Slowest reads?

[davoarid]

Has anyone ever found that certain books (or authors) take much, much longer to read than others?

I've read it several times, but I swear, Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" but my "pages per minute" is by a very wide margin the lowest I've ever accomplished... I could read books twice as long in half the time! When I first read it, I thought it was because I was "forced" to read it for school.... nope. Subsequent readings for pleasure have been just as long.

The only other Conrad I've read was "The Secret Agent," which was only slightly slower-reading than average for me, so I'm not sure what the deal is with "Heart of Darkness."

Anyone else notice this, and, if so, on which books? (Or, of course, are there any works of literature that you've found to be very fast reads? And stick to real literature there... I'm well aware of how easy it is to breeze through the likes of Stephen King.) I just finished reading Gogol's "Dead Souls," and that was a very quick read for me.

[EAP]

And stick to real literature there...

In that case you can start by giving us your defination of 'real literature'.

[mir]

Les Miserables. that took FOREVER even to get through 300 pages - after that i decided that there was more meaning to my life than reading a book that doesn't even mention the main character till page 200 or so. and a thin book that's a slow read but definitely worth it is Flatland - the best melding of mathematics and literature i've ever seen. Fast read? . . . i don't know, the one i'm reading right now - Ray Bradbury's The Illustrated Man - is going pretty fast. everything is real literature. some of it is just really bad real literature.

[Wendigo_49]

Ulysses took about two months for me to read. A novel usually takes me about 2 to 5 days to read. The second longest was The Dwarf by Lagerkvist. It took me about 3 weeks to read.

[hera-on-earth]

I've read it several times, but I swear, Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" but my "pages per minute" is by a very wide margin the lowest I've ever accomplished... I could read books twice as long in half the time! When I first read it, I thought it was because I was "forced" to read it for school.... nope. Subsequent readings for pleasure have been just as long.
True, my forum-fren!! I was forced to read "Heart of Darkness" in school too!! And what I never understood was why did I hate it so much!! But after analyzing it and undrstanding its depth I liked it better. However, the truth remains is that I have NEVER attempted to read it again!!!!

The book which got me to be the slowest was the wretched book by Daniel Defoe called "Robinson Crusoe".....I promise to NEVER EVER EVER read it again!!!!

[sdr4jc]

I could not read the Great Gatsby. (Ducking from the flaming arrows that are already being hurled at me!)

[sdr4jc]

Welcome, Davoarid! Tell us about your name too.

[davoarid]

My internet name is just a re-arrangement of the letters of my "real" name. Sorry!

[malwethien]

I think anything by James Joyce (especially Ulysses, and A Portrait of a Young Man), and Umberto Eco. They are really interesting novels but very hard to read.

[lavendar1]

Someone suggested I read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. Yikes! Not that it isn't interesting and pretty funny at times...but the mega-paragraphs and style intimidate me a bit. And at nearly 1000 pages, it's a book I probably won't be finishing any time soon.

[Charles Darnay]

[QUOTE=mir]Les Miserables. that took FOREVER even to get through 300 pages - after that i decided that there was more meaning to my life than reading a book that doesn't even mention the main character till page 200 or so....



I would definatly have to disagree with you there. I believe that there is only one part in Les Misérables that could be considered even remotly slow - and that's in the last part. The fact that Hugo doesn't mention the main character until page 200 (which is not true by the by) has no connection with the slowness of a book - there is plenty of action in the first part. Maybe it's just a bias attitude, it being my favourite book, but Les Misérables is not a waste of time

[davoarid]

Someone suggested I read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. Yikes! Not that it isn't interesting and pretty funny at times...but the mega-paragraphs and style intimidate me a bit. And at nearly 1000 pages, it's a book I probably won't be finishing any time soon.
I haven't read Wallace yet, but long paragraph-ed novels are always a struggle for me. Kafka's The Trial has a few 15-20 page paragraphs that just drive me mad.

[Jack_Aubrey]

I'm finding Main Street by Sinclair Lewis to be somewhat of a tedious read. But then again, if you read my most recent thread you'll find that I've been slacking recently.

[silver]

Ulysses took about two months for me to read. A novel usually takes me about 2 to 5 days to read. The second longest was The Dwarf by Lagerkvist. It took me about 3 weeks to read.

