Craft Notes
i like it when i feel smarter than you
I’ve been thinking a little this morning about the appeal of books you could categorize as intelligent fatties: Ulysses, Infinite Jest, other books I have started but haven’t finished.
People experience joy reading these kinds of books and that makes me happy in the same way that some people like having gay sex makes me happy. I don’t have gay sex but I am happy that it’s being had and enjoyed because uniformity of desire scares me. It reminds me of that acidic feeling I had in sixth grade when a classmate told me all men wanted to have sex with Pamela Anderson.
But my question is this: Does anyone openly admit that they experience joy reading an ‘intelligent fatty’ because it makes them feel smarter than other people? Is that part of the appeal or is that the dirty little secret of the appeal or is that not even a factor?
Tags: i am smarter than you, intelligent fatties
Read? I just carry them conspicuously on public transportation.
I am not sure “intelligent fatty” would be a good way to characterise Ulysses. It sounds like the book is a overweight girl with glasses (I guess it is supposed to), whose prose is durable and dense rather than fat. I don’t get joy out of reading, but enjoyed Ulysses. Not even sure intelligent is the right word. What is the alternative, stupid?
Let me rewrite that (got to read before posting next time):
I am not sure “intelligent fatty” would be a good way to characterise Ulysses. It sounds like the book is an overweight girl with glasses (I guess it is supposed to). Joyce’s prose ares durable and dense rather than fat. I don’t get joy out of reading, but enjoyed Ulysses. Not even sure intelligent is the right word. What is the alternative, stupid?
I read a ‘Giles Goat-Boy’ or a ‘Laura Warholic’ for the stretching of language.
Possibly it’s because I’m in Tulsa and TU graduates have dealt with the James Joyce Quarterly’s acolytes, but one doesn’t really discuss Ulysses in polite company.
I’m pretty sure that’s why my husband married me.
Sometimes the joy is exactly the reverse. . . merging consciousnesses w/ a force way more intelligent/generous/sensitive/etc. than you.
I think I mean fatty in the sense that it’s a long book. A fat book.
“one doesn’t really discuss Ulysses in polite company.”
!!
[…] appeal or is that the dirty little secret of the appeal or is that not even a factor?” [via HTMLGIANT […]
Not smarter, exactly, but maybe sometimes superior re: stamina, tenacity, determination, stick-to-it-ive-ness, etc???
Hey, HTMLGIANT matches my hair now.
Yeah, I think it’s a stamina thing, the way marathon runners and mountain climbers are proud of their ability to persevere.
I think a big part of the joy in reading a book like Ulysses is the sense of accomplishment of having made it to the end. Many of the episodes are actually a great pleasure to read (the first 6, “Sirens,” “Penelope,”) but there are a lot of super-hero episodes that seem to exist more as Lacanian fodder than for reading. But that’s part of the book, I suppose, and finishing Ulysses I felt pretty good at having completed it.
These “Intelligent Fatties” tend to be those books writes are told they “have to read.” I find myself occasionally thinking things like, “How can I be a great writer if I haven’t read Chekhov? If I haven’t read Proust?” I know that it’s not a necessity–but at the same time, it can’t hurt to read them, can it?
Part of the joy in finishing a Ulysses or Jest (or a 2666, Moby Dick, ISOLT, etc) is knowing you’ve completed it. You climbed a mountain. If you got something out of it, great. If not, at least you don’t have to worry about it anymore.
post a picture
But if it was something that everyone completed (or could complete) would it still be as satisfying? This is what I mean by superior. (You climbed Everest. You are superior to those who have not, who can not.)
Most of my friends and acquaintances are completely uninterested in literary fiction (I work in the visual arts), or if they do read literary fiction, they wold never read some of the intelligent fatties I love, such as The Recognitions, Under the Volcano, 2666, etc.
The feeling I get when I read those books (aside from the inherent satisfaction of reading something good) is not one of superior achievement, but rather social embarrassment – I feel that if people found out what I was reading they would look at me the same way I looked at my college roommate when he told me his favorite bands were Yes and King Crimson.
I don’t know what my social motivation is for reading those heavy books. I’m sure there is one but it’s probably so complicated by the fluidity of social surroundings that it’d be hard to evaluate. When I was reading Infinite Jest in class while my students wrote their finals I felt like some of them were probably all like hey, that’s a fat book, maybe I should check that out, it must be brilliant, but I’m sure an equal number were like Jesus, what kind of robotic nerd devotes the time to such a thing?
The last really thick book I read was The Kindly Ones. A couple people in the airport commented on its heft in voices that carried a freak-struck awe, but then I by miracle got socked in next to a lit major who talked about the virtues of the really thick novels.
Well of course, but that goes for any kind of accomplishment — that’s part of what “accomplishment” means — and I bet you wouldn’t ask this kind of question about many others. (I mean that if everyone could do it it wouldn’t be as satisfying, not that it makes you “superior” — I don’t think I agree with the use of that word here.)
No one goes around saying, “That guy just ran that triathlon so he can feel fitter than other people,” or “She only lost thirty pounds so she could feel thinner than me.” So why does accomplishing something intellectual become a question of lording it over others, rather than just of feeling a sense of accomplishment for its own sake?
Hi, Catherine – I think what you’re describing might be true some of the time. A couple thoughts: I wonder how many people actually finish those books when their motive is something other than a desire to read the book. Meaning, if somebody sets out to read Ulysses just so they can say they’ve read Ulysses, and isn’t getting something (not necessarily pleasure, but something) out of reading it, how they can get to the end. Isn’t it much easier to say you’ve read Finegans Wake than to actually read it? Your Everest example – I had the good fortune to interview (and spend time with) two Sherpas who had climbed Everest many times, and I never got the impression that they climbed Everest for bragging rights. In part, they did it to make money. But, they felt the same way you did – that many of the people climbing Everest did it for the wrong reasons (notoriety) – I’m using that example to say that not everyone reads big novels for the reasons you describe, but I’m sure some people do. For me personally, I feel a sense of accomplishment for having gotten through a ‘big book’, mostly because they are difficult to get through, but there are many big novels that I’ve read where it didn’t feel like a chore – Moby Dick, the Recognitions, Don Quixote, Middlemarch are all really readable, enjoyable books. Yeah, they’re long, but they’re not difficult reads (in the sense that Ulysses is difficult) and no ‘smarter’ than many shorter novels. I think a more interesting questions is why most of the books you describe are written by men (at least post 1900)?
I’m totally unwild about the “Intelligent Fatties” thing we have going here.
I do not feel more intelligent or superior as a person, but I do feel superior as a reader. But, I primarily judge people by their reading, so…
Accomplishment, not superiority. Morgan nailed it.
If there’s superiority, it’s a feeling of superiority to the version of yourself that hadn’t read it. I feel better than I did before I read the book.
