Joyce -- couldn't tell you what he is talking about lot of times. DH can , but by his nature, he has a classic education. ( self taught mind of the curious and brilliant. we went to the same schools through high school). there is a music in Joyce that means I hear they rhythm and sound but not the meaning. and there were words in POA that bugged. So I never got far with him

Oddly , the English Patient was another one of those books. When I read it , I got lost in the language-- and kept forgetting the story. And I was co-leading a book discussion on it. To this day I still can't tell you if I like it or not -- and the big plot hole that people found, I have no idea if it was really there

there were words in POA that bugged

Joyce wrote Prisoner of Azkaban ?

Oh, wait. Babytuckoo saw a moocow.

you got it. personal prejudice.( are there any other kind?) Hate things like moocow

Stay away from Salman Rushdie, then.

ok, thanks

I even wince when they use the words "coco moo" on Kim Possible.

what I like in movies and books is JOY

Something that makes it worthwhile to go slogging through the existential hell and angst. If existence is just endless suffering and quiet desperation, with not one bright spot, why bother?

This is an honest question: What is the appeal of bleakness? Is it a "there but for the grace of God go I" comparison? Is the art just that good and you can step back and admire how it's put together? When the story is good, I get pulled in to the characters, and I've seen too much bleak to find dark stories--entertaining? diverting? What intellectual or emotional taste is satisfied?

We studied Tolstoy's (?) "Day in the Life of Ivan Illych" in college, and the professor said it ended with Ivan's life being a failure, where I saw that he did feel some sense of fulfillment. I'm not sure whether my approach to these things is vastly different from others or not.

I have a new coffee shop buddy ( british) that did some sort of college study on all of Thomas Hardy. She reads a lot. She wouldn't necessarily do it again, but she thought it was worth doing. Partly because he was very modern for his time. Sadly, the only thing I ever read by him was Jude the Obscure which I didn't love, but there were ideas in the bleakness that stood out. Too long ago for me to remember exactly what they were.

I think a great novel (or film or play) if bleak, has other pleasures. So, yeah, everyone dies in Hamlet, for example, but the meditations on action and personality and sanity and the exciting conflict and swordplay and bonus bits on acting make the journey a pleasure, even if what happens to the characters is a horrible tragedy.

Lolita is a great novel, even though it is about a horrible man doing horrible things and no one ends up happy or fulfilled. Nabokov's use of language and his observant eye on American culture and landscape and ultimately, his deeply caring view of his characters makes reading it a pleasure.

At least for me.

I found that books I was required to read for classes (mostly in HS) tended to be my least favorite from that author's works. For example, Moby Dick - I didn't like it, but it did lead me to read a number of other things by Melville which I did like. Ditto for Hardy - in HS I had to read The Return of the Native, which I disliked; in college we read The Mayor of Casterbridge, which I did like and went on to read most of the rest of Hardy's books.

I'm wondering if it was that the HS tended to pick the least accessible/enjoyable of an author's works or if it was the experience of having to read at a slower pace than my usual one and then pick over details in class (and not usually thematic details - at my HS it was mostly to check and make sure people actually read the book).

There's also the possibility that high schoolers aren't mature enough to appreciate Moby-Dick or The Return Of The Native.