Cnongratulations for reading James Joyce's Ulysses.

[mir]

[QUOTE=mir]Les Miserables. that took FOREVER even to get through 300 pages - after that i decided that there was more meaning to my life than reading a book that doesn't even mention the main character till page 200 or so....



I would definatly have to disagree with you there. I believe that there is only one part in Les Misérables that could be considered even remotly slow - and that's in the last part. The fact that Hugo doesn't mention the main character until page 200 (which is not true by the by) has no connection with the slowness of a book - there is plenty of action in the first part. Maybe it's just a bias attitude, it being my favourite book, but Les Misérables is not a waste of time

hmm. well, how old should you be when you read it? i suppose one of the reasons i didn't like it could be that i tried to read it when i was 11.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I don't think you can blame long, unbroken paragraphs. Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "100 Years of Solitude" has lots of them but manages to be both an absorbing, rich piece of literature and a very easy read. The same is true of Kafka IMHO, I finished "The Castle" in about a week - 3/4 hours a day max.

I believe that the books that take longest to read are the ones where you have to fill in a lot of the story yourself, spending time to digest each sentence before going on to the next. This is definitely true of Joyce. "Portrait of an Artist" is about the same length as "The Castle" but took at least twice as long for me to read. I have yet to tackle "Ullyses" - I keep meaning to but you know how it is. It's like that pile of ironing, starting it is the hardest part.

[The Unnamable]

It's like that pile of ironing, starting it is the hardest part.
Get a wife.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Get a wife.

Wife? Pile of ironing?

Sometimes the lesser of two evils is so hard to determine! ;)

[Riesa]

you can always wear polyester, then you wouldn't have to worry about either.

[Charles Darnay]

[QUOTE=Charles Darnay]

hmm. well, how old should you be when you read it? i suppose one of the reasons i didn't like it could be that i tried to read it when i was 11.

Yes, that would definatly be a reason for not liking the book. I think 11 is too young, unless you already have some background knowledge of French hsitory and are well-read in terms of the Romantic style of writing.

[Vedrana]

I would have to say that one of the slowest books I have had to read was To Kill A Mockingbird, and that was because the First part dragged for quite some time, and all you want to read is the trial, which is in part 2.

I am yet to finish War and Peace. I start it and then I just lose my patience, and then I have to start it again later.

I agree that Les Miserables is fairly long and can be trying to the reader's patience, but then again, I do think some of his writing is really rich and worth reading.

[Shea]

I just finished Tolsoy's Anna Karenina last night. Though I enjoyed it, it just seemed so dreadfully drawn out, I thought it would never end. It may be a quite while before I tackle War and Peace.

[rachel]

I have never found anything by my beloved Leo Tolstoy to be long or drawn out in anyway. I just love him so much and wish he would have written a thousand books. But he seemed rather scattered brained when he wasn't absorbed in writing, if it was not for his wife chasing about the house collecting his manuscripts I doubt much would have been read by us.

oh PLEASE don't wear polyester. I agree....just get a wife. You probably are such a perfectionist at ironing you only get one thing done an hour. It makes me tired just thinking about it. Oh and when you do get married we all get invites, right, i mean am I right? :lol:

I am still plodding along with the brothers Karamazov and sometimes I feel like screaming because I cannot abide the long winded crazy speeches by the father. I want to take him by the hand to the nearest santitorium and make him comfy. :sick:

[rachel]

Get a wife.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA not unfortunate looking and witty, sigh...the ultimate man. :D

[Aurora Ariel]

