Actually, my stance is life is too short for books you don't enjoy and there are too many books in the world to read a book you don't like.

Yup. Though when I said this yesterday, I was told that I wasn't challenging myself. Which is hard to quantify unless you know what I *am* reading, not what I'm *not* reading.

I read books I don't enjoy for my bookclub (well except last month where I stopped midway, and also 2 years ago when I refuse to read The Brothers Karamahmahmah). I find it is sometimes worthwhile, other times nsm.

Yes, me too. But, in that instance, the reason I'm reading is part of the social act of reading and not reading for personal pleasure.

Ditto with the medal reading. It's part of what I signed up for.

But reading for myself? It's got to be pleasurable or else I won't motivate to do it.

Ethan Fromme was fantastic at creating the sense of depression and dread that matched the winter of the year I read it. Oppressive. Which I had figured was part of its intent.

It really is a "study of provincial life," as the subtitle says; very rich, with multiple strands of plot illuminating each other.

Oh, Middlemarch is wonderful. Reading it was such a wonderful surprise, because it does start out slowly enough to make you think "Am I really going to read 1000+ pages of this?" but the worldbuilding is so well-done that it just pulls you in.

The class I read it for was in, of all things, the economics department (I think was some kind of interdepartmental thing with the history people -- it was a while ago), and we were given a week to read it. I think the prof was figuring that, not being English majors, everyone was just going to get the Cliff Notes version anyway, so why not give us just enough time to read that? It made for very sparse discussion.

Yup. Though when I said this yesterday, I was told that I wasn't challenging myself. Which is hard to quantify unless you know what I *am* reading, not what I'm *not* reading.

Enh, Steph, I'm sorry that you got that response because it's frustrating. I have strong opinions (that are backed with literacy research!) about such ideas as being told you need to challenge yourself when you are reading and the effect it has on people who read, but since the conversation is obviously making an effort to move away from that, I'll sit on my hands.

Oh, Middlemarch is wonderful.

Cool. I love Silas Marner, so I've been wanting to read that one for a while.

(And I think I saw someone use a male pronoun in regards to George Eliot, which is in fact a psuedonym for a woman named Mary Ann Evans.)

Hey, at least it's short.

This food is terrible!

I know, and such tiny portions!

But if three or four people loudly and repeatedly state their resentment about how they were forced fed Great Books it's very dissuading.

Dude, if someone forcefed me Fluff I'd be very resentful. Do you think that the anti-intellectuals would be justified in feeling dissuaded by my railing to that effect?

It seems most simply to me that if this is honestly not where you can get your crit on, get it somewhere else. I can't imagine how what the "intellectuals" could not raise hackles. So I'm surprised that you're surprised people got all up in arms. It seems a pretty simple reading of your text, but it's possible my anti-intellectualism is getting in my way.

also 2 years ago when I refuse to read The Brothers Karamahmahmah

We had read The Brothers K by David James Duncan 6 months earlier. It was an emotionally rough time for me and was a dark and cold time in NYC (like 40 days of rain or some shit). I read like 3 pages and knew I would emotionally snap if I had to continue, so I begged off.

But, in that instance, the reason I'm reading is part of the social act of reading and not reading for personal pleasure.

Well that's the thing isn't it? I do my discussions elsewhere and on one book I read a month, not on everything.

I liked Ethan Frome well enough. It certainly got its point across, and the irony of the resolution is bitter and twisted.

It's also quite a change from Wharton's other work, which is all set in a very different class and social structure. Although I suppose the class issues and concern with money are a common thread.

is it OK to repeatedly kick Ethan in the kidneys, at least?

Yes, that is a legitimate response; double, if you come from New England.

To start Dickens, start short. So, 900-page Bleak House, although I love love love it, is probably not a starter, with the complex plots and subplots and craziness (although it involves spontaneous human combustion!). Hard Times is short & efficient, but its ends 50 pages after it ought. Great Expectations, also short, also a dissatisfying ending. A Tale of Two Cities, probably the most ludicrous of these 3 short novels, but I think the most satisfying and the most fun.

I think the reason I have failed with Middlemarch is that it doesn't have a single protagonist. I have a great deal of trouble keepign track when there's more than one protagonist in a novel that long/complex -- to handle Bleak House, I had to read chapters out loud, and keep notes. And even now, I've forgotten about 80% of the characters' names, and why so-and-so is murdered, and what the point was of Crazy Chancery Lady. But Esther Summerson stays in my mind!

As I said yesterday, I do read a lot of Da Classix. But even reading 100% classics, I'd never get around to all of them at the rate I read. So there's going to be picking and choosing, and it's kind of obnox to slag one for not reading, say Joyce, when one is busy reading, say, Dickens. Unless one wants to get into a Great Authors Deathmatch, which hey sounds kind of fun.