I'm surprised at the R&J dissing. What do you guys think is inferior about it?

Maybe I hold a special affection for the play because I had a disagreement with a 7th-grade English teacher when I suggested that the whole point of the play is that if your parents try to break up your relationship it only makes your affections stronger. The teacher said she would only allow arguments that were supported by the text and I pointed out that Romeo had been in love with Rosaline (sp?) the day before he met Juliet. The teacher said I was crazy and that what Romeo and Juliet experienced was True Love. That may have been the point when I decided I was smarter than my teachers.

Laga, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps your teacher needed a good clue-sticking? I'm not saying that she's wrong, but for a teacher to discourage a student from trying to support a different interpretation of a text? Not good.

I'm not sure what I'd think of Hardy if I revisted him today

t hiss boo rotten tomatoes

My, so much to comment on from the overnights.

I'm not sure that having to read a work for a class will affect your enjoyment as much as the ability of the teacher to teach it. I had to read The Merchant of Venice in 9th grade. The teacher didn't get the points across very well, and to complicate matters, he was out for the first week of that unit. So when he came back, he "corrected" all of the "mistaken" impressions we got from the substitute teacher. Including half an hour on the correct pronounciation of "ducat." It wasn't until I took a class on Shakespeare in college that I learned that the play was supposed to be a comedy.

I also learned from that college professor that R&J was a comedy gone wrong. Parallel to Midsummer Night's Dream, which was a tragedy gone right. (Though when it comes to Shakespeare, I'll take Much Ado About Nothing, thank you.) (With a fond place in my heart for Troilus and Cressida, because it was the first Shakespeare I had to read for someone who really knew how to get the idea across -- thank you, Dr. Simmons!)

I enjoy Dickens (and will rank Our Mutual Friend, Dombey and Son, and David Copperfield) but can see why he isn't everyone's cup of tea. His characterization (especially of eccentrics) and his sense of society are wonderful. His plots rely too much on coincidence to be fully satisfying. (Case in point from Nicholas Nickleby, which I'm re-reading now -- Nicholas returns to London to save his sister, but his friends have disappeared so they can give him the details at the right time -- so he just happens to wander into the one inn where Sir Mulberry Hawk is talking about the sister by name.)

And I can't talk about Victorians without mentioning Anthony Trollope. And although he is very much of his time and place, The Way We Live Now is my favorite of his because it speaks so much to today's society as well.

As for bleakness, I'll just say that I see writing/reading as an interactive activity. What the reader sees may not be what the writer intended. Not least because the reader brings in a whole life experience that may have little or nothing in common with the writer's. (Another example from Nickleby -- Dickens probably didn't intend to write Smike as a gay man in love with Nicholas. But it's very easy for me to read that into the work.)

Not to mention that what appeals to you is what appeals to you. As Hec put it,

If you had survived the Bataan Death March it's possible that you might only want to watch romantic comedies starring Reese Witherspoon, but it's more likely that you'd see something of your life in The Pianist.

And they're both legitimate reactions. (Note: I consider "pure entertainment" to be a compliment. Causing people to forget their troubles for a couple hours is a good thing.) Nothing is going to hit everyone's buttons.

hm ... I never read Smike as gay, per se. I'd read the Nicholas-Smike relationship as being one of those close loving same-sex friendships that seem to be common in Victorian and earlier literature (please note that I was careful not to use a slash).

one of those close loving same-sex friendships that seem to be common in Victorian and earlier literature

Dorothy Sayers goes into that a few times, the Wimsey books has a character who lives in a boarding house, an elderly single lady who has observed quite a few things in her day. The descriptions of boarding house and women's colleges bring up interesting angles.

edit: Any romantic leanings are very delicately hinted at, the relationships are generally about the domination of personalities more than anything else.

His plots rely too much on coincidence to be fully satisfying.

One of the reasons I love Bleak House so is the absolutely batshit-insane turning point of the plot.

Toddson, I'm sure that's what Dickens intended in mid-19th century England. Plus he may have intended a class distinction because Smike is so subservient to Nicholas, who is so clearly Smike's protector.

But an early 21st-century gay man can easily read Smike's emotions as not just gratitude. (Which is not to say that Nicholas can be read to have felt the same way by any means.)

Paradise Lost

Love Paradise Lost. But I am fascinated by Milton. Also love and adore Merchant of Venice. I hope I love Lear as much this year as I am teaching it.

There's lots of the traditional canon that I love (bits of Canterbury Tales, tons of poetry, Frankenstein, Oscar Wilde's stuff, Dante), but I love the new canon more (Margaret Atwood and Richard Wright for example).

What I struggle with though and can't seem to finish? Toni Morrison.

I was skimming through Boxed Set and it struck me - you could have a Moby Dick/Battlestar Galactica crossover - with Starbuck!