I am about halfway through Les Misérables and I figured that afterword I would continue the long novel streak. The book on my shelf I plan to finish by December is Infinite Jest or War and Peace . After one of those I plan to read either Gravity's Rainbow, Underworld, or the "Rabbit" series by Updike. War and Peace is difficult but rewarding. Infinite Jest is post modern which I have yet to try.I only have this dilemma as it will be a while before I read the other book.
I haven't read Infinite Jest, but I did read War and Peace about 2 years ago - and LOVED it. It rightfully deserves its status as one of the best books ever written.
Though I have not read Infinite Jest, only time will tell if the book will be looked upon as fondly 50-100 years from now, whereas, War and Peace is probably going to retain its generally esteemed place among the great works of all time.
I read the Louise and Aylmer Maude translation and would obviously recommend it. Some other translations that you might check out are the Constance Garnett, Rosemary Edmonds, and Anthony Briggs versions. I omitted a few other translations because I prefer a more readable translation, rather than a completely literal attempt.
I second Vota's endorsement (hey, Vota--long time). The Garnett translation is available for free at Project Gutenberg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vota
You can't possibly go wrong with the Russians. Tolstoi, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Lermontov, Goncharov, even if, however, there's also my affinity with the eastern byronism...
I have both books (Edmonds translation for War and Peace), due to Les Misérables length I have wanted to read both for a while now, I will finish Les Misérables by the end of September. If I finish all three books one after the other, I would have read only 4 books (I took a break to read American Pastoral) from the beginning of July to the beginning of February.
Is there some special reason you are interested in long novels? They are my favorites (and I strongly recommend Tom Jones, by the way), but I am curious what motivates others.
It is not necessarily the length of the novels, it is the type. Though I came across Infinite Jest on a long novels list, what made me want to read it was finding it on the "encyclopedic novels" wikipedia page. I saw it along side Ulysses and Moby-Dick (my top two favourite books) and it seemed interesting. Looking at the books i wanted to read as well (Gravity's Rainbow and Underworld), you can see that they fit into the category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Oh good, I thought you meant the font. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingrat
I like Fielding because he knows he is writing comic epic (that is, after the fashion of ancient epic). Melville and Tolstoy are also writing epic, at least in the sense of presenting a unified worldview. Dickens isn't, although he can seem like he is because his London looks (to us) like such a universe unto itself. Or perhaps Dickens is writing moral epic (in Bleak House, for example, where the city is a kind of foggy hell), but even that seems a bit far fetched. Thackeray is writing a moral/satirical epic in Vanity Fair, although he is quick to point out that it is one without a hero. And if Dostoyevsky had not died before completing the opus that he began with The Brothers Karamazov, he might have produced the ultimate moral epic. As it is he wrote a better book than any of them. Read that one after War and Peace. Then read Tom Jones.
Underworld is good. If you're looking for large novels, you can't go far wrong with Middlemarch or The Tale of Genji or Kristen Lavransdatter. All great reads.
lI am an advid reader and must admit I could never finish War and Peace. This isn't because I don't like lenghtly novels, because actually I do, but simply never found it rewarding enough to stick with itl. I will tell you that if you can get through it you will have something to brag about. Others who have read it are always proud of the fact. It is an accomplishment to have read it, but I never could finish it.
Don't worry, the braggarts didn't get it either. ;-)
Is it really that hard to read that people brag about finishing the book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikko57
It's been 6 years since I've read the book, but I don't remember it to be a hard-to-read book. Maybe it's the English translation (I read it in a third language).
It isn't a hard read. Imo it's an engrossing read. I read the book in just over two weeks because I found myself wanting to read it every day for hours at a time. I suspect most people that stopped reading the book did so within the first 120 pages. I admit the start is abit of a slog, but it sets up all the backstory and introduces all the major characters. 120 pages isn't unreasonable when a book is over 1500 pages long. Once you make it past that point it just takes off, and for me it never let go.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Entenado
P.S. Hey Pompey Bum.
It isn't difficult at all. I think some people read War and Peace for the wrong reason. They want to set themselves the challenge of getting through it without considering why it's a book they would actually want to read in the first place. Or sometimes they imagine reading it will impress others or make some kind of statement about themselves. A book you don't really want to read is always a chore to get through, a book you're in love with always ends too soon, and people who brag about the books they've read are idiots. There's just not a lot more to it than that.
Totally agree. War and Peace is very readable. If it's thick it doesn't mean it's the hardest. First time I picked it up I thought about its enormity and got overwhelmed. Second time I had no intention of reading it and was just going through the first few pages just to pass time. I found it so easy and the story so engaging that I just continued reading it until it was finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum