CLASSIC BOOKS.

How many people still read the classics these days? I wonder. I know I do. But then, I grew up at a time when many of them were still being taught in our school system, and once introduced to them, I was soon off and running on my own. In school, for example, I studied Dickens's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. But outside of school, I went on to read a great many of Dickens's novels, and my own personal library contains a complete set of his works, all beautifully bound (so I handle them with care). In fact, much of the bookshelf space in my personal library is devoted to the classics, which I continue to reread and enjoy.

Nowadays, however, I often hear Dickens and others of his ilk written off as "bores," and I'm not sure today's school system (in America, at least) places nearly as much emphasis on the classics---or any at all. What I find both fascinating and incongruous about all this is that while, on the one hand, the classics seem to be increasingly relegated to yesteryear, on the other, they invariably top the lists of the best books ever written.

Recently, I came across just such a list, compiled by one hundred noted writers from fifty-four different countries. Having read many of the books on this particular list, I could agree that they belonged on it. Some, however, I haven't read. So I'm keeping this list handy, in order to try to track them down so that I can read them. I want to know why other authors thought those books belonged on this list.

I also wonder what such lists will look like in the future. Will works by authors like Homer and Virgil, for example, still appear simply because they are considered classics---or will they vanish from the ranks because readers no longer know who Homer and Virgil were and what they wrote?

What do you think? How many books on this list have you read? If you have children, how many of the books on this list do you think they have read? I'm pretty sure my son, Shane, has read one or two of them. One or two---out of a hundred. By the time I was his age (nineteen), I had read more than half of them. Granted, my son's not a reader, the way I was. But I do think he should have covered at least more than one or two of them in school, if not on his own.

Some of the books on this list have been considered great books for millennia. They have withstood the test of time. I'm not so sure, anymore, that they will continue to do so.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

GETTING TO KNOW YOU.

Read my post, Getting to Know You, today at Romancing the Blog!

VARIATIONS ON A THEME.

Those of us who, nearly thirty years ago, knew why Mira Ward was hiding in the women's room also know why, today, Bridget Jones is keeping her diary.

We've been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Yes, times have changed---but people's emotions haven't. Each new generation of romance writers brings fresh voices, but, seldom, fresh ideas to the genre, because, ultimately, whether our heroes are dangerous alpha males or nice guys who finish last, our heroines are kick-butt bombshells or the girls next door, romance has always been and will always be about finding a mate, keeping a mate, and/or, yes, losing a mate.

All the rest of it---the whos, whats, whens, wheres, whys, and hows of it---are simply variations on this age-old theme.

And what's wrong with that? Romance has crossed over into every single other genre because since time immemorial, we, as human beings, have always been able to relate both to it and to the lack of it in our own lives. Unless we are beyond the bounds of normal society, we all want to love and to be loved.

St. Valentine's Day is the time we have set aside during our year to pay tribute both to that and to all those we do love and who love us. It's an especially wonderful time for me, because not only is it St. Valentine's Day, but it's also the day my son, Shane, was born (Happy Birthday, Shane!) and the day my husband, John, proposed (I said "Yes" to him five years ago, and if I had it all to do over again, I'd say "Yes" to him now!).

Romance runs the gamut of emotions---from thrilling high-school crushes to agonizing broken hearts. In the end, whether we are the wiser for it, we are inevitably the richer. It really is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

On this St. Valentine's Day and every day, I hope you all have romance in your lives!

BUILDING CASTLES IN THE ETHERNET.

Today at Romancing the Blog, Larissa Ione has an interesting and entertaining post on blogs as one's home. I hadn't really thought about a blog in those particular terms before, and I wondered why, because when I originally set out to design my Web site, that was exactly how I thought about it: as a virtual home---albeit one with a twist, since I could make it anything I wanted. What fun! I immediately chose a castle because I love castles. I've spent countless hours wandering around old castles in the British Isles and enjoyed every minute of it, whether the castles were still homes, like Windsor Castle, or were standing in ruins.

I also adore design and decorating (one of my favorite TV channels is HGTV), and I had a great time going through photos of old castles and other sites, choosing those that would portray the rooms and locations in my virtual home. So maybe the reason I didn't think of my blog as an online "home" is because I already had one of those, and my blog was, to me, simply another room in it.

The other day, I read a post somewhere, in which a reader was complaining about authors not updating their Web sites often enough. Several things struck me about that: (1) I like my castle the way it is. Yes, I periodically "redecorate," changing rooms and sites to make them more attractive and/or to function more smoothly. But basically, I'm pretty happy with what I now have. (2) My castle has, over the years, grown to be quite large. So it would take an awful lot of time (which I don't have) and work to constantly refurbish the entire castle. Certain rooms and locations do get updated much more often than others. But that's because they have content that needs changing on a fairly regular basis. (3) I'm not a prolific author, so I don't have new books coming out every single month---and if I don't have a new book scheduled for release just shortly, there's not a great deal for me to update with.

Three is the reason for two. I don't expect visitors to my castle to be able to see it all in one go---or even two or three (although some do). So in the past, I've tried to keep enough content at my castle that returning visitors could be entertained by rooms and sites they hadn't yet seen.

To some extent, my blog has changed that. Now, readers (and other visitors) can find something new at my castle whenever I've posted to my blog.

Even though my blog employs a stock template, I've customized it so that it fits with the rest of my castle. Other authors, however, have made their own blogs look completely different from their Web sites, so that one is not an extension of the other. It's all a matter of preference---and I like everything at my Web site to coordinate with my castle theme.

Do I really live in a castle? No---and I wouldn't want to, either. Just imagine having to clean all those rooms! *g* But I've had as much fun creating my virtual castle as I've had wandering around all those real castles in the British Isles. I hope you have fun at my castle and reading my blog, too!

REVISITING RAND---THE LAST ROMANTIC?

This week was the centennial of the birth of author Ayn Rand, who wrote, among other books, the famous novels THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED. I've read both several times and consider them utterly brilliant. Many people, however, would disagree---for Rand's work engendered nothing if not controversy. On February 2, 2005, the New York Times's Edward Rotherstein noted: "It is still possible, more than 20 years after her death, to find readers choosing sides: those who see her as a subtle philosopher pitted against those who see her as a pulp novelist with pretensions."

So which was Rand? Rotherstein is right: that all still depends on whom one asks.

Rand's philosophy, on its face, was simple, and she stated it succinctly: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

But this state of being is anything but simple to attain. Perhaps, ultimately, it is impossible here on Earth. For no matter how hard we strive to ensure otherwise, there will undoubtedly always be those who are villains, those who want to gain their happiness at the expense of others' own, those who don't achieve anything themselves and scorn the achievements of others, and those who insist on flying in the face of reason.

Thus, Rand is viewed by many as a Romantic, looking for Utopia. But although that assessment is often meant critically, I myself wonder why anyone, including Rand, should be criticized for setting high, even impossible, goals. Would we all be better off to aim for the mud instead of the stars? As parents, do we want our children to be the worst or the best they can be? Must an egalitarian society inevitably be a mediocre one?

I don't know the answer to this last question. I don't believe anyone does. Since time immemorial, philosophers, writers, and others have struggled with it, including Rand.

Maybe, in the end, the struggle itself is enough. For if we are still struggling with the question, then we still have dreams of a perfect world. To cease the struggle is to settle for the world we already have and to accept that all its imperfections are permanent.

And then, perhaps, Atlas will indeed shrug.