a blog post once. Apparently, Penguin ..."

I've never read that trilogy. Once I heard she modeled them on the Twilight series I knew they were not for me. :-)

It gives me great pleasure to edit the list of female Nobel Laureates to reflect the newest winner!

Alexa wrote: "It gives me great pleasure to edit the list of female Nobel Laureates to reflect the newest winner!"

:) I like the way the Nobel is for a body of work.

With the Man Booker I have only read Hotel du Lac (which I remember liking) The Bone People (I loved it, it's in the queue on my bedside cabinet for a reread) & The Luminaries (a slog I often wonder if I should go back to my review & re-rate as I think 3* was charitable) I didn't finish The Blind Assassin but am intending to have another go - some day.

I like the two generations criteria. I think that & quality of writing makes the best of Daphne du Maurier & Georgette Heyer classic works

Alexa wrote: "It gives me great pleasure to edit the list of female Nobel Laureates to reflect the newest winner!"

Thanks, Alexa. This is certainly exciting, I will be checking out some of her works.

I've been a reader since about 1933 and there were books that were very important to me though they were not 'classics' in any usual sense of the word. In fact, one of them, The Far-distant Oxus, was written by a pair of English schoolgirls. Some other books that were important to me were Girl of the Limberlost, The Poor Little Rich Girl, The Five Little Peppers and How They Grew, The Bobbsey Twins, Heidi, and all those "The Case of xxx"es (solved by Nancy Drew), and many others. (I didn't much care for Elsie Dinsmore, though.)

Mizzou wrote: "I've been a reader since about 1933 and there were books that were very important to me though they were not 'classics' in any usual sense of the word. In fact, one of them, The Far-distant Oxus, w..."

When my girls were little, I was so excited to share The Five Little Peppers. But, what a disappointment they were as an adult! The Girl of the Limberlost, however, enchanted them as much as it did me years before.

I was going to suggest The Girl of the Limberlost as a December read for "Most Overlooked Classic by a Woman Writer."

☯Emily wrote: "I was going to suggest The Girl of the Limberlost as a December read for "Most Overlooked Classic by a Woman Writer.""

Love it!

Mizzou wrote: "I've been a reader since about 1933 and there were books that were very important to me though they were not 'classics' in any usual sense of the word. In fact, one of them, The Far-distant Oxus, w..."

I am probably much younger than you but I loved the Bobbsey Twins and Nancy Drew growing up! I read both the newer revised versions and the older original ones.
I never cared for Elsie Dinsmore either.

Mizzou wrote: "there were books that were very important to me though they were not 'classics' in any usual sense of the word. In fact, one of them, The Far-distant Oxus,"

I love that book. May I assume you have, as I have, devoured Arthur Ransome, who was the inspiration for the Oxus authors?

Everyman: Indeed I did read those "Swallows and Amazons" books! For lack of enough "girls' books", I also read Robert Payson Terhune, Howard Pease, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and such . . . I didn't bother with Zane Grey, as I got enough horse opera at the Saturday kids' matinees where the feature film was so often Bill Boyd as Hopalong Cassidy, with Gabby Hayes as his sidekick. This is going back decades ago, you understand?

P.S. When Marguerite Henry came on the writing scene, I did read horse stories again (after Black Beauty and National Velvet, that is). Henry wrote King of the Wind, and Misty of Chicoteague, and others.

With children's books I would count Black Beauty by Anna Sewell as a classic.
The Anne of Green Gables Books
Little House on the Prairie series
Little Women

At work we have a lot of collectors looking for the works of Enid Blyton I never, ever understood the appeal.

For New Zealand writing Katherine Mansfield. I'm not much of a short story reader but I love her work.

I get a kick out of E. Nesbit's children's books, and I didn't find her until I was an adult. As C.S. Lewis said, children's books shouldn't just be for children. (Well, he said it mostly like that.)

Getting back to Katherine Mansfield maybe we could do one of her short story collections. Other than Collette & Virginia Wolf I'm trying to think who the other great female short story writers are.

Edit; From more than 50 years ago!

☆ Ｃａｒｏｌ ☆ wrote: "Getting back to Katherine Mansfield maybe we could do one of her short story collections. Other than Collette & Virginia Wolf I'm trying to think who the other great female short story writers are...."

I'll bet I could find a Mansfield at my new library, and I do remember liking her (from several decades ago). Sarah Orne Jewitt, a New Englander (Maine?), is another short story writer that I remember enjoying from decades past.

☆ Ｃａｒｏｌ ☆ wrote: "Getting back to Katherine Mansfield maybe we could do one of her short story collections. Other than Collette & Virginia Wolf I'm trying to think who the other great female short story writers are...."

That's an excellent idea!

Alice Munro

There was a list recently on another website for 100 Must Read Classics by Women. The list has a few authors and books I've never heard of, but some of them might be interesting to check out. The books are listed chronologically and the most recent is from 1966, so they would all meet the criteria for this group. I've put a link to the list below.

http://bookriot.com/2017/03/10/100-mu...

Thank you Laurie!