Pages

Sunday, 3 May 2026

My 10 favourite literary works

A list of the 10 literary works I think about, or revisit, most often: 

  • The Iliad 
  • The Odyssey 
  • King Lear 
  • Othello 
  • Shakespeare’s Sonnets 
  • Don Quixote 
  • War and Peace
  • Anna Karenina 
  • Moby-Dick 
  • Mansfield Park


This looks quite basic, does it? But the central figures of my personal canon do happen to be Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, so I can’t pretend they’re not, just to avoid being called pretentious. 

I refuse to choose between the Iliad and the Odyssey, the same way I refuse to choose between War and Peace and Anna Karenina

2 epic poems, 2 plays, 1 sonnet sequence, 5 novels (4 of which are over 700 pages). 2 in ancient Greek, 5 in the English language (4 English and 1 American), 1 in Spanish, 2 in Russian. 2 from the 8th century BC, 4 from the 17th century, 4 from the 19th century. All Western. 9 written by men.

If you have been reading my blog and/or my tweets, I’m sure I’ve been annoying enough about these works for any choices to be a surprise. Maybe the Sonnets, as I don’t blog about them, but I do revisit them often—there’s a Shakespeare sonnet for every mood (I went out yesterday and on the way home thought of Sonnet 34—guess what happened). The only surprises, I guess, are the exclusions of Greek tragedies (couldn’t pick one) and Chekhov’s stories (what do you do with short stories on such a list?)—a longer list of my personal canon would include Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, The Tale of Genji, all of Shakespeare, Molière, the (dirty) poems of Hồ Xuân Hương, Tom Jones, Hong lou meng (better known as Dream of the Red Chamber or Story of the Stone), Wuthering Heights, Charles Dickens, John Keats, Madame Bovary, The Brothers Karamazov, the plays of Henrik Ibsen (especially The Wild Duck and Rosmersholm), the short stories of Akutagawa, the short stories of Flannery O’Connor, The Metamorphosis (Kafka), Invisible Man, Lolita, Pnin, the poems of Hàn Mặc Tử (especially Đau thương), etc. 

The only thing that bothers me, which is perhaps irrational, is that my literary tastes are strongly Western. I am Vietnamese, I can read well two languages (my Norwegian isn’t on the same level), I spent years promoting East Asian classics, but in the end, my favourite 18th century novel is still Tom Jones, not Hong lou meng; my favourite female writer is still Jane Austen, not Murasaki Shikibu; the central figures of my personal canon are still Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, not Nguyễn Du… Japanese cinema may be the one I know and love the best after English-language cinema, but in literature, my tastes are markedly Western. 

Does this mean I have lost my roots? Mất gốc? (The Vietnamese phrase carries much harsher overtones). 

I suppose the main thing is that I’m most fascinated by human nature and the human mind, and most interested in characters, which is probably also why I much prefer the Greeks to the Romans (you probably have noticed, with horror, the absence of Virgil and Ovid on my personal canon). Generally, Japanese writers—at least the ones I have read—don’t seem to explore the complexities and contradictions and irrationalities of people as we see in Western literature. Their characters are more opaque, even impressionistic; on the one hand, Japanese novels convey that sense of human mystery, the sense that we can never truly know another human being, which I like; but on the other hand, the characters also feel less alive, and don’t leave deep impressions on my mind like Akhilleus, Cleopatra, or Andrei Bolkonsky. The characters in Hong lou meng in comparison are alive, especially Shi Xiangyun (Sử Tương Vân) and Weng Xifeng (Vương Hy Phượng), but they don’t have the depth and complexity of Elektra, Hamlet, or Anna Karenina, and frankly I think Cao Xueqin takes a lot more pages to give life to a character (which Shakespeare can do in five words: “I was adored once too”). 

I’m also not much of a poetry person, despite liking the little I have read of Donne, Keats, Bùi Giáng, etc. I have The Oxford Book of English Verse, and lately have been slowly getting through The Oxford Book of Sonnets, trying to be less of a philistine, but unfortunately still have a strong taste for narratives and characters. My favourite poet (restricting to only those I can read in the original) is therefore a dramatic poet (and before you ask, I read Shakespeare’s sonnets as dramatic monologues, not autobiographical pieces). 

(If I were pretentious, as some people might call me, I would pretend to love poetry, but I acknowledge my failing).  

