Most Difficult Texts You've Read

Interesting that one of the articles in the OP mentions Great Expectations:

but who among us hasn’t struggled with a book or poem that failed to capture our attention? If that’s you, then congratulations. I have a near-mint copy of “Great Expectations” you can read while the rest of us go through this list.

I read Great Expectations concurrently with Neuromancer by William Gibson. Neuromancer often turns up on lists of influential books, although it is science fiction. I had few problems following Great Expectations. I could not make head or tail of Neuromancer.

I have to admit I had some trouble working out what was going on with Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov towards the end. I also had difficulty with The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. I read it, but afterwards would have had a problem telling you what it was about. I was surprised when someone told me it was a classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven Falcon.

War and Peace is easy to read and I might even say that it's a page-turner while at the same time being a literary heavyweight. Although it's heavily descriptive, the prose flows from sentences to sentences quite well and that, for me at least, lends it a certain lucidity not found in many of its fellow 19th century novels.

Nonetheless, I don't mean to say that the book has no muddled parts, as it certainly has, like the few digressions on human history that interspersed the the book, alongside the two famous yet needless epilogues devoid of narrative.

At the micro level, namely phrasing and syntax, War and Peace is hardly culpable for smothering difficulty. Sure, there are some awkward syntax and long winded sentences, but they are graspable after some cursory mull.

Looking at it at macro level, War and Peace is anything but easy, though that's not to say that it's exceeding difficult either. At this level, the difficulty is merely impressionistic, that is, it arises because of the length and size of the book, not unlike its contemporaries.

---

Uh.... I found that harder to read than Tolstoy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

Interesting that one of the articles in the OP mentions Great Expectations:

but who among us hasn’t struggled with a book or poem that failed to capture our attention? If that’s you, then congratulations. I have a near-mint copy of “Great Expectations” you can read while the rest of us go through this list.

I read Great Expectations concurrently with Neuromancer by William Gibson. Neuromancer often turns up on lists of influential books, although it is science fiction. I had few problems following Great Expectations. I could not make head or tail of Neuromancer.

I have to admit I had some trouble working out what was going on with Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov towards the end. I also had difficulty with The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. I read it, but afterwards would have had a problem telling you what it was about. I was surprised when someone told me it was a classic.

---

The Guardian Book Club recently discussed Iain M Banks' "Use of Weapons", and his complex use of flashback. I read "Surface Detail" last year, (and intend to do a book review of it still), and that too is a multi-layered book and very effective. There's scope in them both for the entertainment reader, but there is also a literary element to them. I'm not saying they are fantastically difficult, but there is more than space opera at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brielle92

Uh.... I found that harder to read than Tolstoy..

---

Not at all, no.

Moby Dick - Melville focuses too much on whaling techniques and too little on the plot . I haven't finished it yet and if I have a hard time going to sleep, I read this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan_M

Moby Dick - Melville focuses too much on whaling techniques and too little on the plot . I haven't finished it yet and if I have a hard time going to sleep, I read this one.

---

So you are using it as a sleep inducer? That's an effective method.

I can definitely agree on Eco's Foucault Pendulum, it was extremely laborious to read, filled with references to semiotic theory, intertextuality etc. Eco is a brilliant writer, but he rarely cares about whether he's book are accessible to readers or not.

If I'm allowed to go to the philosophy department, I'd have to say Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Immanuel Kant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I can definitely agree on Eco's Foucault Pendulum, it was extremely laborious to read, filled with references to semiotic theory, intertextuality etc. Eco is a brilliant writer, but he rarely cares about whether he's book are accessible to readers or not.

If I'm allowed to go to the philosophy department, I'd have to say Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Immanuel Kant.

---

The Prolegomena is the easy version of the First Critique (ie, the First Critique done backwards).






J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts

The Prolegomena is the easy version of the First Critique (ie, the First Critique done backwards).

---

I know, that's why I didn't even try to read Critique of Pure Reason. It would certainly be even more tedious. I can only comment on what I've read, sorry. Being and Time was a much easier read for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I can definitely agree on Eco's Foucault Pendulum, it was extremely laborious to read, filled with references to semiotic theory, intertextuality etc. Eco is a brilliant writer, but he rarely cares about whether he's book are accessible to readers or not.

If I'm allowed to go to the philosophy department, I'd have to say Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Immanuel Kant.

---

I won't read Umberto Eco any more. The Name of the Rose was good, Focault's Pendulum was annoying and The Island of the Day Before was unforgivable. Don't read Focault's Pendulum anyway; read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. It deals with the same stuff (which is interesting) but is betterer.

