Are you mentally tough enough to belong to this group?

For instance, how many of these have you read:

http://flavorwire.com/423424/50-incredibly-tough-books-for-extreme-readers/view-...

Difficult, challenging, snobby reads...are they still a priority for you?

Huh. Wel,l I have read a few of them. Clearly the author restricted him/herself to one per author because I think Ulysses counts as well. I'd add the Alexandria Quartet to the list. Of course, some of them I'd quibble with because I really didn't find them all that tough to read (War and Peace? Why? It's long, but it's also very readable) but quibbling with lists on the Internet is what us tough people do best.

Both Heart of Darkness and Canterbury Tales I found "easy" to read in terms of style, but the former is "tough" in terms of subject.

But...The Silmarillion? Really? The only reason to read that is if you are one of those "complete-ist" types that have to read everything about the Tolkien Universe. (Full disclosure--I was, I am. But if you're not, there's no need to bother.)

As usual, I'll be the Bad Kid in School, and inquire whether we are mentally tough enough to make our own lists, and not cut-&-paste other people's. But, having said that, must add that I agree passionately with Nikki's scorn of The Silmarillion.

3: I know right? I don't think the Silmarillion is "tough" if you are a Tolkien completist - and if you're not, don't read it for heaven's sake. (I was and am as well)

4: Let's at least agree to add Harmony Junction since anything nominally long seems to make the cut for that author! I actually don't think your book is a hard slog, but then again neither was War and Peace :)

There were some odd choices on that roster. PET SEMATARY? Really? Really?

I didn't see Peter Nadas' PARALLEL STORIES anywhere or THE AESTHETICS OF RESISTANCE by Peter Weiss or any titles by L.F. Celine, who's no slouch.

See, Harry?

We ARE making our own lists...

In #5. O Anna, you are a Love -- with three oranges thrown-in as a bonus. Marriage is obviously out of the question, but if you hear a strange sound nearby, it will be me groveling at your feet.

6: I thought the list was conflating a whole lot of different values of "tough"

- Hard to read in that it was intellectually challenging (Infinite Jest, Finnegans Wake)
- Uncomfortable to read because it was sad or crazy or scary (Didion's book, Geek Love, Pet Sematary)
- Not really hard or uncomfortable but just long (Proust, War and Peace)

I've only read 3 so far (I own a handful of others, some I've never heard of), none of which I'd have put on some most difficult ever list. Yeah I suppose House of Leaves is technically a little "difficult" what with having to rotate the book around all ridiculously and whatnot but... so what, it takes a little extra time to deal with the crummy gimmick. That doesn't make it anything special. And while I quite enjoy Pet Sematary...whaaaat?! Absurd to be on this kind of list. Heart of Darkness has a somewhat more difficult subject, but it's not a difficult read and anyone these days should be aware of the formerly prevalent attitudes held. Therefore, I have to wonder just how many others of these are truly deserving of such a label.

I'm far too tough a reader to ever waste another moment on Jerzy Kosinski.

In re #11. But not to tough to avoid splitting an infinitive. Just kidding. Actually, while I've had some fun with Kosinski, the idea of bracketing him with Chaucer or Melville is downright silly. Lucky, I suppose, that LT's software ate a longer Post which I am not, frankly not tough enough to re-write here. At-least till after dinner.

#6: Strange! I just heard the Prokofiev 3 Oranges Suite last weekend (Oregon Symphony)! Great piece. Someday I will have to see the opera. It sounds delightfully weird.

12: It takes a tough mind to split an infinitive.

I have read seven or eight of these over the years, but I think Atlas Shrugged was more difficult than any of them. I flat out enjoyed Blood Meridian, along with the other McCarthy's that I have read. Heart of Darkness was a walk in the park, compared to Lord Jim.

My wife is trying to geek me up to read Ulysses...

15 more difficult in that it was overblown flypaper?

I have read three.....Blood Meridian (loved it), Pet Sematary (so long ago I barely remember) and Underworld (enjoyed it). There are several others I wish to read, but just have to keep working through the pile. I would consider adding Norman Rush's Mating to this list.

I've read 18. I agree with Cliff that Pet Sematary (one of my 18, for better or worse) is the stupidest inclusion on the list. Every list is suspect, but there are some pretty big problems with this one.

In re #13. Again -- strange: this is the second time today I've invoked my Chicago origins here on LT. Any you probably don't know that TLFTO was written for the old Chicago Opera, when the Windy City was a world-class opera town. Anyway, when I saw the piece there some years ago, it began with the American tenor Jacque Trussel hanging upside-down from a trapeze! He did a very tidy turn, hopped to the stage, and began his singing: very memorable. "Delightfully weird" is a perfect summation.

