Books only lying poseurs could claim to like

[JSWolf]

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.

Hitch

You read P&P with difficulty because it's not an enjoyable read. It's not the time it's in. It's the writing.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You read P&P with difficulty

That’s not what Hitch said.

because it's not an enjoyable read.

Obviously there are those who do find it extremely enjoyable. Austen’s an industry and P&P is in first place for many if not most. (My own favorite is Emma.)

It's not the time it's in. It's the writing.

You keep saying that. It means nothing on the face of it. What is the issue with the writing? Among the many pleasures of P&P is that the vernacular is fresh two centuries later and it’s flat-out funny.

I feel a poll coming on.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes,,,Jaws, the Musical!

Or better yet, Jude the Obscure! The hit title song, "Don't Leave me Hanging...."

:-)

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You read P&P with difficulty because it's not an enjoyable read. It's not the time it's in. It's the writing.

Wolfie, dear boy:

You misconstrued what I said. Issy is right. I had zip problems reading P&P and I re-read it somewhat regularly. My point was, if we deny ourselves those things that would offend us today...good lord, we'd be a lot of ignorami. More than we already are. I can hardly read much of what happens to any Austen heroine (to sort of abuse that word) without outrage at the constraints of their times. It doesn't mean I won't read it because it offends my liberated 21st-century sensibilities. Nor would I pamper my brain that way--that sort of brain doesn't deserve pampering.

Hitch

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by the_callant

I don't know if it counts as a classic, but the book where I had to admit defeat was Catch-22. I got a quarter to half way into it and ended up throwing it in the waste bin. I kept waiting for it to make sense, it never did, and frustration won out.

I wasn't wild about Catch-22 either.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I wasn't wild about Catch-22 either.

You might like the TV show. Sometimes I've found TV/movie adaptions to be enjoyable where the book was not.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Wolfie, dear boy:

You misconstrued what I said. Issy is right. I had zip problems reading P&P and I re-read it somewhat regularly. My point was, if we deny ourselves those things that would offend us today...good lord, we'd be a lot of ignorami. More than we already are. I can hardly read much of what happens to any Austen heroine (to sort of abuse that word) without outrage at the constraints of their times. It doesn't mean I won't read it because it offends my liberated 21st-century sensibilities. Nor would I pamper my brain that way--that sort of brain doesn't deserve pampering.

Hitch

I know there are books out there from the past that have offensive content that's from the time these books were written. But I find if there's too much of such content, I can find the book not enjoyable. There are too many books I will enjoy that to bother with ones that bother me too much.

But if I go into the book knowing it's going to have some offensive content and that's part of the story, I can maybe get past it. But when a book should not have such content, that's when I drop it.

[Apache]

I actually read Catch-22 a long time ago and remember it being a slog.
Apache

[Thasaidon]

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.

Hitch

I am now back on line after the Typhoon in Cebu and could not agree with you more.

But your contributions always seem to be eminently sensible to me.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

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.



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.



Not surprised to hear that.

Hitch

Hear! Hear!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Apache

I actually read Catch-22 a long time ago and remember it being a slog.
Apache

I liked Catch-22 a lot when I read it, and even made a list of passages I thought were especially meaningful, but it's not a book I have any desire to revisit. I think seeing the movie later might have changed my perception of the book; the film was too graphic.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by issybird

A couple of Nobelists have been named and I’m going to offer up another, Patrick White. The interminable, monumental dullness of Voss! Did the committee think it was time to have a literature laureate from Australia and White was the most ponderous one they identified? I bet even the most patriotic Australian finds him a slog.

How right you are! (Not that I go round waving the flag or wrapping myself in it.)

Late to the party again - I haven't been keeping up with MR.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

I have a soft spot for war diaries personally and many folks cannot stand those. I think diaries are unique in that you have to know the history of the time you're reading to really appreciate them.

I just read "Gallipoli Diary", John Graham Gillam, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67661 and enjoyed it.

I liked Quixote, translated by Tobias G. Smollet (and his works too). Old translations of old books are interesting.

Ulysses, thumbs up. Zen, a zeitgeist, but sloggy, Ayn Rand, get it out of your system early, Gatsby, easy flow, but to this day I don't understand why Nick respects Gatsby.

Anything Russian gets poseur cred, but "Master and Margarita" could be my favorite book.

[Ashjuk]

Originally Posted by Renate

..."Master and Margarita" could be my favorite book.

How right you are!

Have you read any other of his works? The only other one I have is The Heart Of A Dog, which I would also recommend.

I went to see Patriarch's Ponds when I was in Russia a few years ago, it's just as you imagine it would be from the book.

There is also a good TV series adaption of M&M that was shown on UK TV (with English subtitles) a few years ago.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Ashjuk

I went to see Patriarch's Ponds when I was in Russia a few years ago, it's just as you imagine it would be from the book.

I actually had a project for this year to learn Russian but it lost steam. Grrr...