I just reread Roger Zelzany's Lord of Light. While I was enthralled by it, I was also reminded why I don't reread it very often...it's the sort of book that takes one's commitment to enjoy. The plot begins with events near the end of the story, skips back to the beginning, only gives hints 95% of the time on what's actually happening, reaches several false climaxes before the actual climax...
It's -good-, but it's demanding.
What novel do you love, but find requires more than its fair share of effort to get through?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Hatrack.
I know it doesn't count as a novel, but . . . . Hatrack.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
It took me a while to get into A Game of Thrones by G.R.R. Martin. You just have to stomach your way past those first few chapters before you can get hooked.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Lord of Light, actually.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Lord of the Rings.
Wonderful, wonderful story, but not the best-flowing writing in the world. It takes effort.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Xenocide does that for me. I'm rereading it again- like Speaker I can get through in you know- 5-7 days time reading it off and on. But Xenocide just keeps going and I'll read a lot and then realize I didn't make very much progress. That's the reason why I've only read Children of the Mind like two or three times.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The Silmarillion
Great stories. Very hard to read.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
A Game of Thrones seemed pretty easy to get into for me.
I'd have to agree with LOTR though, I still haven't finished the second book because it's just too slow.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Les Miserables takes the cake as the novel I am most happy I had to read for class. I doubt I could ever reread it, but reading it once definately left a lasting impression on me.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: The Silmarillion
Great stories. Very hard to read.
I kind of agree. It definitely was a pain the first time through, and there are still a couple parts I gloss over, but overall I love it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Baroque Cycle Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Oddly enough, Pastwatch the first time I read it.
Consistently, "Glass Bead Game" is a tough read, but words fail to express how pleased I was after I finished reading it the first time. Probably the... deepest (intense in a complete immersion sort of way) book I've ever read, by a long distance.
Also, Pillars of the Earth was a challenge at times, but in the end made me glad I stuck with it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Dr. Faustus
It's probably clearer in German. As it stood, I could feel the power and depth, but I think that a translation took away a bit of the clarity.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I, um, like Ulysses.
As in Joyce.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Baroque Cycle
Yeah, tried that once. Didn't get more than a couple hundred pages in before I realized I had no idea what was going on. I think I'll try again someday.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I finished the first book of the Baroque Cycle, enjoyed it considerably, but never got around to starting the second (or, of course, the third). Not sure I ever will. I probably will reread Cryptonomicon one of these days. Which I suppose is my favorite "difficult" novel.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Two recent books, both difficult (for different reasons), both destined I think to be favorites:
House of Leaves -- I am only halfway through (no spoilers, please!).
Strange and Norrell starts out very slow, and is not for everyone. I ultimately found it deeply satisfying -- clever, funny, sad, inspiring.
House of Leaves is extremely unconventional. The author decomposes "novel" in every way imaginable, and the resulting disorientation about where the "fourth wall" lies (to borrow a term from theater) allows the story's horror to seep into one's everyday experience in ways unlike any conventional thriller.
Anyone else read or reading these?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I was going to say House of Leaves as well, I see someone beat me to it.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Try reading Red Fish Blue Fish fast. That's all I have to say.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Heh, I've actually put down Lord of light on my first try. It's only a couple of years after that that I went back to reading it and found it to be worth the effort.
Oh, and have you tried to read Tolstoi's War and Peace? 300 pages of introduction. The man had time on his hands. It gets really great once you've passed those.
Peter Hamilton's The Reality Dysfunction is probably SF's War and Peace from this point of view. Excellent ideas that come after 300 pages of boring introduction. It may not be the greatest character book, but the ideas and the action more than make up for this and for the somewhat too "heroic" plot.
As for the best book of this kind, I think it must be Frank Herbert's God-Emperor of Dune. I've started reading the series when I was quite young, but each book had enough "action" to keep my mind occupied and away from the more psychological stuff. But with GE I hit a wall. That's why it was my least favorite book of the series until I reread them. Now I'm not even sure I have favorites in this series anymore. They are all so interesting, cohesive but also with enough differences to make each one a great book on its own.
And if anyone wants a tough read, try Stanislaw Lem's Memoirs Found in a Bathtub. So far I haven't found another person to have finished it. I've also read that it's very much in Kafka's style, so I guess I'll have to take a look at his books too someday. My first try was unsuccessful, but you never know.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Lord of the Rings.
