Who's afraid of those "difficult" novelists ?

[Lisnaholic]

You make a good point about Dostoevsky, Lisna. I also think it's because he's weirdly the most accessible of the Russian writers: on the one hand because the constant drama means that, for better or worse, at least his books are comparatively fast-paced compared to the likes of Tolstoy; on the other hand, his clunky way of writing means that the underlying themes are comparatively on-the-nose. I certainly don't breeze through Dostoevsky, by the way, or quite a few other writers mentioned in this thread. It's just that all my discipline in life seems to be concentrated in the ability to finish books.

Good for you on your reading discipline, Marie ! In fact, it's very rare for me to abandon a book too, which is why I remember my prob with The Brothers K: it was exceptional.
In bold: I've never thought of that before, but, like in music, a certain element of clunkiness can work well, adding to the impact or sincerity of the song or book.

A phrase comes to mind, not sure where I heard it: a classic is something everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read.

^ There's an element of truth in that isn't there? I'm guilty in as much as I'm prepared to voice an opinion about a book I haven't read (though I stay honest and say I haven't read it). I also find that a biog of a novelist is often more enjoyable than reading the guy's novels - on the topic of which...

Samuel Becket turns up as a character in this biog of Giacometti:-

Spoiler

[close]

Apparently the playwright and the sculptor were great drinking buddies in Paris; according to biographer, James Lord, "Both men had a mind like a steel trap."
Does anyone have a verdict on Becket's famous Waiting For Godot? I haven't read it, but I have watched this filmed version of the play which is available complete on YouTube:-

My own verdict: I quite enjoyed it as a virtuoso display of wordiness, but I wasn't much the wiser at the end of it. Have I missed something?

And finally, Jane Austen - not because she's "difficult", but because she shows up in TH's amusing Futurama fantasy of visiting Great Books.

 

[innerspaceboy]

Godot is my favorite stage play of all time. I had the esteemed pleasure of seeing it performed by the great Vincent O'Neill, the co-founder and former Artistic Director of the Irish Classical Theatre Company (ICTC) in Buffalo, New York. The man is a legend in the theatre community. It's one of my fondest memories in the arts!

The film you linked on YouTube is the next best thing, in my opinion.

[Marie Monday]

Good for you on your reading discipline, Marie ! In fact, it's very rare for me to abandon a book too, which is why I remember my prob with The Brothers K: it was exceptional.
In bold: I've never thought of that before, but, like in music, a certain element of clunkiness can work well, adding to the impact or sincerity of the song or book.

^ There's an element of truth in that isn't there? I'm guilty in as much as I'm prepared to voice an opinion about a book I haven't read (though I stay honest and say I haven't read it). I also find that a biog of a novelist is often more enjoyable than reading the guy's novels - on the topic of which...

Samuel Becket turns up as a character in this biog of Giacometti:-

Spoiler

[close]

Apparently the playwright and the sculptor were great drinking buddies in Paris; according to biographer, James Lord, "Both men had a mind like a steel trap."
Does anyone have a verdict on Becket's famous Waiting For Godot? I haven't read it, but I have watched this filmed version of the play which is available complete on YouTube:-

My own verdict: I quite enjoyed it as a virtuoso display of wordiness, but I wasn't much the wiser at the end of it. Have I missed something?

And finally, Jane Austen - not because she's "difficult", but because she shows up in TH's amusing Futurama fantasy of visiting Great Books.

 

I love godot, it's hilarious. It's absurdist so I think it's meant to leave you feeling that way; life is pointless too.
I can definitely understand people abandoning Dostoevsky. I love amateurish art for the same reason you mention, but the problem with his books is that it's not clunky in a naive way, but in the rushed way of someone who wants to churn out a book without taking proper care about the details of the craft, so I don't enjoy it as much. The absurdity of it (and even more so, of the constant drama) does make me laugh sometimes though; that's the only reason I've been able to finish some of his books. To be fair, Dostoevsky was brilliant and there is a lot of fantastic stuff in there worth thinking over, but it's hidden in the mess.