Totally agree with The Sound and Fury (the only book out of these which I actually remember having completed). I had to struggle really hard to make sense of the happenings!

I also think To The Lighthouse could have qualified for the list - stream of consciousness making it such a complicated read. Another book that springs to my mind is For Whom The Bell Tolls even when Hemingway is supposed to be known for his simple style!

A book I can recall having incredible difficulty with is The Silmarillion by Tolkein. From memory, it had no real plot, was ridiculously written - full of old language and overly complicated sentences - and there were endless long and bizarre names you were supposed to remember. I guess it didn't help I was in my young teens at the time but nevertheless I imagine I would still struggle with it. Almost unbelievable it was produced by the same author of The Hobbit and LOTR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetsixArp

Later, because Sartre said he wanted to be remembered for his last philosophical tome, Critique of Dialectical Reason, I read both volumes of that over about 12 years...

---

Why do you trust Sartre so much? I've never seen any serious critic recommend this above his other works. I've read enough Sartre, or enough about him, not to want to read this or anything else by him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

I won't read Umberto Eco any more. The Name of the Rose was good, Focault's Pendulum was annoying and The Island of the Day Before was unforgivable. Don't read Focault's Pendulum anyway; read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. It deals with the same stuff (which is interesting) but is betterer.

---

Thanks for the recommendation.

There seems to be a consensus that length doesn't matter, so what is it about a book that makes it difficult for you?

For me it is ignorence of the philosophy, or the author's ideas that they are trying to get across. I had this with Sartre, though the stories were readable enough. I got the stream of consciousness in To The Lighthouse, which I found to be quite readable and illuminating.

all those books written by Henry James are difficulty for me. I read several times GOLD BOWL rying hard to finish it but fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I got the stream of consciousness in To The Lighthouse, which I found to be quite readable and illuminating.

---

As did I.

But, for more of a challenge, try getting the stream of consciousness in Henry James' The Awkward Age (1899), ostensibly a story about intricacies entangling family and friends of 18-year-old Nanda Brookenham, as she comes of age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

As did I.

But, for more of a challenge, try getting the stream of consciousness in Henry James' The Awkward Age (1899), ostensibly a story about intricacies entangling family and friends of 18-year-old Nanda Brookenham, as she comes of age.

---

After The Turn of the Screw, I won't be reading any James. I didn't find it difficult, just annoying. I'm in the enviable position of not having to read anything I don't enjoy - difficult or not. Fortunately there are plenty that I do like.

Not exactly literature, but written with style, a killer difficult work: The Noonday Demon by Andrew Solomon. I would only recommend it to my enemies, it is that severe a read, lets say. I got it at a free book givaway since I would never buy such a penetrating and fierce book. It is a challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

After The Turn of the Screw, I won't be reading any James.

---

I love Henry James but thought The Turn of the Screw paltry, and James himself labelled it a potboiler. A much better introduction to James might be the novella The Aspern Papers, the moving, early novel Washington Square or, for humour, What Maisie Knew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

I love Henry James but thought The Turn of the Screw paltry, and James himself labelled it a potboiler. A much better introduction to James might be the novella The Aspern Papers, the moving, early novel Washington Square or, for humour, What Maisie Knew.

---

Thanks. I had a similar discussion with Emil last year about another writer. I'll perhaps give him another chance when I come across one of your recommendations.

there are a couple of books that i am surprised haven't been mentioned that clearly fit this category
gravity rainbow by pynchon
the becket trilogy: molloy, malone dies, and the unnamable.

pynchon was interesting but way too long and i felt he intentionally made it difficult.
becket is unbelievably challenging

i read and enjoyed all three volumes of gulag archipalego, loved everything i have read by faulkner including AA and sound and the fury

there is a sense of accomplishment in completing a difficult and complex book. you may not understand it all, but the ingenuity of the author is refreshing. best example is the benjy portion of the sound and the fury. how do you even begin to conceive of that point of view.
remarkable!

I found Naked Lunch by Burroughs and Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn by Henry Miller to be difficult reads. At the same time they were completely worth the time and effort it took to not only complete them but to understand them as well. They are three of my favourite novels.

Hi Everybody; a new poster here, and very glad I found this place!

The most difficult texts I've read are:

War & Peace: Mostly because of it's length
The Sound & The Fury: especially the first section narrated by the imbecile Compson

Ulysses required a great deal of persistence in some chapters. Most overtly in Oxen of The Sun. 40 Pages, yet it must have took me about 4 hours to finish; absolutely brilliant, but so horribly painful to get through!

