71–80 of 166 posts
I suppose it's quite off-topic, but some weeks ago I read a small book by Mary Gaitskill, the writer of the piece. It's called "Lost Cat". I highly recommend it. Ironically, it might be an approximate opposite of Pale Fire. It's very short, with simple yet beautiful prose, filled with intense, raw emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admittedly The Brothers Karamazov has a lot of characters, but, it does run linearly! And it's not so hard to refer to the Wikipedia article for a character list as necessary. I think the problem is some people expect to not have to do any work when reading literary novels.
I find that literature that requires work does not provide more food or insight into the human condition or a sense of wonder (or whichever benchmark you choose) than simpler and more accessible works. If complexity is not what makes the work valuable, what purpose does it serve? I posit that for some people complexity for the sake of complexity _is_ the appeal.
Pale Fire has been my favorite book for a long, long time, ever since I read it as part of a course in university. After all these years I haven't read a better, more intricately-constructed book. It was suggested to me to read the intro first, then skip the poem and read the endnotes start to finish, then to go back and read the poem. The index is part of the fiction and must also be read. I think the keys to really…
I say this name in Christopher Lloyd's voice: "That's Kinbotay! Tay! Tay!!"
In my head, of course.
What?
When people recommend Russian literature I'm always curious what they think about the other great Russian literary works. Because I find unnecessary complexity unbearable. I have no desire to read literature with 100+ named characters, unreliable narrators and Escher-like chronology. For some people narrative complexity is a draw but if I can't put a book down and come back to it two weeks later without having to sta…
I was excited to read Pale Fire after reading what I consider to be one of the finest novels ever written, Lolita. The protagonist is a monster, but the writing is so eloquent - and not even in the author's original tongue! Pale Fire was simply boring to me. I am not extremely literary, so a lot of it probably went over my head, but I was rather disappointed it didn't shine like his 1955 masterpiece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that literature that requires work does not provide more food or insight into the human condition or a sense of wonder (or whichever benchmark you choose) than simpler and more accessible works. If complexity is not what makes the work valuable, what purpose does it serve? I posit that for some people complexity for the sake of complexity _is_ the appeal.
I just wanted to point out the logical gymnastics you just performed here: I find it true, thus it is true universally. Your initial premise: "I find that literature that requires work does not provide more food or insight into the human condition..." Your conclusion from this premise: "If complexity is not what makes the work valuable, what purpose does it serve?" And you answer your own question with a cynical take…
I was excited to read Pale Fire after reading what I consider to be one of the finest novels ever written, Lolita. The protagonist is a monster, but the writing is so eloquent - and not even in the author's original tongue! Pale Fire was simply boring to me. I am not extremely literary, so a lot of it probably went over my head, but I was rather disappointed it didn't shine like his 1955 masterpiece.
Pale Fire has been my favorite book for a long, long time, ever since I read it as part of a course in university. After all these years I haven't read a better, more intricately-constructed book. It was suggested to me to read the intro first, then skip the poem and read the endnotes start to finish, then to go back and read the poem. The index is part of the fiction and must also be read. I think the keys to really…
"Kinbote is really a comic figure" I say this name in Christopher Lloyd's voice: "That's Kinbotay! Tay! Tay!!" In my head, of course.
This is hilarious. I bought the book after watching Blade Runner 2049. There's a scene where some of book was being recited as part of the protagonist's anti-empathy test and I figured it had to have a deeper importance to the writers so I grabbed it on a whim. It's been sitting on my shelf. Now I'll have to move it up the list after seeing this.