Books only lying poseurs could claim to like

[SanchezZz]

the Quijote, honestly, it's so lengthy ...I have known people who claim they have read it, but I don't know, my parents bought it when I was a kid, I can't remember how many tomes they were but they were A LOT, and they were ALL THICK... yeah nah, my dad, I know he read it almost all, he truly liked it but he never had enough time to read that completely... they he retired and he said his eyes were to strained to continue to do so, I often times have offered reading it to him but he says "nah, I'm fine, I am bored of it now" HAHAHA... so there you go.

[rkomar]

I got through the whole of Don Quixote, and although it was a slog in places, it left a lasting impression on me. It has two scenes that actually made me laugh out loud they were so funny, and I don't think any other book has got more than a chuckle out of me.

[Victoria]

These aren’t classics, and they’re very highly rated. However I found The Name of the Rose and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance tedious and pretentious, back when I read them. I always suspected that many of my friends, who absolutely idolized them, hadn’t actually read them.

A bit off topic, but I also don’t understand how anyone could like Thomas Hardy. Admire his writing, definitely, but to me, enjoying Hardy is like claiming to enjoy a toothache.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Victoria

These aren’t classics, and they’re very highly rated. However I found The Name of the Rose and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance tedious and pretentious, back when I read them. I always suspected that many of my friends, who absolutely idolized them, hadn’t actually read them.

.

I found Zen interesting, but jump-off-a-bridge depressing at the end. I think perhaps the book's popularity was as a product of it's era, not exactly a timeless classic.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by ApK

I found Zen interesting, but jump-off-a-bridge depressing at the end. I think perhaps the book's popularity was as a product of it's era, not exactly a timeless classic.

Agreed. But it really seemed to capture people’s imagination when it was published. Perhaps you’re right; it may not resonate the same way today.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

I loved this when I was a girl, but I couldn’t read it now for the racism. Nor for the abusive relationship that was supposed to be so romantic.

And yeah, doorstoppers the pair of them.

I read GWTW when I was 12, if memory serves and of course, loved it then.

I won't "not read" books that depict other times, ways, mores, etc. Otherwise, how could you read P&P? Or anything, written, ever, particularly around women and their place in society? How could you read about "poor Lydia" and her ruined life? Talk about abusive! There's hardly anything romantic or not chattel-like about having to whore oneself out to a husband in order to eat. So...my thinking is always, in for the penny, in for the pound.

Hitch

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I read GWTW when I was 12, if memory serves and of course, loved it then.

I won't "not read" books that depict other times, ways, mores, etc. Otherwise, how could you read P&P? Or anything, written, ever, particularly around women and their place in society? How could you read about "poor Lydia" and her ruined life? Talk about abusive! There's hardly anything romantic or not chattel-like about having to whore oneself out to a husband in order to eat. So...my thinking is always, in for the penny, in for the pound.

In fact, I agree with you. I think the real reason I couldn’t read GWTW now is that I damned near memorized it when I was a girl and I’d be too bored. But I also suspect it hasn’t aged well, at least for me. Taking the easy one first, I’ve totally gone off that romantic dark brooding Gothic hero carp. Rhett, Rochester, Heathcliff and so forth - they’re all controlling and abusive. And when that’s presented in a way that the reader is supposed to take it as great love, my reaction is to think, “Honey (Scarlett, Jane, Catherine), run. Like the wind.”

As for the racism, I think the issue in regard to this particular book for me is threefold. Not so much the Civil War era stuff, that’s a given. More problematic is it as an expression of attitudes in the 1930s when the book was written. And then you have my lack of awareness when I read it as a girl decades later, and bingo. That’s the one. If I were to read it, which I’m not for the reason of boredom I gave at first, I’m pretty sure I’d cringe at my own unthinking girlhood self who loved it so much. But it’s a pity in a way, because there was something about it. I once read a review which recalled the “glazed inattention” of those who were immersed in it for the first time and that describes my own reaction. Would that I could recapture that sense when I read now!

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Agreed. But it really seemed to capture people’s imagination when it was published. Perhaps you’re right; it may not resonate the same way today.

I think you nailed it with Zen. I thought it incredibly tedious at the time, but I plowed through. But I also suspect it did reflect the zeitgeist and I was just out of touch.

As for Hardy, he’s good but he’s just so depressing. I think that’s a special category of “liking”. It’s not just appreciating the writing; it’s getting caught up in the story and the gut punch at the end. I think any kind of strong response on that level is to be appreciated, even if it’s not exactly enjoyable.

[Catlady]

I love GWTW and always will, no apologies. I first read it at 15, and for a long time I reread it at least once a year. Yes, I had a lot of it memorized. I still have my falling-apart, tearstained original paperback, as well as additional paperback and hardcover copies.

When I first discovered Audible and audiobooks some 10 years ago, I think, it was one of the first books I bought and listened to. I'm not going to judge it by today's standards of what is racist. It's not history; it's a novel.

I don't see Rhett as a dark, brooding Gothic hero, nor as abusive and controlling (yeah, I know, THAT scene--except we don't know exactly what happened once they went up those stairs). And most of the time, Rhett is supportive, understanding, and respectful of Scarlett and her goals.

I love the movie, too.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

In fact, I agree with you. I think the real reason I couldn’t read GWTW now is that I damned near memorized it when I was a girl and I’d be too bored. But I also suspect it hasn’t aged well, at least for me. Taking the easy one first, I’ve totally gone off that romantic dark brooding Gothic hero carp. Rhett, Rochester, Heathcliff and so forth - they’re all controlling and abusive. And when that’s presented in a way that the reader is supposed to take it as great love, my reaction is to think, “Honey (Scarlett, Jane, Catherine), run. Like the wind.”

