British Literature Suggestion

I need to find a good piece of British Literature for my English final project. I would like something from 1400 and up, no Old English (read : Beowulf sucks). Any suggestions?

P.S. - No 1984...I hate that ridiculous book.

What? No Chaucer?! Who doesn''t love the Pardoner''s Tale?

Well, in the 15th and 16th century British Literature was dominated primarily by Renaissance and Metaphysical poets (Shakespeare, Marvel, Donne, Johnson). If you can include plays in your final paper, why not take the old standby Shakespeare, maybe pick one of his more interesting works Othello, Richard III (my personal favorite), The Tempest. Heck, A Winter''s Tale is ripe for analysis - so damn schizophrenic, is it a tragedy is it a comedy. Avoid Troilus and Cressida at all costs. I hated it.

I also enjoyed some of Ben Johnson''s work, more pedestrian but still enjoyable. Unfortunately none of the titles stuck with me.

On a more contemporary note, I''ve always meant to pick up some James Joyce or Dylan Thomas. You may want to check those two out, and if you do, let me know what you thought.

There''s always, of course, Dickens which is ripe for a final paper. You might also consider Rudyard Kipling, though I''d recommend Kim instead of The Jungle Book. You could do a fantastic essay on the conflict between Kipling''s self-perceived love and respect for the savage and the fundamentally racist assumptions he makes, that being that as he praises Indians with one hand, he''s actually perpetuating British superiority with the other. Yup, that''s the one I''d pick.

OR

If you want a really outstanding challenge you could go with Virginia Woolf. I''m thinking Mrs. Dalloway which is a terrific stream-of-consciousness novel, and though it''s often a bit hard to follow is full of all kinds of great social and class criticism. Plus, teachers love essays about the plight of the early woman writer.

Well I read some of The Canterbury Tales, but didn''t find it too interesting. Donne and Johnson were more poets than writers, and I need something to fill up about 10 minutes worth of PowerPoint presentation. Shakespeare is a good idea, no one ever fails on Shakespears reports. Kipling is also a pretty good idea... Although if I try going into something that in-depth and analytically challenging in front of the class, I might as well just kick my own ass. People just don''t respect intelligence in 11th grade.
I would rather go with a 1400-1700 book, though, something classic but not too tough.

P.S. - I would rather dig my eye out with a spork than read anything by Dickens. Great Expectations was so ridiculously gloomy and tedious, I don''t think I could take any more Dickens cheer.

I agree on Dickens, but if, as an English major, you don''t answer a question like this with both Dickens and Shakespeare then the English police - a motley bunch - comes to your house to recite sonnets.

Hey, any chance you can use The Hobbit? Tolkien''s got to be considered one of the finest modern writers in British Literature.

What about Robert Louis Stevenson?

Mary Shelley? 11th graders should like Frankenstein

P.S. - I would rather dig my eye out with a spork than read anything by Dickens. Great Expectations was so ridiculously gloomy and tedious, I don''t think I could take any more Dickens cheer.

Ahem. \\/ \\/

You glorious genius!! Of course!! Tolkien is the answer. What is wrong with me, not thinking of Tolkien immediately...sigh.

Good work Elysium!

Oooh, Stevenson. Why do I always forget about Stevenson. Another good suggestion, though I think Kipling''s the stronger voice of the two.

I''m pathetic. This topic genuinely excites me.

edit: Hooray for me!

Heh, sorry Fang, but I think we can all agree that Dickens is love/hate.

I''m pathetic. This topic genuinely excites me.

edit: Hooray for me!

Shouldn''t you be wearing a helmet, Elysium?

Who says I''m not?

Hmmm, I just remembered about Thomas More... He is pretty good too. I don''t know if he beats Tolkien as far as topic goes, but I bet a report on Utopia would get a better grade then one on LoTR...

How can you hate the most brilliant quote regarding self sacrifice? It is that which makes us most human!

Elysium, do you know Spencer?

The show Spencer for Hire quoted him at the end of an Episode. I loved the quote but i fear over the years I have been forgetting the words.

