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
Oh, you're in Islamabad. Cool. What language did you read it in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Offeror
Of course in English. By the way I'm not aware of an Urdu translation of War and Peace in case you're wondering something on those lines.
Why of course? I wish I could read it in Russian. Islamabad's closer to Russia than where I am.
It would be a very rare thing to find an Islamabad native who'd know Russian. I'm afraid the language factor is one that we have to deal with too since there is not the remotest link between Islamabad and Moscow other than mere geographic proximity. My elder brother once asked me the use of reading English translations of foreign literature making the point that much of the real thing must be lost in translation. It must be true since there's a world of difference between English and Russian (from what little I know of it). It's not perfect but the writer's idea should be able to cross over safely to the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I used to avoid translations for that very reason. I'm a native English speaker, so their is a wealth of secular literature to draw from. But I regretted the choice as soon as I started reading translations from Russian. I think the trick is to find a translator who is willing to be a partner with the author in getting the meaning across. We accept a similar role for editors, but for some reason it's harder to accept translations.
By the way, I had a good friend who was an Urdu poet many years ago.
If we don't know the language then we're not left with much choice. Also hard to deprive yourself of foreign writers once you get used to their works.
Also as far as poetry is concerned you will find some of the best poetry in Urdu and Punjabi. It never balances as well in English as I've read or heard in Urdu or Punjabi.
Yes, at some point you just have to say this is the best I've got. I usually feel comfortable reading a translation from a European language, but with some others (even though I read them) I know I am losing a lot. In Chinese there can be subtle meanings or funny puns based on similarities of radical marks within the written characters. Forget it! There are just some parts that are going to go over our heads.
My friend used to translate his own Urdu poetry into English, which I guess is one way to get the most from a translation. His pen name was Daud Rahbar. His most famous book of poetry (over here anyway) was called The Cup of Jamshid. He was sort of a mentor to me. Not in a worldly way: he was a very innocent soul, a real poet; but in a spiritual way and as an independent thinker. Anyway, I miss him.
Hmmm...I guess real poets are like that. Also from that name "Rahbar" means a guide so from what you say he fulfilled his description so to speak.
Yes. His family name was Daud, and he added Rahbar. In a poetic sense, it was a good name for him. I have to go get my wife now, Offeror, and I am in a hurry. But it was very nice to talk with you. I hope to see you here again sometime. :)
If you are looking for great long novels, put William Gaddis's The Recognitions and Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate on the list — two of the best novels of the 20thc.
I strongly agree about Life and Fate. I've never read The Recollections so I can't comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
I must agree with regard to the "readability" of War & Peace (as well as its aesthetic merits). I believe I was about 19 or 20 when I read it, and I tore through it in a week or so. Honestly, beyond the length of the novel, I don't understand why having read W & P should be something to brag about. Proust's In Search of Lost Time is far longer... as are the whole of The Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter Novels. Joyce' Ulysses and certainly Finnegans Wake are far "knottier"... as are many other works. Honestly I found that War & Peace and Les Miserbales made a marvelous pair... offering the contrasting French and Russian views of the Napoleonic Wars.
I noticed the pair as well (I am about 500 pages through War and Peace as of right now). I read that Tolstoy actually visited Hugo and praised him for Les Mis shortly after it came out.
I read War and Peace when I was around 21 and it brought a really positive change to my life at a time when I needed it. It's a really beautiful novel and, as others have mentioned, not very difficult to read at all, and well earns its length.
Gravity's Rainbow I have also read, and it took a decent amount of focus (the prose is extremely poetic, reminds me alot of Rilke. The actual diction in the novel isn't tough at all-- you'll rarely consult a dictionary unless it's a word there is absolutely no analogue. He's not out to trick readers.) There's also quite a bit of digression into abstract imagery and very surreal sequences. It's probably my favorite of the books you mentioned and I would definitely go for it after War And Peace. Maybe not back to back, that sounds exhausting. It is one of the most beautiful works of American literature and, in my opinion, literature in general.
I really love Don Delillo's short pieces but Underworld just could not do it for me. I think when I was reading it it seemed "scatterbrained" and cobbled together, although I was talking to an oil man who spent his youth in waste management in New York City and I suddenly realized how intricately woven that novel is, and that it's not scatterbrained or cobbled at all. Still, I never finished it and at the moment I don't really have an interest to.
Infinite Jest is one of the worst novels I've ever tried to read in my life. I don't really get the appeal at all. Most of the people who read it in my hometown are pseuds. The quickest explanation I can give is that it's a terminally didactic and painfully derivative work.
I haven't read the Recognitions. I very much so intend to, but I've been in-between Spain and Morocco the last couple of months, and the damn thing is 5 pounds, so I've been reading The Melancholy of Resistance and a few other little books that won't turn my carry-on luggage into stow away.