Book Lists and Honesty

[Veho]

I see lists like the ones in the 'books you couldn't live without thread' (or something like that) by a couple of certain posters and I think surely those 20 books they listed just can't be the books they've derived the absolute most pleasure from. They're the kind of lists that you think they must have just sat there and come up with the top books that you feel you should choose, that people will admire you for, the books that they think make them sound the most intellectual and learned, perhaps the books they convince themselves are their favourites. But then I believe I'm judging others by my own feelings. I read Shakespeare, and such, and as much as I admire the beauty of the writing I get very little genuine pleasure from reading it.

This is in no way a personal attack on or judgement of others, although it probably sounds like it in some way, it's really just something I think bothers me on a personal level. I'm not clever, I don't have a degree, I'm not well-read but I do read and I read what's considered literary but even that I can't do like a lot of posters on here.

So, what I'm asking is for a discussion on whether appreciation for great literature and pure enjoyment of great literature are sometimes confused. Also it would be fun if, being as honest as possible to yourself, you could post the five or so books that have brought you the most genuine enjoyment (the kind were you can't wait to get home from work/school/parties to read).

[Palmerl24]

One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple

[OrphanPip]

Idk, I always list Emma as my favourite novel, and I find it genuinely enjoyable and brilliant.

[Des Essientes]

Making lists of 'essential' books and the of ranking books on a hierarchical scale are strange practices to follow because one is dealing with works of art that cannot really be objectively ranked. They are understandable, and even valuable, practices if one is trying to get to know the person making the list. So too if one already knows that one has similar tastes to the person making the list then the list may put one on to some unread books that one will enjoy. The threadstarer is right in that they do perhaps tend to be 'wish lists' of books one wishes one enjoyed the most but really didn't enjoy as much as others left off the list because they were too 'low brow', but enjoyment of works of literature is also hard to quantify. I.E. I am reading an English translation of Stanislaw Ignacy Witkiewicz's novel "Insatiability" at the moment and it's not what one would call an 'easy' read but it is also undeniably interesting and so I would probably put is somewhere on a list, if I made such lists, but perhaps I'd be doing so in the hope of introducing others to this novel, which is not very well known in the English speaking world, and perhaps also to seem cool. By the threadstarter's criteria of books that give one "the most genuine enjoyment (the kind were you can't wait to get home from work/school/parties to read)" I guess I wouldn't be able to put "Insatiability" on the list, because deeply philosophical experimental novels are not, for me, the type of books that "I just can't put down" and I suspect this is the same for alot of avid readers, but we still know that deeply philosophical experimental novels have merit, probably even more merit than the 'pageturners' that we have devoured in just a couple of sittings. A work of literature that requires alot of concentration, and reflection, may, in the end, actually provide more genuine enjoyment than an easy to read adventure tale that one 'can't put down', because it will leave one mentally richer after having made the effort to read it, and mental richness is a well in oneself that can be drawn from for the rest of one's life, whereas an exciting plot without any profoundity is soon forgotten.

[Pierre Menard]

To be honest, I think it's pretty arrogant to imply/assume that people don't actually like the books they like because YOU don't connect with those books as much.

I mean, I can honestly say I derive absolute enjoyment from Shakespeare. His language lifts me to another place. I always find myself thinking about scenes from his plays and reading monologues whenever I come across them online.

[kelby_lake]

I understand that there may be an element of posturing when people say what their favourite books are but sometimes people do just genuinely enjoy the classics. They are classics for a reason...

[Buh4Bee]

I agree with both of the above. I'm not sure why people would exaggerate or out right lie.

The Sorrows of Young Werther by Geothe
War and Peace by Tolstoy
The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway
Lady Chatterley's Love by DH Lawrence
Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse

One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I see lists like the ones in the 'books you couldn't live without thread' (or something like that) by a couple of certain posters and I think surely those 20 books they listed just can't be the books they've derived the absolute most pleasure from. They're the kind of lists that you think they must have just sat there and come up with the top books that you feel you should choose, that people will admire you for, the books that they think make them sound the most intellectual and learned, perhaps the books they convince themselves are their favourites. But then I believe I'm judging others by my own feelings. I read Shakespeare, and such, and as much as I admire the beauty of the writing I get very little genuine pleasure from reading it.

This is in no way a personal attack on or judgement of others, although it probably sounds like it in some way, it's really just something I think bothers me on a personal level. I'm not clever, I don't have a degree, I'm not well-read but I do read and I read what's considered literary but even that I can't do like a lot of posters on here.

So, what I'm asking is for a discussion on whether appreciation for great literature and pure enjoyment of great literature are sometimes confused. Also it would be fun if, being as honest as possible to yourself, you could post the five or so books that have brought you the most genuine enjoyment (the kind were you can't wait to get home from work/school/parties to read).

