Hopelessly Un-Erudite

I'm ashamed to admit I have not (yet) read any of these important books. And lots more. I'll get to them eventually. But you can feel smug and smarter than me in the meantime; I'm sure you deserve it.

Ulysses by James Joyce. Also The Dead.
To a Lighthouse. Mrs. Dalloway
The Iliad
Gravity's Rainbow or even Vineland
The Tipping Point
Pride and Prejudice
On the Road
The Art of War.
The Prince (I've tried, though.)
David Copperfield
Moby Dick, for heaven's sake.
.....

I've become too depressed and self-conscious to continue. Everybody else has read all of those books, and all the other ones I've thought of including but got too morose to list. Do I get any points for having read Infinite Jest not once but twice? I never finished Crime and Punishment. Never read War and Peace. I've only dipped my toes into Nabokov's works. Hardly know any poetry.

I wish people would stop talking about "Bloomsday." It makes ignoramuses like me suffer from low self-esteem. Ignorami. See what I mean?

Comments

[BC]

Like Mark Twain said: "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read."

BTW -- Great blawg! As a young lawyer (actually law clerk) about to start in private practice in a few months, I really enjoy reading your thoughts on the profession.

[ijk]

Bonus points for Infinite Jest indeed (though I like his short stories better, Girl with Curious Hair, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, etc).

For the record, I think those who feel smug about what they have read fail to grasp the depth and bredth of what they have not read. I realized, many years ago, that I would never read everything I wanted. In my teens I wanted to be a vampire (and still do), not because it was cool, or romantic, or dark...but because if I were immortal, I could actually get to all the books I wanted to read *then*...it is only worse now (admittedly, the whole dark, gothic thing was a plus to timeline issue). I have come to terms with it...though it annoys me a lot when I stop and think about it...

With a loose, tangential, connection to your recent posts about your grandfather, I am reminded of the summer after my grandfather passed away. He was a Joycian scholar and one of those wonderful Irishman would could quote nearly any Keats, Yates or Shakespeare...awed me. He had, when I went to college, bought me Britannica's "Great Books of the Western World" which I put to tremendous use during college (the two volume "Synopticon of Great Ideas" effectively cross referenced "ideas and concepts" by all 44 dead, white, largely European men from Aeschylus through Freud...the ultimate, metaphorical, Cliff's Note). Anyway, I got it in my head, the summer he passed away, that as a personal tribute to him I should actually read all 45 volumes of "The Great Books." About half way through the second volume of Aquinas, I began having second thoughts...but made it through all of it and must admit that it was an amazing experience.

Sorry for rambling. For what it is worth, I think one should read for the sheer joy of reading...read what brings them pleasure...and never fret about the tens of thousands and great and not so great books that will never be time for....unless you manage to become a vampire (in which case, please drop me a line).

best,
/ijk
--
Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical, an I was never accomplished at that.
- Conchis, in Fowler’s The Magus

[Anal Lawyer]

Don't feel bad. "Ulysses" is absurdly difficult to get into. The first 10 pages couldn't be more painful. I never made it past them. And "Moby Dick" is overrated. I got about 200 or 250 pages into it before deciding to send it to the recyclers. On the other hand, "Great Expectations" is a fantastic classic and worth reading. Someday I may get to "War and Peace." It's gathering dust on the giant plastic storage tub I use as the night table by my bed.

[Outer Life]

Many "great" books are indeed chores to read.

However, on your list at least one book -- Pride and Prejudice -- is a delight to read. Forget its greatness and just read it for pure pleasure.

[kmsqrd]

No need to feel poorly, I haven't read any of those either. To be completely honest, there were a couple of them I didn't recognize, one of the unfortunate disadvantages of being an engineer. If you want to find a bright side, at least you have a reason for not fully grasping the implictions of a given work.

[pjm]

Of the few books you've mentioned which I've read, only one wasn't read for a class. You're not missing much with War & Peace or Crime & Punishment; both authors have better work. (And, as I noted on TPB's comments a while ago, skip Anna Karenina and read Chekhov's Lady with Lapdog instead; it's the same story in a twentieth the length.)

