This is a terrible confession for an English teacher, but I’ve never read it. I’ve circled a table where it was open and glared at it a bit. And finally it jumped into my hands and I went home with a copy from Shakespeare & Co. In Paris.
Remind me next June and I will read it.
I like Dickens - I quite enjoyed *Nicholas Nickleby *- but I don’t always have the patience for it. And I say that as someone whose favorite book is the 1000+ page Count of Monte Cristo (by another paid-by-the-word author).
My Austen experience is limited to Emma but frankly it struck me as a predictable romcom. You could tell who was going to end up with whom by the end, and I didn’t find the journey worth the trip. I much preferred Fanny Burney’s Evelina, which was more entertaining and which I recommend to fans of the genre.
I’m glad I read Moby Dick and* A Tale of Two Cities* when I was relatively young, because they really taught me that waiting for the payoff at the end can be very much worth some slogging.
As a result, I always try to finish books unless they’re utterly losing me. Thus far I’ve been defeated by Anna Karenina, Tess of the D’urbervilles, and an uabridged copy of Les Miserables. I may try Les Miserables again, but I’ve tried the other two at least two or three times. It’s just not going to happen.
Much of this thread saddens me. For those who are thinking of reading Don Quixote but are put off by the naysayers, don’t be. It’s a brilliant, funny and entirely accessible work of genius. Its length is a non-issue; it should keep you entertained for however long it takes you to read. As for Joyce, this whole reverse-snobbery thing is ridiculous. He is an absolute master of language. His genius is almost unrivalled in the history of literature. He may be inaccessible and dense and puzzling, but this is only in parts. If there are things you don’t understand, ignore them for now, and instead focus on the sheer beauty of his language. Ulysses has sections of prose-poetry that are as close to perfect as it’s possible to come. If you want gripping plots, okay, look elsewhere, but Ulysses is a work that will live forever, and, quite simply, Joyce is the man. If you give him a chance and invest time in his works, you will be rewarded.
As for all this nonsense about character and plot being sacrificed for lyrical prose, this is an entirely false dichotomy. Serious and timeless authors (you know who I mean - here’s a hint: they don’t write insipid genre fiction) can combine both a lyrical style with deep characterisation and plot. In fact, for those who ‘worship at the altar’ of plot, I’d merely say this: gripping plots are ten-a-penny, radiant style and three-dimensional characters are very much not. There are hundreds of well-written masterpieces that will live on long after we’re all dead that contain little to no plot; could anyone say the same about something which is grippingly-plotted though clumsily-written? I think not.
I tell you, I finally picked up The Prince of Tides because everybody in the whole state has read it and I thought I might as well, and I can’t imagine a book that would be more improved by a plainer style. I’m still reading it because I want to know what the hell happened because they do that whole “I would never forget what happened that year” and then NOT TELL YOU until three quarters of the way through the book thing, but the style is seriously hopping up and down on my last nerve. I think it’s supposed to suggest the main character’s detachment, but it’s obnoxious and it hides the really good stuff - when he gets a really good image you don’t notice it because of all the other stuff.
This one has been my demise, too. I’ve picked it up two or three times (in English) on recommendations of friends who know what style of novel I like and absolutely loved what I’ve read of it. Except I always found reason to put it down for a week and, by the time I got back to it, I completely forgot who the complex cast of characters were and their relationships, even though my edition has a genealogy chart in the front. I just have a terrible memory for books and even movies-- most of them get stored in some temporary RAM space in my brain that gets overwritten as soon as more important information needs to be stored.
All right, so I’m a barbarian. After forcing myself to read far too many books that I either hated or just didn’t get, hoping against hope that they’d get better, I now put them down after 50 pages if they haven’t hooked me. Life’s too short to read book that do nothing for you.
Really? You could tell Churchill was going to end up with Jane Fairfax? As for Emma and Knightley, I think one of the themes of the book is that some of the best matches are obvious to all but the two individuals involved.
Didn’t you enjoy the way Emma makes a complete fool of herself over the Harriet - Elton connection, or the cruel way that Austen makes fun of Mrs Elton? Some people think that “cuddly” Mr Woodhouse is actually a sinister bullying character. Personally, I think Austen could have been a writer on Larry Sanders or The Office, not crappy rom-coms.
Well said- and I think it also bears mentioning that the reason Emma might seem like a predictable rom-comedy is that so many themes of romantic comedy today originated from Austen’s work (Pride & Prejudice the classic overused example of this!)
Had to read this for an 18th Century novel class. Proust puts me to sleep, Hardy and Faulkner both make me want to kill myself, but Clarissa is the only book I can think of that I’m genuinely proud of myself for finishing.
Loved Moby Dick and just about all of Hemingway, Austen and Dickens, though.
Conceded. But I still prefer Burney.
I’ll second Jane Austen’s Emma. I had to read it in college. I was on a deadline to read it, plus a pile of other books (procrastination will do that 
). I just couldn’t read more than a handful of pages before falling asleep. Literally. Of the pile of books on the list, I only read Ethan Frome and Midnight Children - both devoured in the same day. Great books. Emma ? Emma took two and a half weeks.
Thankfully, the written exam fell on Emma. And, again thankfully, the guy who marked my paper must have shared my opinion, because I tore ol’ Jane a new one in it. And got 16/20.
The oral exam wasn’t so lucky…
I’ve read Jane Austin,quite enjoyed them but she tends to get a bit samey after a while.
Love Shakespearian tragedies.
Dont enjoy Dickens.
Forced myself to read all the way through Catcher in the Rye because a girl I fancied lent it to me and I thought that it would give us some talking points.
Totally loathed the book and then found that she did as well,the little minx enjoyed making me jump through hoops.
You’re not a barbarian, you’re being smart. Sure there are books that pick up after 50 pages etc, but it’s your life. Nancy Pearl, Librarian Extraordinaire, advises giving a book 50 pages and if it’s not doing it for you, move on. I went to her site, but cannot wade through the many pages on reading and book recommendations to find the salient quote.
I also give a book about 50 pages and then drop it. Am I missing some fine books? Probably. But I’m also not punishing myself by making myself read something I “should” find appealing or “good”. Yes, some literature is difficult, but has its own rewards. But even given that, personal tastes vary.
Genre fiction has its own masters, who also use language and plot and character very well. It exists on a spectrum of ability and talent (some of what is published IS shite), but genre fiction is not a barren wasteland of plot and hackneyed characters. Literature, like Art, is a bastion of snobs at times. Read what you want to read. Enjoy it, even if it is shite. It’s your life.
Actually, Nancy Pearl has an age-related axiom - you give a book one hundred pages minus your age. If you’re nine, then you have ninety one pages in which to like a book. If you’re a hundred, well, if it doesn’t grab you on the first one why bother?
ETA - of course, then nobody would ever get to the good part of The Name of the Rose - but generally speaking there’s worse advice.