Lets see I can say I have read 2 War and Peace and Heart of Darkness and I have 3 already on my TBR list for 2014 2666, To the Lighthouse and In Search of Lost Time but I think I see a few more that I just might have to add.

OK here are the ones I have read.

Moby Dick Yes, this one was a slog for me. Great ending though!
Infinite Jest One of my top ten of all time. Maybe the footnotes do make it a bit hard to read, but they are a joy.
Swann's Way (not the whole ISOLT though) The rest of ISOLT is still on my TBR but I should get snob points for having read Swann's Way in French since I am not a native speaker thereof.
Silmarillion (Tolkien completist, here) Good grief, this may be a rather tedious book, but it's not HARD.
Heart of Darkness Depressing, tragic, awful story, but not difficult to read.
War and Peace Apart from figuring out the many variations of people's names, this was a pretty easy book to read.
Canterbury Tales I love middle English! It is very entertaining to read. This was a lot of fun, and I read it back in high school. I am still looking for a good copy to buy. Last time I checked Powell's they only had modern English versions.

And here are some I'd put in my own list of really hard books:

Ulysses by James Joyce
Paradise Lost by Milton (just because it is hard for me to read long poems)
Savage Detectives by Bolano - there are so many references that go over my head!
Porius by John Cowper Powys - I am so lucky to have read this in LT's "Salon" where experts helped me through it.
The Brothers Karamazov was not hard to read per se, but it had a lot of depth that I would have been oblivious to if I had not read it in the Salon, so in retrospect it was hard.
Justine was very hard for me to get through. The other three books in the Alexandria Quartet were slightly easier. I liked Mountolive the best.

Other books that come to mind but are not on my official list right now:

Another book by Durrell that was hard for me to get through, even though it was not very long, was Monsieur. (Edited to fix touchstone. Hm, it's part of the Avignon quintet, I didn't even know that.) I wonder if it counts more as a "difficult because I was uncomfortable" type of book though. As I remember it was sort of a sado-masochistic storyline, and that whole fetish really bothers me, which is why I will probably never read The Story of O or similar stuff. Lolita, which I just read last year, also falls into this category (of "hard because of ick factor").

Also, I took a seminar in college on Mario Vargas Llosa and one of the books we read was very difficult for me. I think it was Historia de Mayta.

1: Allah forbid we should actually enjoy a challenging read. But nooooo, more faux literary sophisticate pissing contest material. Not sure if the macho posturing is more apt for a Man Cave infomercial or just plain tedous at this point.

When did Literary Snobs turn into Black Angus steak-house?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM_xDjhkOU4

In re 23. Don't hold back, ksw (not that you ever do). You are 100% correct, with bells, oak-leaf clusters, and a flowing beaker of wine. Stay sharp.

Great list, lots of good ideas there.

Have read:

Blood Meridian
Swann's Way
Heart of Darkness
Hopscotch
2666
War and Peace
Tristam Shandy
The Year of Magical Thinking
The Divine Comedy

Would've included:

Hunger by Hamsun- Short but painful.
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Solzhenitsyn- Short but depressing.
Disgrace, Waiting for the Barbarians- Short but Coetzee.
Anything in Elizabethan English or 19th Century American English

A thought which has occurred to me ever since joining LT. A psychologist visiting us from, say, the Planet Good Sense, would look at the incessant list-making which occurs on this site -- not just this group -- and wonder whether we are all touched (at the very least) with obsessive-compulsive disorder. No offense meant, sisters and brothers.
For every discussion about the ideas IN books, there are fifty lists OF books. What does this say about us? Personally, I don't think I have ever clustered more than six titles in any post, and then only within the context of a larger discussion of history, style, or values. Again, no down-rap intended, but what on Earth is the actual significance of such lists? Is it the reading person's equivalent of the kids' game "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"?
And at zero-Fahrenheit in the Green Mountains, I'm lucky to be able to type, without even considering "showing you mine" (haha). Peace, -- Goddard ("Harry")

I liked the fact that Dahlgren was on that list-- I did find that "tough" in the sense that it forced me to pay attention to every word, and the format of the book is not linear. But it wasn't hard for me to keep reading--I really enjoyed fighting it out with the story.

The only book I've read recently that I'd call "tough" as in "hard to read and hard to finish" was Samuel Richardson's Pamela. That I had to force myself to finish and struggle to find a reason to want to.

But I was rewarded, because then I got to read Fielding's Shamela which was not only not tough, but was hilarious from start to finish.

26 Of Course most people would say we are touched because we love to read books and I personally am a BOOK SNOB. As far as the list goes there are just so many books and authors that I want to read there is no way to remember them all. And plus I find it as a motivation factor when I have a TBR list that I can smile when I can cross something out as BEING READ. And as far as the 1001 list since I have been reading from this it has opened many doors to great books that I just dont think I would of picked up on my own. So that is my reasoning and since most people say I MARCH TO MY OWN DRUMMER anyways others may be different.

