Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
A few comments in another thread, specifically mentioning War and Peace and Moby Dick, got me thinking about books that people don’t really believe anyone could like, and if someone does say they liked it or think it’s good, much less great, they’re clearly both lying and pretentious.
I enjoyed both weighty tomes mentioned myself, but I grant that I see the argument. It seems to me that books that qualify share the characteristics of being lengthy, difficult, boring and (dare I say it?) classic. I’m trying to come up with my own list. Finnegan’s Wake is probably on it; I’ve never really tried to read it and I did like Ulysses, but when I think of reading FW for pleasure my mind just can’t go there.
So what’s on your list of great books not even an author’s mother could wade through?
|
This is how some folk treat Marcel Proust’s
In Search of Lost Time (
Remembrance of Things Past). Wonderful book but mention it and you risk setting off a poseur alert (the set response seems to be “Ah but have you read it in French?” which seems to be the sovereign remedy for Proust poseurs). The text is demanding but not “difficult” in the same way as
Ulysses. He often uses long complex sentences but only when he has complex realities to capture, such as subtleties of feeling. The response was frustrating because I would have loved to talk to people who shared my excitement about this masterwork.
Moby Dick is truly great (I’ll always remember the mattress stuffed with “corn cobs or broken crockery”) but novels were different then, the author felt the liberty to digress, each chapter novella-length in today’s world.
Here Comes Everybody by Anthony Burgess is a great way into
Ulysses and
Finnegans Wake.