With my first thoughts, I would nominate Ulysses by James Joyce. That usually appears like the one of the most challenging books ever written, at least when considering original Twentieth Century publications. It's definitely a monumental read or as my copy of the 1922 Oxford text describes on the back 'this is the one to buy' - yes and keep very close to you for some time! I'm going to read this one more than once. I have only read small sections thus far, but plan to read it straight through this month. I can't say I found Tolstoy's Anna Karenina drawn out at all. I have a wonderful reminiscence of reading that book rather quickly, and finding it much more lucid than War and Peace, which does take a much longer time frame and naturally demands a greater devotion to complete. War and Peace was the longest book I read last year, but I would select this over Anna Karenina anyday. I found the philosophical and introspective character, Pierre Bezukhov, to be especially interesting, more so than those portrayed in Anna Karenina for instance. I would recommend you begin this soon, and even consider taking it out to read whenever you have a few spare minuets. I've known others who have decided to put this book down, and just not bothered to finish it, but I enjoyed it immensely. I was actually reading a non-fiction book about Napoleon and another one on the Nineteenth Century around the same time. I have to say I have less than splendid memories of reading Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, in class over a particularly gloomy period, as I had this tediously dull teacher (less than inspiring and pretty much universally disliked, she was the worst I have ever had- sadly), who insisted on reading the whole book to us in the most terrible manner, with this whining high-pitched voice, that sounded like thousands of pieces of chalk been streaked down a board; and resultingly I ended up discriminating against the book ever since. I recall that I really was quite despondent, and didn't enjoyed studying this like all the other set books. Due to this negative experience, I think I developed an unfounded prejudice or fear of that boy, Huckleberry Finn...but I probably should pick up that classic book again and give it another go- eventually.

[Riesa]

Hi Aurora, love your new sig, btw.



I have to say I have less than splendid memories of reading Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, in class over a particularly gloomy period, as I had this tediously dull teacher (less than inspiring and pretty much universally disliked, she was the worst I have ever had- sadly), who insisted on reading the whole book to us in the most terrible manner, with this whining high-pitched voice, that sounded like thousands of pieces of chalk been streaked down a board; and resultingly I ended up discriminating against the book ever since. I recall that I really was quite despondent, and didn't enjoyed studying this like all the other set books. Due to this negative experience, I think I developed an unfounded prejudice or fear of that boy, Huckleberry Finn...but I probably should pick up that classic book again and give it another go- eventually.

That is one of the saddest things I've ever heard; that teacher should be strung up and shot...do give it another go, it's one of my favorites.

My slowest read is 'The Return of the Native' in fact, I started it six months ago and the spine is barely creased. ugh. I will do it, I will, I think I can.

[Virgil]

Hi Aurora, love your new sig, btw.




That is one of the saddest things I've ever heard; that teacher should be strung up and shot...do give it another go, it's one of my favorites.

My slowest read is 'The Return of the Native' in fact, I started it six months ago and the spine is barely creased. ugh. I will do it, I will, I think I can.
Well hurry up and finish it so you can get to The Sound and the Fury next month. :D

[Erna]

Two books pop up in my mind when thinking about slow reads: "The idiot" by Dostovjevsky and "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte. The last one took 7 months, because the story seemed to be to slow for me and also not that interesting, I think I can't imagine the life of a girl in that time.... The first one I'm reading now, but it takes long. Every time I finish a chapter, I'm happy about it. Not that it's that boring, but I think I just don't get what the story is really about and I'm always mixing up names.

[Riesa]

Well hurry up and finish it so you can get to The Sound and the Fury next month. :D
I'm actually reading The Sound and the Fury right now....sloooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyyyyyy, too.


originally posted by Erna
Not that it's that boring, but I think I just don't get what the story is really about and I'm always mixing up names.
hahaha, I know exactly what you mean.

[Shea]

Two books pop up in my mind when thinking about slow reads: "The idiot" by Dostovjevsky and "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte. The last one took 7 months, because the story seemed to be to slow for me and also not that interesting, I think I can't imagine the life of a girl in that time....

Oooohhh! Jane Eyre is one of my favorites! Read up on the history of Britain at that time especially concerning women and try reading it again.

I didn't mean to speak so negatively about Anna Karenina; I did enjoy it. I think my favorite character was Levin. I loved the scene where he goes mowing. I think I just had a difficult time with all the political discussions.

[miss.fire]

When I finally decided to read Gone With The Wind..it went pretty slow. I think it took me a few months 'cause I had to keep taking breaks from it. There were alot of places where (IMO) it was dragging along.

[Virgil]

I'm actually reading The Sound and the Fury right now....sloooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyyyyyy, too.


hahaha, I know exactly what you mean.
If it gets picked as the book of the month for April, I'll put out a little post to help get through the tough spots. It actually reads quite fast once you get oriented. Unfortuantely it takes an initial reading to get oriented.

[Isagel]

I could agree with alot of people here and say Joyce, but it seems unfair becuase I really dislike his work in a way that goes past any reason. It is pure emotion. I really just hate it. I have promised people here I will give it a new try. Some day I will.

