Probably Finnegan’s Wake back in grad school. No, I didn’t finish it.
A couple of years ago while traveling in Ireland, I ran into a little book in a gift shop titled How to Fake Reading Joyce or something along those lines. It gave a brief summary of FW–I had no idea that’s what it was about.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but: what left you scratching your head? I thought that book – well, granted, tossed a lot of hey-what-the-heck stuff out there; but then kept erring on the side of exposition when characters would exposit what happened.
Spoiler stuff if you’d like, and I’ll reply likewise – but I’m genuinely curious.
Naked Lunch.
Just finished “MF” by Anthony Burgess. I enjoyed steeping myself in his writing style so much, I sort of lost track of the story, and didn’t really care. That often happens. Story lines are a dime a dozen, and I like to just listen to the way an author delivers the details.
That, by the way, is the reason there is no correlation between the “greatness” of a book, and the movie based on it. But exactly the same story line.
I am about to embark upon Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott Abbott. I am told I will not understand it :-/
Have you seen the movie? It keeps a lot of the weirdness of the book but makes it somewhat more coherent.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean, but it’s possible you’re overthinking it. Like a Monty Python movie (only aimed at Victorian era children), the book’s mainly just a string of jokes and comedic bits and funny scenes.
If you’re saying that you don’t understand the jokes and references, Martin Gardner’s Annotated Alice might help; though I think there’s plenty there that can be appreciated without an explanation. If you just don’t find it funny, well, humor doesn’t work for everybody; different people find different things funny.
Eh? No, you’ll get it easily. It’s a darling little fable, and I think you’ll adore it. It’s very short, so even if you hate it, you won’t have waded through 900 pages (Anathem!)
(I made a point of reading it on the penultimate night of the last year of the millennium, just as the narrator writes of in the opening.)
All of them.
I was a smart little kid and my 2nd grade teacher thought I would love this. After two days of trying I told her that nothing made any sense at all and I was probably too dumb to understand what in the world was going on. Sure I saw that she drank potions and shrunk and grew at chased a rabbit but why? Why was she doing such stupid things?
Funny how I got better at understanding nonsense once I got older.
I have read two of Thomas Pynchon’s novels: Vineland and The Crying of Lot 49.
I’m not sure which one of the two I have read most recently, so my answer is both of these.
mmm
I’m reading The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe
'nuff said.
Nah, I get it on the surface level easily enough, but I do get the sense that multiple re-reads would make it clearer. I am not yet done, but am on the final part, Citadel of the Autarch.
Yeah, there are a lot of different threads going on in that book, and it takes a couple hundred pages to know who everyone is and how they’re connected. But if you want a book to tie everything up at the end it’s probably good that you bailed when you did.
Another one nominating Gravity’s Rainbow. I’ve “read” the whole thing, but have to confess that I kind of zoned out from somewhere about halfway in until the last couple of pages.
Oh, well, guess I’ll just have to wait for the movie. 
Ok, burn me at the stake. But, I do not understand the obsession with Harry Potter. I do not understand the love affair with Hunger Cramps, and I don’t understand why any decent publisher would touch 50 Shades of Crap. But, that’s just me. I am not main stream and I have never been main stream. I guess you have to be a lemming to understand these novels, huh?
It might help to think of Gravity’s Rainbow as cyberpunk. I don’t believe Pynchon was being deliberately or unnecessarily cryptic.
About mainstream pulp fiction, one may not care for it, but you can hardly argue it is difficult to understand. That said, there are plenty of (not necessarily bad) novels with bits in them where I wonder if it is I or the author who was missing something.
[Moderating]
Jinx, I know that hipster “I’m-too-cool-for-this-popular-thing” is very popular right now, but please leave it out of unrelated threads. If you don’t have anything to contribute, then don’t.
My favorite step-son gave me a copy of The Alchemist, by Paulo Coelho, for Christmas. I read it. I don’t think I get it. Or maybe I get it, but what it has to say is so trite and empirically false that I think there must be something deeper that I am missing. I don’t plan to read it again to find out.
I agree with the part of the Wikipedia entry for the book that says that its central philosophy “when you really want something to happen, the whole universe will conspire so that your wish comes true.” That is so obviously not true that I kept hoping to find something else in there, but I didn’t.
Apparently, this book has sold 150 million copies.
While everything isn’t tied up at the end in the sense of being unresolved, since the plot lines are still in motion at the end, I think things are pretty much tied up in terms of unanswered questions (unless of course there’s something huge I missed which is a distinct possibility). It’s just that they’re suddenly answered in a hamhanded expository way rather than being gradually revealed.
I still support the decision to bail when these two (unresolved plot and exposition) combine with the apparently deliberately sabotaged prose – every time it seems the prose is turning beautiful he ruins the rhythm with slang or an unnecessary word. All of the above is sort of sad because of the potential that was missed (not to mention missed by having at least twice as many sudden jump cuts to a different scene than I was comfortable following.)
I tried to read Slaughterhouse Five. I got maybe a hundred pages in. While I understood what was literally going on, I couldn’t for the life of me understand why people rave about that book. It was boring.
The Last Policeman.
It’s not that I didn’t understand the story, it’s just that it was written in a strange way. The author seemed to care more about the premise than the actual story. The conclusion of the murder mystery was treated like an afterthought, like, “Oh, by the way, in case you were wondering, this is what happened…” Granted, the premise is the most intriguing part of the story (it is literally “The End of The World,” after all), but the ho-hum conclusion to the main plot was off-putting to me. I know there are two other books in the series and the first is basically just a setup for the other two, but still.