Yes, I’ll say it again: I think that Confederacy of Dunces is tedious, humor-free, and overhyped (with the hype sometimes rising to a fever pitch on these Boards).
Now, maybe if had I read it back in the 60’s when it was written if not published, before the anti-hero had become a cliche, and when Toole’s style and the book’s contents might have been novel, maybe then I would have laughed. Then again, maybe not.
And, even if upon opening the book I had enjoyed reading about Ignatius, his characterization, or his escapades, I have serious doubts that I would still have been smiling, two hundred pages later, hearing about them for the eighty-seventh time.
Oh, the cover; I almost forgot. The image of Ignatius was so off-putting, so unfunny, and so unlike what I might have visualized for Toole’s slothful, bumptious protagonist that, in fairness, the book didn’t stand a chance. I’m willing to bet that early editions of COD weren’t graced with such a ridiculous, distracting, downright intrusive image.
You are not alone. I read it back in the 80s or so, because my then-boyfriend said it was his favorite book. He wasn’t a reader, so I should have been forewarned.
Yuck. If I never hear the word “sphincter” again it will be too soon.
Nah, I’m with you. I picked up a copy after hearing so many times that it was the funniest thing ever written, and put it down at the end wondering if I’d grabbed the wrong book. It wasn’t really bad*, mind you. Just overwhelmingly “meh”.
God no. I too heard so many great things about it, then picked it up and couldn’t get past the first chapter or so. I can get into a story about worthless people, if it’s done well, but this was totally unengaging and obnoxious. Life is too short, so I didn’t force myself to read on.
I’ve tried to read it at least twice, 15 or more years apart, and couldn’t convince myself it was worth finishing. Only thing that would have made me enjoy it would have been if the protagonist had gotten run over by a bus.
I read a bit - at least a book a week. I enjoy satire and fiction. I have nothing against unpleasant characters - Harry Crews is probably my favorite author. But I simply do not understand why so many people think there is anything to this book.
I just really hate Ignatious. Completely agree that the whole thing feels like “OMG! Can you believe how boorish this guy is what an ass! Watch him be an irredeemable ass for the rest of the book!” It’s like if Family Guy had no characters or story lines other than Peter being an obnoxious blowhard.
This thread is closing up my valve something fierce.
I recently read somewhere, perhaps on this board, that people that dislike Dunces are likely to see too much of themselves in the character of Ignatius. I read the book for the first time and loved it, but thought to myself that he reminded me of a “Typical Doper” in a lot of ways… though I imagine he’d end up banned here fairly quickly after declaring the MMP an abortion one too many times.
It goes on too long. It sets up a character then just keeps putting him in the same situation. It also is dated, more than anything, it reminds me of some of Terry Southern’s more tedious works that just go on and on.
This, exactly this. (Except that I don’t watch Family Guy, becuase it’s like an animated Confederacy.) Seriously, tell me why I should read a book about a guy being a pathetic loser and complete jerk?
I finished the book, because I’m like that, but I can assure you that I have never felt the need to pick it up again.