So my choice would be In Search of Lost Time, by Proust. I had been going at it for three years I think, before giving up. I read a small piece here, another there. I never could read large portions of it, but when I sat down to read a small piece I generally liked it. Following the twist and turns of it was like some strange slow meditation. And then I laid it aside and forgot all about it. And of course almost al of the story. I have been thinking about starting again when I retire. Oh, and of course there is the Bible. I will offend some one now, but that is a slow read. I have read almost all of it. I have read the new testament two times, but in the old testament I got stuck after The book of Job I think. I started to skim read after that. The never ending lists of "son of this, son of him, son of whats his name" got to me. I´ll get back to it some day. It was interesting, but slow. I read about ten pages every night before going to bed. It was a long project. But it was worth it. Now when a member of Jehovas witness come knocking I can say " Oh the bible, I didn´t really like the first part, but I liked the sequel".

[chmpman]

If it gets picked as the book of the month for April, I'll put out a little post to help get through the tough spots. It actually reads quite fast once you get oriented. Unfortuantely it takes an initial reading to get oriented.

I'm also reading TSATF, but I'm sort of trying to get through it quickly, just so I can at least reread the first part before it appears on my final for American Lit. so I'll actually understand what the crap was going on. Although, from my reading so far, the second part isn't much easier.

As for slow books, I find almost all non-fiction books hard to finish. I started The Path Where No Man Thought, by Carl Sagan and someone else long ago, but although it's very interesting, I haven't gotten the motivation to pick it back up. Same thing has happened with Friedman's The World is Flat.

[Ryduce]

I'm actually reading The Sound and the Fury right now....sloooooowwwwwwllllllyyyyyyyyy, too.









I've attempted The Sound and the Fury once a month for the past year,and I'm sad to say that I've never made it past the first section.Hopefully I'll make it since it's this months book.

[softball336]

I didn't like reading Heart of Darkness either. I definitely liked the analyzing part much better. It's easier to get the symbolism and stuff after you've gotten through it and think about the story- which wasn't bad after you finish actually reading the book:)

[mir]

When I finally decided to read Gone With The Wind..it went pretty slow. I think it took me a few months 'cause I had to keep taking breaks from it. There were alot of places where (IMO) it was dragging along.

really? that's practically my favorite book! i wouldn't read it twice, though . . . too much emotion, and books are so much better when you don't already know everything that's going to happen. unless they're Terry Pratchett, because you can read those a million times.

[Charles Darnay]

A question for anyone who's read Ulysses?

On this thread alone there has been conflicting opinions on this book. I was considering reading it, it seemed pretty interesting. So I was wondering....

For those who found it to be a slow read - what was the main reason for this?

For those who loved it - same question

Any information would be aprreciated

[Mililalil XXIV]

I used to take for ever to get down to just doing my income tax return.
I still find manuals for technology I don't already understand hard to get into - since I want to always understand every word.

[Stanislaw]

Two words: Tom Clancy...he could take three pages to describe a military issue pencil.

[stevenl]

A question for anyone who's read Ulysses?

On this thread alone there has been conflicting opinions on this book. I was considering reading it, it seemed pretty interesting. So I was wondering....

For those who found it to be a slow read - what was the main reason for this?

For those who loved it - same question

Any information would be aprreciated

Read it. I loved it and hated it for the same reason -- it's challenging. Don't read Ulysses because you feel like you have to or you should, read it because you want to and don't be too proud or afraid to seek out help.

I was lucky enough to tackle this book in a classroom setting but it is not so utterly incomprehensible as to make that the only way to understand it. There are many guides (Stuart Gilbert's was the one we used but I suspect there are better).

[stevenl]

My vote would be Don DeLillo's Underworld. Like many others, I was amazed by the reviews and always keen to immerse myself in meaningful. To be honest I was really quite confused to find that the 40 page prologue felt diconnected to the rest of the story and the balance of the book couldn't make up for it.

Great prologue though.

[elpidi26]

Gone With the Wind. I started reading it. Rented the movie while I was reading it. Saw the movie. Noticed a convincing similarity between what I had read up to that point and what I saw in the movie. Decided reading the rest would be a waste of my time. Sold the book.

