Great Books Are Tedious

Passaro brought this article to my attention:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article4773601.ece

If the link doesn't work, it's an article in the London Times about Great Books that are not worth the bother. The point is to be humorous and get under the skin of humorless English majors. Here's my take on the list:

Ulysses-James Joyce.

I really mean to read this one of these days, or perhaps Finnegan's Wake. However, the prognosis is not good. I started reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man just after high school and never got through it. I found it pretentious and confusing. And Portrait is considered his most accessible work. 

Lord of the Rings-J.R.R. Tolkien

I have to admit, I like this trilogy. My big problem is that there are so few women who do anything. Oddly enough, I tried to read this in early adolescence and just couldn't get into it. When I read it as a semiadult, I got through Return of the King in under 24 hours. Does that make me a geek? Who the fuck cares anymore?

For Whom the Bell Tolls-Ernest Hemingway

I think the only thing Ernie and I have in common is our attitude towards the towns we grew up in. I think I tried to read one of his books that mentioned bullfighting back in middle school, and it left me cold. Maybe I should try again, but I'm a little concerned about someone so manly that not only does he deal with emotions tersely, but everything else as well. Given the thickness of his books and his reputation for spare language, one has to wonder what's in them. Manly men doing manly things and not talking about them. Yawn. 

Remembrance of Things Past-Marcel Proust

The pseudo-intellectuals I know seem to delight in talking about this book and I always feel a little inferior when they do.  On the other hand, this multi-volume blast from the past never looked terribly interesting. Yes, yes, I inhaled LotR, but at least exciting stuff happened and it only lasted for about 1200 pages, maybe less. 

Dice Man-Luke Reinhart

This is the only book on the list that I had never heard of. It must be a British thing. I think the author sounds like a Pahlaniuk  type, but who knows? I'll have to rely on Passaro to enlighten me.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas-Hunter S. Thompson

Probably my favorite book on the list. Also, the shortest. Not for everybody of course, but the people who inveigh against it most vociferously as glamorizing drug use obviously have never read it. I admit, I am somewhat tempted to go to Sin City and partake of mind-altering substances (or just go off the ones I'm prescribed and pay taxes on), since the eyewitness accounts of Las Vegas in the past few years indicate that's the only way to make the place palatable.

The Beauty Myth-Naomi Wolff

Perhaps Ms. Wolff does state the obvious. Then again, as I am sure the author of the Times article is aware, stating the obvious about women is often controversial.  The Feminine Mystique, anyone? I have no idea how readable this book is, but maybe I should look into it and see if it covers anything that Backlash and Consumer Reports do not.

War and Peace-Leo Tolstoy

Another book I have no desire to read. The Russians are probably the masters of the 19th century novel, but I got turned off Tolstoy at a young age.  My English/Social Studies teacher made us do in-depth research projects and presentations in 7th grade on famous Russians. Guess who I chose. Fortunately, I stuck to the short stories (part of the requirements were primary sources), but still, old Leo came off as a sanctimonious prick. Perhaps since I rediscovered Dickens as an adult I could be brought around, but for some reason I doubt it.

Pride and Prejudice-Jane Austen

I am sure that there are parts of Ms. Austen's books that are downright hilarious. I am a fan of British humor, though not like I used to pretend to be. Unfortunately, I find the language in these seminal Regency romances to be entirely too arch to convey the punch line effectively. I have tried to read Pride and Prejudice at least twice, but it just comes off as too dry. The one good thing that has come out of these attempts is the melancholy realization that one day we will need to translate Shakespeare as well as Austen the same way we do "Beowulf".  Surprisingly, I have really enjoyed the various dramatizations of Austen's works.  

So there you go, folks. Discuss amongst yourselves.