Actually, skip all the Russians. You won't miss much. I say this as a Russian major. I can only think of one novel by a Russian author which I would recommend to anyone, and it's not the one Oprah picked.

[Scheherazade]

Well, PJM, what is it? Don't leave us scratching our heads....

[A. Rickey]

How much everyone else has read is largely illusory, so I'd not worry about it. Even an opponent of mine once described me as 'a guy who has read more culturally enriching and Jeopardy-ready literature than I could ever imagine reading in my life.' And I've not read many of the books on your list, including any Joyce to speak of. (That will be rectified.)

Look, if take things as you find them and make the best of them, you enjoy life instead of worry about what you don't have or haven't done. I don't have a bloody clue about Joyce, but it gave me one heck of an excuse to go to an 'Irish' pub in Ikebukuro last night and down a pint of Guinness. (And at eight bucks a pint, I needed an excuse.)

Though I should at least annoy the girlfriend by pointing out that Pride and Prejudice is just a soap opera moved back a couple of centuries. You can do far better.

[ted]

Wow.

First off - Moby Dick is the great american novel. And given your love of sailing, you should read it right now.

Second - pjm is simply wrong about the Russians generally and War and Peace, particularly.

Third - you have to read Woolf in order - or at least don't read The Waves first - stylistically it's the pinnacle and you want to build up to it.

Fourth - The Prince is so short and poignant. Try again.

Finally - no one should read On the Road - it is garbage and the sooner people figure that out, the better.

[rebecca]

Sherry, if you let yourself think like this, you can only become overwhelmed. Better to pick one or two of those books and let them get absorbed into your soul, rather than trying to tackle them all. Think of Eliot's concept of a vortex, which is basically that the whole of the world can be contained in a single image or idea. In other words, a full understanding of one truly great work will enrich your life hugely by becoming a reference point and the backdrop of your emotional landscape.

Sure, read what you can, but focus on enjoying it, not tackling it as one of many.

That said, the Tipping Point was wonderful. And a fast read because it's so darn engaging. :-)

[monica]

whatever, ted. you say that about On The Road, i'd say it about Moby Dick.

i think sometimes the great books really have to do with where you are in your life when you read them. like how reading Catcher in the Rye isn't all that fun if you're over 30, except as nostalgia. but damn, it's good at 15.

[jen]

just read the The Alchemist: A Fable about Following Your Dream,by Paulo Coelho. it made me feel happy and calm and alive, and when i meet others who have read it, i know they understand the meaning behind it too.

[ambimb]

Lucky for you, many of the "great books" have shortcuts. For example:

With Pynchon, there's no need to read Gravity's Rainbow or Vineland; just read The Crying of Lot 49.

With Melville, there's no need to read Moby Dick; just read Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, and Bartleby the Scrivener.

With Joyce, just read The Portrait of the Artist.

Yes, there's something to be said for plowing through the gargantuan tomes, but life is too short to worry about it.Besides, you can always read the shorter books by these authors so you'll know something about their style and perspective; then if you decide you like these writers, you can always invest your time/attention in the larger works.

You do get double-points for Infinite Jest, though. And twice!? Do you subscribe to Wallace-l? (http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=wallace-l)

FWIW, I would also give thumbs up to Pride and Prejudice and On the Road.

Finally, why is The Tipping Point an important book?

[alkali]

There is a good, inexpensive translation of the Iliad in prose by Rouse (Bantam Classics or something). The major modern poetic translations (Fitzgerald, Lattimore) are also fine. Skip any parts tbat seem dull to you.

The Dead is about 50 pages and worth your time.

If you've read Gladwell's New Yorker articles, you can skip The Tipping Point.

You were right the first time on the plural of ignoramus. There are a number of Latin words (e.g., ignoramus, mandamus, credo, certiorari) that are used as nouns in English but are actually verbs in Latin. So there's no Latin plural. Some Latin nouns ending in -a (e.g., media, agenda) are used as singular nouns in English but are plurals in Latin, so you can't form a Latin plural of the English singular noun. Some Latin-sounding words are English words made up to sound like Latin words (e.g., virus) and so there's no meaningful Latin plural. Rule of thumb: use the English pluralization rules unless you are absolutely certain that there is a proper Latin plural.