By the way, as far as I've read (which is only 3 books) the Brothers Karamazov is even the least bad of the bunch lol. In the Idiot there's a scene (if you can even call it one single scene) with virtually all the book's characters crowded together in a room for some plot-convenient reason and it's just an endless fever dream of incoherent raving monologues and people throwing fits and acting insufferable to each other for no discernible reason. That was a fucking struggle to get through

[Trollheart]

I certainly would not call Dickens difficult, far from it, but the only one of his novels I could not - well, did not want to finish was Martin Chuzzlewit. I was reading it for Karen as part of our attempt to get through all his novels, and I'd say maybe less than a third of the way in I looked at her, she looked at me, and we both said "It's not very good, is it?" Agreed, we decided to dump it and move on.

It's interesting to note that Chuzzlewit was the worst-received of his novels, sold the least, and in fact he wrote A Christmas Carol around the same time, perhaps to placate his readers and show he was not losing it. Oddly, he thought Chuzzlewit was his best work at the time, but sales said otherwise. I personally don't rate it, though in fairness I didn't finish it, so maybe at some point I'll tackle it again.

[Lisnaholic]

I love godot, it's hilarious. It's absurdist so I think it's meant to leave you feeling that way; life is pointless too.

Aha! That's a key observation ! Now I can place Godot better in the scheme of things: rather like the Seinfeld sitcom, it's a play about nothing !

I can definitely understand people abandoning Dostoevsky. I love amateurish art for the same reason you mention, but the problem with his books is that it's not clunky in a naive way, but in the rushed way of someone who wants to churn out a book without taking proper care about the details of the craft, so I don't enjoy it as much. The absurdity of it (and even more so, of the constant drama) does make me laugh sometimes though; that's the only reason I've been able to finish some of his books. To be fair, Dostoevsky was brilliant and there is a lot of fantastic stuff in there worth thinking over, but it's hidden in the mess.

By the way, as far as I've read (which is only 3 books) the Brothers Karamazov is even the least bad of the bunch lol. In the Idiot there's a scene (if you can even call it one single scene) with virtually all the book's characters crowded together in a room for some plot-convenient reason and it's just an endless fever dream of incoherent raving monologues and people throwing fits and acting insufferable to each other for no discernible reason. That was a fucking struggle to get through

Thanks for the warning about The Idiot ! I've also read 3 Dostoevsky books (Crime And Punishment, House of The Dead and Notes From Underground), but I didn't notice those elements of absurdity and drama that you mention. What I remember most is a rather humourless exploration of how people confront crises. Mind you, at the time, those were exactly the kind of books I was searching for.
 

I certainly would not call Dickens difficult, far from it, but the only one of his novels I could not - well, did not want to finish was Martin Chuzzlewit. I was reading it for Karen as part of our attempt to get through all his novels, and I'd say maybe less than a third of the way in I looked at her, she looked at me, and we both said "It's not very good, is it?" Agreed, we decided to dump it and move on.

It's interesting to note that Chuzzlewit was the worst-received of his novels, sold the least, and in fact he wrote A Christmas Carol around the same time, perhaps to placate his readers and show he was not losing it. Oddly, he thought Chuzzlewit was his best work at the time, but sales said otherwise. I personally don't rate it, though in fairness I didn't finish it, so maybe at some point I'll tackle it again.

I've enjoyed some Dickens, and love the way some of his convoluted sentences wind around before they finally make excellent sense. On the other hand, I have got pretty fed up with some of his implausable, exaggerated characters. I liked Tale Of Two Cities, but paradoxically, given that it was so autobiographical, I found that David Copperfield was disappointingly un-Dickensian: it was far too straightforward !

[Trollheart]

To really appreciate the length of some of Dickens' sentences, try reading them aloud! I remember there was one paragraph (can't remember which book it was) that took up the whole page! By the time I had finished it I was literally gasping for breath, and I said to Karen "Jesus that was one long sentence!" Considering his books were meant to be read out to an audience, I can't understand that. The man used more semi-colons, hyphens and colons than I think are in the entire Declaration of Independence, if there are any in it, which I don't know but assume there are.

[Lisnaholic]

Yes, a real challange to read CD out loud I should think: not just the amount of breath you need to reach the end of a sentence, but working out, as you go, the right intonation and stuff so that the sense is maintained.