I goes something like this:

Each man truly lives as he dreams, alone.

I cant find anything like it on the web resources.

Do you mean Spencer as in the Spencerian Sonnet?

Yes, the poet Edmund Spencer.

I believe his most famous work is the Fairie Queen

The Lord of the Rings. 8)

Well, I happen to have my handy-dandy Brit Lit book with me, with a nice set of Edmund Spenser poems.

Sonnet 1 here is my personal favorite :

Happy ye leaves when as those lily hands,
which hold my life in their dead doing might,
Shall handle you and hold in love''s soft bands,
Like captives trembling at the victor''s sight,
And happy lines, on which with starry light,
Those lamping eyes will deigne sometimes to look
And read the sorrows of my dying spright,
Written with tears in heart''s close bleeding book.
And happy rhymes bathed in the sacred brook
Of Helicon whence she derived is,
When ye behold that angel''s blessed look,
My soul''d long lacked food, my heaven''s bliss.
Leaves, lines, and rhymes, seek her to please alone,
Whom if ye please, I care for other none.

I dont see the quote you used though, sorry.

DO NOT, DO NOT do a book by Joyce. His books take an eternity to read and comprehend. Don''t get me wrong, they are good, they just take forever to read because of his ""modern"" style. However, his poems are pretty decent.

What about A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess or Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad?

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Graham Greene etc. etc.

D.H Lawerence (sp)

Closest thing to porn that the schools will allow.

Surprisingly, we watched about 4 days straight of softcore porn in my British Lit class a few weeks ago. Some movie based on some book where everybody gets naked for no reason... interesting stuff.

And I will never read another George Orwell book in my life. 1984 was so absurdly stupid, I don''t think I could handle any more literary tripe like that.

Animal Farm is awesome!

I had no interest in reading 1984 other than the whole written in 1948 so he transposed the digits.

And I will never read another George Orwell book in my life. 1984 was so absurdly stupid, I don''t think I could handle any more literary tripe like that.

Care to elaborate? I would still highly recommend it to anyone.

Animal Farm is my favourite Orwell work.

Well, I recently had to do a paper on 1984, so here is a little (not really) excerpt.

First off, let me say that I think that this book is completely ridiculous. Within 35 years, the world is changed from a capitalist free-market to a group of totalitarian oligarchies. This is completely impossible, primarily because, quite simply, a government to this degree could not exist. The people of the mid-20th century did not have too much involvement in government, but they still had some say-so. A government like this could not simply develop; it would have to be endorsed by the public and accepted almost unanimously. Any dissention among the public would quickly create differing opinions, which in itself is against the 1984 way. These changes would also be, in effect, the people signing over their free thought, which I believe NO group of people on Earth would willingly do. The populace would never allow such changes to happen to society. People may be ignorant, but they are not stupid. Eventually, the people would see the changes that were taking place in the government. At this point, people would start trying to get out of the country fast, with memories of Hitler's despotism drifting into their minds. The government would have two choices then: either show their hand and assert complete dominance or slacken their oppression and reassure the people. If they followed the former choice of action, they would not have any sort of loyalty and, quite possibly, a rebellion. Humans do not do well under oppression, and always seem to find a way out from under it; although it might take 5 or 10 years. The government would get nowhere near the zealous worship that is present in 1984. If, on the other hand, they followed the latter course and reassured the people, total control could never be reached. After the regime had shown weakness in the face of danger, the people would always know that they have the upper hand; thus the government could never get total obedience.

A Clockwork Orange is brilliant, fairly short, and easy to ramble on about. Or if you prefer something that isn''t full of made-up slang, how about Perelandra, or a book from The Chronicles of Narnia? C.S. Lewis is wonderful to read. And hey - if you can use current authors, you could use Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman! Delicious book!

Asands2, while I get your point, it''s a bit like criticizing Animal Farm because pigs don''t talk. I think there is worthwhile allegorical symoblism in a book like 1984 (though, I''d be more inclined to call it didactic), and that the political commentary has merit. I''d simply argue that, like art, there is a difference between the realism you sought, and the impressionism I think Orwell was reaching for.