[Robert Schwartz]

Ecclesiastes 12

12 And further, by these, my child, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Relax. Read what amuses you. Skip anything that was written in the 20th century. We won't know if it was worthwhile for sveral generations.

[charlsie]

I know this is an old post, but I love to talk about books. This probably isn't important any more, but here goes....Pride and Prejudice is the greatest book ever, along with the Count of Monte Cristo. If I could read one book again for the first time, it would be The Count of Monte Cristo. And it doesn't matter if you have seen the movie, the movie is great, but the book is much better, totally different, but the screen adoption was necessarily changed. The Iliad is only interesting if you really want the background for the Odysess. Other than that, it is terribly boring and bloody. I bought Ulysses with the plan to read it (for the same reason you feel the need), and I read the case in the front of the book that revoked the ban of the book in America, which I found interesting, but after reading the case, I didn't really want to read the book any more and didn't get very far. Anna Karenia is awesome if you have the flu and nothing to do but lay in the bed for a week, because you never have to get up and get a new book. Les Miserable is another book like that. I know I am probably spelling all these wrong, but that isn't important. I need some new books, while in law school I have a hard time getting into meaty novels after reading cases all day, but I'm not satified by the non-meaty books. (sigh). Every summer I buy books from the list of classic summer reading, and I always only get through about half of them, but at least I look well read on my bookshelf, right?

[Jake]

Wonderfully Un-Erudite,

I would just like to make a few observations that may help you to put your "dilemma" into perspective, and, hopefully, to boost your self-confidence some. The majority of the selections in your reading list were written originally in the English language, not Chilean, Modern Greek, Thai, Sudanese, Danish, etc., and those that were not are presently or may with time end up ranked as "canonical literature." My point is simply that Anglophones are notorious for their ethnocentrism, linguistic laziness, and for touting their "reading base" (in translation, most often). How many English majors have read Gerard de Nerval or the complete works of Charles Baudelaire in the French, Sophocles in the Ancient Greek, or even have the slightest clue as to who Propertius was (let alone the possibility of their having read him in Latin). Have they studied these languages? If they had, all three, to any considerable degree of proficiency, do you think they would be heart-stricken over not getting around to Jane Austen? Do they appreciate the feminist French writer Simone de Beauvoir? They gauge (and flaunt) their degree of cultivation by the graduate reading list of some English department. One of the most important principles that should motivate one's pursuit of literary acquaintance is that of individuation, a principle subverted by the very notion of the "canonical." If a Vietnam writer of great acumen and inspired genius never bothers with Joyce, is he to be neglected and derogated for that?! I have degrees in both French and Classical Studies (antiquity), an advanced degree in the latter. Do I think I'm superior to the English major because I've read Plato in Ancient Greek and understand the nuances of his verbiage? No. But I will assert that I am more humane for the simple fact that I don't slavishly cram my head with odds and ends for the sole purpose of elevating myself above my neighbor. My language studies were something I did and will continue to do for personal enrichment, not as a means to self-aggrandizement. (I am not trying to offend English majors; N.B. my sister is one, and she agrees with me wholeheartedly). Universities are the self-designated stewards of public consciousness, and they co-opt literature for their own ends. Would an undergraduate be better served by reading Milton or Hesse? Probably both, but that is for him or her to decide. And don't forget, "specialization" in "literature" at universities is a peculiarly 20th-century development. The modern notion of "canonical literature" was unknown to Machiavelli and Dickens (I won't even mention Homer). My point is the following: you should regard the construction of a reading base as an intimate and idiosyncratic process, your personal trademark, so to speak. To H*** and D***ation with all the pedants and "specialists", for they grow fat on the labor of others and bedeck themselves with purloined laurels. Read, reflect, and rejoice -- as you deem fit.

[PeerconyPymn]

When she feels me borrow with the one finger, she tries two, and quiickly three.