Great Books... that you just could not finish

Have you ever been excited to read a "great" book, only to find out you simply can not finish it? After a long period of read a little... put it down for longer... read a little... put it down for longer... I simply gave up on Les Miserables. It was the complete, unabridged version which was translated by someone I fogot. Anyway, despite it being a wonderful and important book, I simply had 0 desire to finish it (I got about 3/4 through it). I honestly think that had I been reading the original in French, I likely would have finished it, but I can't read French very well, so that was not an option. The other book that I (more or less) did finsih, although I only remember honestly about 1/2 of it, is War and Peace.

I typically enjoy important and somewhat lengthy books. For example, I thought Moby Dick absolutely thrilling, even though many people I know simply have no desire to read it. Still, I figure we all have our Waterloo somewhere :)

Quite a few actually. What is worse (?) is I force myself to complete, even if I would rather be at the dentist getting a root canal! Luckily, that does not happen often. Sometime my mood just does not fit the book at the time; I put it down and come back to it in a week or so.

I'm partial to great cult classics, hence my interest was piqued by 'Memoirs of a Midget' by Walter de la Mare. It's a doorstopper of a book but I was game for the challenge. I lasted maybe 100 pages before putting it on indefinite hiatus. One of the rare times I feel like I can actually come back to a book years later and not need a refresher...because so little happened!

Not that I need pulp fiction pacing, but good grief did I feel like watching paint dry would have been more fulfilling. I honestly felt no connection to the material, which was upsetting having gone into it with the best of intentions. I rarely put anything down, but this was just brutal. Such an intriguing premise, unbearable execution (for this reader).

Any fans of that work to offer a counter?

2: do give particular titles please :)

I must admit I struggled with Les Misérables and could not wait to get out of the sewers, but I pressed on despite being very, very tempted to just shelve it with a couple of hundred pages to go.

Another one I struggled my way through was one of my recent reads, Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth ... I found it absolutely dreadful, but did finish it.

There is only one book (so far) that I have not managed to get through: John Banville's The Sea. I have attempted it twice but never made it past page 50 or thereabouts. I haven't shelved it, but left it "pending" as I hope to get through it one day. It is not even a very long book, so I don't know what makes me give up each time.

On The Road. It isn't a difficult read or anything, but about 50 pages in I realized I had absolutely no desire to read on. Interestingly, my wife said the exact same thing and stopped at about the exact same page.

I was quite fond of Swann's Way but then inexplicably decided to stop reading In Search of Lost Time about 200 pages into the second volume. I think I just got tired of reading about how people behave at various get togethers. The next thing I read after that was The Monk--a glorious follow up that went down like a cold glass of water. Or rather, like jumping into a cold pool after sitting in a sauna for awhile.

The birth of my first son interrupted The Brothers Karamazov about 150 pages in, but that was a completely different situation. I picked it back up about a year later, finished it, and loved every minute of it.

As I am currently working my way through the '1001 Books to Read Before you Die' (93/1001 if anyone is interested!) I'm finding myself obliged to read a whole variety of 'classics', many of which I've really struggled with.

Of course in order to complete my mammoth task I am obliged to finish all 1001, and to be quite honest my autistic tendencies lead me to finish all books I start anyway but without doubt the hardest was Rob Roy. I thought this would be a tale of adventure as we pursued an outlaw in his quest to rid Scotland of corrupt English lords but instead it's mostly about a cowardly merchant's son who spends most of the novel hiding in his hotel room wetting himself! I love Walter Scott but for the life of me I have no idea why this is one of his more popular works!

The next hardest has to have been Heart of Darkness, I picked this one up honestly thinking that, at less than 100 pages, it would be a nice quick one to tick off the list. I was completely wrong, the whole thing was indecipherable, pretentious and downright unpleasant.

Still my quest continues with The Once and Future King which I feel will be less of a drag than those I mentioned above.

I loved Shadow of the Wind but had a hard time finishing its prequel Angel's Game. I promised myself that I would finish it but it was so long and the characters and story so uninteresting.

I great a translation of Les Misérables in high school that I enjoyed reading and I just breezed through it. I have no idea if it was abridged, but the it was easy for me to read. On the other hand I slogged through Crime and Punishment, but I did finish it. However, it turned me of on or Dostoyevsky and I have never read anything else he wrote. The one book I actually stopped reading for over a decade was Lord Foul's Bane by Stephen R. Donaldson. When I finally gave it another try I was able to finish it, but I think he is a far too wordy writer.

I struggle more with contemporary titles than "classics". I couldn't through Lempriere's Dictionary. But I also cheated a little with the second epilogue of War and Peace. Tolstoy was beginning to sound like a broken tape recorder by that point. However, I usually do try to finish books, even the ones I don't exactly enjoy. I agree frame of mind plays a role in it. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for certain books.

I finished The Once and Future King, but I found most bits quite a drag. It was disappointing because I loved The Sword in the Stone.

>9 LucasTrask: I enjoyed the first three Thomas Covenent books, but struggled with the next three (although I did finish them).

>9 LucasTrask:, I remember in high school hating Crime and Punishment. Returned to it 20 years later and it became (and remains) one of my favorites. I think many books just require some serious life experience under one's belt to fully feel the love for the book.

I gave up on Ulysses when I got to the last chapter. It is the worst book I have ever read.

FUnny you say about C&P - which is one of my all time favourite books. I read it when in my 20s and hiking in Nepal and found it a slog, but have since read it twice more in my 30s and late 40s and thought it amazingly.

Middlemarch by George Eliot is a book that I struggle to finish - I have picked it up many times but not got more than half through.

At age twelve, I took on the big one -- The Holy Bible. Somehow I got through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Judges, Ruth -- no problem. Samuel, Check. Kings, check. Then I hit First Chronicles and its opening nine chapters of genealogy. Then it started repeating Samuel and Kings. So I started hopscotching and never looked back.

>13 Tom41:, you reminded me, agree that one killed me!

I agree that contemporary "classics" are more challenging for me to get through: rather high on the list is Gravity's Rainbow. I also gave up on Love in the Time of Cholera, but that may have been a time when I was very impatient with most things, so I shall have to try it again. St. John's Perse's Anabasis was very put-downable, but I suspect in the original French is the only way to read it. Likewise, Celine's Death on the Installment Plan.

When it comes to the older classics, I know my own tastes well enough to have never attempted things like the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes' Leviathan, Marx's Capital, Aristotle's Politics, and Spengler. I'm sure they have many supporters, but I don't care to invest the time in something when the TBR pile is so loaded with things I want to read, and there are those works to which I return frequently--Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austen, Smollett and Sterne.

I can't immediatley think of any classics I have not finished but I have read the first 50 pages or so of some books (eg Ulysses) several times before getting into them and finsihing. Sometimes a great notion is another I had to have several goes at before getting past about 60 pages. By the time i finished it, I absolutely loved it. I confess that for Les Miserables and War and Peace I tend to skim-read the sections where the authors muse on philosophy etc. After all reading is meant to be pleasurable! I am currently reading/struggling with Swann's Way. I am enjoying it but it requires such concentration that after 25 pages or so I need a break with another book.

The Magic Mountain has come close to fulfilling the requirement for this thread. Suffered a number of interruptions along the way.

Most of the books in this thread have been longer ones, for which it's pretty understandable not to finish very quickly. I've been havign trouble with much shorter books recently.

As I've said elsehwre on LT I'm really struggling with Empire of the Sun but I'm not sure why. It's well written and pretty interesting, the language isn't difficult... but somehow it's very hard to read.

Even At The Back of the North Wind was a great effort for me to finish recently, it just had no momentum whatsoever. All the interesting stuff was at the beginning and the end, with the middle full of literary fluff (with the occasional great passage).

I've never managed to finish anythign by William Burroughs, but it's debatable whether he is 'great'.

I've also had to put the Sea of Fertility quartet on indefinite hold, the writing is great but reading it at length is like wading through treacle.

> 19 I had forgotten about The Magic Mountain - I have got about one third of the way through it on two occasions. Maybe next time I will make it to half way!

20: I didn't have a problem with At The Back of the North Wind. I thought it was a great read. I will say that as a character, Diamond was one-dimensional and boring. His adventures were interesting, but he was meant to embody the ideal of a Victorian child, hence he is anything but how a child really is. Despite this, I actually really enjoyed the book.

>15 jburlinson:

Despite a few attempts, I have never managed to read all of the Bible, either. I even got one of those "read the Bible in a year" books that promised to lead me by the hand through the book, but that didn't last long either. Aside from religion, I love some of the writing, especially in the Book of Psalms, King James version.

I am a moody reader -- there are a lot of cases when I won't be able to get into a book at all and then on revisiting I will love it. Some books might take more than one cycle (I think I started The Mill on the Floss at least 5 times before I managed to read it and like it) but I am yet to give up on a book.