Frankly, I could give a shit about someone else having read Moby Dick or not.
Since this thread is probably full of gluttons: http://www.stevenmoore.info/current.shtml
It’s pretty much a survey of big, hairy books from ever since the magic started.
i love fatties of all types, i don’t discriminate
Yes, but what of the ‘26.2’ stickers that some marathon runners put on the back of their cars? What about athletic competition in general (where people are judged on their ability to be better at something than other competitors)? I’m not saying that people don’t run marathons or compete for the sense of personal accomplishment, but I do think part of the act of competing is to show that you are ‘better’ at something than the other competitors.
I TOTALLY agree about being a little socially embarrassed to be carrying these titles. I tried to read Infinite Jest over a winter break and thus had to bring it on an airplane with me. I was SURE people were gazing over their copies of “Eat Pray Love” and “The Kite Runner,” like “pleaaassseeee lady, let’s not kid ourselves.”
That said, I actually felt (and still feel) inferior for not finishing it. It just . . . I don’t know. I wanted to finish it so I could join the conversation, but, to follow the mountain climbing metaphor, I guess I just didn’t condition enough. Or I needed a partner and no one wanted to join my book club of one.* I’ll try again once my brain isn’t in a dozen places, and now that I’ve finished with grad school. But Catherine, I think you’re right. I wanted to join the conversation and that had its roots in joining the cool kid table of people who did something I hadn’t done. You think you’re a reasonably intelligent person — so why can’t you finish like everyone else? :(
*If anyone actually wanted to join this club and try to get through Infinite Jest with me, send me a message via tumblr. sRsLy.
I’ve always felt that Franzen’s books were just perfect for carrying around busy places, title out. Kinda like how you can’t keep an iphone in your pocket; you carry that shit in your palm, shinin’. You put it on the table for no reason while you do stuff.
Taking part in a discussion about superiority is making me feel inferior.
ditto
If you feel superior to other people because you’ve read a big book, you’re insecure.
Books aren’t ammunition.
Do you feel superior to people who feel superior because they read a big book?
Just wondering: why do people consider Ulysses a difficult book? I mean, unless you don’t speak English…
And it isn’t even all that long.
I thought about this when I recently had Inifinite Jest on an airplane (I have not finished it yet) but then it occurred to me that I don’t judge people by what they’re reading on the airplane (okay, I was felt a little weird about the woman next to me reading the Glenn Beck book, but mostly because I really wanted to ask her why he’s wearing an East German military uniform on the cover, but I was not brave enough) Anyway, when I realized that I didn’t really care what people are reading or doing on the airplane, I also realized there was some narcissism in thinking that other people were 1) actually paying attention to what I was doing and 2) would care, and 3) I am not so special that people would actually give a shit about what I was doing on the airplane.
Marathon runners do like having run a marathon. They also like running the marathon. So, if you don’t actually like reading the book…
I tried Jest three times too. Stopped all 3.
But I have War and Peace on my belt! Hell, that’s like having Boston on my marathon belt.
The idea of feeling superior because you’ve read some book is a pretty funny idea. I’d be more impressed if someone could share their favorite trout stream with me.
etc
Matt K: I wouldn’t deny it, to some degree. Obviously, sometimes people pursue various sorts of accomplishments for the sake feeling better than other people (some spiteful devil out there probably *has* lost weight just to make someone else feel fat).
But if anything, that’s *less* so for people reading difficult books, since there’s no element of direct competition — you can’t come in first in “reading Ulysses” (unless you’re Hugh Kenner I guess) — and since there are other, probably more important reasons most people read Ulysses that have nothing to do with how hard it is.
In any case, it’s not really a mark against accomplishments in general, I don’t think. What’s the alternative? Never do anything that everyone can’t do, for fear of seeming arrogant?
Never felt like an intellectual while reading. At least when I am at work or on campus, no one really gives a damn about what you are reading/doing anymore, so this feeling of exceptionalism is pretty irrelevant. Everyone passing by is plugged-in to something or in some way self absorbed. Hard to validate your sense of superiority when obviously no one gives a fuck.
Whole idea reminds me of Granger in Fahrenheit 451 (I’M THE FUCKING BEST). Perspective making man humble.
Reading has made me feel tired or hungry or angry or sad or happy, though.
I don’t experience any joy while reading these books and I am interested in those who do experience joy in reading those books. I feel like joy and pleasure must always motivate a person to finish reading a big novel. (Or should…)
Do you mean here at html giant? Or here in this post?
Read? I just carry them conspicuously on public transportation.
I think you’re right, Matt. As for “why most of the books [I] describe are written by men” is a whole different post. I haven’t posted much about the male/female writer tension here yet, but I plan on doing so eventually, once I figure out what I think about it.
I like that! I think you just answered my question, thank you.
i think *joy* is more complicated and personal to every person. its not like every sentence must induce an orgasm. there is joy in learning, in immersion, in eating a cupcake, in drinking water, in boredom if you know where to look.
Yeah, I don’t disagree – I just didn’t think athletes were immune. I’m not saying at all that people shouldn’t feel accomplished at all – it gives me great personal satisfaction to read books (not just long ones!) I’m also not sure I care if people feel smarter or superior after finishing a long book – we all have insecurities, and if one way to get over them is to feel a particular way after finishing a book, who am I to say that’s bad? But, I don’t think those are the only reasons people read long books, or the only reason people run marathons, or become Olympic athletes.
I am not sure “intelligent fatty” would be a good way to characterise Ulysses. It sounds like the book is a overweight girl with glasses (I guess it is supposed to), whose prose is durable and dense rather than fat. I don’t get joy out of reading, but enjoyed Ulysses. Not even sure intelligent is the right word. What is the alternative, stupid?
Yeah, I’ve read a lot of stuff I haven’t thought is a joy to get through, but I’ve still gotten something out of it. I don’t think reading has to be only about pleasure.
Let me rewrite that (got to read before posting next time):
I am not sure “intelligent fatty” would be a good way to characterise Ulysses. It sounds like the book is an overweight girl with glasses (I guess it is supposed to). Joyce’s prose ares durable and dense rather than fat. I don’t get joy out of reading, but enjoyed Ulysses. Not even sure intelligent is the right word. What is the alternative, stupid?
I read a ‘Giles Goat-Boy’ or a ‘Laura Warholic’ for the stretching of language.
Possibly it’s because I’m in Tulsa and TU graduates have dealt with the James Joyce Quarterly’s acolytes, but one doesn’t really discuss Ulysses in polite company.
I’m pretty sure that’s why my husband married me.