Here's a CD sentence which a quick google search turned up:-

Charles Dickens, "Barnaby Rudge." 216 words.
"There he sat, watching his wife as she decorated the room with flowers for the greater honour of Dolly and Joseph Willet, who had gone out walking, and for whom the tea-kettle had been singing gaily on the hob full twenty minutes, chirping as never kettle chirped before; for whom the best service of real undoubted china, patterned with divers round-faced mandarins holding up broad umbrellas, was now displayed in all its glory; to tempt whose appetites a clear, transparent, juicy ham, garnished with cool green lettuce-leaves and fragrant cucumber, reposed upon a shady table, covered with a snow-white cloth; for whose delight, preserves and jams, crisp cakes and other pastry, short to eat, with cunning twists, and cottage loaves, and rolls of bread both white and brown, were all set forth in rich profusion; in whose youth Mrs V. herself had grown quite young, and stood there in a gown of red and white: symmetrical in figure, buxom in bodice, ruddy in cheek and lip, faultless in ankle, laughing in face and mood, in all respects delicious to behold—there sat the locksmith among all and every these delights, the sun that shone upon them all: the centre of the system: the source of light, heat, life, and frank enjoyment in the bright household world."

I particularly like this bit, where, in a sentence already bursting with non-essential detail, he just can't stop himself from piling on just one more non-essential phrase after another, for the sheer pleasure of their sound:-

"...and stood there in a gown of red and white: symmetrical in figure, buxom in bodice, ruddy in cheek and lip, faultless in ankle, laughing in face and mood, in all respects delicious to behold..."

[Trollheart]

Yes I tried that one out loud and it wasn't a problem. I think my issue was twofold: one, if the paragraph described action (think maybe Bill Sykes escaping - or so he thought - into the marshes at the end of Oliver Twist) and you kind of have to keep the sense of breatheless (almost literally) excitment going. Especially with dialogue, where you can't really pause. When I have time I'll look and see if I can find a paragraph that illustrates this.

The other issue I had was that, no matter what I was reading (not Dickens now) I had to be constantly scanning ahead as I read, as Karen would not like to hear, say, extended sex scenes or scenes of cruelty to animals, and it was a challenge for my eyes to be sort of reconnoitring ahead and reporting back to my brain, which had to get the signal to my mouth - jump over this bit! Skip all the next paragraph! Add in your own description so as to avoid a potentially embarrassing or upsetting one!

I remember doing something like, let's say a dog got run over on a motorway. I would have to think up, on the fly, very quickly, alternate reasons why the car swerved, or the kid screamed or whatever. And I had to make it look as if I wasn't doing that. Occasionally, I just had to say "Well, we'll just leave all that out - you don't want to hear about that!" and she would just agree and accept that. But once or twice the eyes got tired and the brain was still waiting for the go-code when the mouth was already as it were in the drop zone. Great fun.

[Lisnaholic]

Well, you developed some real skills by doing all that,TH. Just the reading aloud well is quite an accomplishment, but editing as you go - that's really difficult.  But where to make the best of those skills? There is a library here where they have a children's story time every Saturday morning, so you could fly out here once a week if you like, or perhaps get a guest slot on Jackanory - or better still, as more serious, do an actual audio book !

...and if you want a challenge, how about recording Virginia Woolf's The Waves ? This exercise in stream-of-consciousness writing is an unusual reading experience. According to Wiki:-
 

The Waves is a 1931 novel by English novelist Virginia Woolf. It is critically regarded as her most experimental work, consisting of ambiguous and cryptic soliloquies spoken mainly by six characters: Bernard, Susan, Rhoda, Neville, Jinny and Louis. As the six characters or "voices" speak, Woolf explores concepts of individuality, self and community. "Each character is distinct, yet together they compose a gestalt about a silent central consciousness", according to a reviewer.

In a 2015 poll conducted by the BBC, The Waves was voted the 16th greatest British novel ever written.

Whether intentional or not, The Waves makes a good title because you end up letting the words wash over you and shouldn't expect too much in the way of plot or action. Things do happen, but they are kind of submersed in the ruminations of each character. From memory, Rhoda was pretty wacky and her sections were a real chore, but Bernard was more level-headed and his sections gave you a chance of understanding what was going on.

[Guybrush]

About the Divine Comedy, this turned up in my youtube feed.