Wonderful, wonderful story, but not the best-flowing writing in the world. It takes effort.
Its funny, I read the first few hundred pages and was completely bored by the thing. Friends tell me it was a life changing experience, but for the life of me I can't see how these people get into the books. They're just so discursive!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: [QB] Oh, and have you tried to read Tolstoi's War and Peace? 300 pages of introduction. The man had time on his hands. It gets really great once you've passed those. QB]
Available on Audible.com, its something like 60-70 hours of listening. Yeah. I actually want to at least give it a listen to say that I did read it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: Try reading Red Fish Blue Fish fast. That's all I have to say.
Heh. That's easy. Try Fox in Sox.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I personal never have any trouble with LOTR, but I have probably read them 6-8 times in my life.
I am currently reading "Three Days Till Never" by Tim Powers. I find it very interesting, but he jumps around a lot, has several characters’ points of view and intentionally leaves things confusing to resolve later. It’s not Tolstoy, but it’s harder to follow than the standard thriller.
I’ll second Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell for the same reasons. Has anyone hear when she is going to release something else?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: Try reading Red Fish Blue Fish fast. That's all I have to say.
I love doing speed readings of Hop On Pop for my kids. Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
The first time I read LOTR, it was wonderful and very difficult. I started in 5th grade and took about a year.
More recently, Baroque Cycle (2 out of 3 so far) has been delightful and challenging.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, LOTR was difficult. That's all I have to say. Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I've been reading "Don Quijote" in Spanish for the last 30 years. I'm only half way through. Its not even the vocabulary even though my Spanish chops are all Mexican. It's just a slow book and once I put it down, its hard to pick it up again.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I'd be interested in some comments on what we mean by 'difficult.' Certainly difficulty must be a value-neutral term? Books are better judged, IMO, on so many more levels than mere 'ease,' including whether the author achieved her aim.
I personally do not put LOTR in the same category as House of Leaves. The former may be more or less difficult for different readers, depending on their age, experience, maturity, taste, educational background, cultural upbringing, etc., but I don't think anyone can argue that Tolkein intended to write a difficult book -- that he set out to do anything other than spin an epic yarn. Can one?
(Nor did I consider Cryptonomicon a difficult read; but then, I have a taste for a lot of the math/code stuff that might have dismayed a less technical person.)
OTOH, House of Leaves is deliberately difficult -- it is part of the writer's creative approach to use nested narration, nested footnotes, and unconventional typography (including fragmentary phrases, hidden codes, and blocks of text upside-down and sideways).
What's not difficult? Stephen King? Rosamund Pilcher? Agatha Christie? Dan Brown (god help us)?
(Okay, so oops! I betray my bias -- I think I generally prefer difficult to non-difficult.)
Comments?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'd like to get through Gravity's Rainbow someday. I've read two of Pynchon's easier ones -- The Crying of Lot 49 and Vineland -- and admired Pynchon's where-the-hell-did-he-get-that creativity.
Gravity's Rainbow is way more sprawling and dense than those two. It's like trying to eat an entire fruitcake at once. I've only gotten 50 pages through it; someday I'll read it VERY slowly and get through the whole thing...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't find Cryptonomicon a difficult book. It was a darn quick read.
The Baroque Cycle on the other hand, I acutally wrote a thread partially about how difficult I found it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: I'd be interested in some comments on what we mean by 'difficult.' Certainly difficulty must be a value-neutral term? Books are better judged, IMO, on so many more levels than mere 'ease,' including whether the author achieved her aim.
I took it as a given that everyone has their own standard of "difficult, so I felt no need to point that out.
Reread my initial post. I asked about books that one found difficult to read, but still considered good and rewarding.
At no point did I advocate judging a book only on ease. Quite the opposite, as I was talking about a book I really liked! Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
LotR is difficult. It's boring. I've tried a total of 3 times in my life, and I've never gotten past the first 50 or so pages of Fellowship.
I've read The Hobbit, and that's fine. But the turgidity of Fellowship of the Ring is just beyond my abilities.
Reading is fun for me. If it's difficult in that way, why on earth would I waste my time on it?