As for the racism, I think the issue in regard to this particular book for me is threefold. Not so much the Civil War era stuff, that’s a given. More problematic is it as an expression of attitudes in the 1930s when the book was written. And then you have my lack of awareness when I read it as a girl decades later, and bingo. That’s the one. If I were to read it, which I’m not for the reason of boredom I gave at first, I’m pretty sure I’d cringe at my own unthinking girlhood self who loved it so much. But it’s a pity in a way, because there was something about it. I once read a review which recalled the “glazed inattention” of those who were immersed in it for the first time and that describes my own reaction. Would that I could recapture that sense when I read now!

Sure, but y'know...the time and space and distance, respectively and proportionately, between 1861-1865 and the 1930's--a single person's lifetime, think about that--and the respective time and space, today, between, say, 2010 and 2020...these are lightyears apart, to grind my floridity to the bone. 60 years, in a time and place in which every bit of news travelled either by mouth, on foot or horseback (mostly), or by paper, delivered at speeds only slightly beyond glacial...change takes time.

I don't think we can rightfully compare what someone thought in the 30's, to what they should think today. There were people--lots of them--who grew up with slavery extant, in their lifetimes. They'd fought a war over it. It's like...when I was a young girl, I worked one summer in a local restaurant, hauling food and booze, right? And the two women who owned the place were Expat Brits, who'd come over after WWII.

It disturbs me when folks say that they "won't" read this or that, because it's racist or sexist or whatever (not talkin' 'bout you, Issy). We can't or IMHO, shouldn't rose-colored-glass our way through history. History is all of it that we bothered to write down (by definition). It's grand and glorious and ugly and I won't be especially tedious by repeating the whole "doomed to.." shtick.

Back OT: I wanted to LOVE The Name of the Rose. I really did, but OMG, I really didn't. Of course, not everything is Presumed Innocent, to be fair.

And, of course, Ulysses. You guys have heard me on this before. Talk about pretentious twaddle. Yeah, yeah the cocktail-party-set-glitterati can all tell themselves it's brilliant. To my way of thinking, Ulysses is Joyce's "Clifford Irving" hoax on the publishing industry and I'll bet he laughed up his sleeve the entire time.

Hitch

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think you nailed it with Zen. As for Hardy, he’s good but he’s just so depressing. I think that’s a special category of “liking”. It’s not just appreciating the writing; it’s getting caught up in the story and the gut punch at the end. I think any kind of strong response on that level is to be appreciated, even if it’s not exactly enjoyable.

I absolutely agree, Hardy was a master in many ways. I do appreciate his genius, but similar to Margaret Atwood’s, from a safe distance. I can’t see the pleasure, outside of a literature course, but they’re certainly not tedious, and I never found Hardy pretentious. So I was off topic.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Hitch

It disturbs me when folks say that they "won't" read this or that, because it's racist or sexist or whatever (not talkin' 'bout you, Issy). We can't or IMHO, shouldn't rose-colored-glass our way through history.

I've always felt the Lost Cause narrative is gross. It would be my main reason not to recommend Gone With the Wind.

On the other hand, I respect H.P. Lovecraft and feel he was a very important writer. But his work can be extremely racist, even by the standards of his time. So important writer, but I'd be hard pressed to recommend his writing.

I have enjoyed Lovecraft Country and The Ballad of Black Tom that play off of his ideas and incorporate his racism.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I've always felt the Lost Cause narrative is gross. It would be my main reason not to recommend Gone With the Wind.

Fine, that's certainly a prerogative. But ignoring it or pretending that it didn't exist at the time...to me, that's self-defeating. It's hardly shocking that one or both sides in any war, any dispute, wouldn't reach to find justifications for their positions. History is, after all, written by the winners, to coin a phrase. It's sometimes useful to see that history written by the losers' perspectives, too. The antebellum south wasn't simply slavery--it did have other aspects to it. But hey, I don't expect folks to run around recommending books for a bajillionty reasons.

On the other hand, I respect H.P. Lovecraft and feel he was a very important writer. But his work can be extremely racist, even by the standards of his time. So important writer, but I'd be hard pressed to recommend his writing.

Yes, and so can every writer of pretty much anytime. Rex Stout had a few racist items, here and there, including if memory serves, the N word. We've all heard discussions around Sayers' attitudes--and hers largely came from her extremely devout religious views, more than anything else. (Although, everybody blithely seems to ignore the entire "I served 7 years for Rachel" bit with peter's friend whatsits; he's marrying a Jew. You'd have thunk that if Sayers were truly a bigot that would never have occurred?) Christie certainly exhibits some callousness of feeling, in The Mysterious Affair at Styles, the very first Poirot, in fact, around Jews and I'm sure in other spots as well. {shrug}. She was a product of her class and time. I certainly can't castigate her for it. Aren't we all? I can't expect her to have Timelord superpowers and somehow be 100 years ahead of her day.

If I cut myself off from all forms of anathema-to-me, I would be guilty of doing the same thing that so many today seem to want to do--to decide what I should read, know, hear, not what I need to read. (And for that matter, what I enjoy reading, too, dammit.) Reading almost any book, anywhere, anytime, from the dawn, though not-that-damned-long-ago shows an abysmal history around women and women's rights. I could hardly recommend most books for that alone, were I so inclined.

I have enjoyed Lovecraft Country and The Ballad of Black Tom that play off of his ideas and incorporate his racism.

Not surprised to hear that.

Hitch

[ZodWallop]

Hey, nice to see you ignored the context of my comment and kept on bloviating.

Originally Posted by Hitch

Not surprised to hear that.

Condescend much?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Hey, nice to see you ignored the context of my comment and kept on bloviating.

Aren't you especially charming today?

Condescend much?

Well, apparently you misread my comment, but given your tone, that's not surprising.

Hitch