Some of this AI content (here often inspired by Dore) is interesting.

[Trollheart]

Thanks for that Lisna. Yeah, I kind of in a way always find my eyes/attention skipping ahead when reading anyway, to the extent that if I see a small paragraph on its own or capital letters which are going to give something away, I have to force my eyes to wait till my reading mind catches up with them, if you know what I mean. It wasn't actually so hard; as you read you kind of look at the next few lines anyway, and there are vital seconds from step 1) read the lines in your mind, step 2) read them out aloud and step 3) read the next lines in your mind, so there is actually usually ample time to sort of "pre-censor" what you're going to read. Also, on occasions you could guess where the text was going: "Jimmy took the old horse out to the shed and looked sadly at his Winchester" is not going to end well, is it? Sometimes it wasn't entirely possible to know, but you could get hints, especially with the sex scenes, so you'd get a kind of "his hand slid up her next morning the sun was shining" etc. 

Karen wasn't a prude but she was very embarrassed by any sort of sexual content in literature, at least, anything read out to her, so I had to be very aware of that. It probably had a lot to do with the fact that I was her brother. Sometimes it was almost impossible, as important information might be exchanged or revealed during "the act", and then I'd have to perform REAL mental gymnastics! Could be challenging, I tell you.

And speaking of challenges, no thanks. I've been challenged enough, and have plenty more to challenge me in my writing, be it journals, stories or the book I'm trying to write about her. I'm for a quiet life, personally, and I don't enjoy stream-of-consciousness writing; I'm very much someone who wants a plot that can be followed, logic and reason for me within the context of the writing of course (how DID Gandalf survive that fall at Moria, and what WERE the paths he walked upon, of which he will not say?) but something that makes some sort of basic sense.

It's an interesting exercise, reading to someone. You have to keep your voice up, expect interruptions as questions are asked, have a sort of ongoing conversation with the person listening as you read. Sometimes Karen would ask me to re-read sections of text (whether she had not heard/understood or just liked it and wanted to hear it again) and she certainly had me read certain books two or three times; that could get wearing. But the whole idea of reading to her I found generally quite rewarding and very relaxing. Now it just reminds me of course. But I'm glad Karen didn't have to lose the joy of reading (or hearing someone else read to her) as one of the many things MS took from her. It was little enough to do, but I'm glad I was able to do it.

[Marie Monday]

Whether intentional or not, The Waves makes a good title because you end up letting the words wash over you and shouldn't expect too much in the way of plot or action. Things do happen, but they are kind of submersed in the ruminations of each character. From memory, Rhoda was pretty wacky and her sections were a real chore, but Bernard was more level-headed and his sections gave you a chance of understanding what was going on.

I never understood the imagery of Rhoda's visions (if they even have a definite meaning, they felt like an artistic calling or maybe just a longing for death) but I found her moving, so detached from the world and lonely. I liked the earthy fierceness of Susan

[Weekender]

You could probably add Cormac McCarthy to the list! I am technically reading Blood Meridian, but kinda fell off as I didn't have a grasp on what was going on.

I am attracted to weird, avantgarde things in other mediums (movie, music). But in litterature, I don't like it when it becomes too dense. I generally am not good at deciphering tricky symbolism. I don't necessarily enjoy meta writing, like writing the same story in different styles. I don't enjoy it when chronology is jumbled. I basically enjoy stories that I can understand and follow and prefer authors who write for readers rather than other writers.

I did enjoy Robert Chambers' trick with the unreliable narrator in the first of his short stories that make up The King in Yellow. In that story, there is a book (or play) called The King In Yellow that changes those who read it, making them insane. The book is written as narrated by our protagonist, so when he tells us he read The King in Yellow, we know him to be mad and unreliable.

It was of course a huge influence on Lovecraft who stole much of it and placed it in his own cosmos.

The process of analyzing the text is sometimes the entire point of "lit fic". In some sense these writers produce critical thinking textbooks. Often you will want to spend more time reading essays about the book than the book itself, and this is just the nature of difficult literature. The writer is intending to enrich the conversation.

For example, I picked up Sartre's "Naseua", but a fair amount of it is lost on me because it's intended to create a dialogue within philosophy classrooms.