Thank you for discussing this. I've tried numerous times to read some older books and currently I'm reading Nostromo by Joseph Conrad. But I often find the reason for their stories to be "dragging" is the amount of background they provide. Sometimes you read 50 or even 100 of pages of what feels like a portrait of the time and setting but without real plot or action that is driven forward; there's actually little that happens. There are things that *had* happened, which is told to us, but it seems to be set before the events the book is supposed to tell (or at least what our expectations set us up for). Another thing is the frequent multi-layered story intricacy found in these kind of novels. Wether it is Faulkner, ETA Hofmann or other classic or early modern authors, so many stories go like this: There is a guy (probably the protagonist) who meets someone who's telling him a story. In this story another guy meets someone who's telling this guy about his past or also a story. And these sideshows will go on for so many pages and I found myself wondering what was the original plot about? This is why I love Cormac McCarthy so much, because there is little padding in his stories, there are no internal thoughts of characters given, there's action and a plot and yet his language sounds so lyrical it is a joy to read. I don't mind long and/or complicated sentences, McCarthy tend to write in a style that is not easy to understand. But I think I just need the character development and action (not in a sense of an action movie), but action as in something that moves forward, that progresses.
I read somewhere once that books used to be written to be read aloud. Authors would go around performing their books, or if you're reading at home, someone would sit in the corner and read to everyone else. Reading silently to yourself was a much rarer thing. So anything over 100 years old, I read out loud to myself (or listen to an audio version). It really works for me; it takes longer, but it works. My mind can't wander, and it forces me to make sense out of it as I go along. I don't get to the end of a paragraph and think, "what did I just read?" And I do like history, so the anthropological aspect of reading old fiction appeals to me.
@@twiedenfeld if reading the words on the paper when indulging in classic literature, it’s just important for people to go a little slower and concentrate on what they are reading. With a slower pace there’s no reason to question what was just read. If it is a complicated passage then yes, reading it out loud can help.
@ definitely not. I think we’re just more tired as we are older. Even if not reading aloud, I just recommend going slow and limit distractions while reading.
These books aren't so bad, as long as you have time to read them. I took me a couple of weeks to read _Bleak House._ But then, I'm not a college student, I'm retired with nothing but time.
I am trying to read One Hundred Years of Solitude, but I just can't make any sense of what the book is about. I enjoyed The Last of the Mohicans in my teens about 50 years ago. My go to favorites are science fiction with detailed science, technology, and philosophical discussions.
I wouldn't say I read classics for the writing, but for what it means. Classics are more metaphor driven, and are meant to peer deeply into human behavior. I write like that, but I also think people should be proficient at reading it, so we can understand history and important first source documents. But I also write dense passages in short bursts. Because I'm well aware that people can't pay attention. And I like works that are structured with short chapters, because I feel less strained reading them.
I'm a braille reader, but I'm slow at it because I reverse letters bad in braille. I love some classic books, but the thing that's hard for me, whether I'm reading braille or audio, is that they give such detailed descriptions which mean nothing to me because I've never had vision. I love me some Charles Dickens, but do we really need a whole chapter, which was like twenty pages in braille or more, describing a guy walking into a bank?
Thank you for discussing this. I've tried numerous times to read some older books and currently I'm reading Nostromo by Joseph Conrad. But I often find the reason for their stories to be "dragging" is the amount of background they provide. Sometimes you read 50 or even 100 of pages of what feels like a portrait of the time and setting but without real plot or action that is driven forward; there's actually little that happens. There are things that *had* happened, which is told to us, but it seems to be set before the events the book is supposed to tell (or at least what our expectations set us up for).
Another thing is the frequent multi-layered story intricacy found in these kind of novels. Wether it is Faulkner, ETA Hofmann or other classic or early modern authors, so many stories go like this: There is a guy (probably the protagonist) who meets someone who's telling him a story. In this story another guy meets someone who's telling this guy about his past or also a story. And these sideshows will go on for so many pages and I found myself wondering what was the original plot about?
This is why I love Cormac McCarthy so much, because there is little padding in his stories, there are no internal thoughts of characters given, there's action and a plot and yet his language sounds so lyrical it is a joy to read. I don't mind long and/or complicated sentences, McCarthy tend to write in a style that is not easy to understand. But I think I just need the character development and action (not in a sense of an action movie), but action as in something that moves forward, that progresses.
I read somewhere once that books used to be written to be read aloud. Authors would go around performing their books, or if you're reading at home, someone would sit in the corner and read to everyone else. Reading silently to yourself was a much rarer thing. So anything over 100 years old, I read out loud to myself (or listen to an audio version). It really works for me; it takes longer, but it works. My mind can't wander, and it forces me to make sense out of it as I go along. I don't get to the end of a paragraph and think, "what did I just read?" And I do like history, so the anthropological aspect of reading old fiction appeals to me.
@@twiedenfeld if reading the words on the paper when indulging in classic literature, it’s just important for people to go a little slower and concentrate on what they are reading. With a slower pace there’s no reason to question what was just read. If it is a complicated passage then yes, reading it out loud can help.
Good to hear that I thought I was getting stupid in my senior years.
@ definitely not. I think we’re just more tired as we are older. Even if not reading aloud, I just recommend going slow and limit distractions while reading.
These books aren't so bad, as long as you have time to read them. I took me a couple of weeks to read _Bleak House._ But then, I'm not a college student, I'm retired with nothing but time.
I am trying to read One Hundred Years of Solitude, but I just can't make any sense of what the book is about. I enjoyed The Last of the Mohicans in my teens about 50 years ago. My go to favorites are science fiction with detailed science, technology, and philosophical discussions.
I wouldn't say I read classics for the writing, but for what it means. Classics are more metaphor driven, and are meant to peer deeply into human behavior. I write like that, but I also think people should be proficient at reading it, so we can understand history and important first source documents. But I also write dense passages in short bursts. Because I'm well aware that people can't pay attention. And I like works that are structured with short chapters, because I feel less strained reading them.
Classics' grammar and vocabularies could be hard to understand for me as a foreign language learner
I’m reading great gatsby and that also is difficult for me to understand 😅
@@samratwadhwa769 that’s a difficult book even for me in grad school.
I'm a braille reader, but I'm slow at it because I reverse letters bad in braille. I love some classic books, but the thing that's hard for me, whether I'm reading braille or audio, is that they give such detailed descriptions which mean nothing to me because I've never had vision. I love me some Charles Dickens, but do we really need a whole chapter, which was like twenty pages in braille or more, describing a guy walking into a bank?