It's a difficult book: the most difficult that I've ever read but it's worth it. It's so beautifully written, that I can't wait to read it again!

Umberto Eco - Foucault's Pendulum. The prose was so thick that I had a hard time staying in the narrative.

I haven't attempted a read at it in half a decade, but I remember The Unvanquished being too difficult for me. Also, for me Paradise Lost was a tough one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I know, that's why I didn't even try to read Critique of Pure Reason. It would certainly be even more tedious. I can only comment on what I've read, sorry. Being and Time was a much easier read for me.

---

Kant is quite the devil. Nothing to be undertaken without proper rest, coffee ingestion, and complete isolation from anyone and anything that is distracting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

Totally agree with The Sound and Fury (the only book out of these which I actually remember having completed). I had to struggle really hard to make sense of the happenings!

I also think To The Lighthouse could have qualified for the list - stream of consciousness making it such a complicated read. Another book that springs to my mind is For Whom The Bell Tolls even when Hemingway is supposed to be known for his simple style!

---

I agree. To The Lighthouse was quit e a struggle to me and I had the same with Hemingway, but then in his The Sun Also Rises. I think I know what you mean: it's not that it's difficult to read, it's just because of his descriptions which are so brief, along the lines of his Iceberg-principle (10% is narrated, 90% is hidden and up to the reader to imagine)

Last year I read A.L. Kennedy's Day. Not easy at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey

I can definitely agree on Eco's Foucault Pendulum, it was extremely laborious to read, filled with references to semiotic theory, intertextuality etc. Eco is a brilliant writer, but he rarely cares about whether he's book are accessible to readers or not.

---

I am shocked that anyone would think that. Eco's prose and exposition are clear and straightforward. But some of the concepts may be a way out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Paul

A book I can recall having incredible difficulty with is The Silmarillion by Tolkein. From memory, it had no real plot, was ridiculously written - full of old language and overly complicated sentences - and there were endless long and bizarre names you were supposed to remember. I guess it didn't help I was in my young teens at the time but nevertheless I imagine I would still struggle with it. Almost unbelievable it was produced by the same author of The Hobbit and LOTR.

---

The Silmarillion shouldn't have been published. It is a collection of notes about some of the background fro the LOTR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

The Silmarillion shouldn't have been published. It is a collection of notes about some of the background fro the LOTR.

---

That's not really true, the Silmarillion is structured more like a religious texts, since it recounts in general the mythic creation and downfall of the elves. The latter part of the book was largely unfinished though. How successful Tolkien's project was is debatable, I'm lukewarm about the book, but there's a charm that arises from the ambition of the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That's not really true, the Silmarillion is structured more like a religious texts, since it recounts in general the mythic creation and downfall of the elves. The latter part of the book was largely unfinished though. How successful Tolkien's project was is debatable, I'm lukewarm about the book, but there's a charm that arises from the ambition of the text.

---

Which part were you disagreeing with? That it should not have been published or that it is a collection of notes about background?

i can imagine that your comment may be partly accurate and make my seconD comment less than completely accurate, but i think that my first comment stills stands.

Paul 's various letters. Kant, Hegel and bleedin Karl Marx.

I don't read much non-fiction and I imagine historical documents are a whole other monster but for me it was Faulkner.

Snopes trilogy. As great as the writing is (amazing at capturing the nuances of southern speech), it's incredibly hard to get through. I'm talking a page with a one sentence paragraph that goes on and on and on.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is the most difficult book I've finished. I used a modern translation often recommended as the most straightforward (Pluhar's) and parsed every sentence into English I could understand, in my word processor, with Caygill's "A Kant dictionary", and Google search, permanently in use. It took about six months, working several hours a day. I'm not sure it was worth it; Scruton, Magee and others have already done the parsing donkey work and written excellent popular accounts of what Kant was getting at (which is important!)

I also started taking this approach with Heidegger's Being and Time, but gave up. Life's too short, and popular accounts are many :) Other contenders, that I gave up on: The Bible, Ulysses, late Henry James, Naked Lunch. Unlike GreenLucky I didn't find the latter worth the effort, though found Junkie an interesting read.

Book's I've been too frightened to even attempt: anything by Hegel, Finnegan's Wake, more Kant...

I agree that Paradise Lost is a tough one, I did give up on it recently, but I may give it another attempt... unlike the other contenders...