As for being disappointed from classic books - there had been some through the years. In a lot of cases, I would return to them in a few years and like them a lot more the second time around. Emile Zola for example - I suspect I was way too young the first time I tried it... when I reread Germinal and Nana a few years ago, they actually worked for me. There might had been the language thing here playing up - the first time I read one of the them in Russian, the other in Bulgarian while the second time I read them in English).

And there is the language thing. I cannot get myself to read any of the Russian classics in English. I tried a few times and I hated them - switching to Russian made me love them. It's the same for the French ones - I hated most of them in Russian/Bulgarian and I like them a lot more in English. Part of it is the translations themselves but part of it is the language structure and the society structure I suspect -- when I read Zola in Russian/Bulgarian, I try to compare to the Russians... and it does not work very well. Switching to English gets me to compare unconsciously to British authors and this somehow works better. Or maybe it is just a question of being used to something and hitting them in a given language at the time when they would have worked for me in any language. On the other hand, I almost never had issues reading English authors in Bulgarian (or Russian).

>24 AnnieMod:

As a personal rule, I won't put a book down to read another once I've started. Otherwise, I'll never pick it up again. The Mill of the Floss was something I would have liked to toss out on more than one occassion, but that lovely, utterly disconcerting river boat ride with Stephen was (and still is) quite unparalleled in my mind. I'm glad I kept with it. I also enjoyed the differences and tensions among the Dodsons.

I would love to be able to read the Russians in their native language.

I had a hard time finishing Tom Jones and Don Quixote. Come to think of it, there are two I came within a few hundred pages of finishing and never did and it bothers me a bit because there is no way now I'd be able to pick up where I left off. The Tale of Genji and The Life of Samuel Johnson. That was several years ago. I'm afraid of reading Clarissa, which is one of the last giants I've set my sights on. Pamela was a struggle toward the end.

>25 DanMat:

Everyone has their own rules. If I push, I can finish any book (ask my Biology textbooks or some of the philosophy texts I had to read in high school) -- but if I push, I hate the book in most cases and it takes me a while to get back to some of these books and reread them to change my opinion. So I had worked out my own way of reading - if it had not grabbed me in 25-50 pages, I change books and that one waits for a better mood. Or better time.

>26 AnnieMod:

Absolutely--a better mood and better time. I tried Joyce's Ulysses in high school, and just couldn't get into it. It reproached me from my shelves for years afterward for not getting past the Wandering Rocks episode. Eight years ago when I was working in Dublin I started to read it, and this time really enjoyed it. Part of it was being in the city and going to the places Joyce mentions, using he book as a sort of Baedeker. Thirty plus years of reading helped as well since I could now get many of Joyce's illusions.

I'd say I got totally bogged down with King. I've read a couple of his first book (Carrie, Salmon's Lot, Shinning, Gunslinger, Firestarter, Dead Zone, Stand etc...all in a row) then I got to IT. ehhh....
It's not a bad book; easy to read, has that distinct King style, but I got stuck in the middle of it. It's not the content or anything. I find it pretty mild actually. I just don't want to read it anymore. It seems like I got allergy from an overload of SK. Now, every time I pick up any of his books, I am absolutely repulsed by them. I did read Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon a few months ago, but that was ok because it was short. I dread every time I walk by my SK book shelf and look over all the other (still unread) titles on it. I ask myself; 'will I ever read them?', I just don't know.

>27 Django6924:

I read Ulysses in Bulgarian when they managed to finally translate it - even though I was reading quite well in English by that time, it just was...a bit too scary. And I liked it. I think I will try it in English one of those days - for the shear poetry of the language and the way with words - I am known for not having troubles reading even thrillers after I know how they end so knowing the book won't spoil it for me.

And you are right for something else as well - sometimes you need to have read quite a lot of books to be able to enjoy a book. Or to be able to understand it sometimes. Too bad that these books do not have a "Do not read before you had read these" lists :)

>28 Svartalf:

Give it some time maybe? I was not touching Horror for more than 5 years at one point - even the mild and cross-genres stuff - after years of reading a lot of it. Lately I am picking up more and more of it -- it just happened gradually.

I like reading a series (or an author) in order and in a row. But I had found than for a lot of authors this does not always work - I get either bored(cozy mysteries - I love them but I can read just as many from the same series in a row) or I do not want to touch them again (Dean Koontz at the moment is one of those).

Nothing really grabs me in the first 20-50 pages anymore, so I've tried to ignore that wonderful experience of being drawn in to a story. Perhaps it's time to start relaxing the rules a bit.

Ulysses in High School? I read three books at the most! A very negligent reader, I admit.

I will say Ulysses tends to be a better experience for the maturer audience. How can one understand Oxen of the Sun without having encountered Anglo-saxon poetry, Defoe, Pepys, Gibbon, Carlyle, etc. Your trip to Dublin must have helped too! The Sirens episode almost did me in.

Savartalf, don't reproach yourself over Stephen King--I used to be a big fan when I was much, much younger and did indeed finish The Stand, It, and many more that I'm now ashamed to admit to (if only I could have that time back to re-read Dickens). Anyhow, years later, I picked up again with The Tommyknockers and couldn't get through the first 100 pages. King is such an atrocious writer! Although, in his very limited defense, he did get me used to reading long books and so, in a way, I have him to thank for my love of the Victorian triple-decker.

32: I know people who would strongly disagree with the statment "King is such an atrocious writer!" If he is such a bad writer as you claim, why has he won

American Library Association Best Books for Young Adults (2 times)
Bram Stoker Award (7 times)
British Fantasy Society Award (6 times)
Hugo Award 1982: Danse Macabre
Locus Awards (5 times)
World Fantasy Award (4 times)
and numerous others...

I admit that I've only read (so far) one King book, which was "Salem's Lot". It was good. I certainly have other novels/writers that I hold in higher esteem, but I enjoyed the book. I thought it was clever, very well written, and not just superficial horror. Underlying themes are the spread of evil and where it lurks (small towns, etc), belief, and of course forgiveness. I thought some of the dialogue was a bit goofy at times, but then again other writers of much higher literary esteem, or perhaps literary snobbery (such as Hawthorne), have even worse dialogue in my opinion. I fail to see why people give King such a quick dismissal. I think King will go down as a classic writer.

>33 astropi:

King is a genre writer. Which for the snobbery lot means automatically a bad/atrocious one :)

We've had this debate before about King. I think posterity will remember him as a very talented writer. I have been told by many whose opinions on such matters I respect that IT is a masterpiece and I'm taking it with me on my forthcoming trip to see if they exaggerate.

>35 Django6924: I think they are exaggerating.
Well, at least from my experience with that book. You see after having read 20+ of King's novels a certain pattern emerges. In fact, I would argue that his books are similar and the issues that he deal with in them are essentially the same. By no means is he a bad writer. He is pop fiction/ horror, defiantly not literature and not a classic. Think Mozart vs. Britney Spears.
Does it mean his work is bad? Of course it is not, its wonderful. Especially since you have read Salem's Lot, which in my opinion is his best work. That and the Shinning.
It's just that I think I overread him and need to cool off. So, I am happily going thorough classics such as the one I am reading right now; 'Hesiod: Theogony / Work and Days.' Now that is a wonderful piece of literature! :D

>35 Django6924:

*sigh* Good luck with that.. I am a fan and I find It tedious. I much prefer Salem's Lot. Or The Shawshank Redemption (although that one is a lot different from the standard King). Or The Long Walk. Or Thinner.

>36 Svartalf:
And why horror cannot be literature? (Sorry - could not resist - ignore it - that's not what the thread is about).

I have not read King's "It", but I have heard it is a rather long and tedious novel. Of course, I thought Les Miserables was long and tedious, and it is universally acclaimed as a masterpiece. The next King novel I am going to read is "The Green Mile". After I read that, I will then watch the movie :) I did in fact watch both Salem's Lot movies after reading the novel. Both movies were not nearly as good as the novel, as is often the case, although I thought the newer movie was better. Anyway...

36: you know, I understand that if you read 20+ plays of Shakespeare, or the 20 Dickens' novels, that you also start to see emerging patterns. In fact after reading quite a lot of Charles Dickens' novels, I have to say that they are very similar and the issues he deals with are nearly the same. My point is, this should not be a surprise nor is it necessarily a criticsm. I can understand reading too much from one author and starting to get tired and/or needing a break, but I definitely can't imagine King got to where he is by being an "atrocious writer". Anyway, I look forward to The Green Mile, but won't get around to it for a few months. For the record, one of the novels I'm currently reading is "The Night Land", also what many people might call 'horror', and it's quite a wonderful read!

34: My response to this debate is always the same: Delores Claiborne!!

As for literary snobs well, even at 50 I still enjoy everything from the my Archie comic books (grew up on them and love them still!!!) to my trashy romance noveks (okay, so they're not always romantic just trashy) to what the 'literary snob' might enjoy.

I love it all, it's all good and bad too so what :)

> 38. Is that The Night Land by William Hope Hodgson? If so, it's quite a coincidence because I just downloaded a copy from Project Gutenberg to my Kindle on Saturday. I'm glad you're liking it. It gives me confidence.