My tastes are also predominantly classic. When I first got into literature properly, I was mostly reading the 20th century, then slowly went further back, and further back. Over the years, those 20th century novels for some reason haven’t had a lasting impression, haven’t been part of my mental furniture—I barely remember much of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or Toni Morrison. But it’s not just because I read them in my late teens and early 20s, not just because I read them before finding my favourite writers—since my discovery of Tolstoy, Shakespeare, and others, I have read and enjoyed modern books only for them to have caused nothing but a few ripples in my mind—I haven’t found myself thinking about Muriel Spark, R. K. Narayan, or Soseki, for example. Even Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead, which I read only last September and considered highly, has left no imprints. Shouldn’t they resonate more, being more recent? But they don’t, and I don’t know why. My favourite 20th century writer right now is possibly Primo Levi, but that’s non-fiction. 

It’s curious which works of literature speak to us and haunt our minds. 

23 comments:

  1. If you haven’t given Proust a try, you should. There are a number of translations, but recently I looked into the Oxford Classics one, and it was good enough to tempt me back into another read. If you haven’t tried, try again!

    Another recommendation: A Dance to the Music of Time by Anthony Powell, if only for the remarkable and obnoxious Kenneth Widmerpool.

    If you haven’t looked at On the Calculation of Volume (Solve Balle), do. Its original language is Danish but given that you know Norwegian it might engage you. Otherwise there’s the English translation.

    Finally, I suggest Life and Fate by Anthony Grossman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Harmon,
      I have read the first 2 books of Proust.
      The blog posts are under the Marcel Proust tag:
      https://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/search/label/Marcel%20Proust
      I have read not only Life and Fate but also Everything Flows by Vasily Grossman.
      You can check the labels/ tags in the column on the right.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the pointers. I found your observations on Proust very interesting and helpful, to the point where I regret that you seem to have stopped with volume 2, or at least not posted on the remaining volumes. I plan to follow up on all the Proust tags.

      Delete
    3. Harmon,
      Thanks for the tip on Ko-fi.
      I didn't exactly stop with Volume 2, I will continue reading the rest of Proust, just haven't done so because other plans got in the way. I think one has to get in the mood for Proust.

      Delete
  2. I was surprised not to see Genji or Red Chamber in your top ten, but as you say, the competition is immensely strong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I did address that in the blog post.

      Delete
  3. That’s a formidable list you have. I’m retired so have more time for reading nowadays. Still catching up on many of the great writers I missed reading during my working years. Currently I’m making my way slowly through George Eliot’s novels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great.
      I've read 3 of George Eliot's novels, and part of another, which I think is enough for now. Which ones have you read and are reading?

      Delete
    2. I’ve read Middlemarch, Daniel Deronda and am now reading Mill in the River Floss. Any good film adaptations you’d recommend?

      Delete
    3. The 1994 Middlemarch series is quite good.

      Delete
  4. Hello, this is John again, I'm late again but I want to give my thoughts to this post since I found it interesting. (I also apologized beforehand for the scatter brain topic >_<)

    I agree with you on the Japanese having less characterisation than western works, I just finished Kawabat's snow country an hour ago and love the prose, yet the main character feels kinda static and passive (I read in a comment that he resembles a woody allen self insert? Don't know how true this is since I haven't watch a woody allen film), it captures the mist and moodiness of a distant world and yet I have a hard time remembering any of the characters (I swear, there were moments where I couldn't tell who was talking because they all talk in such a similar speech pattern), maybe it’s that kinda “simplicity is more” philosophy in eastern asia work that cause so little characterization (Though I don’t meant that as a bad thing, The work of Dai Dunbang isn’t as detailed as someone like Sean Layhs but it is still beautiful)

    I suppose I'll also chime in at the fact that I have similar problems with consuming too much western work and yet was born and raised in the east. I have never even stepped foot in any western countries, yet all the poetry and novels I read have been the child of a European country ( or at least some part of America). I chalk it up to the fact that I consume too much art/videos in English and haven't consumed much in my native tongue.

    I’m glad you enjoyed the Illiad but I found the battle scenes so repetitive (Though the ending really was beautiful), the odyssey i enjoyed more, but the ending is lackluster to me with Zeus just stopping a revolt after Oddyseus and telemachus killing all the suitor)

    You say you are not a poetry person, have you read Li Qing Zhao? Maybe she can get you into poetry, she's the only Chinese author that I would rank as high as Cao Quexin in terms of moving me.

