Do you shy away from long books?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It usually depends on my mood when I'm starting a new book. Do I want to get into a large endeavor or not? I wouldn't say I shy away from large books, though,

But, I read a lot of fantasy, so the long books I read are rarely bogged down in long passages of description. I haven't read many long "classics." Those are intimidating. The longest books I have read, off the top of my head, are The Stand, It, and Shogun, all of which move along pretty good.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I actually enjoy long books. When I see a HUGE book I get really excited because then it seems like it will never end. I also think it depends on my mood. After reading large textbooks, I prefer a well written light read.

[dfloyd]

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

[Don Quixote Jr]

Do I shy away from long books? NO
Why not? It's all the same to me if I read 800 pp of short stories and/or novellas, or one James Michener or James Clavell novel.

[grotto]

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

Well, I see this as a bit of an insult I need to say. Because someone doesn’t find the current accepted norm of what is defined as “classic”, doesn’t mean that they have poor or no reading skills, but I thank you kind citizen for showing us how we can improve our selves!

Heaven forbid we should have someone swim against the current of the sheep who dictate what it is we should read! Many of the books now deemed as classics were considered trash when first published, some weren’t even published.

I see comments like this as a snobbish form of censorship, hardly enlightening or an attractive way to bring anyone to literature of any kind. Reading should open ones mind, not close it or to become a tool of control by those of, how should I say,” Higher reading skills”.

Just a thought from someone who’s a non-conformist and isn’t afraid to ask why.

[kelby_lake]

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

I understand what you mean. Many an ignorant person condemns a book because they can't understand it- and so we get the rush of schoolchildren who think that the classics are boring.

It also breeds the reverse-snobbery:the trend of condemning everything considered a classic, generally on dubious grounds.

Of course, there is something to be said for personal taste. You may not be into Dickens just because you don't find 19th century London society particularly interesting.

[promtbr]

I think too, reading a short work gives me the incentive to keep reading it, I have longer books and find myself looking at it like work at times. Then again, my experience with long works is excessive verbiage, so that may be why I get bored.

That is for sure relevant. I also have found longer works to have more words in them. I think everyone should read literature for its entertainment value, and in this day and age, I simply don't have time for long bouts of the same narrative. I think I will just finally stick to Samuel Beckett's fiction, and when I get to to Fizzles, I will just re-read it until, well, I fizzle out. That would be appropriate....

[Disordered]

It depends on the subject matter, i.e. Harry Potter had me riveted for two days of straight reading, stopping only to use the bathroom. I usually don't read anything else quite so large unless it's a reference book I can skip around in.

I have ADD, which makes reading a bit...interesting, shall we say. I love to, but my brain bounces.

[kelby_lake]

I'm re-reading Vanity Fair- 950 pages in my copy!

[Uberzensch]

Well, I see this as a bit of an insult I need to say.

Why am I not surprised?

Because someone doesn’t find the current accepted norm of what is defined as “classic”, doesn’t mean that they have poor or no reading skills, but I thank you kind citizen for showing us how we can improve our selves!

"Classic" has nothing to do with it. It's just that typically, the classics are long and written in very different styles than we are accustomed. Furthermore, when someone cannot get through a novel is different than when someone chooses to stop reading a novel. Finally, I think, reading skills was meant to mean somemthing akin to experience, not the actual ability to decipher symbols.

Heaven forbid we should have someone swim against the current of the sheep who dictate what it is we should read! Many of the books now deemed as classics were considered trash when first published, some weren’t even published.

I see comments like this as a snobbish form of censorship, hardly enlightening or an attractive way to bring anyone to literature of any kind. Reading should open ones mind, not close it or to become a tool of control by those of, how should I say,” Higher reading skills”.

Just a thought from someone who’s a non-conformist and isn’t afraid to ask why.

You seem to make a lot of posts from this point of view? What are you so scared of that you must always defend the "non-comformist" while also proclaiming your independence? Is the foundation of your being that easily shaken?

[grotto]

Why am I not surprised?



"Classic" has nothing to do with it. It's just that typically, the classics are long and written in very different styles than we are accustomed. Furthermore, when someone cannot get through a novel is different than when someone chooses to stop reading a novel. Finally, I think, reading skills was meant to mean somemthing akin to experience, not the actual ability to decipher symbols.



You seem to make a lot of posts from this point of view? What are you so scared of that you must always defend the "non-comformist" while also proclaiming your independence? Is the foundation of your being that easily shaken?

Thanks for paying attention to me Uberzensch, I’m flattered that you find me interesting enough to waste your time on! I’m hardly easily shaken, but thanks for asking. If you feel my comment came from a scared little corner where I weep for attention, you would be sadly mistaken.

I am not bashing all well known literature. I had asked a general question from my personal experience. (Do you shy away from longer books?) I am no stranger to forums, someone asks a question and the bashing starts, so be it!

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

It is the ideas that we aim to discuss, not the participants.

Off-topic posts and posts containing inflammatory/personal remarks will be deleted without any further notice.

[Uberzensch]

My apologies to the forum!

[Homers_child]

Do I shy away from longer books? Nope. Can't say I do. I'm a fairly fast reader, so it doesn't take me years to finish something. That's kind of the reason I tend to go for them. Short books are finished way too quickly and I often feel as though I wasted my money. But usually, the length of the book isn't what scares me away or attracts me. I read what the books about and perhaps the first couple pages and decide if its worth my time.

[sixsmith]

I'm the equivalent of the pre - Dorothy Lion when it comes to long books. Well, perhaps not that bad but i do tend to avoid them. Thats not to say I haven't polished off some decent sized works. "The Brothers Karamazov", "Underworld" and "Anna Karenina" spring to mind. To put in rather crudely, i can't recall reading a over 800 pages and not saying "Bit long". That obviously says more about me than it does about these novels. Doubtless it has something to do with the fact that i'm a slower reader than most and thus even well drawn and interesting characters and narratives tend to wear out their welcome. I've recently suffered a TKO at the hands of "Infinite Jest" and even a mid bout withdrawal against the relatively slender "London Fields". To make matter worse, my girlfriend is a regular David when it comes to fat tomes. Last month she took down "Les Miserables" and before that "War and Peace" and "Middlemarch". Now she is into "Infinite Jest".