Big Books

[Halicarnassus]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

I'm not sure about defining 'big' but you know the ones around +500k words.

Off the top off my head here are a few biggies that I've read in the past decade that you may be familiar with...

Clarissa - Richardson
Poor Fellow My Country - Herbert
David Copperfield - Dickens
The Lord of the Rings -Tolkien
Atlas Shrugged - Rand
War and Peace - Tolstoy
Les Miserables - Hugo
The Life of Samuel Johnson - Boswell
Ulysses - Joyce
The Histories - Herodotus
East of Eden - Steinbeck
Moby Dick - Melville
Sword of Honour - Waugh
Don Quixote de la Mancha - Cervantes

[Urbandreamer]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

I'm afraid that most of the ones from your list that I started belong on the other thread.

I have read and re-read Lord of the Rings.

I also think that The Count of Monticristo is a corking read, while I was significantly less impressed by The three musketeers.

To be honest I tend to disregard the size of a book as I have experienced some big books that were quite fast paced.

A question might be asked though if "Series" are individual books or simple a "big" book in multiple volumes. In particular I'm thinking of the Belisarius alternate history series, although being a colaberative effort might preclude that series from your "big book" definition.

I think someone else commented here that the weight of a big book is no longer a issue when she reads it on her Kindle. So what is the challenge of big books?

[Halicarnassus]

The challenge for me is in the persistence I suppose. All books have quieter moments and it can be challenging getting part those when you might have 600 pages left.

I think the big books really give the author space to develop character and plot and I'm attracted by the detail as well as the plot.

The Count of Monte Christo had entered my radar a few times lately so I may tackle it.

[midnightcatprowl]

The Lord of the Rings -Tolkien
Les Miserables - Hugo
Moby Dick - Melville

Essentially my answer to your question is no but that is because the size of a book isn't very relevant as far as I'm concerned. I read things because I want to read them or need to read them (e.g. for professional/business purposes) or regard them as very significant for some reason.

The three above are the ones from your list that I have read. I didn't really experience 'The Lord of the Rings' as long or as a 'big book', it was extremely enjoyable and kept me up into the small hours because I couldn't bear to put it down. I've read it several times with pleasure - I find it is one of those works where different things about it strike you with each reading.

I studied Moby Dick for an exam long ago so it got read more than once during that process. I've read it since but not with the same pleasure I experienced in my late teens/early twenties. Can't say I really thought of Les Miserables as long either.

I've tried some of the others on your list but simply didn't enjoy them enough or find them worthwhile enough to continue even though in some cases I've read and enjoyed other books by the same author e.g. Steinbeck 'The Grapes of Wrath'. I've no idea how that compares in length with 'East of Eden' because it isn't a question that has ever occurred to me. Similarly I have read 'The Pickwick Papers' but never finished or wanted to finish 'David Copperfield' and have no idea how they compare for length.

The only off-putting things about larger books for me is the difficulty of holding them but a Kindle solves that difficulty.

Have to say in fairness that I am a very fast reader!

[TedSwippet]

The only off-putting things about larger books for me is the difficulty of holding them but a Kindle solves that difficulty.

My e-book device is a small Android phone. Even though it's purely psychological, there is nevertheless something daunting about approaching a book where the count of pages on the reader app exceeds 10,000!

[Halicarnassus]

The Lord of the Rings -Tolkien
Les Miserables - Hugo
Moby Dick - Melville

Essentially my answer to your question is no but that is because the size of a book isn't very relevant as far as I'm concerned. I read things because I want to read them or need to read them (e.g. for professional/business purposes) or regard them as very significant for some reason.

The three above are the ones from your list that I have read. I didn't really experience 'The Lord of the Rings' as long or as a 'big book', it was extremely enjoyable and kept me up into the small hours because I couldn't bear to put it down. I've read it several times with pleasure - I find it is one of those works where different things about it strike you with each reading.

I studied Moby Dick for an exam long ago so it got read more than once during that process. I've read it since but not with the same pleasure I experienced in my late teens/early twenties. Can't say I really thought of Les Miserables as long either.

I've tried some of the others on your list but simply didn't enjoy them enough or find them worthwhile enough to continue even though in some cases I've read and enjoyed other books by the same author e.g. Steinbeck 'The Grapes of Wrath'. I've no idea how that compares in length with 'East of Eden' because it isn't a question that has ever occurred to me. Similarly I have read 'The Pickwick Papers' but never finished or wanted to finish 'David Copperfield' and have no idea how they compare for length.

