During my brief encounter with Hemingway, I found him kind of tedious--I'm definitely an utter whore for elaborate, positively rococo literary style and to the best of my recollection his sentences seemed to plonk along leadenly. Which is, of course, itself a very conscious literary choice, but not one that especially resonates with me. Or, resonated -- I mostly read the fishing stories, mostly in high school. I should give him another try.

I think all writing is cilantro. I mean, there will be people who actively resist and resent any writer because it's not their cup of tea. That's to be encouraged, I guess.

I think the biggest divide is that there are people who read for plot and people who read for character and people who read for language and people who love it in various percentages. Most readers, myself included, are plot readers. We are the reason for the success of thrillers and Harry Potter and almost all bestsellers. We plot readers love to know what is happening next, even if the characters are a bit flat.

The people who love the character development are different creatures. They are the ones who don't care if nothing happens. They don't mind the flawed asshole characters. They dig the nuances. (Shakespeare, IMO, excellent character development with ludicrous plot).

The language people are the ones who often stop to admire the beauty of what is written. They read Franzen and are arrested by the way he uses words. They don't care that the characters are foolish and the plot (is there one?) is thin.

I agree with the everything is cilantro. But I'm not sure anyone is pure plot or pure character or pure language. I want everything. And I enjoy world building too which is different from plot. Also even there we can differ. JZ finds Hemingway's language leaden, where I find it close to poetry! We both enjoy language but we see this particular instance very differently.

BTW, I think to like Tolkein you have to enjoy world building equally with plot and character.

I have dipped into Thursday. It has very little of the stuff that sometimes enraged me about Chesterton, but it just does not grab me.

The people who love the character development are different creatures. They are the ones who don't care if nothing happens.

I always think this is who I am but then I look at what I've unashamedly loved reading and I think I'm wrong about myself.

Confession: I donated a bunch of books today. The gaps on my shelves look sad.

I like Harry Potter much because of character, actually. Not so much realistic character development, but character fascination. And in a few cases, the character development is pretty great too.

Not that I don't dig the plot, because I DO, but character is often my driving force.

I loathed Hemingway in high school, and I haven't tried to read him since. However, I loved The Paris Wife by Paula McClain, about Hemingway's first wife, and the books had me wondering if I would like Hemingway if I tried to read him again. I love James and Hardy. I haven't read my Melville, other than Bartleby the Scrivener which I loved.

I'm okay on Hemingway but not overly enthusiastic. I had to read Henry James in college -- he put me to sleep. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Theodore Dreiser. An American Tragedy turned out to be just the sort of thing I could get lost in.

I'm probably more character-driven than anything else, but I'm not too picky about the hook that grabs me. In shorter works, I'll sometimes get fascinated by the world that the author builds in the first few chapters, then feel disappointed that things happen to change that world.

In fact, there are times when I fear that Pete will eventually read Something Wicked This Way Comes or From Dust Returned and HATE them. And then I'd be horrified and sad.

I can't imagine Pete not liking From the Dust Returned Jilli. It's so you that I think appreciating the one would have to translate to appreciating the other.

Now that I'm older, I can appreciate Hemingway, like I can appreciate that some people like bleu cheese the way I like brie, but I can't stand the taste of it. Which is miles better than my stance on Hemingway when I was younger, which was basically STAB STAB STAB.

Like JZ, I generally groove on the baroque, but I can appreciate terse and laconic (some Duras, e.g.) but generally, I want plot AND characterization AND language.

Tolkien: when I was younger, I read every single word (including the Simarillion and footnotes) but this was also in my "read every encyclopedia of mythology like it's a novel" phase. I skimmed more when I re-read when the movies came out.

I'd rather read Woolf's biographies and diaries than her works, again. Isn't that sad? Not that her work isn't fine, but I find I'm more fascinated with how her life, time and culture affected her work. But I had a Woolf-ite prof so I read a TON of Woolf, and I just don't feel compelled to re-read Mrs. Dalloway or To The Lighthouse for pleasure.

I DO love to watch movies based on her work, though. I think it's really interesting to see what directors and actors do with it.

I can't think of Hemingway without thinking of...

Romantic? Hemingway? He was an abusive, alcoholic misogynist who squandered half of his life hanging around Picasso trying to nail his leftovers. /10 Things I Hate About You