I actually prefer shorter books because I have so much going on that I really don’t have much free time to just sit around and read a lot in one sitting. Another way of looking at this is whether some authors feel the need to write a Big Book because it makes them feel smarter than other writers. Like, here’s my Big Statement on Important Things that can only be made in a Big Book. Did the dude who wrote the Witz really need to make that thing 800+ pages? Maybe he did, but I got bored after a couple of pages of reading it at the book store. Has anyone read that thing? Was it too long? Perfect length?
It’s kind of like back in the day when bands would eventually feel the need to release the double album, preferably with a running theme, because that was their Big Statement. I remember when the Smashing Pumpkins released that double album and how I felt it could have been a really solid release had they just cut it in half. (Of course now I think it would have been a solid release had they kept it down to three or four songs. But time can do that.)
Darby, you’re so right.
Matt, I don’t think it has to only be about pleasure, either, but it should be pleasurable to read, even if it’s darby’s kind of joy– pleasure in learning, pleasure in making yourself better. I’m just saying I often don’t feel like these difficult books are making me better/smarter/superior, but I am interested in those who do feel that way. I want to understand that more.
You’re welcome!
People escaped from Alcatraz. You can finish ‘Infinite Jest’.
Sometimes the joy is exactly the reverse. . . merging consciousnesses w/ a force way more intelligent/generous/sensitive/etc. than you.
I just meant the phrase.
But I guess I’m pretty wild about a bunch of actual intelligent fatties talking about books, if that’s what you meant.
I think I mean fatty in the sense that it’s a long book. A fat book.
“one doesn’t really discuss Ulysses in polite company.”
!!
I wouldn’t always call it pleasure – a good example for me is Gravity’s Rainbow, which I really didn’t like – it was work for me to get through it. I’m in grad school, so partly me getting through it was because I had to for my exams, and that’s sometimes how I have to get through other books I’m not particularly getting much from. But, and again this is my own personal thinking on this, and isn’t to say everybody should or does feel this way, but because I’m studying lit, and right now specifically Modernism, there are texts that I read because they’re important to know about. For somebody else though, obviously, there are other texts that are important for them to read depending on what they’re interested in. I don’t think the ‘big novels’ should make anybody feel better/smarter/superior – for me, it’s more a part of my job to read them, but I realize that not everybody’s in that same situation. That said, reading Don Quixote was enormously pleasurable for me at times, at other times it was difficult. It’s long. But afterwords, I felt like I’d read something that was worth my time because it’s a text I go back to a lot in my thinking about later texts. Gravity’s Rainbow is funny and sometimes pleasurable, and perhaps under other circumstances (more time) I would have enjoyed it more, but it’s also a text that I’m glad I’ve read because even though I’ve enjoyed Pynchon more, I can talk about what many consider to be his important book. But again, that has to do with me as a teacher more than me as a reader.
Not smarter, exactly, but maybe sometimes superior re: stamina, tenacity, determination, stick-to-it-ive-ness, etc???
Hey, HTMLGIANT matches my hair now.
Actually, once upon a time, almost all novels were put out in 2, 3 and 4 volumes. Not because they were Big Statements, but in large part because that is what the public wanted.
How did you find time to read 200 pages in a bookstore?
[…] began as a comment to Catherine’s post this morning, but then I felt like I was talking about something kind of different, so I decided to […]
Yeah, I think it’s a stamina thing, the way marathon runners and mountain climbers are proud of their ability to persevere.
I think a big part of the joy in reading a book like Ulysses is the sense of accomplishment of having made it to the end. Many of the episodes are actually a great pleasure to read (the first 6, “Sirens,” “Penelope,”) but there are a lot of super-hero episodes that seem to exist more as Lacanian fodder than for reading. But that’s part of the book, I suppose, and finishing Ulysses I felt pretty good at having completed it.
These “Intelligent Fatties” tend to be those books writes are told they “have to read.” I find myself occasionally thinking things like, “How can I be a great writer if I haven’t read Chekhov? If I haven’t read Proust?” I know that it’s not a necessity–but at the same time, it can’t hurt to read them, can it?
Part of the joy in finishing a Ulysses or Jest (or a 2666, Moby Dick, ISOLT, etc) is knowing you’ve completed it. You climbed a mountain. If you got something out of it, great. If not, at least you don’t have to worry about it anymore.
post a picture
No one ever successfully escaped from Alcatraz. Clint Eastwood and his pals drowned in the SF Bay.
Hmmm. . . . sometimes I go into a bookstore, read an entire book, and then put it back on the shelves. I’ve always been wondering, is this like a despicable thing? I usually buy some other item to assuage my conscience, but, still. . . . there are books I’ve read in hardcover the day they came out, but I never paid for them. Am I evil?
I worked at a Borders for two years. People come when the store opens, sit down, and don’t leave until the store closes. Sometimes they use their Subway sandwich as a bookmark. Sometimes they have freakouts in the restroom and cover the walls with their own feces. Sometimes they ask if they store has a copy machine. Sometimes they give handjobs to the guy who organizes and oversees the Reference Section, brisk, dry handjobs in the back seat of their Chevy Suburban.
I tried to read Witz, too. Couldn’t get past the first 50 pages, and the first 50 pages were a fucking brainchore. Cohen is obviously a smart guy and a writer, but he could give two shits about the reader. But then again, he isn’t writing for the reader, he’s writing for the academic, the critic, just like his hero Joyce. To him all I can say is, Good luck.
No. You’re resourceful. Give yourself a pat on the tuchas and buy yourself a Dirty Chai.
No.
What an irritating question.
“The feeling I get when I read those books … is not one of superior achievement, but rather social embarrassment”
Exactly. I remember someone asked me “so what’s that about?” when I was reading Gravity’s Rainbow at lunch at the molecular biology lab where I worked at the time. I don’t remember what I said, but I’m sure the questioner thought I was a little insane by the end of my answer.
I got Infinite Jest as a gift, started reading it because it was there, and finished it because I loved it. I read Pynchon because I love his sentences. I like to read a long book because you can really get into its world (this can backfire — I did not like 2666, but finished it anyway, mostly because I was hoping to start liking it at any moment, but it never happened). Superiority or accomplishment or whatever don’t really figure into it for me.
But if it was something that everyone completed (or could complete) would it still be as satisfying? This is what I mean by superior. (You climbed Everest. You are superior to those who have not, who can not.)
Most of my friends and acquaintances are completely uninterested in literary fiction (I work in the visual arts), or if they do read literary fiction, they wold never read some of the intelligent fatties I love, such as The Recognitions, Under the Volcano, 2666, etc.
The feeling I get when I read those books (aside from the inherent satisfaction of reading something good) is not one of superior achievement, but rather social embarrassment – I feel that if people found out what I was reading they would look at me the same way I looked at my college roommate when he told me his favorite bands were Yes and King Crimson.