The only off-putting things about larger books for me is the difficulty of holding them but a Kindle solves that difficulty.

Have to say in fairness that I am a very fast reader!

Funny, I had a look at the word count of East of Eden and its around 250k. I imagined it was much longer! Enjoyable though and very very dark.

[77ss]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

No.

I have read almost all of the books you mention, but size is an irrelevance. I will start anything that appeals, and if its good I have no trouble finishing it. If its bad (subjective, but of your list, Ulysses certainly hit that spot) I drop it - life's too short.

[Halicarnassus]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

No.

I have read almost all of the books you mention, but size is an irrelevance. I will start anything that appeals, and if its good I have no trouble finishing it. If its bad (subjective, but of your list, Ulysses certainly hit that spot) I drop it - life's too short.

Yes, I agree with what you say. It's more of a personal challenge than anything else. I read quite and the big books aren't in the majority so it's not a fixation Nonetheless, I haven't developed the life is too short bit. It could be because I am a Catholic and see this world as not the end, with more to come, for better or worst.

[77ss]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

No.

I have read almost all of the books you mention, but size is an irrelevance. I will start anything that appeals, and if its good I have no trouble finishing it. If its bad (subjective, but of your list, Ulysses certainly hit that spot) I drop it - life's too short.

Yes, I agree with what you say. It's more of a personal challenge than anything else. I read quite and the big books aren't in the majority so it's not a fixation Nonetheless, I haven't developed the life is too short bit. It could be because I am a Catholic and see this world as not the end, with more to come, for better or worst.

Well, as a short book has it: 'There'll be no butter in hell!' (Cold Comfort Farm).

[Halicarnassus]

No.

I have read almost all of the books you mention, but size is an irrelevance. I will start anything that appeals, and if its good I have no trouble finishing it. If its bad (subjective, but of your list, Ulysses certainly hit that spot) I drop it - life's too short.

Yes, I agree with what you say. It's more of a personal challenge than anything else. I read quite and the big books aren't in the majority so it's not a fixation Nonetheless, I haven't developed the life is too short bit. It could be because I am a Catholic and see this world as not the end, with more to come, for better or worst.

Well, as a short book has it: 'There'll be no butter in hell!' (Cold Comfort Farm).

Quite

[carrie80]

I tend to avoid long books, because I can get very swept up in a book and have trouble putting it down. This can lead to staying up very late to read, and to skim reading when I know it's time to put the book away but I just want to find out a bit more of what happens - sometimes I go back and re-read properly and sometimes I don't, but it's never as satisfying an experience as reading it properly to start with. On the other hand, with a non-immersive long book I'm more likely to put it down at some point and never get around to picking it up again.

I'm wary of certain authors for similar immersion reasons. When I discovered Robin Hobb I proceeded to read two connected trilogies (around 4000 pages) in a fortnight, completely disconnected from life around me. In some ways it was an amazing experience, but not necessarily something I want to repeat.

Of your list The Lord of the Rings is the only one I've read - I loved it as a teenager, but I'm not sure I would have the patience to re-read it again now. The most recent big book I read is Black Wolves by Kate Elliott - a fantastic epic fantasy, full of rich worldbuilding,complex politics and intriguing characters, which felt like a quick read.

[midnightcatprowl]

Nonetheless, I haven't developed the life is too short bit. It could be because I am a Catholic and see this world as not the end, with more to come, for better or worst.

I think that when people say 'life is too short' they are meaning something slightly more subtle than the surface meaning. I sometimes use this phrase but it is a not comment about the shortness of life. Your life can end at any minute, any hour, any day, but generally for most people potential life is getting longer and longer.

Essentially there are lots of great books out there. Books that are truly great literature, books that if not great literature are very good literature plus of course books which were never intended to be great literature but which are pleasantly entertaining reads for relaxing evenings and Bank Holidays and such or which give insight into certain issues.

Given that there is a lot worth reading out there why would you waste time i.e. add the time you've already wasted to further time to finish the book (i.e. waste even more time!) on something not worth reading instead of using your time on things which are worth reading or at least on trying out other books to discover if they are worth reading?

I think the phrase 'life is too short' is meant as a derogatory comment about the work in question - at least as experienced by that particular reader - rather than relating to issues about the length of our lives without or without an extension of life beyond death according to the belief of the reader.