In the case of LotR, I tried it when I was given copies as a kid. I tried again in my 20s, and again after the first LotR movie came out. I'd happily read a novelization of the movies; something meant to entertain, as opposed to an Oxford don playing with words.
Some books I read are cotton candy. Some are solid and full, and extremely gratifying. None of those are difficult for me. Bug Jack Barron, for example. Halperin's Winter's Tale. OSC's Hart's Hope.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I agree with blacwolve, Les Mis, but I didn't read it for a class because I didn't take HD that year, I read it on my own.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
PuffyTreat, I hope you didn't misconstrue. I was just rambling a bit, not questioning the premise of the thread, or accusing you (or anyone) of considering 'difficult' books 'bad.'
I had just been struck by some of the different flavors to the answers here. Take Lisa's -- does turgidity make something difficult? Is LOTR really turgid?
I call it literary, with an epic-poetic bent strongly influenced by Middle English, Norse, and Gaelic sagas. REAL turgidity is actually bad writing (IMO), implying pompous verbosity.
Of course these are subjective; of course everyone has their own standard of difficulty. I was just interested in digging a bit into what those differences are, across the spectrum of the thread so far.
I agree, BTW, on Les Mis and Cervantes... I find those hard. This might indicate that cultural backgrounds are key. I grew up in England and was weaned on Dickens, Bronte, and Shakespeare. Perhaps it's natural that LOTR reads easily to me.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
huh huh...John said "turgid." And then he said "weaned."
kq, I quite enjoyed Ulysses, too. I would probably also add The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum to my list of favorite "difficult" novels.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Little_Doctor: It took me a while to get into A Game of Thrones by G.R.R. Martin. You just have to stomach your way past those first few chapters before you can get hooked.
Is that book any good? I can never get past the first...30 pages or so. I mean, it was ok. But it was so boring. Does it pick the pace up a bit?
Maybe I should try to read it again and just be more committed.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Going to have to add my vote for The Baroque Cycle. More specifically, maybe, the first of the three (Quicksilver? I think); I realize there was a lot going on and a lot to set up, but never has a book required so much perceived effort to slag through until I got into the story. After the first book was through there were some slower bits but overall very enjoyable.
I'm reading difficult as tedious, in this case, not necessarily difficult to understand, but difficult to get immersed in.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I had trouble with both LOTR and Pastwatch. The first time I read FOTR I couldn't get through it and it was only with great dedication that I finished Pastwatch. Now I love them both, however.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Lisa, I gotta agree with you on LOTR. "Turgid" is an inadequate adjective.
Of late, I would have to say that my toughest read that was worth it was "Perdido Street Station". The guy that wrote that has some interesting ideas, some I wish I'd thought of myself, but it takes him a WHOLE LOTTA PAGES to spit them out on paper. Ultimately, I thought it was well worth the time and energy, but don't think it wasn't an effort. I'm usually at more of a "Warlord of Mars" level of reading.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I found LotR beyond easy to read - it never seemed like effort. It seemed like it pulled me through it, rather than me moving through it.
The first time I read it, I read it all in a single day - about 18 hours, basically straight through. I was in seventh grade.
I have no idea why this is when so many found it difficult. It's clearly not an uncommon opinion, and I know lots of otherwise fast, good readers who found it difficult. But I can't even begin to wrap my head around that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I had a difficult time with LOTR the first time through, probably about 7th grade also. After I saw the first movie I read through all three books and found them pretty easy.
My favorite difficult book is Moby Dick. I've read it 5 times. Now I peruse my notes and go back to specific chapters when something comes to mind that is worth reconsidering. It just never ceases to amaze me how many levels that book operates on.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I LOVE Dhalgren, which a lot of people have trouble with. It's my favorite Sci-Fi novel of all time and if people finish it, I'm sure they'd see just how great it is.
Also, Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: I'd be interested in some comments on what we mean by 'difficult.' Certainly difficulty must be a value-neutral term? Books are better judged, IMO, on so many more levels than mere 'ease,' including whether the author achieved her aim.
I took it as a given that everyone has their own standard of "difficult, so I felt no need to point that out.
Reread my initial post. I asked about books that one found difficult to read, but still considered good and rewarding.
At no point did I advocate judging a book only on ease. Quite the opposite, as I was talking about a book I really liked!