[hera-on-earth]

Gone With the Wind. I started reading it. Rented the movie while I was reading it. Saw the movie. Noticed a convincing similarity between what I had read up to that point and what I saw in the movie. Decided reading the rest would be a waste of my time. Sold the book.
u mean to say...u actually sold the book?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i looooooooove the book like crazy!!!!!!!! im dying to lay my hands on it again...i will definitely buy it!!! though i agree that certain pages get very descriptive and one feels its a waste of time to read them but i feel u should try again...maybe not now, maybe later.....

never mind....i guess everyone has his/her own reading preferences.

[AimusSage]

I agree about heart of darkness, but it is still a great book, with the symbolism et all. it's a slow read because I keep flipping through the book, re checking things, thinking about things, rereading parts and so on. But that is generally how I read books, just that with Heart Of Darkness I do it even more then usual.

[Bastet]

Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose.... descriptions run for pages...

[Greenbunny]

henry david thoreau

[Boris239]

Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose.... descriptions run for pages...

"Foucault pendulum" is much more difficult to read. Especially in the beginning.

[MrsCoulter]

"Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Brilliant book, but it just goes on and on and on for AGES! Not to mention it's well over 1000 pages with that ever-annoying minuscle font...

[Bastet]

"Foucault pendulum" is much more difficult to read. Especially in the beginning.

I haven't read it... how is it difficult to read? complex ideas, sintaxis? As long as it doesn't have long descriptions I'm willing to give it a try!

I like Foucault's theory of knowledge and power...

[Boris239]

The ideas are complex, but that's fine. In the beginning there is a really llong description of a museum with random philosophical thoughts, and it's pretty long. The first time I started to read I didn't manage to pass this part. After that it's much easier and very interesting.

[Bastet]

oh ok, I'll keep it into account if I decide to take it up, I tend to get discoraged by long descriptions, thanks!!

[kmwmn]

[QUOTE=Charles Darnay;171835]A question for anyone who's read Ulysses?

On this thread alone there has been conflicting opinions on this book. I was considering reading it, it seemed pretty interesting. So I was wondering....

For those who found it to be a slow read - what was the main reason for this?[QUOTE]




I found Ulysses a very sloww read. The main reason. It was his personal ramblings. I felt sooo many times - GET TO THE POINT. But I don't think there was a point. That was the problem. I don't need a hundred words to discribe one idea.
Also Wings of a Dove - Same theory. Sometimes less is better.

[Viridis]

I would agree with the many posts about Ulysses. I read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in high school without any difficulty, but Ulysses is a different beast. It still sits on my bookshelf, mocking me...

For the several posts about Conrad, I read The Secret Agent in college and found his prose so dense and (shall I be blunt?) boring that it took me forever to get through the book. This past summer I read Heart of Darkness and was surprised by how much easier it seemed to read - perhaps I have matured, or I have learned to look for meaning and symbolism.

By the way, my top vote for the absolute worst author to read (in terms of having to reread the same passage hundreds of times and still have your mind wander) would have to be Karl Marx. I know, he's not a fiction writer, but I had to read several of his works for a 19th century history course. If you ever have to read Marx, you have my sympathies. May God help you.

[Kurtz]

The slowest read I ever had was surely "ATLAS SHRUGGED" by AYN RAND. This book was terrible and the ending was atrocious. I guess it did not help that I hate her philosophy.

In reply to the post about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". I think this novella requires at least ten readings before it gets good. I have read it dozens of times and it is one of my favourite stories. This is a great quote from the book: " I couldn't let it rest, though; but when an opportunity offered at last to meet my predecessor, the grass growing through his ribs was tall enough to hide his bones." Man, I love that passage. Sorry, I get excited when talking about "HOD".

[jon1jt]

The slowest read I ever had was surely "ATLAS SHRUGGED" by AYN RAND. This book was terrible and the ending was atrocious. I guess it did not help that I hate her philosophy.

In reply to the post about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". I think this novella requires at least ten readings before it gets good. I have read it dozens of times and it is one of my favourite stories. This is a great quote from the book: " I couldn't let it rest, though; but when an opportunity offered at last to meet my predecessor, the grass growing through his ribs was tall enough to hide his bones." Man, I love that passage. Sorry, I get excited when talking about "HOD".