    You also say 20th century literature hasn't made a lasting impression on you, have you read George Saunder's short story? He's one of the few writer from the (later!) 20th/21st century whose books have actually stuck with me after I closed them (and certainly, I place his works much (Much!) higher than Nabokov) I Should also probably recommend a Michael Chabon’s novel and Patrick O’brian’s Aubrey and Maturin series* since both have been much revered and both has earned the moniker of the greatest writer of their time (at least in the circle i move in), but since I haven't finished any one of his novels, I'll have to give a reserve rec at this)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also this might be intrusive, but I wanted to share it, so here's my ten (12!) favorite literary work
      -Cao Quexin's Dream of the red mansion
      -Chekhov's The bet/About love/Gooseberries
      -Par Lagerkvist's The Dwarf
      -Aeschylus 's promethian bound
      -Eichiro Oda's one piece (At least the first half)
      -George Saunder's Civilwarland in Bad Decline
      -Njal Saga by the anonymous author
      -Melancholia by Sayman Douman
      -KakuKaku Shikajika by Akihiko Higashimura
      -The King James Bible (I can't escape it)
      -Real by Takehiko Inoue
      -War and Peace by Tolstoy (I changed my mind)

      There's a bunch of classics that I didn't include, I didn't place Mann's magic mountain, (I love the ending but don't know if I can stomach reading the middle part again), Proust's In Search of Lost Time I once considered my favorite book of all time until I try to reread it and couldn't deal trying to wrestle with his prose again. War and Peace is one of the few novels that made me sit down and read 100-200 pages per sitting, but am still frustrated by the sudden ending. Dante, Jane Austen, Vyadya and the anonymous author of the tale of the heike are probably better author than the one I listed, but it would insincere if I place them as high in my personal canon)

      I was tempted to place Osamu Tezuka's Message to Adolf since it's one of the few books that have actually stuck with me, but realized it may be more because of the ending.

      P.S.: Been reading Boswell's biography of Johnson alongside Suetonius's biography of the twelve caesars. I don't know if you're interested in the first, but would recommend the second since you're already reading a lot of roman works (It's fun! It really is!)

      p.p.s Winnie the pooh by A. A. Miles should've been no 13. Couldn't believe I forgot about that, Tintin in tibet should've also been no 14, Beckett too….Too many! Too many authors!

      Delete
    2. John,
      Check out my blog posts on Kawabata. I don't see much similarity between him and Woody Allen's films though.
      Have you seen Naruse's adaptation of The Sound of the Mountain? I think it's better than the book.
      Your list is interesting. So the only thing we have in common is War and Peace.
      Did you say you're from Indonesia?

      Delete
    3. Hello, late as always, here’s my replies

      On the topic of blogpost about Kawabata

      I have! It was a good blog post and the reason I came back here >^<

      On Woody Allen

      Just watched Annie Hall. I sorta get it but don't. I think there's a section in the novel (before part 2) where the main character saw a man leaving a woman and thought how sad it was. that felt very woody allen neurotic-ish

      On Sound of the mountain

      I haven't watched sound of the mountain when I wrote the previous comment, and now I have.

      It's pretty good, the blocking and cinematography were extremely striking with very precise set design that reminded me of Ozu's work (Apparently they were friends?)The only part that I felt was jarring was that sometimes the screen would just get extremely blurry like the lens is out of focus. (example: https://imgur.com/a/PotKOus )

      there's also random shot that don't match with the next. There's a part near the end, where Shingo was sitting down to hear Kinuko's explanation and the next shot we see of him, he was already standing ( https://imgur.com/a/syUnjcg )

      It has the usual Kawabata kinks (Passive main character, conflicts that happen off screen, affairs and love triangle, etc),

      It also has the usual tone of rambling and indirectness for the first hundred minutes/pages of the story before suddenly having something revelatory happen (Kikuko revealing she has an abortion here, and shimamura leaving the geisha house/ the theatre burning in Snow Country)

      The only difference I thought was that the ending was better done here, Snow Country kinda just ends, but with this at least it has some sort of build up.

      The only other annoyance I had is that Kinuko and Kikuko had so similar of a name that I thought they were the same person and kept getting confused (I'm guessing this is intentional as to show.....Kinuko being similar to Kikuko? That they both had the same displeasure of being with shinnici? Not quite sure to be honest-maybe there's an explanation out there) Even in writing this comment I mixed up Kikuko's name with Kinuko

      I haven't read Kawabata's original Sound of Mountain but from a quick glance of Wikipedia it felt more meandering than even the film? (lol), I have to read it one of these days to confirm.

      (Also the ending reminds me of the ending of the third man, where both are set in a park with symmetrical trees (Wonder if there's inspiration there?)