I think that for each individual any particular book may be significant or not significant, great literature or not great literature, entertaining or not entertaining. I think a book is only great/significant/entertaining in its interaction with the reader and no matter how great/significant/entertaining it is for some, and in some cases for many, for others it will simply be dross.

[Halicarnassus]

Nonetheless, I haven't developed the life is too short bit. It could be because I am a Catholic and see this world as not the end, with more to come, for better or worst.

I think that when people say 'life is too short' they are meaning something slightly more subtle than the surface meaning. I sometimes use this phrase but it is a not comment about the shortness of life. Your life can end at any minute, any hour, any day, but generally for most people potential life is getting longer and longer.

Essentially there are lots of great books out there. Books that are truly great literature, books that if not great literature are very good literature plus of course books which were never intended to be great literature but which are pleasantly entertaining reads for relaxing evenings and Bank Holidays and such or which give insight into certain issues.

Given that there is a lot worth reading out there why would you waste time i.e. add the time you've already wasted to further time to finish the book (i.e. waste even more time!) on something not worth reading instead of using your time on things which are worth reading or at least on trying out other books to discover if they are worth reading?

I think the phrase 'life is too short' is meant as a derogatory comment about the work in question - at least as experienced by that particular reader - rather than relating to issues about the length of our lives without or without an extension of life beyond death according to the belief of the reader.

I think that for each individual any particular book may be significant or not significant, great literature or not great literature, entertaining or not entertaining. I think a book is only great/significant/entertaining in its interaction with the reader and no matter how great/significant/entertaining it is for some, and in some cases for many, for others it will simply be dross.

On another thread I quoted Ryan Holiday's email which arrived today...

Allow me to begin this recommendation email with a slight rant about the trend of speedreading and audiobook speedreading: It's stupid and you're missing the point. As I wrote in my article earlier this month: Reading is not the thing you squeeze in with your other important tasks, it is the important task. It, not unlike meditation or sex, isn't meant to be rushed through. It's enjoyable. You're supposed to take your time. That's how you get the most out of it. If you want to read more, make more time for reading. Don't look for hacks and shortcuts. Cut crap from your life and you'll have plenty of room more books than you know what to do with (hopefully some of these recommended ones from this month will be among them). I try to remind myself: You don't get a prize at the end of your life for reading the most books. The prize is the books you got to read and what you managed to get out of them.

Worth a thought.

[DiamondEcho]

I tend to go for a book that presents a point, crafted well, rather than a saga.
So Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, c1000 pages, that from what I saw repeats it's manifesto over, and over, and over again in various orbits, is one of the most painful books I've ever tried to read. I'd read and think 'I got that same point 30 pages ago, and you're simply repeating it' [repeated, over and over]. And so on to the point of utter pain.
Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment I also found hard work. But that's because it is so full-on and intense. I had to take a break from it; the intensity and complexity of the story-line lead me to almost want to take a shower now and again.

[UncleEbenezer]

Does anyone else share my fascination for taking on the challenge of reading big books?

Challenge? How is size relevant?

From your list, and restricting it to those written in English so there's no translation in the way:

David Copperfield - Dickens
The Lord of the Rings -Tolkien

LotR was the first book (or rather, three books) I ever read. My parents read me The Hobbit when I was about three, and it was the first story that ever really gripped me. They told me of the existence of LotR - a bigger, darker adventure - but refused to read it to me. So I had no choice: I just had to learn to read. Thrilling all the way!

David Copperfield was my first Dickens. I came to it (as an adult) with some trepidation, having heard of Dickens by reputation as grim and heavy. Even Dickensian . It was quite the opposite: couldn't put it down. After that I read several other Dickenses, and found only some of them equally great reads, while others seemed better-suited to reading in episodes (as originally published) or to dramatisation or other adaptation.

How could you describe those as any kind of challenge?

Now if you'd been to the books people didn't finish thread, you'd have found some that are genuinely challenging.

[Halicarnassus]

Challenge? How is size relevant?

From your list, and restricting it to those written in English so there's no translation in the way:

David Copperfield - Dickens
The Lord of the Rings -Tolkien

LotR was the first book (or rather, three books) I ever read. My parents read me The Hobbit when I was about three, and it was the first story that ever really gripped me. They told me of the existence of LotR - a bigger, darker adventure - but refused to read it to me. So I had no choice: I just had to learn to read. Thrilling all the way!

David Copperfield was my first Dickens. I came to it (as an adult) with some trepidation, having heard of Dickens by reputation as grim and heavy. Even Dickensian . It was quite the opposite: couldn't put it down. After that I read several other Dickenses, and found only some of them equally great reads, while others seemed better-suited to reading in episodes (as originally published) or to dramatisation or other adaptation.