I'm surprised you didn't like Atlas Shrugged. It's up there with my favorites even though I'm no fan of objectivism. :D

Slowest read for me would have to be Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. There must have been like 700 pages devoted to the main character's learning to farm with the peasants, or so it felt! The love interest and impulsive Anna seemed to be secondary to description ad nauseum.

[Kurtz]

I'm surprised you didn't like Atlas Shrugged. It's up there with my favorites even though I'm no fan of objectivism. :D

Slowest read for me would have to be Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. There must have been like 700 pages devoted to the main character's learning to farm with the peasants, or so it felt! The love interest and impulsive Anna seemed to be secondary to description ad nauseum.


Ahh! The beauty of perspectives. I liked certain parts of "AS" , but to be honest I could see what was coming. The identity of John Galt being present throughout the novel (with his talks with Eddie) and the veiled personality of Francisco. It all just seemed transparrent to me. And to me Galt's speech was like learning to farm in Anna Kerenina.

[jon1jt]

Ahh! The beauty of perspectives. I liked certain parts of "AS" , but to be honest I could see what was coming. The identity of John Galt being present throughout the novel (with his talks with Eddie) and the veiled personality of Francisco. It all just seemed transparrent to me. And to me Galt's speech was like learning to farm in Anna Kerenina.

haha! good point Kurz! I don't know, I guess I loved the concept in the book of the whole secret world they built under the radar and thought Rand gave a worthy nod to innovators, particularly the prime movers, which are far and few between. Karenina was a real snore at moments I'll tell you. Since I'm off topic, might as well mention his Death of Ivan Illych is still one of my favorite.

[subterranean]

henry david thoreau

All of them?

I have to include Crime and Punishment in my slowest read list. I have read half part of it some time ago, but I putted it away because I needed or tempted to read something else. I'm taking the book on my current trip with a hope that I'd be able to finish it this time. Unfortunetely, I have only managed to read few pages so far :(.

[mtpspur]

James Fenimore Cooper's The Pioneers. Chapter 3 contains a description of a residence of one of the main characters (Judge Temple) thats goes on and on. The Signet Classic edition that I own has an afterword that justifiably warns that this book is no Last of the Mohicans or (my favorite of the five--The Deerslayer--readers take note. I read the books as a group in chronological order over a summer to have a sense of having done something my father may have done as he had copies of all five in hardcover passed down to my brothers and sisters when he was young, and the more I think of it now The Pathfinder is actually more disappointing from an adventure standpoint because Hawkeye was still young in that book.

[optimisticnad]

Slowest read-well iv been reading Lawrences Women In love, its not rubbish, i quite like it actually, but im only on chapter four, just too much to take in and i dont feel like the plot advances much, its too too theoretical. every page will have some huge grand debate, has anybody else read this? did they feel like this?

[S1NN3R]

Paradise Lost took me forever. Just that particular writing style doesn't jive with me, and I probably wouldn't have finished it if it hadn't been drilled into me that it was "essential reading".

[Bastet]

The Lord of the Rings,.... I can only talk about the first couple of pages because that's all I read. They were sooo slow I couldn't go on reading.

[mtpspur]

I agree about Paradise Lost--I tried reading it the other day here on the site and quit after mayber 20 lines. I have never been able to appreciate poetry. This will be one spiritual got to have read that won't be on the resume. It's still taking me years but I am trying to break the tyranny of the mindset--you started the book now finish it--many mangles pages left in the wake.

[Idril]

The Lord of the Rings,.... I can only talk about the first couple of pages because that's all I read. They were sooo slow I couldn't go on reading.

The first half of that first book is excrutiating but if you can get yourself to Bree and meet Strider, it picks up considerably. When I reread LOTR, I always skip that first part and start at Bree. :blush:

Don Quixote took me forever to get through and it wasn't that I didn't like it but for some reason I couldn't get passed 10 pages before I was just done. I usually get through at least 3 or 4 books a month but I think that was the only book I read that month. :rolleyes:

[Themis]

Anyone else notice this, and, if so, on which books? (Or, of course, are there any works of literature that you've found to be very fast reads? And stick to real literature there... I'm well aware of how easy it is to breeze through the likes of Stephen King.) I just finished reading Gogol's "Dead Souls," and that was a very quick read for me.