Yeah,I’m sort of ashamed to say that I would grab a coffee and sit down and read it instead of buying. But I buy a lot of books from that store so I’m not totally ashamed. Except, sorry author and publisher for not buying your book!
I’m sorry. I fell asleep for a minute. What was the question?
I don’t know what my social motivation is for reading those heavy books. I’m sure there is one but it’s probably so complicated by the fluidity of social surroundings that it’d be hard to evaluate. When I was reading Infinite Jest in class while my students wrote their finals I felt like some of them were probably all like hey, that’s a fat book, maybe I should check that out, it must be brilliant, but I’m sure an equal number were like Jesus, what kind of robotic nerd devotes the time to such a thing?
The last really thick book I read was The Kindly Ones. A couple people in the airport commented on its heft in voices that carried a freak-struck awe, but then I by miracle got socked in next to a lit major who talked about the virtues of the really thick novels.
Well of course, but that goes for any kind of accomplishment — that’s part of what “accomplishment” means — and I bet you wouldn’t ask this kind of question about many others. (I mean that if everyone could do it it wouldn’t be as satisfying, not that it makes you “superior” — I don’t think I agree with the use of that word here.)
No one goes around saying, “That guy just ran that triathlon so he can feel fitter than other people,” or “She only lost thirty pounds so she could feel thinner than me.” So why does accomplishing something intellectual become a question of lording it over others, rather than just of feeling a sense of accomplishment for its own sake?
Hi, Catherine – I think what you’re describing might be true some of the time. A couple thoughts: I wonder how many people actually finish those books when their motive is something other than a desire to read the book. Meaning, if somebody sets out to read Ulysses just so they can say they’ve read Ulysses, and isn’t getting something (not necessarily pleasure, but something) out of reading it, how they can get to the end. Isn’t it much easier to say you’ve read Finegans Wake than to actually read it? Your Everest example – I had the good fortune to interview (and spend time with) two Sherpas who had climbed Everest many times, and I never got the impression that they climbed Everest for bragging rights. In part, they did it to make money. But, they felt the same way you did – that many of the people climbing Everest did it for the wrong reasons (notoriety) – I’m using that example to say that not everyone reads big novels for the reasons you describe, but I’m sure some people do. For me personally, I feel a sense of accomplishment for having gotten through a ‘big book’, mostly because they are difficult to get through, but there are many big novels that I’ve read where it didn’t feel like a chore – Moby Dick, the Recognitions, Don Quixote, Middlemarch are all really readable, enjoyable books. Yeah, they’re long, but they’re not difficult reads (in the sense that Ulysses is difficult) and no ‘smarter’ than many shorter novels. I think a more interesting questions is why most of the books you describe are written by men (at least post 1900)?
I’m totally unwild about the “Intelligent Fatties” thing we have going here.
I do not feel more intelligent or superior as a person, but I do feel superior as a reader. But, I primarily judge people by their reading, so…
Accomplishment, not superiority. Morgan nailed it.
If there’s superiority, it’s a feeling of superiority to the version of yourself that hadn’t read it. I feel better than I did before I read the book.
Frankly, I could give a shit about someone else having read Moby Dick or not.
Since this thread is probably full of gluttons: http://www.stevenmoore.info/current.shtml
It’s pretty much a survey of big, hairy books from ever since the magic started.
i love fatties of all types, i don’t discriminate
Yes, but what of the ‘26.2’ stickers that some marathon runners put on the back of their cars? What about athletic competition in general (where people are judged on their ability to be better at something than other competitors)? I’m not saying that people don’t run marathons or compete for the sense of personal accomplishment, but I do think part of the act of competing is to show that you are ‘better’ at something than the other competitors.
I TOTALLY agree about being a little socially embarrassed to be carrying these titles. I tried to read Infinite Jest over a winter break and thus had to bring it on an airplane with me. I was SURE people were gazing over their copies of “Eat Pray Love” and “The Kite Runner,” like “pleaaassseeee lady, let’s not kid ourselves.”
That said, I actually felt (and still feel) inferior for not finishing it. It just . . . I don’t know. I wanted to finish it so I could join the conversation, but, to follow the mountain climbing metaphor, I guess I just didn’t condition enough. Or I needed a partner and no one wanted to join my book club of one.* I’ll try again once my brain isn’t in a dozen places, and now that I’ve finished with grad school. But Catherine, I think you’re right. I wanted to join the conversation and that had its roots in joining the cool kid table of people who did something I hadn’t done. You think you’re a reasonably intelligent person — so why can’t you finish like everyone else? :(
*If anyone actually wanted to join this club and try to get through Infinite Jest with me, send me a message via tumblr. sRsLy.
I’ve always felt that Franzen’s books were just perfect for carrying around busy places, title out. Kinda like how you can’t keep an iphone in your pocket; you carry that shit in your palm, shinin’. You put it on the table for no reason while you do stuff.
Taking part in a discussion about superiority is making me feel inferior.
When I open Jest now, I fully expect to hear Sean Connery saying, “Welcome to the Rock,” or I’m taking the book back for a refund.
i read gravitys rainbow way before i was ready to. i read a lot of bigger books like that before i was ready to. i was going for a ms in engineering at the time and was of a mind of challenging myself, so there was this book everyone was saying was the most difficult book to read ever, and that there were engineering elements in it sort of, so it might be interesting, so i decided to try to read it more out of curiousity, and it became this thing i was determined to finish, and i finished it. i need to go back and read it again, but pynchon has become more than any other author the author who has the ability to test my patience the most, so i have a kind of twisted respect for him.
ditto
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tcjVARe0Eis/TFF–bMKW1I/AAAAAAAABRM/LNuIE1bjrnc/s1600/022.JPG
When I was in my early 20s my favorite books were the long books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Pynchon, Eliot, Joyce, Rabelais, Balzac, Sterne, Mccarthy and so on–used to devour those– but now it takes me 3 months to reread Moby Dick and I’ve been working on Witz for two months. I hate to say it but in my old age I’d rather read something quick and (very) violent.
library is good too.
“What’s that about?” “Bombs and sex.”
If you feel superior to other people because you’ve read a big book, you’re insecure.
Books aren’t ammunition.
Do you feel superior to people who feel superior because they read a big book?
VC has awesome stories.
Just wondering: why do people consider Ulysses a difficult book? I mean, unless you don’t speak English…
And it isn’t even all that long.
I agree with rk. I love reading. But I have a job and kids and bow hunting and running and fishing and D golf (don’t get me started) and substances and chess and X Box and anyway people ask me why I write/read so much flash fiction. See above.
I like a long, meaty novel, but I read about one a year. I do read a lot, but now prefer shorter works. I think it’s great. I simply like shorter books. So I get to read more, more voices, more structures, more verve and variety.
I like reading poetry books more than all, all of them pretty short (in length, never content)
New question: When does a “short” book get long???? I just re-read a poetry book 3 times.