How could you describe those as any kind of challenge?

Now if you'd been to the books people didn't finish thread, you'd have found some that are genuinely challenging.

Well we clearly are not all the same and many people are put off by the size of books.

You probably know this but the LOTR is actually six books, normally issued in three volumes.

[MistyMeena]

I’ve started War and Peace this week… I only got about 250 pages through at my first attempt ten years ago but I’m more determined this time. I don’t have an e reader so I know that part of my problem is due to the weight of the book. I like a book that is easily transportable and can be quickly dipped into while waiting for the children at their activities. A bigger book doesn’t fit this bill which relegates it to at home reading and restricts the time I will find to spend with it. I never read just one book at a time.

I do find that once I get into the habit of picking up a longer book that they can often be rewarding. Vikram Seth’s A Suitable Boy is one I remember with fondness after reading it at lunchtimes in the office; it did take me 8 months but finishing it felt like I was leaving friends behind. On the other hand around the same time I found the first book of the Lord of the Rings sent me to sleep every day for a month on my commute and, although I’ve read The Hobbit to my son since, I have zero interest in finishing Bored of the Rings. Husband reads it every few years.

It made me smile in A Suitable Boy that one character mentions tearing long books in half to make them more manageable to read!

[MistyMeena]

I’ve started War and Peace this week… I only got about 250 pages through at my first attempt ten years ago but I’m more determined this time. I don’t have an e reader so I know that part of my problem is due to the weight of the book. I like a book that is easily transportable and can be quickly dipped into while waiting for the children at their activities. A bigger book doesn’t fit this bill which relegates it to at home reading and restricts the time I will find to spend with it. I never read just one book at a time.

I do find that once I get into the habit of picking up a longer book that they can often be rewarding. Vikram Seth’s A Suitable Boy is one I remember with fondness after reading it at lunchtimes in the office; it did take me 8 months but finishing it felt like I was leaving friends behind. On the other hand around the same time I found the first book of the Lord of the Rings sent me to sleep every day for a month on my commute and, although I’ve read The Hobbit to my son since, I have zero interest in finishing Bored of the Rings. Husband reads it every few years.

It made me smile in A Suitable Boy that one character mentions tearing long books in half to make them more manageable to read!

I have finished War and Peace. It was a good read but it still feels like an achievement to notch up

[stewamax]

My wife bought a copy of the paperback Lord of the Rings and I idly glanced at a few pages.
Then I read it from cover to cover in all my waking moments, even taking it to work to read over lunch.

The attraction wasn’t the ‘quest’ story itself – which is not dissimilar from those of the Mabigonion and the Arthurian Grail legends. It was the hints of the back story – or more precisely back stories layered on back stories – that was so fascinating. I can read Middle English and used to speak Welsh, and recognised so many of the linguistic connections of which Tolkien was a master.
When Silmarillion was finally published, I was knocking on the door of the local WH Smith at 08.30 to buy a copy – and so much then became clear.

[UncleEbenezer]

My wife bought a copy of the paperback Lord of the Rings and I idly glanced at a few pages.
Then I read it from cover to cover in all my waking moments, even taking it to work to read over lunch.

The attraction wasn’t the ‘quest’ story itself – which is not dissimilar from those of the Mabigonion and the Arthurian Grail legends. It was the hints of the back story – or more precisely back stories layered on back stories – that was so fascinating. I can read Middle English and used to speak Welsh, and recognised so many of the linguistic connections of which Tolkien was a master.
When Silmarillion was finally published, I was knocking on the door of the local WH Smith at 08.30 to buy a copy – and so much then became clear.

Did you get the appendices to LoTR? I think some editions were published without them. Make a huge difference to the depth of it.

I first read it straight through, when I first learned to read. As a young child it was the quest story that gripped, but I'm sure it was the depth of underlying history and mythology that made it so much more interesting than any childrens' book I encountered. Returning to it in my early teens, I read the appendices, and got a whole new layer of depth from it, and it was one of the main influences that sent me on my quest to read all the old myths and legends I could get my hands on. Starting with the Iliad, which turned out to be a great place! The Silmarillion - published when I was 16 - comes in there somewhere too, but it's too long ago to remember how exactly it relates to the appendices. From distant memory, the latter were actually the better work, as they were distilled from the same material to be made a good read!