40: yes it is! It's quite massive, and some people don't like the style (purposely archaic-like, you'll see what I mean when you read it). However, I think it's imaginative, clever, exciting, and just damn good! Hodgson also trimmed down the Night Land into "The Dream of X" which is basically the Night Land, with some additions and lots of omissions. I have not read Dream of X, but I will at some point. Also, there is a beautiful edition of Dream of X published by Donald M Grant, which is signed and illustrated by Stephen Fabian! Anyway, enjoy the novel and let me know what you think.

I know that I'm risking incurring someone's wrath here but one of the few books that I've never been able to finish is Dune. I understand that many feel this is a (the?) classic work of science fiction but it felt to me like it was written by an accountant. I've never been able to make it further than 2/3 of the way. One of these days I might give it another go.

>7 Witchylady333:

I can totally see how "Rob Roy" can at first be off-putting. Even Sir Walter Scott admits that naming the book after such a famous character would probably cause the wrong expectations. However, I can personally tell you that I fel the exact same way as you through at least half of the book...and then, suddenly...it gets awesome! There are sword-fights, conspiracies, and a great romance that seems doomed until the absolute second. It's really just one of those stories with a huge buildup of background story before the main conflict begins.

I will admit, though, that I really struggled with understanding the Northern Scottish dialect of some of the characters once the setting changes to the highlands.

The Sound and the Fury. I got like 50 pages into it and just wasn't excited about it. Should I have pressed on?

>44 chase.donaldson:: YES!

I read it for the first time recently, and was completely bewildered by the first part (the one narrated by Benjy), but let it all just wash over me, thinking it'll all become clear eventually, which it did. In fact, after finishing it, I immediately went back and read the first part again, and found that it all suddenly made sense.

Why, may one ask, did Faulkner start with that part, and not leave it until further on in the narrative? Because the rest of the novel explains the opening, and the reader experiences a great relief as the pieces fall into place.

>45 Ephemeralda: AHA!
Well, in that case I'll open my copy and give it another try. I had that book sitting on my shelf for about a year now. After purchasing it, I read about 3 pages and gave up.
I even gave it to my wife to read. To see if perhaps I missed something. She too didn't go further then a couple of pages. But that is understandible, she is more into Shopoholic novels....

>46 Svartalf:: I'm so glad you're willing to give it another go.

I'm not saying it is an in any way easy read, but it is absolutely worth it. The first part is narrated by Benjy who is a grown up autistic sibling of the other narrators; his sense of time is muddled, as is his general understanding of his surroundings, so his account is in no way chronological, and the reader (who gets a glimpse of what is in his head) is as bewildered by his confusion as he is by the events around him.

Knowing this should help you get through the first bit and enjoy the ride!

Well, I didn't mean to start all this--maybe I shouldn't have written "atrocious," but if you read Tommyknockers, or tried to, I think you would understand better where I'm coming from. I agree that King's early and, most importantly, relatively short stuff is about as good as H.P. Lovecraft (such as The Shining, Firestarter, Cujo, Salem's Lot, Carrie and Different Seasons). But when his novels start to bloat out over 500 pages (particularly his later ones)--watch out. And, yes, the villain in It is memorably creepy and quite scary--but, fer cryin' out loud, did the book really need to be over 1000 pages long? Apparently, King's editor was also killed off early on too.

I haven't finished Midnight's Children, and I've started The Once and Future King several times withouth making much headway. But one day I will settle down and try to make it all the way through.
As for Ulysses, I read it as a teenager, and again when I bought the FS edition. The worst thing about it is the first chapter; if you skip that you soon get into the rhythm. But I'm sure it's much more enjoyable as an audio book.

> 48

I found Tommyknockers and IT hard going and over-written. I managed to finish them but the experience put me of King for life.

I've had a discouraging number of false starts with Doctor Zhivago and Count Belisarius . Considering that I enjoyed the Claudius novels and The Golden fleece. and I don't mind Russians at all

Neither could I read Pillars of the Earth or Da vinci code . Something that my (erm ) cultivated taste does not explain , as I enjoy my trash in the form of SAS personal stories..and airport thrillers

I guess that when you feel the book is not going to give you anything you lose motivation.... Maybe you are not prepared ,(must read other things first) maybe you got tired of that particular author...

There was a French contemporary author(, whose name I wish i could remember now ) who championed in a very articulate way the right to leave books unfinished..not for you yet.

I have not read either Tommyknockers nor IT. Not sure I will. I too have heard that King's early stuff is his best. I did however hear very good things about The Green Mile, so that will be a good read hopefully (has anyone here read The Green Mile?). By the way, there are many forgettable stories by Lovecraft as well. I suppose once a person becomes very prolific, it's natural that some works be better than others.

> 47

I'm not sure that Benjy is autistic. There isn't really enough to go on from the text in my opinion, but if it's autism it is an extreme form of it. My initial assumption was Down Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol syndrome, but Faulkner is evasive on his descriptions of Benjy. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome would be apt.

In any case, it is definitely a worthy read. I've read it three times and will probably read it again sometime in the future.

I'd say that a person should feel free to cheat a little and get down a bit of information about who his caretakers were and which time period each can be associated with. This helps orient to the basic period you are in.

> 53

I'm not sure about the autism either, and I am not even sure autism was recognised as a diagnosis yet when the novel was written, but I worked extensively with autistic adults some years back and that was what I recognised when I started to read. I don't think Down Syndrome is likely at all as Benjy has none of the symptoms. Can't say about FAS, as I am not familiar with the syndrome.

In any case, the novel is a fabulous read, albeit haunting.

>54 Ephemeralda:

Yes, I believe autism was either not in the vocabulary at that time or it was but wasn't really understood or well-diagnosed. I've also known and have had the chance to work with Autistic individuals, though I'm not a doctor. I think he could have autism, but he doesn't show a lot of the things that I have seen with Autistic individuals such as stimming or spinning or an unwillingness to be interrupted when doing something. The main things that would argue for autism are his clinging to Caddy and the fact that he isn't verbal...but those two symptoms can stem from a number of things, and of course many autistic people can speak. I guess that's the main difficulty here--the spectrum of autism is so wide. I think his inability to register cause and effect speaks more to some form of retardation than autism.

In the end, it doesn't matter--the read itself is great. It is a fairly tricky thing to diagnose a character in a fictional work. It's just that I always assumed it was Down Syndrome, so I was a bit surprised to see it called autism. Next time I read the novel I will see if there's anything I missed. It's been a couple of years. If Folio brought out an edition of the work it would prove the perfect opportunity!

>51 P3p3_Pr4ts: I just finished the new Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of Doctor Zhivago and I can assure you that you are well justified in not being able to finish that book. There are a few good set pieces in it, such as Zhivago's visit to the armored train, but the plot in some places is advanced with the use of triple and quadruple coincidences that would even cause Dickens to hide his face in shame--and Zhivago has neither Dickens' gift of creating a world or compelling figures which populate it. I think the reason Doctor Zhivago was so popular in the mid-twentieth-century is that it was a "cold war novel" that was seen as making a statement against the entirely rosy-colored picture painted by the Soviets about their revloution. Without that political impetus, I don't think it would have been ever regarded as a "classic" (and, indeed, the rest of Pasternak's oeuvre has disappeared without a trace).

>56 podaniel:
See I can totally agree with this; that some contemporary Russian books have been elevated to the status of classics in the West because they trash the Soviet system. Solzjenitsyn comes to my mind right away. These are politically motivated works that paint the picture behind the curtain in a very bleak color and offer nothing more. I should know. I lived in Soviet Union before its disintegration. I was nothing like these types of books paint it. If anything, these types of works are nothing but black propaganda that was aimed to implant negative thoughts and feelings into the minds of the Soviet citizens. These types of works were basically a tool that was used to get Soviets to start hating their country, their government and their history. The idea was to cause destabilization of myths and collapse of the system.
So yes, when reading Dr. Zhivago it's important to understand why it is considered a "classic."
There are great novels that were written during Soviet period that I can recommend (if there is an interest – unfortunately many of them have never been translated into English) that deal with similar events as Dr.Z but in my opinion are much much better.

Just remembered:
On that note actually, I posted a few photos and a list in anothe group of Adventure Classics that were read in Soviet Union.
Please feel free to take a look.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/109329

> 57

Shokalov's "Quiet Flows the Don" is a great Soviet era novel that comes to mind. Maxim Gorky's work as well. Both worthy of Folioisation.

>58 Quicksilver66: Yes QS indeed you are correct 100% :)
Take a look at the link in the post I updated above, see if you like any of the once there.
The Two Captains is an amazing story and so is the Dirk...

> 59

I had a look at the link. What lovely books. The binding and page layouts look excellent.

I am not familiar with Kaverin or Rybakov. Are they available in English translation?

It does seem to be a Russian tradition to make long novels and long movies. I was barely able to sit through Solaris, which of course is a Russian movie of a Polish science fiction novel. Actually a very short novel, that I highly recommend to everyone who enjoys sci-fi. As for the movie... I definitely dozed off a few times before the long-awaited end.