In re Richardson and Fielding: if you found Pamela tough, don't even consider Clarissa. On the other hand, in its time, people couldn't get enough of it. Progress, I suppose. You might consider splitting the difference and try Joseph Andrews.

Personally, I'm not threatened, intellectually or aesthetically, by lists and "Best of..." rosters--I find them excellent debating points and often the content of those lists give good insights into the tastes of the person in question (or lack thereof).

I'm an unrepentant Book Snob too (like #28) and I want to know about difficult, challenging, rewarding books I might have missed and there have been several cited on this thread I'll be seeking out in the future.

People who favor easy, commercial reads over the aforementioned "difficult" works (in my view) lack a certain "snob quotient" and maybe it's time they upped the ante and started pumping some iron, mentally speaking...

I don't object to easy reads, but I realized at some point that if I found myself skating over the surface of the text without paying much attention then I was actually bored. I hate to be bored, which is one reason I gravitate towards what people call "difficult" books.

I don't find their difficulty difficult. It's better than sleepwalking (sleepreading?) my way though a book.

We think alike on these things, Nikki. I am certainly not "threatened" -- to use your word -- by the hard on one side, or the squishy on the other. I am, however, and always have been, acutely sensitive about wasted time. I suppose I was born middle-aged, but as I approach the end of two-thirds of a century's reading, I don't want to get into Charon's boat with nothing more to report than the number of modern novels I've read -- tough or easy.

My kids and husband makes fun of me all the time for the number. My daughter got upset at me and she told me when I got home all my books will be gone and all replaced with 50 shades of Gray, Nora Roberts and Danielle Steele. WHAT!?!?!? THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS KIDDO.

In re #33. If that jolly Profile picture means anything, I don't think you need to worry about a thing. On the other hand, what will become of ME when I tell you all that I have been known to kindle a wood-fire with the toxic pages of Steele, Roberts, Crichton, King, and other such persons?! It's not just time (or spouses and kids) who confront us, so-to-put, with a tough room in Vegas. Sometimes it's Iron Necessity (written on the coldest morning in over a year here). Peace to all; curl up with a good book, and/or a good author (if you can find one). -- G/H

I've read 14. Some are hard most are really. Proust took me a decade on and off. That was hard. Tristram Shandy, on the other hand, was a complete joy.

Just don't talk like the male-midwife -- at-least around the Christmas table.

26: See this
http://xkcd.com/1283/

My favourite bragging right is Hunger's Brides. Not difficult throughout, maybe, although there were parts where I just went "huh?" and moved on.

Am I mentally tough enough for this group?

When did Literary Snobs turn into Scientology?

Where do I sign on the requisite Jim Harrison Loyalty Oath?

In summary, parvenus are boring.

Lists like this one are chiefly interesting because they reflect what we are supposed to consider "difficult" reading. This thread popped back into my head today when I read this piece about the supposed resurgence of the long novel:

http://www.openbooktoronto.com/risk_long_read

Setting aside the dubious assertion that television has anything to do with the price of beer in Norway, I was struck by the idea that getting through a long novel is widely seen as a badge of honour. Which, of course, it is; most people who have read Proust seem eager to boast that they have read Proust and to blather on about the rewards to be found therein if only you possess the sticktoitiveness to soldier through the thing. Consider David Gilmour's recent boast in his infamous Hazlitt interview, that he had not only read Proust but achieved this feat twice (http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/gilmour-transcript), which was justifiably mocked by U of T prof Holger Syme, whose job of course is to read the same thing many times (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/holger-syme/holger-syme-david-gilmour_b_3996818.html).

This belongs to childhood, of course: to that sense of pride that arises when one begins reading "chapter books," and later progresses to books that are a whole 200 pages. My daughters, now 13 (I mean their age, not their number!), have just grown out of checking how many pages a book is and taking that as a measure of their reading prowess. (I am encouraging them to articulate their views on why Twilight sucks.)

Length is a cheap and cheesy measure of difficulty. And I think this leads us to question whether difficulty is much of a virtue in and of itself. If litsnobworthiness lies in difficulty alone, then nothing more comprehensible than Finnegan's Wake will do. And frankly, I have no great desire to read Finnegan's Wake just so that I can boast that I have.

It seems we are not very good at reading much simpler novels, most of the time. Countless book reviews demonstrate a reader's failure to grasp a novel that is not particularly difficult. I'm not convinced that we can claim bragging rights for misunderstanding more difficult works.