I thought about this when I recently had Inifinite Jest on an airplane (I have not finished it yet) but then it occurred to me that I don’t judge people by what they’re reading on the airplane (okay, I was felt a little weird about the woman next to me reading the Glenn Beck book, but mostly because I really wanted to ask her why he’s wearing an East German military uniform on the cover, but I was not brave enough) Anyway, when I realized that I didn’t really care what people are reading or doing on the airplane, I also realized there was some narcissism in thinking that other people were 1) actually paying attention to what I was doing and 2) would care, and 3) I am not so special that people would actually give a shit about what I was doing on the airplane.
is ‘fatty’ referencing weight/length/girth of a book, or how ‘heady’ it is, like the other usage of ‘fatty,’ which references weed? i think it is the dirty secret appeal–to admit to reading like, Ulysses, would be to blow your cover, so perhaps teenagers wanting pretension would admit to it, but the people who have read it will only disclose it if they’re asked, I think, and the others use it to validate their ‘smartness,’ maybe. I’ve tried reading Ulysses several times and didnt find it immediately joyful–the book itself as an entity is joy enough, like a really fat, well-rolled blunt, a crafted object to admire or whatever–but I did enjoy what I read. I’m not sure if I would bring it on the train, seems impractical and also not enjoyable. I would be able only to get through five pages!
That said, ‘fatty’ in ‘intellectual fatty’ should totally reference weed.
I haven’t been able to complete a large book since I finished “2666.” It was highly enjoyable, but since then, I just haven’t been able to do it.
Now consider the sorites paradox and tell me if there can even really be such a thing as an “intelligent fatty.”
Marathon runners do like having run a marathon. They also like running the marathon. So, if you don’t actually like reading the book…
I tried Jest three times too. Stopped all 3.
But I have War and Peace on my belt! Hell, that’s like having Boston on my marathon belt.
The idea of feeling superior because you’ve read some book is a pretty funny idea. I’d be more impressed if someone could share their favorite trout stream with me.
etc
isn’t writing for a reader like you, rather. You’re talking taste like it’s objective.
Uhhhhh motherfucking John Patrick Mason.
Matt K: I wouldn’t deny it, to some degree. Obviously, sometimes people pursue various sorts of accomplishments for the sake feeling better than other people (some spiteful devil out there probably *has* lost weight just to make someone else feel fat).
But if anything, that’s *less* so for people reading difficult books, since there’s no element of direct competition — you can’t come in first in “reading Ulysses” (unless you’re Hugh Kenner I guess) — and since there are other, probably more important reasons most people read Ulysses that have nothing to do with how hard it is.
In any case, it’s not really a mark against accomplishments in general, I don’t think. What’s the alternative? Never do anything that everyone can’t do, for fear of seeming arrogant?
Never felt like an intellectual while reading. At least when I am at work or on campus, no one really gives a damn about what you are reading/doing anymore, so this feeling of exceptionalism is pretty irrelevant. Everyone passing by is plugged-in to something or in some way self absorbed. Hard to validate your sense of superiority when obviously no one gives a fuck.
Whole idea reminds me of Granger in Fahrenheit 451 (I’M THE FUCKING BEST). Perspective making man humble.
Reading has made me feel tired or hungry or angry or sad or happy, though.
I don’t experience any joy while reading these books and I am interested in those who do experience joy in reading those books. I feel like joy and pleasure must always motivate a person to finish reading a big novel. (Or should…)
Do you mean here at html giant? Or here in this post?
I think you’re right, Matt. As for “why most of the books [I] describe are written by men” is a whole different post. I haven’t posted much about the male/female writer tension here yet, but I plan on doing so eventually, once I figure out what I think about it.
I think it could reference both. Length and/or head-space. Originally, I thought length, but now I am thinking density and/or cultural significance is just as important.
I like that! I think you just answered my question, thank you.
i think *joy* is more complicated and personal to every person. its not like every sentence must induce an orgasm. there is joy in learning, in immersion, in eating a cupcake, in drinking water, in boredom if you know where to look.
Yeah, I don’t disagree – I just didn’t think athletes were immune. I’m not saying at all that people shouldn’t feel accomplished at all – it gives me great personal satisfaction to read books (not just long ones!) I’m also not sure I care if people feel smarter or superior after finishing a long book – we all have insecurities, and if one way to get over them is to feel a particular way after finishing a book, who am I to say that’s bad? But, I don’t think those are the only reasons people read long books, or the only reason people run marathons, or become Olympic athletes.
You know, I was totally embarrassed the two semesters (in a row–exhausting) I studied Ulysses for a class. Because it seems like the exact book pretentious PhD students carry about as beach reading. As someone who’s long been the lowest common denominator in many a classroom, I don’t like to be an ass about what I’m reading and am hypersensitive to people who try to look smarter than they really are in the name of putting other people down.
Yeah, I’ve read a lot of stuff I haven’t thought is a joy to get through, but I’ve still gotten something out of it. I don’t think reading has to be only about pleasure.
I actually prefer shorter books because I have so much going on that I really don’t have much free time to just sit around and read a lot in one sitting. Another way of looking at this is whether some authors feel the need to write a Big Book because it makes them feel smarter than other writers. Like, here’s my Big Statement on Important Things that can only be made in a Big Book. Did the dude who wrote the Witz really need to make that thing 800+ pages? Maybe he did, but I got bored after a couple of pages of reading it at the book store. Has anyone read that thing? Was it too long? Perfect length?
It’s kind of like back in the day when bands would eventually feel the need to release the double album, preferably with a running theme, because that was their Big Statement. I remember when the Smashing Pumpkins released that double album and how I felt it could have been a really solid release had they just cut it in half. (Of course now I think it would have been a solid release had they kept it down to three or four songs. But time can do that.)
Darby, you’re so right.
Matt, I don’t think it has to only be about pleasure, either, but it should be pleasurable to read, even if it’s darby’s kind of joy– pleasure in learning, pleasure in making yourself better. I’m just saying I often don’t feel like these difficult books are making me better/smarter/superior, but I am interested in those who do feel that way. I want to understand that more.
You’re welcome!
Why do people assume that if they can’t finish a book then this fact must have some larger significance? Your post suggests nothing so much as a fairly standard narcissism. Oh, and just as a point of information, people generally don’t have gay sex for either edification or to look smart on subways.
People escaped from Alcatraz. You can finish ‘Infinite Jest’.
I just meant the phrase.
But I guess I’m pretty wild about a bunch of actual intelligent fatties talking about books, if that’s what you meant.