I am usually a hard-core finisher of books. If I start it, I finish it. But maybe it's because I'm getting older, but in the last year, I have set aside two. The first was Swann's Way by Proust. It's well-written. I'm not a big plot person, so it's OK with me that the book proceeds without a traditional narrative structure. But I set it aside and can't bring myself to pick it up again. Second, I'm about halfway through Gould's Book of Fish. Again, the writing is very good, but I find myself bored by the metafiction elements and uninvolved in the characters or setting. I haven't decided to give up, but it's been pushed aside next to Proust.

I was interested in the Dr. Zhivago discussion. I read it probably 30 years ago and liked it, but my memory is definitely colored by the film. I picked up the Folio Society version last year, so I will have to give it another read and keep this discussion in mind.

>49 overthemoon: I love the idea of delving back into Ulysses as an audio book.

The great book that I just cannot finish is Emma by Jane Austen. I have picked it up four times and never got more than a quarter of the way through.

However, I see this as a testament to the greatness of Austen's writing. Because I just loathe Emma so much and want to smack her so badly, that I can't finish the book :)

"Jane Austen's books, too, are absent from this library. Just that one omission alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it."
-Mark Twain

> 59 Thanks for the link and the list! I, like Quicksilver, am not familiar with a number of the titles/authors but am certainly intrigued and would be interested in learning more. If I had to judge their worth just by the English works you include, I'm guessing these unknown Russian works must make for some good "Ripping Yarns."

>64 astropi:

"Whenever I take up 'Pride and Prejudice' or 'Sense and Sensibility,' I feel like a barkeeper entering the Kingdom of Heaven. I mean, I feel as he would probably feel, would almost certainly feel. I am quite sure I know what his sensations would be--and his private comments. He would be certain to curl his lip, as those ultra-good Presbyterians went filing self-complacently along. Because he considered himself better than they? Not at all. They would not be to his taste--that is all. . . .Yet he would be secretly ashamed of himself, secretly angry with himself that this was so. Why? Because barkeepers are like everybody else--it humiliates them to find that there are fine things, great things, admirable things, which others can perceive and they can't."
--Mark Twain

Svartalf wrote: See I can totally agree with this; that some contemporary Russian books have been elevated to the status of classics in the West because they trash the Soviet system. Solzjenitsyn comes to my mind right away.

Although not a classic (at least in my opinion), The Gulag Archipelago is one of the few Russian books that I've started and not finished. I went through a period where I devoured the old Tolstoy, Dostovesky novels, but I haven't read any of them in quite a long time.

The only book that I can think of now at the moment would be "The Plague" by Camus, I started reading it and put it down as I could not get into it. Though I was 15 at the time so I guess it might be different now.

> 61

I loved the movie myself, the longer and slow paced they are the better, well in most cases for me anyway.

I stay clear of the remake though.

66: but Twain continues...

"She makes me detest all her people, without reserve. Is that her intention? It is not believable. Then is it her purpose to make the reader detest her people up to the middle of the book and like them in the rest of the chapters? That could be. That would be high art. It would be worth while, too. Some day I will examine the other end of her books and see."

Like a few others here, I took up Proust (in the excellent FS edition) a few years ago. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of attempting it at a time when I was working very long hours. I was astonished to find, after 10 or 20 pages, that the hero was still in bed and still staring at the furniture, to the point where his labyrinthine sentences, I'm afraid, induced a stream of unconsciousness in me all too easily. But I am determined to return to it one day soon.

Another book which defeated me in spirit (although I did force myself to finish it) was Romola. However, having read a few essays on George Eliot, some by well known and eminent critics, I was heartened to find I was not alone!

>60 Quicksilver66: QS, for sure there is and English translation;
http://www.amazon.com/Dirk-Anatoly-Rybakov/dp/1589630912
and
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Captains-Veniamin-Kaverin/dp/1410103285

But I don't know the quality of these, never read them.

>67 TooBusyReading: Yeah, for sure The Gulag Archipelago is total crap. Don't even waste your time on it.
If you can, get your hands on this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Dead-Konstantin-Simonov/dp/B001LDEWE0
It is defiantly the best Soviet novel I have ever read!
Not sure of the translation, but my grandmother (She was a WW2 veteran and had been in the battle of Stalingrad) gave me this book one day as a present and said; "You want to know what the war was like, read this. I can never hope to explain it the way the author done it, but will say that it was excellently like he wrote."

> 71

Thanks svartalf. I will check those out.

Talking of Stalingrad did you get the FS edition of Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor ?

I don't know if Proust's hero leaves his bed at all over the course of Swann's Way. :P It only occurred to me at the end of the Combray section, and the realisation made me pause, that the narrator was still in bed, and had basically spent the whole section in bed while we were exploring his memories.

I didn't manage to finish Emma either. I borrowed it from the library a number of years ago, but from what I can remember, I didn't get very far. I blame my failure on not being in a book-reading mood at that point in time, rather than any dislike of Jane Austen (I loved Pride and Prejudice when I read it) or of Emma itself.

Heart of Darkness, Germinal, Fathers and Sons to name but a few. On the topic of Stephen King, I loved pretty much everything he wrote until Lisey's Story came along and I've now tried that one three times before finally taking it, still unfinished, to the charity shop. That was one whiny 'heroine'.

Thank you, Svartalf. It looks like it is going to be difficult to find a copy of The Living and the Dead that I can afford, but I'll keep looking. I like your grandmother's quote - she got her point across.

> 72 You know QS, I was actually looking at if for a long time.
But at the end, I decided not to get it. I have never read anything by this author, but this part of the description convinced me of the direction of bios in this book.

"Stalin’s brutally efficient counter-intelligence group SMERSH. Deserters were executed as a matter of course; even children forced to fill German water bottles were regarded as collaborators and shot."

I have spoken to many people who had actually been in the battle and nothing like this ever happened. For sure there were SMERSH and zagrad odtradi (infantry divisions that would stand behind the front line to prevent the soldiers on the front from escaping) But that was the reality of the day. I mean, a lot of people didn't want to fight and die and that is normal. But it was important to hold the German army at any cost, because if they'd break through Stalingrad, they be able to cut Red Army from the oil fields.

There were a few other things that influenced me to pass over this book. These are just personal beliefs that I am certain many people will not share.

a) This book is written by a British Historian. I always look with caution at history books when they are written by historians who are not from the nations that have been involved in the creation of that history. So we talk about Stalingrad, I don't see how anyone other then German of Soviet historian could write about it and do a good job.

b) He talks about getting sources from the NKVD / KGB / FSB archives. That statement is said in a way to give validity to his arguments. In fact, starting in 1950s the archives have been littered with disinformation. At present about 70% of the archive is baloney. The reason it was done is to prevent defectors from getting their hands on real information when going over to the other side.

c) When Anthony Beevor interviewes people for his books, most of the time these are ex-Soviets who now live overseas. Very often these people lie, because that is what is required of them in order to facilitate the anti-soviet (now anti-Russia) atmosphere.

d) I have a real problem when someone talks of war and war crimes. I don't think that is a valid theme in discussing an armed conflict. See, what happens is that historians often judge soldiers after the war according to the laws of peacetime. I think that is wrong. When a soldier pulls a trigger and kills, in peacetime it is considered a murder. So to that point, every soldier is a murderer….But that is such a stupid concept.

e) There was a lot of bad things, but many good once as well. I don't believe Anthony ever talks about these.
For example this is a true story that happened to my grandmother:
She and another girl (they were 16 when they went to the front line) were standing by the river and getting water. All of a sudden a armed German soldier walked out of the bushes. He basically just popped out a few meters away from them with a machine gun slung across his chest. So she said. "I looked at him and said to myself, 'That is it, you are dead.'" But the soldier lifted his hands in surrender.
Long story short they took his machine gun and lead him to the battalion HQ. There he was questioned and he said this.
"Look, I am just an ordinary guy. I have nothing against Soviet people. I think Hitler is an idiot and I don't want to fight for his madness. I have just come to the front and have not shot a single bullet. I don't want to fight, I just want to go home."
So the NKVD came and they questioned him also and basically he convinced them that he was honest and a nice guy. The soldiers from my grandmother's unit gave him food and a bed and in the morning they packed him up, gave him provisions, lead him out and pointed in the direction of Germany and said.
"Berlin, that way."
And the guy thanked them and just walked away. My grandmother doesn't know what happened to him after. But she saw all this with her own eyes…

> 76

That's an amazing story from your grandmother. I bet there are literally thousands of similar tales that will never find their way to the history books. That's the value of oral history - it places a human perspective on events that are often left out in the broad sweeps of historical narrative adopted by most historians.

I am sure there is something in what you say about misinformation in the archives. History can never be objective - after all, the very word for the study of the past ends with the word "story".

>77 Quicksilver66: You know what the funny thing QS; My History prof. always said the exectly same phrase. "History is objective, you can't have history without the word 'story' in it."

