Now Reading Thread

[speed]

So Bloom is the kind of guy whose every word is taken for granted? I don't know. Certainly he seems like a decent guy. Everyone who hates feminism and multiculturalism is. I've read an interview with him however and he placed Dickens with Tolstoevsky in the same list so he certainly got at least one thing wrong (?).

Moby Dick's beginning was so promising... then the whale history started. I cannot understand for the life of mine who needs that in the novel. Perhaps something about categorization and science inability to understand the whale or something? An exaggeration, in any case.

Haha. Thats the beauty of literature: like humanity, there is no right or wrong, good or bad; everyone has different tastes and opinions, but there's some shared understanding that some things might be more important than others (Moby Dick seems a bit more important than the latest Danielle Steele novel to anyone interested in the subject).

Actually, I also have serious reservations and gripes with Bloom. Anyone that has the audacity to seriously create a canon of the great world literature of all time, needs to be punched a few times in the face.

However, as much as I dont like many things about him, he is quite excellent with Shakespeare, he does have excellent opinions on modern society and culture as seen through the prism of literature (his unsparing and witty attacks of Harry Potter and Stephen King.

I dont like Cormac McCarthy either. Nor do I care for Moby Dick. But I'm not saying their bad. I just personally dont care for them. The symbolism is too obvious for me, and the writing is too sparse faulneresque and thought out in McCarthy, and too turgid (to the depths of turgidity) in Moby Dick .

 

[Murphy]

This passage is lovely, I mean, the little I managed to understand. The problem is really - I've tried to read the first page with the help of Wikipedia and by the time I got to the end of the sentence I already forgot what the beginning was about! And I'm only talking in the level of words, not even "meaning" (and of course "meaning" has several levels, too..)

I remember vividly one summer a few years ago when I was sixteen and had brought down the big, daunting Ulysses from my bookshelf. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, why some people hailed it as a master piece while others said "to the ovens" with it, it's gibberish. I started to read with great expectation, or I thought I was reading, in fact I was more kind of looking and feeling my way through it, not really understanding much in the way we usually use the word. "Ah, this is what a book should be like, freshly taken from another world, put in my arms for me to experience, knowing that I never will be the same afterwards" I should have thought, but of course I didn't. I thought about quitting the strange book instead; maybe try it again when I'd grown older. I decided to feel myself through one last chapter the next day and hope for a revelation, at least that my English would have improved over the night. The chapter happened to be the third one, where young Stephen himself feelingly strides forward through the world at Sandymount beach. Something about it got me to realize what I was doing, and the beauty in doing it, so I continued to struggle myself through the book during the following month. I re-read it one year later. This time I could actually read it like a normal book, but the first impression of a wonderful enigma has never left me. Now I only have a hard time getting over what awe inspiring thing Joyce could have created if he’d gotten 30 more years of life.

Murphy I have been very impressed with your posts. I am pleased you have starting frequenting the board. You have excellent "taste in literature."

I love the "concluding" passage of the Wake, though a huge part of its impact comes from realising it is circular and runs into the "first" sentence.

Thank you Nile, being impressed by you, speed, kmik, (etc), was what got me to sign up to this forum in the first place.
---
The impact is indeed partly created by the cyclical structure
(and all that's been said before in The Wake).

So Bloom is the kind of guy whose every word is taken for granted? I don't know. Certainly he seems like a decent guy. Everyone who hates feminism and multiculturalism is. I've read an interview with him however and he placed Dickens with Tolstoevsky in the same list so he certainly got at least one thing wrong (?).

Moby Dick's beginning was so promising... then the whale history started. I cannot understand for the life of mine who needs that in the novel. Perhaps something about categorization and science inability to understand the whale or something? An exaggeration, in any case.

Bloom is a fun guy, high on Shakespeare but insightful, especially when it comes to poetry.