First off, let me say that I think that this book is completely ridiculous. Within 35 years, the world is changed from a capitalist free-market to a group of totalitarian oligarchies. This is completely impossible, primarily because, quite simply, a government to this degree could not exist. The people of the mid-20th century did not have too much involvement in government, but they still had some say-so. A government like this could not simply develop; it would have to be endorsed by the public and accepted almost unanimously. Any dissention among the public would quickly create differing opinions, which in itself is against the 1984 way. These changes would also be, in effect, the people signing over their free thought, which I believe NO group of people on Earth would willingly do. The populace would never allow such changes to happen to society. People may be ignorant, but they are not stupid. Eventually, the people would see the changes that were taking place in the government. At this point, people would start trying to get out of the country fast, with memories of Hitler's despotism drifting into their minds. The government would have two choices then: either show their hand and assert complete dominance or slacken their oppression and reassure the people. If they followed the former choice of action, they would not have any sort of loyalty and, quite possibly, a rebellion. Humans do not do well under oppression, and always seem to find a way out from under it; although it might take 5 or 10 years. The government would get nowhere near the zealous worship that is present in 1984. If, on the other hand, they followed the latter course and reassured the people, total control could never be reached. After the regime had shown weakness in the face of danger, the people would always know that they have the upper hand; thus the government could never get total obedience.

Paging docter Apocalypse, we are talking about a post-nuclear war scenario here.

I know that the book is supposed to be a little over-the-top, but I found it just a little too over-the-top to take seriously. Don''t get me wrong, I thought the plot was pretty good and the characters were interesting, but I couldn''t take anything more for it. It seemed the same as trying to teach a lesson on sociological reform through Sesame Street.

C''mon asands2, get your head in the game. Sesame Street is a sociologically instructive tool of the ruling oligarchy. Big Bird is nothing if not a physical metaphor for communism, and certainly Oscar the Grouch is allegorically capitalist. Sheesh, it''s like you ain''t got no learnin'' no how.

You notice Big Bird is yellow, 1 of the 2 colors of the flag of the Soviet Union.

Oscar the grouch is green for a reason. Money, envy and greed are all strong symbols of the Oscar character.

Cookie monster is blue a common color in capitalist countries'' flags. He appears cool on the outside. However, he is really simple minded, has crazed eyes and is peddling sugar, disguised as cookies, to children.

Muppets in politics, eh? Originally from here.

This has been a difficult three years for the extended Muppet family. In 2000, the company that handles the Muppets and their properties, The Jim Henson Company, was purchased by a German media firm. This firm was in fact a front for the German Neo-Nazi Party and this only became public after the Muppets working on Sesame Street refused to film a corporate-mandated sketch entitled ""Great Moments in the Life of Adolph Hitler."" In late 2001 after the tragedy of September 11, Sesame Street actor Bert was arrested by the FBI and imprisoned at Camp X-Ray at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba after photos surfaced of Bert attending a conference of al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Ladin. Then, in February 2002, Miss Piggy stunned the nation when she announced that she was seeking a legal separation from her husband Kermit the Frog. She was later seen in the arms of Kermit''s longtime friend Fozzie Bear as the two left the New York Friar''s Club. In August, in an interview with ABC''s Barbara Walters, Muppet superstar Elmo disclosed that he was fighting Attention Deficit Disorder and could only read at a first grade level. In the same Barbara walters special, Cookie Monster annouced that he had been fighting an eating-disorder for the last 30 years. In recent months, Muppet actors Ernie, Scooter, Rolf, and Big Bird all signed a petition with many other celebrities denouncing the war in Iraq. Tensions on the set of Sesame Street reached a boling point when a fight broke out between Big Bird and pro-war Muppet Oscar the Grouch. Both actors were suspended from the show and their scenes were reshot with new Sesame Street actors Dominar Rygel XVI and Pilot, both recently let go from the canceled Sci Fi Channel show Farscape.