There is actually a really good program on YouTube if you are interested;
Its called 'War Witness'. And it is basically a series of interview with the veteran's of WW2 from every side of the conflict. They are very short, but in my openion, amazing.
Here is one of the parts;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui-hBwsEKaA

> 78

I studied History at university which is probably why I have the same take as your prof. Probably every History prof. in the world comes out with the same anacdote and we all imbibe it and then forget it's source !!

I will take a look at that link - thanks Svartalf.

PS - I was taking a look at your library. Good to see some Joseph Conrad. He is my favourite novelist. I have just finished re-reading Nostromo.

>79 Quicksilver66:

Off topic sorry but which Conrad novels/stories would you suggest reading? I have about 11 of the Folio versions of his books (just shy of the full set i think) and have only previously read a few of his stories ('Youth' and a handful more). Not really sure where to start when I have so many staring at me.

I have the Stalingrad book by the way, but not in the Folio edition. I remember it being pretty well written but it has been a logn time since I last looked through it, obviously I can't speak for the accuracy either.

> 79

LipstickAndAviators

I would start with the long short-story, Typhoon. This is one of my favourite Conrad pieces. It combines his moral seriousness with a rousing tale of adventure and quite a bit of humour. I would then move on to The Secret Agent - a gripping novel with strong narrative drive. Once you have read those two, you should be addicted. I would then move on to the magnificently dark Heart of Darkness, the Nigger of the Narcissus and then Nostromo (which is quite hard going at first).

Edit - how could I forget to mention Lord Jim !!! Along with Heart of Darkness, Conrad's best. Put this high on your reading list - before or after the Secret Agent. In many ways it is more typically Conrad than the Secret Agent as it's a maritime novel.

(68) Erkeengel, I couldn't get through The Plague either, but I was in high school at the time. Another high school assignment I just could not finish was Oedipus Rex. The chorus seemed to go on and on and on...

I loved Tad Williams' books, such as The Dragonbone Chair, The Stone of Farewell, Green Angel Tower and Child of an Ancient City, but Otherland was my nemesis: I could not get more than 100 or so pages into the book, and I tried reading it more than once.

Tom Clancy has some really good books, like The Hunt for Red October, The Cardinal of the Kremlin and Patriot Games, but I gave up after trying to read either Clear and Present Danger or maybe it was Sum of All Fears. I just couldn't get into it.

AnnieMod, I've not yet tackled any of the Russian classics such as War and Peace, but I'll let you know when I do.

Anyone here enjoy reading The Lord of the Rings but couldn't get through The Silmarillion?

Thanks for the exchange Quicksilver and Svartalf--very interesting. And I agree with your take on hi(story). Indeed, that's why I read much more fiction that so-called non-fiction because, at bottom, both are concerned with telling stories which means the most important distinction, at least for me, is whether they are well written stories. Typically, but not always, writers of fiction are much more concerned with the craft of writing than historians. But there are honorable exceptions such as Gibbon, Trevor-Roper, Macaulay, Strachey and Belloc.

>82 fuzzi: Tolkien is one of my favorite authors and The Lord of the the Rings one of my favorite books. I think it is amazing how Tolkien created a mythical universe in such minute detail. The Silmarillion I also enjoyed; however, it is more difficult. It gives the history of Middle Earth from its beginning, sort of like Genesis in the Bible. A helpful tool while reading anything by Tolkien is The Atlas of Middle Earth which contains numerous maps and diagrams.

I admit that I may be the only person on the planet that was bored to tears with The Lord of the Rings. In my defense, I must mention that I did finish The Fellowship of the Ring even though it was an arduous effort. The Two Towers has been sitting on my TBR mountain for about ten years now, and it always manages to get lower on the pile… one day it will be picked up and I’ll give Tolkien another fair try.

I preferred The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings, but really enjoyed both. I've never been a big fan of sci-fi though.

> 79 Oh cool QS! Yeah I really should update my library, its very outdated. I did pick up a great sent of Conrad books (printed 1925) a few months ago. It is a very nice set, found them on a garage sale, I can put some pics up if you'd like. But for sure, Conrad is a genius. His English is top notch and when I start reading his work, it always takes me a few pages just to get the beat of it. Then it goes smoothly. :) Heart of Darkness is hands down A+, one of the best novels I ever read.

> 82 Tom Clancy has some really good books,

hear!, hear ! Red Storm Rising: military technology porn :)

>85 penitent:

Nope, you have company, I was bored to tears, too. I read The Hobbit and didn't really care for Tolkien's style. Then, at the insistence of a friend, I picked up The Fellowship of the Ring and only got about 25 pages in before deciding that I just couldn't do it.

There are many many classics that I couldn't complete. For me there's a link with autism, already discussed a bit before.
I have the Asperger Syndrome and find it difficult to read books with many characters, complicated plots and so on. The English wikipedia says: "According to the Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA) diagnostic test, a lack of interest in fiction and the positive preference towards non-fiction is common among adults with the disorder, which might explain the lack of understanding of verbal symbolisms and nonliteral language for people with Asperger's."
This obviously applies to me. No Jane Austen or Umberto Eco for me!
Likewise I prefer to read non-fiction and specialise in certain narrow subjects such as small or uninhabited islands. Hence my nickname ;-)

Currently I'm reading Walden. It's a rather difficult book for me to read, but I like the subject: the writer who retreats in the woods. It won't be a surprise that I have a barn in my garden where I like to retreat on summer evenings... ;-)

(89) hear!, hear ! Red Storm Rising: military technology porn :)

I don't recall reading that one. Is it more like The Hunt for Red October or more like the arduously long The Sum of All Fears? :)

92- more The Hunt for Red October, focused on "stuff" rather than on suspense.(you know? ) Unrelated to the Jack Ryan universe; so editions are scarce, They did a video-game though

And sorry, everybody else , for out of topic.:-")

91- I know for a fact many adults that have lost interest in fiction (good or bad) after a certain age, I wonder what would that mean..

When I was in high school, I got The Hunt for Red October as a present. Figured I might as well read it. I did finish the book, and honestly I remember NOTHING about it, can't even tell you what the plot is! OK, I do remember one thing. There was some US navy serviceman who listened to Bach. That is all. So although Tom Clancy may be popular, and I would not say his books are long, but with me at least, they leave no mark at all. I would in fact claim that his books, much like Michael Crighton's, are basically books written with the intention of being made into a movie... not a book for me!

>94 astropi: I've re-read it. Probably because I could not remember much about it myself..(.now or then).Again I could not put it down..Genre writing thing.

>80 LipstickAndAviators: I strongly recommend two of the shorter and very powerful works as a starting place - Secret Sharer and Heart of Darkness. Both are among the best things I've every read.

Took me a fortnight to get through Ulysses. Kept thinking "it will get better soon". It never did. Far too contrived, more a show of "let's see how many literary allusions I can shoehorn in here" than a worthy literary achievement.

> 85

I have similar issues with Lord of the Rings. Got through Hobbit absolutely fine, then had to try Fellowship at least five times before I finally got through it, very recently. I'm now half way through Two Towers, but I really am only doing this so I can cross the whole thing off my to-read list.

Another one I've given up on a good few times is On the Road by Karouac. Just can't seem to get into it.

Underworld by Delilo

The book that continues to stare back at me from my bookshelf is Tom Jones. I tried to read it on a vacation ten years ago. I made it through a quarter way through before shelving it.

>98 nadyaduck:

Glad to see I'm not the only one who couldn't get through On The Road. Like you, I just couldn't get into it, and neither could my wife when she picked it up.

Some of the books mentioned here are among my favorites: I loved Tom Jones, Pillars of the Earth, Emma, and The Once and Future King. The abridged version of Les Mis is fantastic.

Emma is one that is boring about a third of the way through, but is very good if you make it beyond that point. The first time I read it, I put it down, and a few years later read the entire book.

I was also bored with Lord of the Rings. I actually loved The Fellowship of the Ring. At least half of The Two Towers was a battle scene, which I found boring to read. I made it through that one, and more than half-way through The Return of the King. I finally found out the ending when I watched the movie.

Another I've tried to struggle through: The Third Policeman. I have read 4 chapters. If I hate it now, should I bother to read any more?

indigosky wrote:
The abridged version of Les Mis is fantastic.

I believe some in this group consider that sacrilegious.

105: I read the abridged version because it was a book my best friend gave me as a gift for high school graduation. I mentioned it because astropi gave up on Les Mis (post #1), and thought he might try the abridged so as not to miss such a fantastic work. I plan to someday read the unabridged version.

>104 indigosky:
Probably not. It only gets funnier.

> 105

All abridgements for me are strange. I mean, leaving out the scenes of Waterloo in Les Miserables, detract from the completeness of the plot. If Hugo did not think it important for the book, surely he would have pulled the plug on that part of it? For me abridgng is akin to arguing that 'the Nightwatch' by Rembrandt is too big and that we should bring the margins in leaving out the peripheral scenes etc etc

> 108

Why would anyone skip the Waterloo scenes? That is simply mad.

