next »

[yellowtractor]

I LOVE LOVE LOVE Tolkien. I especially love Volume X in "The History of Middle-earth" series, Morgoth's Ring, which is mainly a collection of theological-like texts focusing on Elvish reincarnation, the aging and deaths and postmortem fates of Men, the origin of the Orcs, the creation of the world, and the marring of the world by Morgoth.

Dude.  Get help.  Seriously.  There are professionals.  Avail yourself.

You have nothing to lose but your ring chains.

[arizona]

Ulysses and Remembrance of Things Past for me as well. I like long, dense fiction--loved Middlemarch, Moby Dick, and War and Peace; read David Copperfield on my honeymoon--but somehow I can't bring myself to tackle either of these without the structure of a class.

Also The Portrait of a Lady, but I'm in the middle of it right now, so the problem should be remedied shortly.

[oldfullprof]

I've read C.S Lewis's That Hideous Strength, but, since I don't have any religious issues that I can tell, I yawned all the way through it.

[egilson]

I've read C.S Lewis's That Hideous Strength, but, since I don't have any religious issues that I can tell, I yawned all the way through it.

I enjoy That Hideous Strength for many reasons, including its snarky depiction of academic politics and pretentions and its overly optimistic characterization of evil as something that fails in the end because it is bureaucratic and silly. Much of that enjoyment comes from its being the least religious book of the "space trilogy" and the one that plays best to Lewis' skills as a writer, such as his ability to create enjoyably stereotypical but nevertheless memorable characters ("Fairy" Hardcastle!). It's probably the least profound of the three books, which is likely why I also find it the most fun.

ejb, I also enjoy the "History of Middle Earth" books, though I read them for Christopher Tolkien's commentary rather than for his father's various drafts and so forth. Tolkien's was a marvelous obsession, and there's no more wrong with enjoying it at depth than with enjoying Lewis' books, or even Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Let others sniff as they will.

(This probably all belongs in a "things you're NOT embarrassed to have read" thread, but oh, well.)

[oldfullprof]

I tried to read both of Henry Miller's Tropics, but couldn't.  Even the "erotic" parts were masively boring.

[prof_smartypants]

I've read C.S Lewis's That Hideous Strength, but, since I don't have any religious issues that I can tell, I yawned all the way through it.

I enjoy That Hideous Strength for many reasons, including its snarky depiction of academic politics and pretentions and its overly optimistic characterization of evil as something that fails in the end because it is bureaucratic and silly. Much of that enjoyment comes from its being the least religious book of the "space trilogy" and the one that plays best to Lewis' skills as a writer, such as his ability to create enjoyably stereotypical but nevertheless memorable characters ("Fairy" Hardcastle!). It's probably the least profound of the three books, which is likely why I also find it the most fun.

ejb, I also enjoy the "History of Middle Earth" books, though I read them for Christopher Tolkien's commentary rather than for his father's various drafts and so forth. Tolkien's was a marvelous obsession, and there's no more wrong with enjoying it at depth than with enjoying Lewis' books, or even Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Let others sniff as they will.

(This probably all belongs in a "things you're NOT embarrassed to have read" thread, but oh, well.)

Or things you SHOULD be embarrassed to have read thread?

Kidding. Kidding.

[prytania3]

I tried to read both of Henry Miller's Tropics, but couldn't.  Even the "erotic" parts were masively boring.

Actually, The Rosy Crucifixion is much better, especially Sexus.

[egilson]

I tried to read both of Henry Miller's Tropics, but couldn't.  Even the "erotic" parts were masively boring.

I am so sorry that I have never been able to locate the review (by whom and about what I've long forgotten) which complains that a particular book "reads like Henry Miller written by Henry James."

[polly_mer]

I tried to read both of Henry Miller's Tropics, but couldn't.  Even the "erotic" parts were masively boring.

I am so sorry that I have never been able to locate the review (by whom and about what I've long forgotten) which complains that a particular book "reads like Henry Miller written by Henry James."

I love that phrasing.  I shudder at the thought of reading such a book, but I have a vivid picture of what that entails.

[marigolds]

I tried to read both of Henry Miller's Tropics, but couldn't.  Even the "erotic" parts were masively boring.

I am so sorry that I have never been able to locate the review (by whom and about what I've long forgotten) which complains that a particular book "reads like Henry Miller written by Henry James."

I love that phrasing.  I shudder at the thought of reading such a book, but I have a vivid picture of what that entails.

Long sentences with no real sex ever.

[oldfullprof]

I'm embarrassed that I loved Tess and never read any other Hardy's.

[prof_smartypants]

I'm embarrassed that I loved Tess and never read any other Hardy's.

Tess is the best. It was the first I read, and none of the others stood up to it.

[kirin85]

Grapes of Wrath

[hiphopscholar]

I would have to say Native Son...

[tlmna]

Which reminds me:  I've never read the Bible, nor have I ever owned one. Should I be embarrassed?  There have been times that biblical references have flown right over my head because of my lack of a religious education and upbringing. 

Yes, you should be embarrassed. But you may skip the "begots" in Genesis and Numbers.
Oh, and read it in the King James version.

I respectfully disagree. Sure, go for the KJV, if your reading is as fluent in 17th century English as in PDE. There are some lovely things about it (For example, it renders a term that most translations read "males" as "he that pisseth on the wall." Never going to forget that.) But for most modern readers, the language of the KJV is a barrier to accessing the  content, and gives the false impression that the language of the Bible itself is lofty, antiquated, or flowery.