      P.s.: Yes I’m from Indonesia >^<

      Delete
  5. P.P.S: I forgot about this, but in the last paragraph you asked why modern authors don’t touch you as much as those of the past. My answer is a bit pretentious, but I suspect it’s because the authors you listed aren't actually the best authors of their time. This is a bit presumptuous on my part since I haven’t read most of the writers you mention, but I do feel this is the case. You said Tolstoy is your favorite author, but you have not read the 20th century equivalent of Tolstoy (William Gaddis, Michael Chabon, Tanizaki’s Makioka Sisters (I know you read nettle, but this is better), Thomas Mann,etc), the 20th century equivalent of Jane Austen (Patrick O’Brian), or Chekhov (George Saunders).

    You also say that The odyssey, and the Iliad are your favorite books, and all the works of Shakespeare have touched you, and yet you have not explored the modern fantasy and science fiction genre! This is baffling considering Shakespeare and Homer are science fiction and fantasy authors (It should also be mentioned that the 20th century fantasy/science fiction have been the most experimental and risk taking in the field of literature at the time- See Gene Wolfe, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and Ted Chiang for example- Certainly they all took more risks than so-called “realist” novelists at the time!)

    Certainly all of this is speculation and presumption on my part, but there is truth to it! (Make of that what you will!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is not entirely true.
      I've read some of the most highly acclaimed writers of the 20th century: Proust, Kafka, Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner...
      Also read a few Japanese writers.
      I'm not gonna read The Makioka Sisters anytime soon, as I've been put off Tanizaki since Naomi. Vile book, left a disgusting taste in my mouth.
      Shakespeare is not sci-fi or fantasy. Look at the list of Shakespeare plays I like. My taste is for the dark plays: tragedies and problems play, then history plays, then comedies and late romances (with the exception of The Winter's Tale).
      I don't like sci-fi films. Somehow my brain just switches off with them, so sci-fi books are definitely not gonna be my thing.

      Delete
    2. Among your recommendations, I think the ones on my (very) long list are Thomas Mann and Patrick O'Brien.
      Is George Sanders better than Alice Munro? I see Alice Munro compared to Chekhov more often.

      Delete
    3. And now I’m replying to this comment

      On acclaimed authors


      Than you proven my point Miss DI! For out of those 5 authors you mention, only two (In my opinion) have matched their prestige (Proust and Woolf), all three others have been middling to downright awful. Nabokov and Faulkner are two of the most overrated authors of the 20th century. Faulkner's success is 100% because no American author of the time could even reach 1/4 of the talent the Europeans had (I.e. Thomas Mann, Proust, Musil,, etc), nor those from the other part of the world (Borges, lu xun) the fact that his only competition was Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Steinbeck already tells you that the bar was low.

      Of these three middling authors, Kafka is the best one, but even his works is second rate compared to the best the century have to offer. His characters don't talk like humans, his plotting is aimless* and the moment of brilliance in his writing only came in the ending. His humour is droll and unending, and his view of the world is small.

      Nabokov is especially egregious, his thesaurus-like writing style is completely rigid and is boring after the first 5 pages. I can forgive this if he can write characters or plot well (Which of course, he can't!), all of this is even more insulting when we remember that Nabokov is claimed as the greatest prose stylist of the 20th century**, a claim so over exaggerated and stupid when we remember that Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun was released in the same century, and is more ambitious, more well plotted and has more thought than any Nabokov's novel. The only reason for Nabokov 's success was because he was more of an outspoken critic who kept giving controversial opinions or write controversial books.

      And yet Faulkner might be worse, with his repetitive exercise in style and uninteresting point of view.

      The only redeeming things about these three authors I could say is that their nonfiction works are quite good (Nabokov and Faulkner's lecture are pretty decent, which makes us wonder why they even become authors and not just english teachers- and of course Kafka's letter to his father is also very good)

      But the fact that all of these authors are so "acclaimed" only proves how awful the taste of "serious" American literature critics at the time (and still is!)

      *Though, to be fair, I can accept aimless plotting if the characters are great and complex, or subdued and beautiful.
      **Nabokov isn't even the greatest Russian writer of his time let alone the 20th century!***
      ***See Ivan Bunin

      Delete
    4. On Tanizaki

      hmmm, I see, though I understand the want to not read him, I would still recommend Makioka Sisters, considering out of all the 20th century Japanese writers, I do feel Tanizaki's Makioka Sister is the most ambitious and the most successful

      (However if you're still offput, I'll recommend either Eiji Yoshikawa's Taiko or Musashi, since it resembles the monthly serialized novel of the 19th century and reached the- almost- same quality)

      On Shakespeare not being science fiction and fantasy

      How odd! Shakespeare isn't science fiction you say? Then what about the part in Midsummer's night dream where Oberon and puck scheme to give titania a love potion? Isn't love potion a science fiction (and fantasy) concept? After all with the advancement of medicine and drugs, love potion are basically in the realm of science! (See Molly for reference)

      And what about the part where puck invades the human world and torments the actors trying to get by? Isn't that a science fiction concept? Replace Puck with an alien and the story is no different!