I wouldn’t always call it pleasure – a good example for me is Gravity’s Rainbow, which I really didn’t like – it was work for me to get through it. I’m in grad school, so partly me getting through it was because I had to for my exams, and that’s sometimes how I have to get through other books I’m not particularly getting much from. But, and again this is my own personal thinking on this, and isn’t to say everybody should or does feel this way, but because I’m studying lit, and right now specifically Modernism, there are texts that I read because they’re important to know about. For somebody else though, obviously, there are other texts that are important for them to read depending on what they’re interested in. I don’t think the ‘big novels’ should make anybody feel better/smarter/superior – for me, it’s more a part of my job to read them, but I realize that not everybody’s in that same situation. That said, reading Don Quixote was enormously pleasurable for me at times, at other times it was difficult. It’s long. But afterwords, I felt like I’d read something that was worth my time because it’s a text I go back to a lot in my thinking about later texts. Gravity’s Rainbow is funny and sometimes pleasurable, and perhaps under other circumstances (more time) I would have enjoyed it more, but it’s also a text that I’m glad I’ve read because even though I’ve enjoyed Pynchon more, I can talk about what many consider to be his important book. But again, that has to do with me as a teacher more than me as a reader.
I was waiting for someone to call out the gay sex analogy. Possible popcorn time?
Actually, once upon a time, almost all novels were put out in 2, 3 and 4 volumes. Not because they were Big Statements, but in large part because that is what the public wanted.
How did you find time to read 200 pages in a bookstore?
Carrying Infinite Jest on a date helps me compensate for my miniature dick.
Also, to say that the fact of others reading those books gives you “joy” seems fairly disingenuous. If it really gave you joy I assume you wouldn’t be fishing for assurances that most people secretly read them to feel superior, and that your own inability or unwillingness to finish them is actually a mark of authenticity. Do you also long to hear that gay people secretly hate having sex with one another?
Some people like watching other people have gay sex. It is like how some men like watching another guy in bed with their wife I guess. While they sit in an armchair and read Zola’s Debacle.
What is the sexual equivalent of the novella?
No one ever successfully escaped from Alcatraz. Clint Eastwood and his pals drowned in the SF Bay.
Hmmm. . . . sometimes I go into a bookstore, read an entire book, and then put it back on the shelves. I’ve always been wondering, is this like a despicable thing? I usually buy some other item to assuage my conscience, but, still. . . . there are books I’ve read in hardcover the day they came out, but I never paid for them. Am I evil?
I worked at a Borders for two years. People come when the store opens, sit down, and don’t leave until the store closes. Sometimes they use their Subway sandwich as a bookmark. Sometimes they have freakouts in the restroom and cover the walls with their own feces. Sometimes they ask if they store has a copy machine. Sometimes they give handjobs to the guy who organizes and oversees the Reference Section, brisk, dry handjobs in the back seat of their Chevy Suburban.
I tried to read Witz, too. Couldn’t get past the first 50 pages, and the first 50 pages were a fucking brainchore. Cohen is obviously a smart guy and a writer, but he could give two shits about the reader. But then again, he isn’t writing for the reader, he’s writing for the academic, the critic, just like his hero Joyce. To him all I can say is, Good luck.
To amend my previous remark, what you actually wrote was that the “joy” others take in reading these books makes you “happy,” though I remain unpersuaded that it really does.
No. You’re resourceful. Give yourself a pat on the tuchas and buy yourself a Dirty Chai.
No.
What an irritating question.
The sexual equivalent to the novella is a conference.
“The feeling I get when I read those books … is not one of superior achievement, but rather social embarrassment”
Exactly. I remember someone asked me “so what’s that about?” when I was reading Gravity’s Rainbow at lunch at the molecular biology lab where I worked at the time. I don’t remember what I said, but I’m sure the questioner thought I was a little insane by the end of my answer.
I got Infinite Jest as a gift, started reading it because it was there, and finished it because I loved it. I read Pynchon because I love his sentences. I like to read a long book because you can really get into its world (this can backfire — I did not like 2666, but finished it anyway, mostly because I was hoping to start liking it at any moment, but it never happened). Superiority or accomplishment or whatever don’t really figure into it for me.
I think not finishing books is fun too, though. There’s plenty of short books I haven’t finished and likely never will. (Don’t think I can even remember what they were.) I read all of JCO’s Them except for the last 25 pages, and then I took it to Half and sold it. It felt good.
Some books weren’t meant to be “completed.” Most self-help books are 3% substance and 97% anecdotes and other filler.
Yeah,I’m sort of ashamed to say that I would grab a coffee and sit down and read it instead of buying. But I buy a lot of books from that store so I’m not totally ashamed. Except, sorry author and publisher for not buying your book!
I’m sorry. I fell asleep for a minute. What was the question?
When I open Jest now, I fully expect to hear Sean Connery saying, “Welcome to the Rock,” or I’m taking the book back for a refund.
i read gravitys rainbow way before i was ready to. i read a lot of bigger books like that before i was ready to. i was going for a ms in engineering at the time and was of a mind of challenging myself, so there was this book everyone was saying was the most difficult book to read ever, and that there were engineering elements in it sort of, so it might be interesting, so i decided to try to read it more out of curiousity, and it became this thing i was determined to finish, and i finished it. i need to go back and read it again, but pynchon has become more than any other author the author who has the ability to test my patience the most, so i have a kind of twisted respect for him.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tcjVARe0Eis/TFF–bMKW1I/AAAAAAAABRM/LNuIE1bjrnc/s1600/022.JPG
Why in the fuck r u reading self help books?
When I was in my early 20s my favorite books were the long books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Pynchon, Eliot, Joyce, Rabelais, Balzac, Sterne, Mccarthy and so on–used to devour those– but now it takes me 3 months to reread Moby Dick and I’ve been working on Witz for two months. I hate to say it but in my old age I’d rather read something quick and (very) violent.
library is good too.
“What’s that about?” “Bombs and sex.”
VC has awesome stories.
I agree with rk. I love reading. But I have a job and kids and bow hunting and running and fishing and D golf (don’t get me started) and substances and chess and X Box and anyway people ask me why I write/read so much flash fiction. See above.
I like a long, meaty novel, but I read about one a year. I do read a lot, but now prefer shorter works. I think it’s great. I simply like shorter books. So I get to read more, more voices, more structures, more verve and variety.
I like reading poetry books more than all, all of them pretty short (in length, never content)
New question: When does a “short” book get long???? I just re-read a poetry book 3 times.
is ‘fatty’ referencing weight/length/girth of a book, or how ‘heady’ it is, like the other usage of ‘fatty,’ which references weed? i think it is the dirty secret appeal–to admit to reading like, Ulysses, would be to blow your cover, so perhaps teenagers wanting pretension would admit to it, but the people who have read it will only disclose it if they’re asked, I think, and the others use it to validate their ‘smartness,’ maybe. I’ve tried reading Ulysses several times and didnt find it immediately joyful–the book itself as an entity is joy enough, like a really fat, well-rolled blunt, a crafted object to admire or whatever–but I did enjoy what I read. I’m not sure if I would bring it on the train, seems impractical and also not enjoyable. I would be able only to get through five pages!