Read a book because that tome might, potentially, speak to some aspect of your life...not because you want to tick a box so you can proudly proclaim I HAVE READ THIS (surely the worst, most pathetic kind of snobbery).

I think the most snobbish book claim I ever saw was Anthony Burgess on a TV panel saying that if you had not read Proust in the original French you were functionally illiterate.

27: I have been wanting to read Pamela so that I could read Shamela as a reward, for years. You should do reviews, of both, if you haven't already!

>43 anna_in_pdx: I read them for a profile of Samuel Richardson I was writing at the time.

http://bloom-site.com/2013/01/14/samuel-richardson-persuading-pamela/

It was an interesting era to research, but I'm glad I didn't live there or then.

Oh, that was very entertaining! Maybe I will read them next year.

>26 HarryMacDonald:

(quickly closing spreadsheet used to track reading so it can't be seen)

Yes, yes, it's really quite absurd!

41: Read a book because that tome might, potentially, speak to some aspect of your life...not because you want to tick a box so you can proudly proclaim I HAVE READ THIS (surely the worst, most pathetic kind of snobbery).

Framing it around a question that is hostile, exclusivist, and anhedonic is an even worse kind of snobbery.

"Tome"? Really?

I think the greatest heresy one can voice in this group is that challenging books can be pleasurable to read. Whether it's Proust, Walter Pater, or Algernon Swinburne, it's enjoyable to read books that make one feels good. And I'm using "good" as completely autonomous from whatever moralistic meaning that gets spot-welded on by puritans, prudes, and Neo-Victorian manques.

And one needs to be discerning enough to differentiate between snobbery and pretentiousness. Sometimes this group ODs in the latter.

#42 Burgess could've been an honorary member of this group. A snob, through and through; refined, brilliant, bitchy and ruthless.

Our kinda guy.

I've only read a couple of the books on the list - those by Conrad and Kafka. I'm not sure why Heart of Darkness is considered difficult. I decided to dip into another on the list The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, which I am finding a light and enjoyable read.
I may someday get around to some of the others, although I can't see myself ever reading Moby Dick and certainly not Finnegan's Wake.

I quite enjoyed Moby Dick, but of course many people find it tedious.

Think I can count nine although did I really finish Infinite Jest or was I into skim mode by the end? Can't see why Kirino's "Out" is on the list — I really enjoyed it. And I can see why "Tampa" may be considered distasteful or boring but it's hardly a challenge unless you're very sensitive. But still I enjoyed going through the list.

#42: That must include a large number of people — perhaps even if French readers are included. Just so I know where I stand what does AB think of those of us who haven't read Proust in English translation?

To Burgess, we'd be too low to kick and too wet to step on.

#52 A urinal briquette in the toilet bowl of the House of Culture.

I've read two of the books on the list. War and Peace when I was fifteen. Nightwood last year. I've got a lot of books yet to read, including a lot of the ones on the list, but I can't be always pursuing some holy grail of "challenge." Sometimes you aren't ready for it. I dropped Infinite Jest after one hundred pages, sick of having to jump through hoops while waiting for Wallace to quit the sci-fi shenanigans and get back to the good stuff. It's now tucked on a shelf waiting for me to give it round 2 (which it certainly deserves) and I'm happy to have quit the fight and moved on to books that do resonate and offer me something other than frustration as I read.

I enjoyed DFW's short story collection, Oblivion. Those stories are baroque & intricate; they demand your attention and at the same time, because they are short, they leave you space to admire their clockwork complexity. I'm not sure whether I want to take the time to look at Infinite Jest, though. It seems too often to be something people read just so they can say they did. The question that remains after DFW's stories is whether there is more heat than light. Is this all essentially a great baroque circus trick? If so, why waste time on Infinite Jest?

Well, I have read Infinite Jest and I really, really loved it, and it has stayed with me. I tried to reread it last year after reading the new DFW bio and found that I could not do it. I get very attached to the characters and was getting too upset.

I would say it is very, very worth the time. One of the few long books I have read that I did not think could have been usefully editeddown any more than it was.

I have started The Pale King but have not been able to get into it, but in general I think DFW was a truly great author who will stand the test of time.

56: Oblivion sounds like it might help me appreciate him. I'll look into it.

Infinite Jest bugged me through endless obfuscation. The addiction-and-depression storyline was so scorchingly good that I was impatient every time it switched back to the acronym-soup of video tape and tennis academies. It also didn't strike me as funny in the least. But having no familiarity with the postmodern style other than a couple of Paul Auster novels, it did occur to me I'm not the right audience for the work - hence I threw in the towel but I kept the book. I plan to read Vonnegut, Pynchon and the other founders of the movement before I even consider giving it another shot.

For those of us who lack the attention span to read long books:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/the-little-book-a-nod-to-the...

(Great find from Gord)