Hacker News Reader

Comment by lonesword | Hacker News Reader

>This "use" of literature and history is reflected in my choice of reading: There is very little "heavy" reading listed here.

And then he lists Dostoevsky and Homer. Those doesn't count as heavy reading? What counts as heavy reading? Ulysses/Paradise lost?

My "oh hell yeah!" moment was when i saw Lord of the Rings in the list :p

View on HN

Do you find those difficult to read? I've not read them, so I'm actually asking. Or, is this a sentiment about older literature not being interesting, because of different tempo, cultural context, etc?

I think difficulty in reading something is a personal thing. For example, I find reading Pynchon very difficult, because I can't seem to track what's happening and because there's a sense of being inside someone's personal joke that you don't quite get. I find reading George R. R. Martin very easy, because it doesn't require analysis; but then, a friend of mine couldn't get through the first book of Song of Ice and Fire, because he found the vocabulary tedious.

There is a concordance for Gravity's Rainbow - which helps for non native readers.

That is assuming there is a corrected version the first printing I have confuses what a "redcap" is in the British military

> And then he lists Dostoevsky and Homer. Those doesn't count as heavy reading? What counts as heavy reading? Ulysses/Paradise lost?

Dostoevsky is not difficult to read. If you like depressive psychological drama, it is quite enjoyable. Homer difficulty depends heavily on translation. It can be stiff and boring or basically just fun (but again, you gotta like the relationships non-actiony aspect of it).

Yeah, Ulysses is definitely hard to read.

And harder if you are a non-native English speaker (I grew up in Italy, live in the US since 2012).

I think there's a very wide range in difficulty for Dostoevsky's work. Crime and Punishment and Notes from Underground are a reasonable length, are told in a linear fashion, and largely easily differentiable characters. Brothers Karamazov, on the other hand, I found very challenging.

If Dostoevsky is not difficult to read, then there exist only a handful of authors who are. Maybe it isn't difficult to find enjoyment in his works, but there is a hell of a lot more going on than just depressive psychological drama.

I really dont think it is so difficult to read. I was no regular reader of classic and was definitely not seeking anything difficult when I found it first time and I enjoyed it.

I used to abandon books quickly when they were hard to read or boring or anything like that.

There are different kinds of difficulty-to-read. I had the following experience multiple times with Crime and Punishment: I would pick it up and start reading, and think "wow, this is really amazing stuff", and then at some point I would put it down for a day or two and then somehow not want to pick it back up again. Not because it was hard to follow (it isn't), nor because it's badly written (it isn't), but because the world it puts you inside is a pretty unpleasant one.

(I did eventually read the whole thing, of course, and I'm glad I did.)

Dostoevsky is dark and deep, but it may feel an easer entertaining read - say, Brothers Karamazov. Crime and Punishment was harder for me. Tolstoy is more difficult to read due to epic long sentences.

Ulysses and Paradise Lost are in their own category.

Non-technical theory books I guess?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com