That said, ‘fatty’ in ‘intellectual fatty’ should totally reference weed.
I haven’t been able to complete a large book since I finished “2666.” It was highly enjoyable, but since then, I just haven’t been able to do it.
Now consider the sorites paradox and tell me if there can even really be such a thing as an “intelligent fatty.”
isn’t writing for a reader like you, rather. You’re talking taste like it’s objective.
Because he is a rugged individualist and does not believe in receiving help from others. That’s the point of a self-help book, right? To help yourself? Rather than burdening others?
Uhhhhh motherfucking John Patrick Mason.
I think it could reference both. Length and/or head-space. Originally, I thought length, but now I am thinking density and/or cultural significance is just as important.
You know, I was totally embarrassed the two semesters (in a row–exhausting) I studied Ulysses for a class. Because it seems like the exact book pretentious PhD students carry about as beach reading. As someone who’s long been the lowest common denominator in many a classroom, I don’t like to be an ass about what I’m reading and am hypersensitive to people who try to look smarter than they really are in the name of putting other people down.
Catherine, I didn’t experience any kind of draw to DFW’s writing. In any way. I read The Broom of the System recently and it was much more accessible, not as tedious, not as disjointed and hard to follow. At least when I’m training for a race I feel wonderful after a long run. After reading short segments of Infinite Jest at a frustrating, glacial pace, I just felt annoyed and inferior.
Why do people assume that if they can’t finish a book then this fact must have some larger significance? Your post suggests nothing so much as a fairly standard narcissism. Oh, and just as a point of information, people generally don’t have gay sex for either edification or to look smart on subways.
I think it’s silly to say people don’t have gay sex for edification. Sex, whether gay or not, is pretty damn edifying, in my opinion. Or, is this something you have against gay sex in particular? Is Yahoo.com a bigot?!
the point of a self-help book is for some jackoff to make $$$$ by recycling some generic flimsy positive statements on life and selling them to idiots
Another good way to figure out why people enjoy certain books is to actually finish reading them.
chicken soup for the dickhead’s soul
I was waiting for someone to call out the gay sex analogy. Possible popcorn time?
Carrying Infinite Jest on a date helps me compensate for my miniature dick.
http://i39.tinypic.com/23m7tjd.jpg
My point was that the gay sex analogy is fatuous. While there is certainly an argument to be made that people read books and have sex for the sole reason of attaining pleasure, Ms. Lacey, while premising her remarks on a suspicion that those who read certain books could not possibly do so for pleasure (since she herself has been unable to enjoy them), affects to tolerate such behaviors as she would certain sexual acts, which, strictly in terms of which gender a person has sex with, are surely far less matters of “choice” than is the question of what books to read and where. It seemed to conflate orientation and choice in a way that struck me as reactionary, or at least stupid.
The FSG edition of ‘2666’ is a three-volume set. It is much nicer than the single-volume monster.
Also, to say that the fact of others reading those books gives you “joy” seems fairly disingenuous. If it really gave you joy I assume you wouldn’t be fishing for assurances that most people secretly read them to feel superior, and that your own inability or unwillingness to finish them is actually a mark of authenticity. Do you also long to hear that gay people secretly hate having sex with one another?
Chicken soup for the chicken’s soul would be a fucked up book.
Why not?
I want to believe you’re inferring more than is meant by Catherine’s question. I didn’t read Catherine as saying the _only_ thing enjoyable about reading these intellectual fatties is the pretension of reading/having read them. She simply asked whether anyone owns up to the idea that this is one possible pleasure in reading them.
I think your inference of negativity in her simple question is testimony to a sad state of your opinion of humanity in general. One of my favorite lines from Gatsby is this, “Withholding judgement is a sign of infinite hope,” or something like that.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
O’Doyle rules.
The bad ones, yeah. Some of them are useful. A very few of them are authentically well-crafted books.
Some people like watching other people have gay sex. It is like how some men like watching another guy in bed with their wife I guess. While they sit in an armchair and read Zola’s Debacle.
What is the sexual equivalent of the novella?
Why would helping yourself preclude listening to others? Isn’t all reading self-help?
I have received and continue to receive tons of help from others. I wouldn’t be alive right now if that were not the case.
To amend my previous remark, what you actually wrote was that the “joy” others take in reading these books makes you “happy,” though I remain unpersuaded that it really does.
The sexual equivalent to the novella is a conference.
I think not finishing books is fun too, though. There’s plenty of short books I haven’t finished and likely never will. (Don’t think I can even remember what they were.) I read all of JCO’s Them except for the last 25 pages, and then I took it to Half and sold it. It felt good.
Some books weren’t meant to be “completed.” Most self-help books are 3% substance and 97% anecdotes and other filler.
Why in the fuck r u reading self help books?
There is a difference between long books we finish because we should and those we finish because we want to. For me, Ulysses is worth the work because it is “good.” For the others, Nabokov says it best:
“A work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call Literature of Ideas, which very often topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann”
Because he is a rugged individualist and does not believe in receiving help from others. That’s the point of a self-help book, right? To help yourself? Rather than burdening others?
An excellent point. It’s well and good to challenge what Gary Indiana calls “the cultic worship of proper names.” But I think it betrays a lack of seriousness not to make the effort to engage with the books themselves and then to publicly wonder how anyone could read such things except as a means to status or self-regard. Also, it’s worth mentioning again that “intellectual fatties” is a pretty graceless coinage.
Catherine, I didn’t experience any kind of draw to DFW’s writing. In any way. I read The Broom of the System recently and it was much more accessible, not as tedious, not as disjointed and hard to follow. At least when I’m training for a race I feel wonderful after a long run. After reading short segments of Infinite Jest at a frustrating, glacial pace, I just felt annoyed and inferior.
I think it’s silly to say people don’t have gay sex for edification. Sex, whether gay or not, is pretty damn edifying, in my opinion. Or, is this something you have against gay sex in particular? Is Yahoo.com a bigot?!
the point of a self-help book is for some jackoff to make $$$$ by recycling some generic flimsy positive statements on life and selling them to idiots
Another good way to figure out why people enjoy certain books is to actually finish reading them.
chicken soup for the dickhead’s soul
http://i39.tinypic.com/23m7tjd.jpg
My point was that the gay sex analogy is fatuous. While there is certainly an argument to be made that people read books and have sex for the sole reason of attaining pleasure, Ms. Lacey, while premising her remarks on a suspicion that those who read certain books could not possibly do so for pleasure (since she herself has been unable to enjoy them), affects to tolerate such behaviors as she would certain sexual acts, which, strictly in terms of which gender a person has sex with, are surely far less matters of “choice” than is the question of what books to read and where. It seemed to conflate orientation and choice in a way that struck me as reactionary, or at least stupid.
