February's Fabulous Feast Of Fully Formidable Fiction

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Conn, I am going for chronological (approximate) so I was going for the collections next. I would recommend you give the Lost World a try; I believe you like good adventure books and this is one from a master writer and storyteller!

[My apologies if something like this appears twice. I could have sworn I posted a minute ago but it seems to have vanished.]

I have bought Lost World, its my next read of him.

There is few stories that matter chrono order wise to read chrono order. Most stories are set in late 1880. Two years later or even 10-15 years earlier doesnt really change anything in how the stories are told. That is why the stories are collected often in published order like Doyle originally wanted. I looked forward to reading flashback or earlier chrono wise Holmes stories but its a very stand alone story type series. Even when Watson life is different, its barely mentioned. Thankfully Doyle knew what his readers cared most about. The characters, their times/crime,their world.

[Vertigo]

Yes I must admit I'm not unduly worried about the order and I may well go for The Sign of Four next. I'll decide at the time; likely the decision will be as much to do with whether I'm in the mood for short stories or a novel.

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Yes I must admit I'm not unduly worried about the order and I may well go for The Sign of Four next. I'll decide at the time; likely the decision will be as much to do with whether I'm in the mood for short stories or a novel as particular ordering.

The one "order of reading" matter about which I have strong feelings is that one should not start with the first story in The Adventures, "A Scandal in Bohemia." It has more impact if one has become accustomed to the generally victorious Holmes by reading other stories. I would also avoid starting the Holmes canon with "The Engineer's Thumb," but I suppose nobody does.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Extollager

The one "order of reading" matter about which I have strong feelings is that one should not start with the first story in The Adventures, "A Scandal in Bohemia." It has more impact if one has become accustomed to the generally victorious Holmes by reading other stories. I would also avoid starting the Holmes canon with "The Engineer's Thumb," but I suppose nobody does.

I follow the order that the author preferred when the collection was realesed in UK. I had read two novels and knew the victorious Holmes before i read " A Scandal in Bohemia". Adventures in general showcases the abilities,the quality of his detecting skills, i adored in Memoirs how it showed it didnt always go so well for Holmes if he didnt have the time or the evidence or just made mistakes that made the criminal get away.

[dask]

Finished THE DELIGHT OF GREAT BOOKS, John Erskine's 1916 mastepiece of literary criticism and forerunner to Clifton Fadiman's THE LIFETIME READING PROGRAM which I hope to get to later this year. I'm developing the distinct feeling that if all I had to read were books written between 1850 and 1950 I could easily live a life of unceasing enjoyment.

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by dask

I'm developing the distinct feeling that if all I had to read were books written between 1850 and 1950 I could easily live a life of unceasing enjoyment.

In fact, one could manage well for quite a while on the fantasy and sf published just between 1887-1912.

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by Connavar

I follow the order that the author preferred when the collection was realesed in UK. I had read two novels and knew the victorious Holmes before i read " A Scandal in Bohemia". Adventures in general showcases the abilities,the quality of his detecting skills, i adored in Memoirs how it showed it didnt always go so well for Holmes if he didnt have the time or the evidence or just made mistakes that made the criminal get away.

My English 120 students buy a very inexpensive Dover paperback with these stories:

Table of Contents for Six Great Sherlock Holmes Stories From The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1892) A Scandal in Bohemia The Red-headed League The Adventure of the Speckled Band The Adventure of the Engineer's ThumbFrom The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893) The Final ProblemFrom The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1905) The Adventure of the Empty House
We start with "Speckled Band," then go to "Red-Headed League" -- these show Holmes against two villains who, in different ways, are exceptionally good matches for him.* Then "Scandal," with the "villain" (villainness!) who outfoxed Sherlock; and probably "Thumb" and "Final Problem." We don't read them all. I think "Empty House" is pretty weak anyway, and would rather encourage interested students to follow up "Final Problem" with The Hound of the Baskervilles on their own.

In this course we also read a number of Hawthorne stories, basically alternating between Doyle and Hawthorne, and reading a nonfiction book that uses the techniques of fiction too (Kherdian's The Road from Home).


*Roylott in "Band" is brilliant and physically strong; this is the one in which Holmes surprises us by bending back the fireplace poker that Roylott bent, a cool bit that emphasizes how well matched they are; Roylott invades Baker Street and Holmes invades Roylott's lair. In "Red-headed," Watson makes much of the "dual nature" of Holmes's "singular" personality, and the villain is an uncommonly "dual" person too: an aristocrat and an habitue of the underworld.

[dask]

Originally Posted by Extollager

In fact, one could manage well for quite a while on the fantasy and sf published just between 1887-1912.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by dask

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

I would seriously nominate 1887-1912 as the Golden Age of Fantasy and Science Fiction -- although, like most of us here, I wouldn't say that my very favorite works appeared in those 25 years.

But in that quarter-century you have everything from Haggard's She at one end to Conan Doyle's Lost World at the other. In 1997-1912, among other things, you have H. G. Wells's best; Dunsany's major short stories of high fantasy; all of William Morris or at least all of the great works; all of William Hope Hodgson; notable stories by Machen and Blackwood; Yeats's faerie poetry; George MacDonald's magnificent Lilith; and odd gems like Lucy Lane Clifford's "The New Mother." The period includes more:The Wind in the Willows. Poems by Walter de la Mare. Many of Kipling's most notable weird stories. Many more still-enjoyable romances (not just She)by Rider Haggard. For the ERB fans, Under the Moons of Mars and the magazine serialization of Tarzan of the Apes. You also have the best of Sherlock Holmes!