Assuming that these posters in question are just putting on a show, the question should not be whether or not they actually get pleasure from such book; the question should be, is pleasure the most essential derivative one should get from literature? I think the wholly depends on the person. Not everyone reads to be entertained only; some read to learn, to experience different mindsets, cultures, or times. I may not get as much pure entertainment out of Moby Dick as I do something like Game of Thrones, but I will always choose Moby Dick over Game of Thrones as the better book, and one I would rather read.

A couple years ago, I would've thought the same as you upon seeing those lists,but as I read more, the more I find myself being drawn to the classics. I find myself looking forward more to reading something like Dostoevsky rather then the latest hyped sci-fi/fantasy novel (both of which are on my to-read shelf).

[Mutie]

I think the problem with essential anything is that theyre always just slanted to our culture. I mean the best movies of all time in film magazines will always be Godfather, Casablanca etc. Does that mean that there has never been an Indian or Russian that good, and if there was it would have chance hypothetically for the list? Or that only hollywood movies had wide appeal. I mean, would whats important for a middle age white guy in USA be the same issues for an African teenage girl. BTW I love Godfather and Casablanca. But i think theres no such thing as any entertainment "everyone should experience" because people are so different. I think you should just look for what speaks to you. IE I would want a friend who liked mythology to know about Neil Gaiman books and recomend them to the friend. But i wouldnt say everyone in the world need to read Gaiman. Some people just dont relate to his style.

[Paulclem]

To follow on from Mutie's thought, one person's classic is another's charity shop donation. I recently rated Doestoyevsky's House of the Dead as a 10/10, but you couldn't give me an Austen, whereas Pip really rates Emma.

Lists are all a bit of a fabrication anyway based upon how we're feeling at the time, and are a bit of fun for us book nerds. I like to read what I fancy. There's too little time to spend on stuff i don't like, however well recommended they come. There are no rules anyway. Just enjoy it, and if you feel you want to impress someone with an impressive book list, go ahead. Who's going to know? It might be an aspiration, but no one's checking.

[stlukesguild]

I see lists like the ones in the 'books you couldn't live without thread' (or something like that) by a couple of certain posters and I think surely those 20 books they listed just can't be the books they've derived the absolute most pleasure from. They're the kind of lists that you think they must have just sat there and come up with the top books that you feel you should choose, that people will admire you for, the books that they think make them sound the most intellectual and learned, perhaps the books they convince themselves are their favourites. But then I believe I'm judging others by my own feelings. I read Shakespeare, and such, and as much as I admire the beauty of the writing I get very little genuine pleasure from reading it.

This is in no way a personal attack on or judgement of others, although it probably sounds like it in some way, it's really just something I think bothers me on a personal level. I'm not clever, I don't have a degree, I'm not well-read but I do read and I read what's considered literary but even that I can't do like a lot of posters on here.

So, what I'm asking is for a discussion on whether appreciation for great literature and pure enjoyment of great literature are sometimes confused. Also it would be fun if, being as honest as possible to yourself, you could post the five or so books that have brought you the most genuine enjoyment (the kind were you can't wait to get home from work/school/parties to read).

Considering that I'm probably one of those individuals toward which this is addressed, I'll make some effort to answer this. The thread you mention asks for a list of "books you couldn't live without". I answered:

1. Dante's Comedia
2. The Complete Shakespeare
3. The Bible- King James Translation
4. The Complete Essays of Montaigne
5. J.L. Borges- Collected Works
6. Edward Gibbon-The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
7. Marcel Proust- In Search of Lost Time
8. Edmund Spenser- Collected Works
9. Rolf Toman- The Art of the Italian Renaissance
10. Edmonde de Goncourt, etc...- Japanese Woodblock Prints

This assumed that I was limited to only 10 books.

11. Rainer Maria Rilke
12. R.W. Emerson- Collected Essays
13. Charles Baudelaire- Les Fleurs du Mal
14. William Blake- Poems and Prose
15. Italo Calvino- Invisible Cities
16. Bonnard; The Work of Art: Suspending Time, ed. Suzanne Pagé
17. Robert Herrick- Poems
18. Theophile Gautier- Collected Poetry and Prose
19. anon.- The Arabian Nights Entertainments
20. Lewis Carroll- The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition

I added the following ten books to my list assuming that I was now allowed but 20.

The question was not which books gave you the most pleasure nor "which books do you believe to be the 10 greatest that you have read." My answers would have been somewhat different for each question. Limited to only 10 books I focused upon books of an epic scale that could keep me engaged over time; I sought a variety of prose and poetry, and new and old; and as a visual artist I absolutely could not do without a couple books loaded with reproductions of great art. Had I been asked to choose 10 books which had given me the most pleasure, I undoubtedly would have still kept the Dante, Shakespeare, the Bible, Montaigne, Borges, Proust, Spenser, Rilke, Baudelaire, Blake, Calvino, Herrick, Gautier, Lewiss Carroll, and the Arabian Nights for the simple reason that these texts have given me the greatest pleasure... to the extent that I have returned to many of them repeatedly.