Moby Dick is indeed trying with its whaleology. The shatteringly great prose makes up for all that though. And don't forget Ahab, that cosmical character who manages to match the revolt of Milton's Satan through a whole book!

 

[kmik]

Ahh, if you've read Ulysses at 16 I guess that means you're smarter than me Not to mention the ability to read it like a normal book... I think it's the hardest book in literature after Finnegans Wake?

Joyce actually said that after Finnegans Wake he was going to write a simple novel about waking up.

 

[fates warning 666]

So Bloom is the kind of guy whose every word is taken for granted?

I think he is somewhat of a genius, but no, I certainly don't consider him infallible (nor did I imply otherwise). Still, when praise that severe is dished out by a man with such discerning and IMO excellent taste it's a good idea to take note.

(And in fairness to Bloom, he himself admits that his Western Canon list was a mistake, concluding that "all we really need is Shakespeare")

Moby Dick's beginning was so promising... then the whale history started. I cannot understand for the life of mine who needs that in the novel. Perhaps something about categorization and science inability to understand the whale or something? An exaggeration, in any case.

So far I'm finding that with the detailing of what is known or believed to be known about whales, that which is not known takes on greater definition and presence. Plus I'm with Murphy on the novel's strengths vastly outweighing the flaws it may have.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Currently i´m re-reading George Orwells "1984",one of my favourite books of all time.

 

[kmik]

I think he is somewhat of a genius, but no, I certainly don't consider him infallible (nor did I imply otherwise). Still, when praise that severe is dished out by a man with such discerning and IMO excellent taste it's a good idea to take note.

(And in fairness to Bloom, he himself admits that his Western Canon list was a mistake, concluding that "all we really need is Shakespeare")

"Trust no one who only has one book" ? (Russel, I think).

This Western Canon is too long. There's no chance a reasonable person will manage to read all of that his whole life.

 

[speed]

"Trust no one who only has one book" ? (Russel, I think).

This Western Canon is too long. There's no chance a reasonable person will manage to read all of that his whole life.

I've read quite a bit of old Harold's. It helps I have a freakish ability to read quite fast. I wonder if we could get old Bloomy with a lie detector test to find out whether or not he actually read his canon; plus, what of the millions of books not included? Did he read those as well?

 

[kmik]

Don't read fast. I, too, read very fast (finished Steppenwolf in one sitting), but it is generally not a good idea. You might understand what you read at the level of words but reading too quickly won't let you "absorb" (is that the word?) the work. I don't know, at least that is so in my experience.

 

[fates warning 666]

I wonder if we could get old Bloomy with a lie detector test to find out whether or not he actually read his canon; plus, what of the millions of books not included?

I suspect he's read everything included in the list multiple times along with just about every other even vaguely well known book. We're talking about a guy who can read a page in 3 seconds and memorise it, not to mention that he's probably as passionate about literature as it's possible to be. He does however agree with kmik in his book How To Read And Why that one should read slowly, lovingly, etc.

kmik: In fairness Bloom's full Western Canon list was basically an afterthought, his book concentrates solely on Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Milton, Cervantes, Montaigne, Moliére, Johnson, Goethe, Wordsworth, Austen, Whitman, Dickinson, Dickens, Eliot, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Freud, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, Kafka, Borges, Beckett.

 

[speed]

Don't read fast. I, too, read very fast (finished Steppenwolf in one sitting), but it is generally not a good idea. You might understand what you read at the level of words but reading too quickly won't let you "absorb" (is that the word?) the work. I don't know, at least that is so in my experience.

O course, the speed in which I read any material really depends on the author and what I am reading. If I am reading verse, i will take three times the time as a book of prose. If I am reading a pop-fiction book, I will read almost three times faster than a book of literature. My point is it really depends on the book.

I do think the better the writer, the better the prose flows.

 

[MURAI]

Don't read fast. I, too, read very fast (finished Steppenwolf in one sitting), but it is generally not a good idea. You might understand what you read at the level of words but reading too quickly won't let you "absorb" (is that the word?) the work. I don't know, at least that is so in my experience.