I think some of the "in the sewers" chapters could have been a lot shorter, though. Really. Eventually, all that was going through my head was "When will it end?!!??

I loathe abridged versions myself but I can remember reading a few as a child/teen that later made me want to read the whole book in its original form. And let's face it, if all that's available at the time is another celebrity 'autobiography' or an abridged Great Expectations then I'd go for the abridged one any day.

(110)Oh, ITA, Booksloth (I Totally Agree).

One of the books I have added to my library on LT is an abridged version of The Call of the Wild. I was about five years old and I saw this book in a store, with a picture of a dog and wolves, and I wanted it. I was given the book and devoured it, and went on to read the unabridged version of it, plus White Fang and The Jungle Books all by the time I was nine!

I prefer to not read abridged books, but if it came to a choice between something I would despise and an abridged book, I might choose the latter.

I too generally loathe abridged works but sometimes it simply is a must. I don't know that I could have ever gotten through Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology if not for Penguin's abridged version.

> 43
Yes you're right Rob Roy did get better in the second half, it's just a shame you have to go through the tedium of the first half! It was only my second Scott, thankfully my first was Ivanhoe with was fantastic. I have a complete set of Waverley novels I intend to work my way through eventually, so fingers crossed Rob Roy was an anomaly!

Well I guess I was wrong about The Once and Future King, I'm part way through 'The Ill-made Knight' and very, very bored. In my opinion White's idea of humour is extremely childish and at times it reads like a kids book. However, there are some extremely adult themes too so I'm not sure who it is aimed at.

I will finish it because it is on the 1001 list, but I doubt I'll enjoy it!

I haqve three different editions of War and Peace staring at me, does this count?

Barton,

Have you tried reading any of the translations yet... I cannot speak about the others but if one of those translations is the Maude translation I have to say its magnificent.

War and Peace is def an intimidating book due to its sheer size but it is one of my all time favorite books, and I feel it is well worth the time it will take to complete it.

Books I couldn't get through in high school:

Great Expectations
Crime & Punishment
1984

Books I read in high school while I was supposed to be reading the above and enjoyed far more:

Catcher in the Rye
To Kill a Mockingbird
Animal Farm

I was not able to finish Catcher in the Rye, but made it through Crime & Punishment (both on my own).

>116 SaxonWarlord:

That's interesting as my high school did all 3 of those bottom ones and none of the top 3.

The only things I could never get through at school were the plays. For some reason we did more plays than novels. The only one I remember enjoying was An Inspector Calls.

>116 SaxonWarlord:

I read all of those in high school, and enjoyed them all. But then, I was a bit geeky. I don't remember which were required reading and which I read because I wanted to.

Just picked up on this thread. I agree with those who gave up on Dr Zhivago - so did I! The two Don novels by Sholokhov were a pleasure to read but I only just made it through "Harvest On The Don" and "Virgin Soil Upturned" - heavy stuff. At the risk of incurring the wrath of many I'm sure, I found Proust really heavy going - got to the end but only by skim reading through all those interminable salons - utter tedium! The whole story about the girlfriend (whose name escapes me) who he virtually imprisoned for a whole volume and then turned Lesbian (is it any wonder?) and then conveniently died in the last volume was totally exasperating! On the other hand - really enjoyed Les Miserables (although, yes, could have done without the paris sewers in such detail) and War and Peace.

>120 malc79:

I doubt even the fiercest of Proust fans would assert that his work is easy to make it through.

I was really looking to start Dr Zhivago this year but this forum has really talked me out of it over the last few months.

I liked Zhivago, read it two years ago!

I've tried Zhivago three times as well and given up and I almost never give up... there is something of the cachet of that book though that I really do see the 'fault' as mine...

with Proust I think the difficulty or otherwise is partly perception - if you read it/begin it at that point when you really really want to then it is a delight (just like War and Peace)

the other book I just can't manage is the Magic Mountain (not a particularly outstanding Folio edition either)

My rule used to be that, after 50 pages, I give myself permission to quit if I wish. Too many books, not enough time. However, having pushed through on a few that turned out to be great after the first 50 pages, I've now revised my rule to 100 pages.

The number is not as important as just giving yourself permission to give up on a book, at least for the time. If you want to leave it on your 'to read' list, go ahead, and try it again in 10 years. You'll be a different person, in a different place, and the book just might push your buttons.

Os.

>113 Witchylady333:

That is a peculiarity of Scott. So far I've read 4 of his novels and there's always a portion that trudges, rather than glides along. I haven't read Ivanhoe yet.

>121 LipstickAndAviators:

I enjoyed the dialogue of Proust's salons. Then again, I also enjoy looking at paintings and the eccentricities of the rich. But Albertine, the character, the story, it was godawful, unconvincing stuff. I'd like to think he'd kill a lot in a rewrite.

(118) Lipstick, in high school I had a hard time reading the Greek plays: they bored me to tears with endless page after page of the chorus going on and on...

(116) Saxon, I've read all those books except for Crime and Punishment. I read Animal Farm and 1984 from my older sister's bookshelves, and Catcher in the Rye in either 8th or 9th grade. It remained a favorite of mine for years.

I did not get into Dickens' works until I was an adult. I had to ride the bus to work and back, so I usually had something to read with me. I read David Copperfield and Great Expectations that way.

To Kill a Mockingbird was a delight to read when I finally did pick it up, not many years ago.

However, I hope I never EVER have to read 1984 again: the second time I read it, in high school, I had nightmares.

>125 DanMat:

I agree with the 'Scott' comment. I find that I'm now (as I get older) much more patient with the amount of scene setting and character development, etc., that Scott does. It also helps (especially us Yanks) if you have an edition with a Scots glossary in the back.

Os.

I don't find Scott problematic in any shape or form. In fact I love the way he carefully manipulates and foregrounds varying aspects of the context and plot, leaving the reader with a comprehensive work that has been carefully established from the outset.

If you expect the language of Scott however, to be akin to our 21st Century vernacular, then you will be disappointed. You can say the same for Chaucer, Richardson, Bronte etc

>129 LesMiserables:
Actually, it was in reading Scott's Rob Roy, my second Scott novel, that I grew to appreciate just what you describe. How Rob Roy himself is present but not present, via hints and 'off-camera' events, for quite a bit of the book.

Also, by the time I finished this one, I had grown accustomed to the early 19th century English (English and Scots), so reading Scott and others after that was quite natural.

Os.

With The Gormenghast Trilogy I only got to .75 of the way through book one and kinda lost interest and moved onto another series. It is still on my to read list though and it has been five years, or so, since my first attempt so maybe the time is coming to try again.

>131 exodus5139:

Re: Gormenghast; Is anyone familiar with both the written work and the movie/mini-series from a few years ago? I'd like to know if the movie is worth the time. I plan to read the books eventually.

Os.

> 132 - I did find the movie worthwhile, but I was helped immensely by the fact that I had recently read the books. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the movie as much as I did without the books, though my kids (teenagers at the time) had no problem with it at all.

>43 Arknight:. I didn't read Walter Scott until I picked up Kenilworth last fall. I did so because its mentioned in Owen Wister's The Virginian and I absolutely had to read what the sensation was all about. It was fantastic! I don't know that I would've had the patience decades ago but I found the world Scott created to be so evocative and consuming. I might suggest folks who are leery of Scott to try Kenilworth first.

>124 Ealhmund:
Wise words Os, thank you.

In the past I felt committed to read through a book even when I didn't like the first 20 pages. Now I can finally say: this is not a book / author for me and leave it that way. (I sell it.)

I remember a friend (long ago) who at parties always boasted that he had read all 7 volumes of À la recherche du temps perdu‎ / In search of lost time by Marcel Proust and found it wonderful. He read it in French, not his native-language. I tried but I couldn't complete even one page of Proust.

Maybe one can draw the conclusion that through the centuries some books or authors have been overrated by the critics. And that we still feel obliged to read these books because otherwise we are not in the company of those respectable intellectuals who value them as the best books of the world.

Martin

Martin, while I agree that some books and/or authors have been overrated, I think that some people just don't like some books.

A friend of mine is a big fan of Harry Turtledove. While I enjoy sci/fi and fantasy to some extent, I just can't get into Turtledove's novels. However, I adore most of CJ Cherryh's works, which my friend won't even try.

To each his own...

>135 islandbooks:, 136

I find that I almost always fail when I recommend a book to a friend. Knowing what books they've read and liked seems to be of little use in predicting what books I've read that they would like. As my grandmother would say - "there's no accounting for taste".

Os.

It's so good to read a thread where people can dislike books yet still accept they are 'great'. As so many people have said, having different taste does not make you a bad person but an awful lot of people seem to think it does. That's not necessarily the same thing as knowing the difference between good and bad writing, of course - I don't pretend Valley of the Dolls is particularly well-written but I still love it, while I can tell Heart of Darkness and Germinal are great books - they'll just never float my particular boat.