Of course there are different degrees or types of pleasure. I laughed uproariously through Philip Roth's The Breast, John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces, the first half of Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, and any number of other books... yet none of them struck me as the sort of reading I needed to return to again and again. "Pleasure" in reading may include intellectual stimulation and challenge, sensual pleasure, pleasure taken in the development of a well-told story or the development of characters who seem almost real. Some of the books that I now think of as having brought me the most pleasure over time did not initially resonate so profoundly at first... but something kept drawing me back to them repeatedly until they became like the closest of friends. Stephen Spielberg's First Indiana Jones movie is a sheer thrill-filled pleasure from start to end... but it is not of the same sort of pleasure wrought by The Seventh Seal or 2001:A Space Odyssey which ultimately give me more levels of pleasure as I return to them again and again.

In all honesty... if asked to list "the 20 greatest books I have read" Borges, Gibbon, the art books, Rilke, Emerson, Calvino, Herrick, Gautier, and Lewis Carroll would all fall to the wayside... although many of them would show up lower down... certainly on a "100 greatest" list. Rather, I would have included Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, The Shanameh, War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, Milton's Paradise Lost, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, etc...

[Darcy88]

I think the so called "great books" are called that for a reason. They really are great. My favourite books, the ones I derive the most pleasure from, are mostly classics. The Iliad, The Metamorphoses, Don Quixote, Thucydides, Leaves of Grass, Flowers of Evil, ect. To be honest though, when it comes to Shakespeare I like some of his plays but cannot really find enjoyment in others. His Sonnets are a pinnacle of literature and I can actually get high off them. Same with King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and a few other plays. But Macbeth and Hamlet are mountains that for me are not at all fun to climb, which is strange because I like other Shakespeare, but these two often highly praised plays I do not like.

[Charles Darnay]

I see lists like the ones in the 'books you couldn't live without thread' (or something like that) by a couple of certain posters and I think surely those 20 books they listed just can't be the books they've derived the absolute most pleasure from. They're the kind of lists that you think they must have just sat there and come up with the top books that you feel you should choose, that people will admire you for, the books that they think make them sound the most intellectual and learned, perhaps the books they convince themselves are their favourites. But then I believe I'm judging others by my own feelings. I read Shakespeare, and such, and as much as I admire the beauty of the writing I get very little genuine pleasure from reading it.

This is in no way a personal attack on or judgement of others, although it probably sounds like it in some way, it's really just something I think bothers me on a personal level. I'm not clever, I don't have a degree, I'm not well-read but I do read and I read what's considered literary but even that I can't do like a lot of posters on here.

So, what I'm asking is for a discussion on whether appreciation for great literature and pure enjoyment of great literature are sometimes confused. Also it would be fun if, being as honest as possible to yourself, you could post the five or so books that have brought you the most genuine enjoyment (the kind were you can't wait to get home from work/school/parties to read).

I have run into this criticism many times: when I tell someone I love Joyce's Ulysses I get scoffs. "Oh you just want to sound smart, so you say you like that book." No. I say I like it because it is hilarious, beautiful, and an amazing window into humanity. Same goes with Shakespeare, Milton or Dante.

I also don't believe that you need an English degree to enjoy the "classics". Sometimes it is a matter of diving in and allowing yourself to experience something new and accept the fact that you may struggle at first but if you go back and reread certain parts it will fall into place.

To be honest though, when it comes to Shakespeare I like some of his plays but cannot really find enjoyment in others. His Sonnets are a pinnacle of literature and I can actually get high off them. Same with King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and a few other plays. But Macbeth and Hamlet are mountains that for me are not at all fun to climb, which is strange because I like other Shakespeare, but these two often highly praised plays I do not like.

I don't think Shakespeare has to be swallowed as a collective. I am obsessed with Shakespeare and yet I think that "Merry Wives of Windsor" and "Two Gentlemen of Verona" are both awful and I have no desire to revisit them.

[Buh4Bee]

Reading is for everybody!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSS2U39E5g4

[JBI]

Meh, some people clearly pretend to read more than they have. It makes no difference, only a few posters have demonstrated to me at least a long list that actually feels informed with proper criteria and balance. That isn't to say people do not enjoy what they read, but their lists aren't as pretentious as they could be, nor as informed as would warrant some of their choices.

Pretending to read Ulysses to seem smart is a dated gimmick already - find me someone who has read all of Dream of Red Chambers and understood it, and then I will respect them more.

I remember giving a presentation on Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, where I ripped into the book, and it wasn't taken well, then with a turn of the head, people rip into Shakespeare and Milton non-stop, and we seem to take it as legitimate criticism. Such condescending double standards only show how deprived our society really is.