So one could celebrate, this year, the 100th anniversary of the closing of the Golden Age.

[Fried Egg]

Originally Posted by Extollager

So one could celebrate, this year, the 100th anniversary of the closing of the Golden Age.

I agree that there were many great works of SF and fantasy during that time but weren't there just as many afterwards? Why end the "golden age" in 1912?

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

I agree that there were many great works of SF and fantasy during that time but weren't there just as many afterwards? Why end the "golden age" in 1912?

I didn't make that clear. I was just thinking along these lines: if you had to specify a 25-year period as the "golden age," this would be the quarter century that I would choose. It's a pretty artificial thing, of course. One might contend that the next 15 years or so did not see a comparable flourishing of fantasy and sf, though various noteworthy works did appear in that time. Without checking any reference works, I would venture the idea that the next outstanding period begins circa 1930. In the Thirties you get The Hobbit (1937) and Out of the Silent Planet (1938), two masterpieces; you get most or all of the Conan stories and most or all of Lovecraft's most impressive work; I believe T. H. White's Arthurian cycle begins to appear -- and so on. Thus you have the launching of Middle-earth and of sword-and-sorcery (basically), or anyway the consolidation of the latter, in the one decade. The 1930s also see the emergence of Astounding and a whole group of associated authors, unless I am mistaken: Asimov, Heinlein, Campbell, van Vogt, and more -- and either the launching of sf fandom or at least the first real flourishing thereof. For those who like them -- I do, but not everyone does -- the Thirties is also the period in which most of Charles Williams's thrillers (The Place of the Lion and so on) appear, although what's perhaps his best one, All Hallows' Eve, doesn't appear till the Forties.

But I know there's some great fantasy between my "Golden Age" and the Thirties, and immediately after the Thirties too. I'm not trying to minimize that.

What I'm saying is basically for the sake of conversation and not some serious thesis that I'm building up to. I guess you could ask yourself: if you had to limit yourself to works published only within a set of years, which years would you choose?

My next great period would be circa 1954-64, which gets in everything from The Lord of the Rings to some of Phil Dick's best.

[Fried Egg]

That's a good question and I'm not sure I could answer it. Perhaps 1950 to 1975 but I'm not sure. I would have to sit down and think about it seriously if I really had to make such a choice...

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Extollager

I didn't make that clear. I was just thinking along these lines: if you had to specify a 25-year period as the "golden age," this would be the quarter century that I would choose. It's a pretty artificial thing, of course. One might contend that the next 15 years or so did not see a comparable flourishing of fantasy and sf, though various noteworthy works did appear in that time. Without checking any reference works, I would venture the idea that the next outstanding period begins circa 1930. In the Thirties you get The Hobbit (1937) and Out of the Silent Planet (1938), two masterpieces; you get most or all of the Conan stories and most or all of Lovecraft's most impressive work; I believe T. H. White's Arthurian cycle begins to appear -- and so on. Thus you have the launching of Middle-earth and of sword-and-sorcery (basically), or anyway the consolidation of the latter, in the one decade. The 1930s also see the emergence of Astounding and a whole group of associated authors, unless I am mistaken: Asimov, Heinlein, Campbell, van Vogt, and more -- and either the launching of sf fandom or at least the first real flourishing thereof. For those who like them -- I do, but not everyone does -- the Thirties is also the period in which most of Charles Williams's thrillers (The Place of the Lion and so on) appear, although what's perhaps his best one, All Hallows' Eve, doesn't appear till the Forties.

But I know there's some great fantasy between my "Golden Age" and the Thirties, and immediately after the Thirties too. I'm not trying to minimize that.

What I'm saying is basically for the sake of conversation and not some serious thesis that I'm building up to. I guess you could ask yourself: if you had to limit yourself to works published only within a set of years, which years would you choose?

My next great period would be circa 1954-64, which gets in everything from The Lord of the Rings to some of Phil Dick's best.

This sounds like interesting thing to think about.

I would say the greatest periods i rate most in SFF that i see with the books i rate most highly are 1924-1936 in fantasy first. Lord DunsanyThe King of Elfland's Daugther to Robert E.Howard,Clark Ashton Smith,CL Moore stories in the 1930s.

SF starting with Heinlein's Starship Troopers the period 1959-1972. The best SF by Vance,Philip K Dick,Zelazny,Poul Anderson,Herbert,Asimov.

If we are gonna limit it to 25 year periods as we should i would say those are my personal "Golden Ages". When i think of great SF i think of SF 1950s-1970s. I dont have many great 1980s SF books. I like some late 90s and early 2000s of course.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by Connavar

If we are gonna limit it to 25 year periods as we should i would say those are my personal "Golden Ages".

I made a spinoff thread if anyone wants to keep going on this over there.

[j. d. worthington]

*chuckle* Good idea, J-Sun. You may have started an entirely new area of the Chrons, you know....

As I said a while back, not fiction, but... H. P. Lovecraft and the Modernist Grotesque. I had to set it aside after only getting partway through the introduction originally; now I'm back at it, and finding it (save for a tiny flaw here and there) a fascinating piece of work so far; very intelligently and accessibly written, and certainly one of the best short guides I've seen so far on how to find one's way through the tangled forest of Modernist and Postmodernist theories....