I actually like Joseph Conrad but it took me ages to read through "Heart of Darkness" too.

As for 'fast reads' - I'm pretty sure how fast you read certain books depends on if you're interested in them. Kafka's “Metamorphosis“ took me a long time (about three months but then, that was at school), while I was through with Tolstoy's "War and Peace" within a week.

[Bita]

The slowest read? :p

In my case it was Of Human Bondage by W. Somerset Maugham! I hate to admit it ... but it took me more than a year to finish! I finished it -finally- about 3/4 months ago. It is a great work of literature and enjoyable - but I borrowed so many other books and had to read other stuff that ....
At the end I felt so sorry for the book: I carried it so much with me that the pages were falling apart!:sick:

[Nightwalk]

The slowest read would probably be The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, while one of the fastest is The Godfather by Mario Puzo.

[Guzmán]

Hi, this is my first post!

My slowest read was "the glass bead game" by Hesse which I never finished (although i do enjoy Hesse a lot), I guess the semi-biographical style was a bit heavy to handle.
my fastest one was probably one from the Foundation series by Asimov which i finished in about a day and a half.

[Mary Sue]

The slowest read I ever had was that d*#mned trilogy, I forget its name, by Stephen R. Donaldson. About Thomas Covenant, the leper who's transported to an alternate world. Usually I enjoy fantasty but this one whitened my hair to the very roots, it was such a hard read. Incredibly tedious. I found the hero a bloody bore, too dreary and humorless for my taste. As for the other characters they were all stereotypical, one-dimensional, cardboard cut-outs that I cared nothing about. Halfway through I remember COUNTING THE PAGES to see how much farther I had to go. And gritting my teeth and telling myself "Don't be a quitter!" I really TRIED to read the whole thing. I really did but, well...Mea culpa!

[Nightwalk]

Welcome to the forums Guzman, it's nice to see a Uruguayan here and a Montevidean at that. Montevideo was home to two of some of my most favorite authors, Isidore Lucien Ducasse ( a.k.a. Le Comte de Lautreamont ) and Jules Laforgue.

[Guzmán]

Welcome to the forums Guzman, it's nice to see a Uruguayan here and a Montevidean at that. Montevideo was home to two of some of my most favorite authors, Isidore Lucien Ducasse ( a.k.a. Le Comte de Lautreamont ) and Jules Laforgue.

Thanks for the welcome. I haven´t read anything by either Laforgue or Le Comte de Lautremont though I plan to do so in the future yet I am sorry to say that their names don´t form much of a part of uruguayan culture I´m afraid...

[Nightwalk]

Hello Guzman. Here's some info. on the writers I mentioned and english editions of their works.

Lautreamont

Bio:

http://www.littlebluelight.com/lblphp/intro.php?ikey=15

Works:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781878972125&itm=6


Jules Laforgue

Bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Laforgue

Works:

http://www.amazon.com/Poems-Jules-Laforgue/dp/0856463221/sr=1-2/qid=1159221676/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-9041425-9660710?ie=UTF8&s=books

[existentialIAN]

I actually like Joseph Conrad but it took me ages to read through "Heart of Darkness" too.

I actually got through "Heart of Darkness" pretty quickly. I read it on vacation because I was bored and I was actually sucked in by it, though I will admit I did somewhat force myself through it.

I'll agree with the Lord of the Rings vote. Fellowship took me forever. The First Book was soooooo boring.

[Behemoth]

I'm with the "Paradise Lost" club; took me literally WEEKS to finish it. Not to say that I didn't enjoy it, (sort of) but it was so laborious and brain-bending. Ovid's "Metamorphoses" came a close second.

[Guzmán]

thanks for the links Nightwatch, ill check them out.

[Neovia]

It took me really long time to read one of my favourite novels, Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. Even I normally read a novel under 200 pages in one day (if it's interesting ;)), this one took me days to get finished. The book was so philosophic and surrealistic that every single one-paged chapter aroused so many toughts in my mind that I had to put the book down for a while and just simply Think! :D

[alennox21]

ulysses, joyce
infrequently, several times a month.
over twenty years

Book of common prayer
daily
over 30 years

I think there is someone great who said
Read a great deal but not a lot.

re-v