      What about the part where Puck transforms Nick Bottom's head to that of a mule? Fantasy at the time of Shakespeare but in science fiction in our time, afterall is not this transformation not much different than the transformation Moreau did to the creature in Well's The Island of Doctor Moreau?

      And to say Shakespeare isn’t fantasy! Why, did you see any ghosts as those in Hamlet? Any witches like in Macbeth? Any gods as those in Venus and Adonis or any other number of strange creatures in his other works. But fine, King Lear doesn't have a fantasy element, and neither does Othello, but does that imply he isn't writing fantasy? Of course not!

      all literature, pre 1800's, have used some kind of science fiction/ fantasy concept. (The odyssey has a walking automaton, Paradise Lost and the bible has angels but they may as well all be aliens, every single story that has Gods or God that could be read as a science fiction world building exercise, Lucian is just scifi)

      And I will ask why you think, you must point out what you liking dark plays have to do with this. That fantasy couldn’t be dark? You place Sophocles in your list of canon and the story of Oedipus involved a seer telling Oedipus that he will rape his mother and kill his father, a quiet dark story don’t you think? And all with a fantasy* bend!

      The only reason people say these aren’t fantasy is that they’re speculative fiction (A differential so miniscule that it is almost laughable that people try to separate the two definition)

      (*Tell me a real life seer and I will believe that this story isn’t fantasy!)

      Delete
    5. On not liking Scifi films

      Very well, you don't like sci fi films, but let me ask a question, have any so called "classics" that have been adapted have made you actually want to read the novels they're based on? Have any, spark the same genius as those original work? No? Then why should watching scifi films stop you from reading sci fi books! You say you don't like scifi books just because you don't like scifi films but complain all the time that adaptations never capture the original's brilliance!* If that's the case, isn’t it disingenuous to say you wouldn’t like scifi books if you haven’t even tried the original source?

      *Except those that can be counted in one hand!

      On Munro and Saunders

      George Saunders is not only better than Munro, he is the best short story author of the last 50 years. Munro is so abashedly uninteresting and repetitive that comparing her to Saunders is almost insulting. The fact she is compared by critics to Chekhov and Tolstoy is so wrongheaded and stupid that any critics that have said this should be stripped of any credibility and be mocked to death.

      p.s.: Though I suppose I should mention that Saunders is more compared to Gogol, and that’s probably why critics keep comparing Munro to Chekhov (Even if it is completely moronic), however I feel more emotion closer to Chekhov in Saunders than In Munro. So I should point that out.

      (This is comment is far too long, and for that I apologize)

      Delete
    6. John,
      I was going to respond to each of your points, but considering your rude and aggressive tone, now I won't.

      Delete
    7. Listen miss Di, I wasn't trying to be rude, honest to god I edited the comment above three times, and made it as polite as possible and only add the exclamation point to make it entertaining to read. (I reread my comment again and check to make sure and genuiely don't know how to make it more polite)

      I can accept aggresion, but the only reason I was aggresive is that you said something as dumb as Shakespeare isn't fantasy. (I'm sorry if this is impolite, but I don't know how else to put it)

      Delete
    8. Some of Shakespeare's plays have magical and mythological elements. To call his plays fantasy is a leap. To then say that a Shakespeare fan must read fantasy novels (a modern genre extremely different from mythology, fairy tales, and ghost stories) is a very big leap. And frankly, to use the word sci-fi for Shakespeare, and assert that a Shakespeare fan must read sci-fi, is stupid.
      All of your comments on my blog so far have been incoherent, confused, sometimes even absurd. I have indulged you enough, as once in a while you made a good point or had an interesting remark buried somewhere in the confused mess. But now you are extremely rude, condescending, aggressive, and I have no interest in any further conversation.
      All the comments you wrote are to remain here, for others to see how ridiculous and ill-mannered you are. Later comments will be immediately deleted. You are no longer welcome.

      Delete

Be not afraid, gentle readers! Pick a name and share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).