Faulkner and Wolfe are also tough, but I enjoyed the only two novels I've read by them (To the Lighthouse and As I Lay Dying) I tried them after Kant and Joyce, so they didn't seem *that* hard :) Joyce had primed me to carry on reading while bemused - didn't enable me to gain enjoyment or closure with Ulysses, but enabled me to enjoy other modernists...

I don't think it's fair putting War & Peace on this list because of it's length. In a good translation, it's as easy to read as Dickens. It might be the length of five normal-length novels, but you'd never find five normal-length novels as good.

In fact most of us here commonly loathe books like ulysses, the sound and the fury and the rest following that genre. Yet some critics vehemently and tirelessly keep on writing about such loathsome books commendably. This is sheer arrogance and it is like seeking for the substance when peeling of an onion and all you will arrive at is nothing. You may read such hooks with a lot of hope of being wiser but in fact all you will end up is learning a few rhetorical things only.

I bought Gravity’s Rainbow and Foucault’s Pendulum about the same time. A friend who loved GR said I’d prefer it to F’s R. I duly read them both with three months and much preferred Eco: shows up the modern fascination with the esoteric in place of both common humanity and religious tradition:

There was no secret, that the real secret was to let the cells proceed according to their own instinctive wisdom, that seeking mysteries beneath the surface reduced the world to a foul cancer. Eco Foucault’s Pendulum page 567

And he promised salvation to all: you only had to love your neighbour. Eco Foucault’s Pendulum Page 620

I worked hard at understanding Pynchon, reading with a pencil in my hand to mark the bits I thought significant. Surely it’s a meditation on the meaningless of life in the face of nuclear destruction, so language, sexuality and everything becomes just an occasion for puerile adolescent joking. But I do like one quote:

But the Reverend Dr Paul de la Nuit is not fond of the MMPI. “Rosie, are there scales for measuring interpersonal traits?” Hawk’s nose probing probing, eyes lowered in politic meekness. “Human values, trust, honesty, love?Is there – forgive me the special pleading – a religious scale by any chance?” Gravity’s Rainbow page 95 "

Pretty loathsome sexist homophobic book though to my mind. But I read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

In fact most of us here commonly loathe books like ulysses, the sound and the fury and the rest following that genre. Yet some critics vehemently and tirelessly keep on writing about such loathsome books commendably. This is sheer arrogance and it is like seeking for the substance when peeling of an onion and all you will arrive at is nothing. You may read such hooks with a lot of hope of being wiser but in fact all you will end up is learning a few rhetorical things only.

---

Blaze,

I understand - as another ESOL speaker particularly - and respect your right not to like certain books. However, I would also strongly urge you not to pass such hasty comments, calling certain books "loathsome" and anyone who might happen to enjoy them "arrogant".

I have to admit I could not stand Faulkner while at university; however, I now know that it was owing to my lack of understanding of his works (which stemmed from the fact that my English was not mature enough at the time). After reading his works again after almost 20 years, I list him as one of the best writers I have read.

That is not to say that anyone who does not like a work lacks understanding but just an example from my personal experience. Again, it is possible to read, understand and not to like a book but to claim that it was loathsome is unnecessary and even over the top, I'd say.

In fact most of us here commonly loathe books like ulysses, the sound and the fury and the rest following that genre. Yet some critics vehemently and tirelessly keep on writing about such loathsome books commendably. This is sheer arrogance and it is like seeking for the substance when peeling of an onion and all you will arrive at is nothing. You may read such hooks with a lot of hope of being wiser but in fact all you will end up is learning a few rhetorical things only.

The only sheer arrogance here is the assumption that because YOU struggle to understand something or find it difficult to grasp... or just don't like it, as a consequence it must be bad and all those who find artistic merit in such works are lying of full of themselves. You even have the arrogance to assume that you are the standard reader at LitNet... the one who doesn't "get" or like challenging literature... and that this standard of the lowest common denominator should be the measure of artistic worth. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

Pretty loathsome sexist homophobic book though to my mind. But I read it.

---

Just in case my use of the word "loathsome" gives offence. It wasn't because I didn't understand it, but because I had a definite understanding. My friend who says it's his favourite book is gay, and I've seen women readers here admire it. So they can't find it homophobic or sexist.

I will admit that the scene when Col Pudding is forced to eat his own excrement by a dominatrix did make my tummy turn over. But I don't think Pynchon is writing pretentious drivel - he knows what he's doing, but I don't like it.