Yes, I too read that book in one session. I have a habit of reading through things fast. I wanted to look over it again more slowly but I am busy with school then so I had to put it return it to the library.

I read Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" and I like it a lot better than his other works. I am now reading Herman Hesse's "Glass Bead Game". It was lying around the house. I was surprised my parents got it and its likely they did not read it all.

 

[kmik]

Yeah, I wrote that post. I don't remember what it was about but it is probably very embarrassing.

The only way to improve your English is, of course, to read, and that's what I do. Plus I have a severe case of ADHD and I was not aware of that back then: could hardly finish a short story more than 20 pages long.

That list omits Dostoevsky and that makes me angry. I have never heard of Borges though, but that's lovely company he's in so I'll have to read some of his material one day.

 

[MURAI]

What is your native tongue? My nmother language is Japanese but I was brought up in Canada so English is my second one. Generally, language skills is picked up with practice like anything else. I admit when I was a teen, I havent done that much reading outside school requirements. Only started reading and writing more the past 2 years.

 

[kmik]

My native tongue is Hebrew. It is a great language, but not very rich, since it was actually artificially "renewed" in the previous century

 

[fates warning 666]

That list omits Dostoevsky and that makes me angry. I have never heard of Borges though, but that's lovely company he's in so I'll have to read some of his material one day.

I recall him saying he almost included Dostoevsky, he definitely talks about the man's greatness often enough.

I started Borges' Labyrinths years ago but the first story at least was full of allusions I didn't understand, so I put it down. Definitely looks up my street though, I'll give it another go in the near future.

 

[kmik]

Uh, I just realized I posted something in this thread I wanted to post in the other; I had two windows open. Oh well.

I'm almost done with Anna Karenina. It is one of the best things ever written. My life has been a waste up to this point. I disagree that Tolstoy is not an economical writer. He has too much social criticism at points, and I thought that the love story between Varenka and Levin's brother was really unnecessary... plus the voting ballot was going on for too long. But it's very important: it establishes the difference between Levin's actual work and the uselessness of "their" work; it serves to further alienate Vronsky and present him as an increasingly unsympathetic figure, seeing as he dislikes Levin (I think the novel is really narrated through Anna's eyes: Karenin turns from a cold machine in the beginning into a pathetic shell, and Vronsky becomes increasingly cold untill we get very little of his thoughts in the end). The style is also very clean. There are no unnecessary adverbs. It's all wonderfully simple yet so rich and deep. In particular the ending is filled with amazing psychological observations, especially for the 19th century. Anna's thoughts are so natural it is almost scary. I think really this is almost a modern novel. The narration style changes according to character (I think he went too far with Karenin, though - but it's still hilarious)

Another interesting thing is that Anna's fate is already hinted from the very beginning when the kids play with the train. But what's really awesome that foreshadowing (like Vronsky's horse and the train) only exist in Anna's story line and not in Levin's. It suggests that she was doomed from the beginning due to external forces whereas Levin has a choice.

 

[kmik]

I read Mrs Dalloway and almost finished To the Lighthouse. Both are excellent novels, the latter is better, almost metaphysical. It is fascinating, elegant and very very feminine; not feminist whining, I mean in the way the relationships between the characters are developed, and all those "little things" that a male writer would never even consider. Also started Moll Flanders and slowly going through Ulysses. I borrowed this book, "Ulysses Annotated" by Don Gifford, but it doesn't really help ..

 

[speed]

My native tongue is Hebrew. It is a great language, but not very rich, since it was actually artificially "renewed" in the previous century

Hm. So, I take it you're Israeli?

 

[kmik]

Hm. So, I take it you're Israeli?

Sucks, eh?

 

[speed]

Sucks, eh?

I have no problem with it. I'm not a big fan of your government. However, I'm not a big fan of my government (U.S.) either.