But difficult is not necessarily value neutral either. I think I have described some books as difficult in the negative- the author's voice makes it difficult to read and it becomes less rewarding than a similar book might have been by another author. Difficult is not always challenging- for instance, a book which is simply too long and too boring is difficult to read but is not a challenge in a certain sense, because it can be done in time. It may be an endurance challenge rather than an intellectual one, and then there are challenges to your esthetic values, your beliefs, or your perceptions and assumptions about things.
Difficult in these various contexts can be good or bad or neither, but in reading LOTR, I called it difficult in the negative, because I found myself teary eyed at the thought of another discussion of someplace I had never heard of and would care nothing about in an hour. This aspect would not make the book difficult for everyone, so it is a value judgement pertaining to my own experience with the book, rather than a general observation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Atlas Shrugged. When I first tried to read it, in college, I got about 4 pages in, and it just didn't hold my interest. When I discovered Rand (through her non-fiction) and went to read it when I was 32, my cousin told me about the 60 page speech by John Galt near the end of the book. He told me to just skip the 60 pages, and I wouldn't have missed a thing.
Beats me what he was talking about. I've read the book a few times, and every time, I read through every bit of that speech and just savor it.
Different strokes, I guess.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: Of late, I would have to say that my toughest read that was worth it was "Perdido Street Station". The guy that wrote that has some interesting ideas, some I wish I'd thought of myself, but it takes him a WHOLE LOTTA PAGES to spit them out on paper. Ultimately, I thought it was well worth the time and energy, but don't think it wasn't an effort. I'm usually at more of a "Warlord of Mars" level of reading.
I tried to read Perdido Street Station several years ago and stopped about halfway through. The writing was good and the ideas were interesting, but they were so completely different my mind didn't have anything to get a hold of. Just fitting it all in my brain was a challenge that I wasn't prepared for at the time. I should go back and try again.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I just reread Roger Zelzany's Lord of Light. While I was enthralled by it, I was also reminded why I don't reread it very often
I'm curious, how often do you reread books? Not just Puffy, but all of you. I can count the books I've read more than once on one hand. I have little interest in rereading something when there are so many books yet to read.
Perhaps that is a reflection of the kind of reader I am. I read realatively slowly, but very thoroughly. As a result, I have excellent retention and can remember details from books I read years ago. In contrast, my husband reads very fast but has forgotten the details after only a couple of weeks.
For those of you who enjoy rereading books, how would you describe your reading style.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I gave up on Perdido Street Station a year ago... I still think I might pick it up again... but I just can't do it. The dialogue kills me.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I reread books constantly. I have absolutely horrible retention. But even books I've read so many times I have them memorized I reread just because I love them so much. The summer after I discovered Tamora Pierce's Alanna series I spent a two week period sitting on the living room coach reading them again and again. I had them in a pile in order on the floor and when I finished one I'd put it on the bottom and take the one off the top. I averaged a book to a book and a half a day. I must have read the whole series 6 or 7 times in that two week period.
Now, I'm not normally that ridiculous, but I do need to reread things about once a year in order to retain them. So most of the time when I'm rereading I feel like I'm reading an entirely new book.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Les Miserables takes the cake as the novel I am most happy I had to read for class. I doubt I could ever reread it, but reading it once definately left a lasting impression on me.
I dunno, for me it was Anna Karenina, I think... I loved Les Miserables too, but Anna Karenina was even better.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I hated Anna Karenina. I thought it should have ended halfway through when it was obvious the affair wasn't working and her husband was willing to take her back. After that, I didn't even feel the tiny bit of sympathy I'd had for her previously.
I have real problems with adultry.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I loved the book. I hated the CHARACTER Anna Karenina... I couldn't wait for her to die. But the rest of the book I enjoyed immensely.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Difficult in these various contexts can be good or bad or neither, but in reading LOTR, I called it difficult in the negative, because I found myself teary eyed at the thought of another discussion of someplace I had never heard of and would care nothing about in an hour. This aspect would not make the book difficult for everyone, so it is a value judgement pertaining to my own experience with the book, rather than a general observation.
Very helpful and insightful, Orincoro. Thanks.