I have a book in my library with mediocre writting (and poor editing). However, it's the only written account that I know of regarding this remarkable behind-the-scenes WWII true story, written by the grandson of the protagonist. A valuable edition to my collection which I never expect to see on anyone's top 100 list. Great books are valuable for many reasons, but a ripping good yarn has it's own charms.

Os.

Re Scott:
Yes, the slow starts can be maddening, but most of the time they are there for a good reason. I just finished The Abbot, where the actual story only really gets going somewhere around page 250, but by that time Scott has primed you with everything you need to know about politics and religion in mid-16th century Scotland, and he can condense all the action into a very tight space accordingly. The multiple levels of frame-story and the corresponding profusion of nested prefaces can be a pain sometimes (e.g. Old Mortality).

>134 acidneutral:
Coincidentally, Kenilworth was the first one I read in adult life too - I don't think it would be the one I recommend to a first-timer, though. It's a decent fast-moving adventure story, but it's a very bad historical novel. Cod Tudorbethan language, known historical facts blatantly distorted, etc. Much better to start with something like Heart of Mid-Lothian, Guy Mannering or Old Mortality where Scott is on his home turf and can show off his real skill and knowledge. Or even Rob Roy, which is great once you and Scott get used to the rhythm of Osbaldistone's voice.

Gravity's Rainbow though I'm not sold on Pynchon as a "great" author. I also lasted about 3 pages into V. He'll provide grad school fodder for the forseable future, but I can't imagine he'll be read 100 years from now.

I also struggled with Middlemarch in college though I might give that another shot.

I have finally started working my way through Don Quixote (the Edith Grossman translation), and I'm somewhat sorry to say I'm looking forward to putting it down when I come to the end of Part 1. Since Cervantes published the two parts a decade apart, I figure it's OK for me to take a break too.

#142 I did quite enjoy Don Quixote but I do think one part is enough for anyone - part two is basically just more of the same and it does begin to get a bit tedious.

> 142, 143

Part II of Don Quixote is, in my opinion, better than Part I. Actually, better is not the right word. Both parts are indispensable to understand the novel and to round up the story. Cervantes may have taken a decade to finish his work but what really spurred him on was the publication of a spurious Part II by someone called Avellaneda who tried to capitalise on the success of the book. Don't despair; it's worth it...

Don Quixote is a book that I am glad I read but would never recommend. Part II is as interminable as anything Montalvo wrote.

>140 thorold:
Old Morality is one of the four I've read. Nested preface is a good term for it, and frame stories.

>145 DanMat:

That's "Old Mortality", though there's a lot of old morality as well in Scott's works :-)

Os.

Your eyes are better than mine. Or maybe your typing fingers. I'll leave it so your post makes sense though, thanks.

> 145

Stands to reason that Don Quixote would be such a fervent admirer of Amadís de Gaula by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo.

>148 drasvola:

Yes, but was Cervantes?

What is this???

> 149

Cervantes was making fun of all 'libros de caballerías', a genre that was completely old-fashioned at the time of his writing.

I know that, or have heard the theory bandied about. But the pacing and episodic nature of DQ is comparable to Amadis and other of those works. Cervantes may have poked fun at the genre, but he certainly inherited many of it's trappings.

>150 JCHOM:

What is what?

#150 I've no idea but put it away - we don't want to see it.

(150) I dunno, third base!

(Obscure reference)

>155 fuzzi:

No, what's on second.

And for those who don't "get it", here's what we're referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy15F-8z8Ng&feature=related

As I read through the above comments I couldn't undestand why Don Quixote wasn't more prominently mentioned. All my favorite 19th century paid by the word authors who I adore were listed. I have no problems with those and go out of my way to read Dickens, Tolstoy and Dostoevesky, but I forced my way through half of DQ before something came up and I put it down. I'v never managed to pick it up again and feel the telephone directory would be more edifying. At least Joyce and Sterne are intelluctually stimulating. DQ is just tedious.

As well as Underworld which I mentioned earlier, there is another great volume which I have made my way through to around half way point: The Great War for Civilisation

I have argued with myself whether to finish these works time and time again. I think I have just about made peace with myself and will read these as soon as my exams are over in mid November.

"To the Lighthouse", was a real struggle, but I did finish it on my third attempt. Forced immobility with a broken ankle helped me get through the last attempt. Not sure what I will have to break to get through "Ulysses" Have never made it past page 3 on a couple of previous occasions. I wish it was still banned, and then I would have had some furtive pleasure in defying the authorities by reading it!

I have read DQ in its entirity many years ago and quite enjoyed it, so I am "one up" in that regard.

>160 SimB:
oh yes, I'm with you on To the Lighthouse.

#160/161 I've always had problems with Virginia Woolf's fiction but her non-fiction prose is sublime. If you haven't already done so, try A Room of One's Own and The Common Reader.

>162 Booksloth:
I loved Mrs Dalloway and had fun with Orlando, but I'll admit to having struggled with To the lighthouse as well.

Agree with others on Don Quixote. I stopped reading when I got to the end of Part 1.

Of more recently published works, I gave up on Wolf Hall after it got to be too much effort to keep track of all the people named Thomas.

DCBlack, I gave up on Wolf Hall too, even though the subject interested me and many others absolutely loved it. I couldn't figure out who was speaking, who was being referenced, and decided it shouldn't be that hard to read a book just for pleasure. I felt a bit guilty for giving up on it, though.

#164/5 Me too.

Loved Wolf Hall and To The Lighthouse, finding them really easy reads. Have tried Don Quixote a couple of times, but need more time to get my teeth stuck in, although I never seem to quite be able to do so. However, the classic I really struggled with recently was Moll Flanders. Horribly dull and wooden, and gave up after 50 pages or so. Just couldn't take much more. Generally find 18th century lit pretty dirge like to read.

It's paradoxically amazing to me yet unsurprising at the same time how tastes differ so much.

Les Misérables brilliant.
War and Peace exquisite.
To the Lighthouse piercing.

and yet..........

I for one really enjoyed Don Quixote. There was one side story in the middle that was very long and frustrating, but that was the only bump in the road.

Made a sad attempt to read Joyce's Ulysses, after reading only the first page I thought Joyce was a pretentious git and needed pain relief for the headache it caused. When reading it I couldnt understand why he choose to write this book in the way he did as the style dosnt match the content.

This is by no means a set opinion, I haven't read enough to do that, just a first impression.

> 171

Yes one page is probably not enough to gauge an opinion :-)

For what it's worth, Ulysses is a strange but rewarding read.

Don Quixote is one of my favorite novels. There are few books I've read more than once (there are so many unread books to indulge in!), but I have read Don Quixote three times. And it's coming time for another go at it.

I have not tried many of the ones noted in this thread, and I honestly doubt I'll ever even try Ulysses. Dostoevsky and Les Miserables I read and thoroughly enjoyed, and I found To the Lighthouse to be an exceedingly easy read. The books I couldn't get through are:

Great Expectations - I don't know why, but I never could get very far in this book
The Name of the Rose - there is an interesting story in here, but it's buried too deep. And I don't read Latin.

> 173

Don Quixote is long overdue and is waiting for me to read it.

Ulysses is worth it, just to experience the surrealism.

Great Expectations I have read a couple of times and is a really nice novel. Quite gripping in the end.

To the Lighthouse I found this to be lovely. Almost akin to the Russian masters at getting inside your soul.

Les Miserables Splendid.

The Name of the Rose Another unread, and I do read Latin!

I agree with Great Expectations being gripping towards the end. Unfortunately for me, I found the beginning excruciatingly tedious. Though overall I don't mind it -- the more interesting (to me at least) later bits ended up balancing out the slow start.

The Name of the Rose is one of my favourite books, although I suppose considering the book is about 500 pages long but covers the events of only five days, it is quite slow moving. And Umberto Eco does tend to go off into digressions about the politics, philosophy, religion of the time. I thought his Island of the Day Before a much, much more tedious read.

> 144

drasvola, call me slow if you like, but I was just thinking:

Antonio : translator : steeped in Spanish (and English) literature : loves Don Quixote : ever thought of translating Don Quixote yourself? Or perhaps, even now, your manuscript is languishing in a desk drawer, secretly biding its time!

> 176

No languishing manuscript anywhere, boldface. Thanks for the thought. Alas! as it happens not infrequently with personal interests and professional work, my translating years were devoted to the dry, technical area of economics. One 'obstacle' in my opinion would be the golden rule for translators that work should be undertaken only into the mother tongue. It is my interest in both English and Spanish that is behind my collecting major works in both languages. Instead of taking the step of grappling with the entirety of someone's oeuvre I allow myself the ignoble task of checking (with admiration for the translator most of the time) how words and meaning have been converted. I try to keep in mind what I read once on this subject: "A piano and a violin sound differently, but they play the same music".

Thanks for that, Antonio. A great quote. You're right, of course, about translating INTO your mother tongue, although I can see your English is exemplary. I only wish I had studied Spanish.