The FSG edition of ‘2666’ is a three-volume set. It is much nicer than the single-volume monster.
Chicken soup for the chicken’s soul would be a fucked up book.
Why not?
I want to believe you’re inferring more than is meant by Catherine’s question. I didn’t read Catherine as saying the _only_ thing enjoyable about reading these intellectual fatties is the pretension of reading/having read them. She simply asked whether anyone owns up to the idea that this is one possible pleasure in reading them.
I think your inference of negativity in her simple question is testimony to a sad state of your opinion of humanity in general. One of my favorite lines from Gatsby is this, “Withholding judgement is a sign of infinite hope,” or something like that.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
O’Doyle rules.
The bad ones, yeah. Some of them are useful. A very few of them are authentically well-crafted books.
Why would helping yourself preclude listening to others? Isn’t all reading self-help?
I have received and continue to receive tons of help from others. I wouldn’t be alive right now if that were not the case.
Why should we be ashamed of what we do? Architects display awards above their desk, why can’t writer’s be proud like the other more lucrative and stable forms of employment.
Here, see me gloat: I read Moby Dick, Gravity’s Rainbow, Infinite Jest, Underworld, 2666.
These books signify accomplishments in the very field I labor with in hopes to achieve respect and recognition. They are references to the odds, my unlikelihood of reaching greatness. But they also show my determination to learn style or literary freedom.
There is no admiration from passersby, nor friends witness to your struggle with such books, but only those who have read them and can appreciate what you may be able to share.
I read books because I have to, because its the one art form I find true reward. Whether its Kozinski’s Steps or Wallace’s Infinite Jest, I will read.
Whatever someones motivations, what matters is did they understand, did they learn from what they read? Because any literate with enough time and pressure to read those books could.
People who focus on those conceits are missing the point.
There is a difference between long books we finish because we should and those we finish because we want to. For me, Ulysses is worth the work because it is “good.” For the others, Nabokov says it best:
“A work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call Literature of Ideas, which very often topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann”
An excellent point. It’s well and good to challenge what Gary Indiana calls “the cultic worship of proper names.” But I think it betrays a lack of seriousness not to make the effort to engage with the books themselves and then to publicly wonder how anyone could read such things except as a means to status or self-regard. Also, it’s worth mentioning again that “intellectual fatties” is a pretty graceless coinage.
until i saw this thread it never occured to me to be ashamed of reading a long difficult book. it also never occured to me to be proud of finishing a long difficult book. you just did it. the point of reading, to me, was always to read the most challenging and important texts. especially when i was in college and first exposed to so many new names and ideas. very often i got in over my head but its good to get in over your head. i had professors who would say ‘i’d never teach this book to undergrads’ but for me you swim in the deep waters and you build muscles. especially if you want to write. i promise you the books that seem long and difficult become smaller and smaller and less imposing by the days when this is what you do.
Why should we be ashamed of what we do? Architects display awards above their desk, why can’t writer’s be proud like the other more lucrative and stable forms of employment.
Here, see me gloat: I read Moby Dick, Gravity’s Rainbow, Infinite Jest, Underworld, 2666.
These books signify accomplishments in the very field I labor with in hopes to achieve respect and recognition. They are references to the odds, my unlikelihood of reaching greatness. But they also show my determination to learn style or literary freedom.
There is no admiration from passersby, nor friends witness to your struggle with such books, but only those who have read them and can appreciate what you may be able to share.
I read books because I have to, because its the one art form I find true reward. Whether its Kozinski’s Steps or Wallace’s Infinite Jest, I will read.
Whatever someones motivations, what matters is did they understand, did they learn from what they read? Because any literate with enough time and pressure to read those books could.
People who focus on those conceits are missing the point.
until i saw this thread it never occured to me to be ashamed of reading a long difficult book. it also never occured to me to be proud of finishing a long difficult book. you just did it. the point of reading, to me, was always to read the most challenging and important texts. especially when i was in college and first exposed to so many new names and ideas. very often i got in over my head but its good to get in over your head. i had professors who would say ‘i’d never teach this book to undergrads’ but for me you swim in the deep waters and you build muscles. especially if you want to write. i promise you the books that seem long and difficult become smaller and smaller and less imposing by the days when this is what you do.
Really? I feel like Franzen is middle-audience that he doesn’t count. The Corrections is no trophy novel. His prose, whether or not you like it, is accessible if nothing else.
(so middle audience)
Giles Goat-Boy yes yes yes and The Sot-Weed Factor too!
And polite company be damned!
Yea. I’m just hating on Franzen.
Good man.
here’s something I like: approaching a difficult text that I have never read, perhaps partially because it’s a difficult text, and being anxious that I won’t be able to make it through or understand what’s going on then reading it and making some kind of sense of it and having ideas about it. The personal gratification of that has nothing to do with other people except in the sense that while before (reading whichever difficult text) I was outside of a conversation, now I can participate.
Saying that one *hasn’t* read certain books becomes a form of inverse boasting. Readers feel frustrated at encountering their own limitations and instead of pushing through them rush to publicize these limitations as virtues.
Really? I feel like Franzen is middle-audience that he doesn’t count. The Corrections is no trophy novel. His prose, whether or not you like it, is accessible if nothing else.
(so middle audience)
Giles Goat-Boy yes yes yes and The Sot-Weed Factor too!
And polite company be damned!
Yea. I’m just hating on Franzen.
Good man.
here’s something I like: approaching a difficult text that I have never read, perhaps partially because it’s a difficult text, and being anxious that I won’t be able to make it through or understand what’s going on then reading it and making some kind of sense of it and having ideas about it. The personal gratification of that has nothing to do with other people except in the sense that while before (reading whichever difficult text) I was outside of a conversation, now I can participate.
Saying that one *hasn’t* read certain books becomes a form of inverse boasting. Readers feel frustrated at encountering their own limitations and instead of pushing through them rush to publicize these limitations as virtues.
SCOOP: Erin Gay Takes Center Stage In…”The Kindly Ones”!!!…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
Wha? Infinite Jest is not work…it’s pure literary pleasure. I’ve had more trouble finishing two-hundred pagers that were simple and boring.
As others mention, who exactly are we hoping to impress?
Wha? Infinite Jest is not work…it’s pure literary pleasure. I’ve had more trouble finishing two-hundred pagers that were simple and boring.
As others mention, who exactly are we hoping to impress?
[…] other day at html giant, there was a discussion of “intelligent fatties” (i.e., those giant works of literature, both in reputation & size, that happen to be as […]