I'm glad you mentioned Rand, Lisa! I devoured Fountainhead and loved it; but there's a copy of Atlas around here somewhere that I have started four or five times. *shrug* I'll get going on it eventually, but right now I feel it's one of those "classics I should have read" -- and not in a good way Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's interesting to me how different people consider different books "difficult." I loved Perdido Street Station, Lord of Light, and LOTR, but for the life of me I can't keep interest in Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell, or The Baroque Cycle. I got about 300 pages into each one, and while the writing is pretty, just nothing is going on, and what is going on is complicated and doesn't seem to make much difference.
The entire series that begins with A Game of Thrones is one of my favorite sets of books ever. So much great stuff happens, you get to know the characters so well and care about them, it's just awesome. If you only read 30 pages, you're missing out.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I really liked War and Peace, but it took me a year to read it. Nothing else but the Bible (cover to cover) has ever taken me that long.
Come to think of it, the Bible might be the one to actually get my vote.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
The most difficult I ever read was called 'Mei' (May) and was written by Herman Gorter. You've probably never heard about it. It's a poem that spans a length of 180 pages. I spent an entire two weeks holiday working my way through it and it'll be a long before I'll read that again.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
"Difficult" can indeed have more than one meaning.
Let's see. Lord of the Rings was boring, that's why it was difficult. I really wanted to read it before the movies, and I managed to, but those descriptions almost killed it for me. Oh, and as I said in another thread, it dragged the ending like it was a "pay-by-the-page" kind of book.
Lem's Memoirs in a bathtub is difficult because it is full of contradictions, invented words, improbable situations, etc. You really have to make an effort to keep reading it. I don't know how to describe it better, but if you get your hands on it try reading 50 pages and you'll fully understand what I mean.
Other books are difficult just because it's not the right moment for me to read them. That's how it was with God-Emperor of Dune. Of course, after rereading the whole series I found a lot of things I missed the first time, but the other books had something that could keep me interested even when I was younger. So they were "easy" to read because my mind just skipped over the complicated bits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About rereading: I don't often reread books, since I always have a huge list of "to-read" ones. But there are some I do reread. The reasons can be quite different here too.
I might want to get a feeling of the author. That's why I've reread all my Ph. K. Dick books during a holiday. It really helps me see his grand themes, or make connections I haven't made before. Granted, Ph. K. Dick also had quite a unity of style and ideas throughout his books - at least from my point of view.
Or, I'm rereading a long series if the first time I read each book as they translated it. I've done this with Asimov's Robots-Empire-Foundation cycle (14 or 15 books in total) and it was a very gratifying experience.
As I said above, I might not understand the whole book the first time: this made me reread Dune. At first. Now I'm just rereading that series because it's one of the best ever and now I'm "free" to look at all the details since I know the core by heart.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: "Difficult" can indeed have more than one meaning.
Let's see. Lord of the Rings was boring, that's why it was difficult. I really wanted to read it before the movies, and I managed to, but those descriptions almost killed it for me. Oh, and as I said in another thread, it dragged the ending like it was a "pay-by-the-page" kind of book. heart.
So it wasn't necessarily bad editing that stretched the end of ROTK by a good 40 minutes. Seriously though, someone should have tried to reason with jackson on that one. True to the material yes, and the series deserved the oscar, but for gods sakes that ending was toooo much. On and on and on.
And on and on and on.
:music swells:
And on and OOONNN.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Orincoro: No, it was good editing. They actually left out part of the plot from the book ending if you can believe it! :twitch:
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
War and Peace tops my list of favorite "difficult" novel.
I could never finish Ulysses by James Joyce. I have a hard enough time living in my own head. Reading that book is like living in six different peoples heads. And that's only 285 pages into it.
I'm honestly surprised by how many people have a hard time getting into LOTR. Silmarillion, I can understand, it took me a couple times for that. But the trilogy? Really? Maybe it's because my mom read them out loud to me when I was nine. Awesome bed time stories. I've been reading them every fall since then. It's actually about that time again, but I have to get through all this Dune stuff first. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have finished Dante's Inferno twice--once for class and once on my own, but I can't get through Paridiso and only barely made it through Purgatoro.
Either this means that there is more fun reading to be had with the sinners than the saints, or it predicts my own post-mortality future. I am hoping for the former.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco takes unspeakable effort for me, but it's still a phenomenal book.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)