>177 drasvola:
"A piano and a violin sound differently, but they play the same music".

Not when I play them, they don't! ;-)

Os.

On the 'subthread' of Don Quixote, let it be known that UK artist Rob Davis has begun an adaptation in graphic novel form. The first volume was published recently by www.selfmadehero.com. From what I've seen, it's a worthwhile effort.

See sample page below:

The 'typical' graphics in the Graphic Novel of today is something that I find neither pleasing to the eye nor harmonious with the text.

I have looked at a few recent editions and "Kidnapped' in particular by Robert Louis Stevenson by illustrated by Cam Kennedy makes Davie Balfour look around 30 years old! And what is it about those brick-like square jaws?

> 181. The 'typical' graphics in the Graphic Novel of today is something that I find neither pleasing to the eye nor harmonious with the text.

Are you implying that graphic novels of the past did a better job?

> 183,
No, but rereading my post I can see why that you say that. I just don't like them generally.

>184 LesMiserables:

Technically speaking, there are a lot of different styles in graphic novels nowadays.

> 185

Yes, and I am no expert. I suppose its really down to what I have seen and, of that, I have not seen anything favourable to my eye.
It all seems so 'Judge Dread' to me!

> 184-6. I know next to nothing about graphic novels, but I do have fond memories of the old "Classics Illustrated" series of comic books -- which in my memory were well illustrated and kept me turning the pages. But this goes back nearly 50 years, so I'm sure their artwork would probably not be all that satisfying to me today.

>186 LesMiserables:

Judge Dredd. Judge Dread was the singer with the most banned singles on Radio 1. His oeuvre was based on turning nursery rhymes into poetry that was part-Rabelaisian and part-Carry On. (Or the Prince Buster song from which JD took his name.)

> 188

The JD I'm thinking about was the guy in the UK comic.

The one I'm thinking about is Sylvester Stallone.

>187 jburlinson:

Actually they hold up amazingly well - especially compared to some of the nowadays art... :) And I am a fan of GNs and comics in general, mind you - cannot even imagine how bad they look to someone that does not like the media to start with.

>186 LesMiserables:

Yeah - that look works just fine for Judge Dredd... not that good on normal people. But it seems to be popular lately for some unimaginable reason so a lot of artists (including newish ones that had proven that they can do better while working on smaller projects) turn to.

>186 LesMiserables:

Yeah, but then look at Shaun Tan's The Arrival (preview pages here at Amazon. Admittedly, a different kind of graphic novel.

I'd buy a Shaun Tan illustrated FS book.

And then, there's Asterix the Gaul. :-)

Os.

Hey All,
I'm new around here. and new to reading again. I found that in school I hardly could finished anything that I was assigned to read. But since i've discovered reading again i've gone back to all the classics. I absolutely loved Les Miserable, although it took me two years, but i'm a slow reader anyways, then I tackled The Count of Monte Cristo and also loved it, but not quite as much as Les Mis. The writing was just so beautiful. After reading those huge books with so much detail and description, I find myself frustrated with simple dialogue in modern and post-modern books. Although, I loved Heart of Darkness, i'm finding it really hard to get though The Secret Agent by Conrad. I've just started The Woman in White which is good, but less interesting so far than the other books i've listed.

Having blabbed on about all that, I do feel a certain obligation to finish books, especially classics, because I feel that they are some how improving me culturally or intellectually or something... who knows.

I feel the same way about reading and finishing classics -- that they somehow count as "self-improvement". But at the same time I also genuinely enjoy them more than contemporary works. Perhaps because all the truly bad "classics" have been weeded out by time to leave only the good stuff, whereas with contemporary works it is more hit and miss. :P

But I like modernist and post-modernist writing, and the (general) sparseness of its style. I am struggling instead with Dickens. I'm on my third Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, but I can't yet say I like him. :( Of course, I haven't really read his more popular (and better?) works, so my opinion might change (and I hope it does!).

>194 sakayume:

I hope you do get to Dickens more popular novels, they truely shine. Nicholas Nickleby is one of my all time favourites and The Tale of Two Cities I did an oration for at tafe (tafe is sort of a Australian public college) for my English classes and my love of the book convinced most of the class to read it and top marks from both the teachers grading us. That was over twenty years ago, time for me to go back and revist them too.

>195 xaussienanny:: I'm in Australia too! :D I didn't get the chance to read Dickens in school, though I wish I did. I haven't read the Tale of Two Cities yet (my first and second Dickens novels were Great Expectations and The Mystery of Edwin Drood), but I certainly plan on doing so. After I finish all the declining and falling in Our Mutual Friend. I giggle every time those words appear in the text. XD

> 196. You've probably picked the most challenging route into Dickens with those three books. I chose the easy-to-like road with David Copperfield, Oliver Twist and The Pickwick Papers. After that, Hard Times wasn't so hard and Bleak House wasn't so bleak.

Yes, Dickens is on my list as well, although i'm having a hard time getting really excited about it. I've read Christmas Carol of course, and I faintly remember being assigned Oliver Twist, but likely never got more than a few chapters in. I will have to choose from some of your suggestions.

>197 jburlinson:: I'm glad to hear that Dickens does get better. I did rather like The Mystery of Edwin Drood, but for the fact that it was sadly not completed. I dislike not knowing the endings as I always want to know all the whys behind the plot events, and I find it frustrating when I don't. I hope to read most of his more popular stories eventually, motivated partly (okay, mostly) by his place in the English literary canon, so I might as well start with his more accessible novels.

> 199

There have been many attempts to complete Edwin Drood over the years, some, of course, better than others. They may not be Dickens, but at least there is some resolution to the story. For me, the most interesting thing is the various authors' analyses of the novel as we have it with which they seek to justify their efforts. One of the best, I think, is that by Leon Garfield:

The Mystery of Edwin Drood by Charles Dickens, concluded by Leon Garfield ; illustrated by Antony Maitland ; with an introduction by Edward Blishen. (London : Deutsch, 1980).

Some of the issues are discussed here (WARNING!!! SPOILER!!!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Edwin_Drood

Scroll down to see the section on "continuations".

An article from The Dickensian in 1905, "The History of a Mystery" reviews some of the early suggestions (again, beware SPOILER!):

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/histmys1.htm

Glad to see a Dickens discussion. I like to read at least one a year which gives them a good chance to recycle. My favourites are Bleak House (required as I'm a lawyer), Barnaby Rouge and Our Mutual Friend. And I despise Dombey and Son

Os, I love Asterix, but alas! I don't have any of those books anymore...over the years they eventually disappeared...sniff.

However, I still have and love Elfquest graphic novels, by Wendy and Richard Pini. The artwork is superb, the stories are great, and you fall in love with the characters!

http://images.comiccollectorlive.com/covers/bbc/bbc5fd05-7f5f-4f76-97b7-65b1befd...
(Still can't figure out that image thing...)

>196 sakayume:. You've probably picked the most challenging route into Dickens with those three books. I chose the easy-to-like road with David Copperfield, Oliver Twist and The Pickwick Papers. After that, Hard Times wasn't so hard and Bleak House wasn't so bleak.

Horses and courses I suppose: Having loved The Pickwick Papers, I did begin to wonder if it was going to be a one-off with Dickens, as I couldn't stick David Copperfield, have always disliked the story of Oliver Twist, and thought one or two others were 'okay', but not a lot more. Then I read Bleak House - one of my all-time favourite books. It's a monstrous tome, but it is absolutely wonderful. Equally, offspring read Hard Times as his first Dickens, when studying it (one chapter - good grief!) for GCSE, and he loved it (and, yes, he did read the whole book).

Which is the best "first Dickens"?

I just love A Christmas Carol. Warm fuzzy feeling.

You will perhaps be surprised to know that, for me, Our Mutual Friend is the best Dickens. My "worst" ones being Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. It is always funny to hear that we differ so much in our appreciation or depreciation of such and such books...

My first Dickens was Oliver Twist, but I was young and skipped those parts that didn't interest me. I went on to read David Copperfield, Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. Of all of those, Copperfield is probably my most favorite.

>206 Pepys: I'd agree that Our Mutual Friend is probably the best but for quite biased reasons I prefer Barnaby Rudge" by a nudge. And I could not agree with you more about A Tale of Two Cities.

I'd be curious to hear opinions on three authors I've read a lot of and enjoyed.

Eric Van Lustbader
James Clavell
Terry Brooks

(209) I've read two books by James Clavell and one by Terry Brooks.

The only work by Terry Brooks I have read is the original Sword of Shannara. At the time I read it (when it first was published) I considered it to be a rip off of The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien, and did not bother reading any more of Mr. Brooks' books.

For James Clavell, I have read Shogun: A Novel of Japan and Tai Pan. Shogun remains one of my most favorite books of all time, and I reread it every couple of years. Tai Pan was a good book, but I just did not care for the main character, and decided that I did not want to read it again.

I attempted to read Noble House, but never could get into it. A friend of mine said Whirlwind was great, but I can't recommend it personally, as I've not yet read it.