
Why We Need Difficult Books - lermontov
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/10/anna-burns-milkman-difficult-novel
======
ilamont
_“I see fiction as being divided into two categories. Work that confirms and
celebrates and panders and work that confounds and perplexes and challenges.
"_

This type of thinking is toxic, akin the bullshit aphorisms spouted by
politicians ("you're either with us or against us") or smug VCs ("if you're
not working 14 hours per day, you're not an entrepreneur").

It forces authors and audiences to contort themselves into this black/white
view of literature that tosses anything that's not "difficult" into a pile
that's not worth creating or reading.

~~~
slededit
Do you not see the irony in calling something toxic? Your not saying its
merely wrong - but that its on par with poison.

~~~
theoh
It's OK to distinguish between healthy and diseased specimens of any organic
phenomenon, thinking included. e.g. Trump is a toxic narcissist, etc.

I can't really take this article seriously as a comment on literature because
it uses ugly language like "attitudinal" and "outright funny". Articles in The
Guardian usually reflect a particular part of English society that is highly
privileged, politically centrist and conformist, and not as smart as it thinks
it is. Those attributes probably also characterize the UK audience for
literary fiction. It's annoying and smug, and I guess maybe saying that is
ugly itself.

Surely we should sometimes try to diagnose in good faith where thinking goes
wrong. Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed
to exclude from their life, for example. You might claim that toxicity is
always relational, that it takes two. But there is such a thing as pathology
when it comes to personality and mental health. To call something toxic is to
call out a pathology for having a seriously negative impact on other people,
whether those other people are themselves healthy or not.

~~~
slededit
> Most people have encountered toxic personalities who they have needed to
> exclude from their life, for example.

I don’t think that is very common at all. There are people we get along with
better but active exclusion is extremely rare. This modern trend of throwing
away people we don’t like is very unhealthy and not what a community is about.

~~~
theoh
You've been lucky, evidently. The idea that everyone is fundamentally OK, and
that we just have to get along — well, in some cases, the effort that takes is
just unsustainable.

Maybe you're saying that you think there's no such thing as an abusive
relationship. Maybe you think that whole concept is a modern invention. How
likely do you think that really is?

~~~
slededit
The common usage of the term “toxic person” these days is they post things on
Facebook I disagree with. Not that they physically assault someone. Going
straight to abuse is pure hyperbole.

Consider the origin of this thread - an idea was toxic not an action.

~~~
theoh
The _thinking_ and _expression_ of the thoughts were deemed to be toxic by
another commentary. In other words, the behaviour.

Abusive interactions don't necessarily or even usually involve physical
violence. The fact that you don't seem to appreciate that reinforces my
impression that you've never really had to deal with this stuff. It's
hyperbole to assume that when I said "abusive relationship" I meant physical
violence.

I'm in my 40s and I wouldn't have understood this stuff at 20. I'm also, as a
victim of mental illness, someone who has in some ways been discarded by
society. So I'm inclined to trust my perception that there is genuine
suffering out there caused by toxic thinking and toxic ideas. "Toxic
Psychiatry", for example, is the title of a book. You seem content to justify
the way things are and minimize negative social phenomena. All I can say is
that for a significant number of people, that kind of talk rings false,
because their experience shows how empty it is.

~~~
slededit
Which gets to the crux of the matter. Mere thinking and expression is
sufficient for a label of toxicity with you. This goes against the fundamental
values of liberalism and the enlightenment.

I fear we are regressing to a new dark age.

~~~
theoh
I hear you, but I think what's happening, in terms of psychological insight,
is that millennials have more insight than earlier generations. They are also
more likely to have narcissistic traits. The vigorous conversation about these
issues (which involves the notion of toxicity) could be seen as a growing
pain.

There are probably some walks of life (e.g. fine art) where unbelievably bad
behaviour, narcissism, sociopathy etc. have always been prevalent. Now we're
seeing awareness of those traits across the whole of society. "Toxic" may be a
bad word to use; it's better to be more precise, within the constraints of
what we know about personality. It's good to consider every interaction as the
product of its constituent personalities, not the "fault" of one party.

But it's not an emergency if the word toxic is over-applied to mildly
dysfunctional behaviour. Have you heard about global warming?

~~~
slededit
I fail to see this as progress or the bright light at the end of the tunnel.
Shielding oneself from uncomfortable ideas and writing people off wholesale
has repeated time and again throughout history. It always ends in tyranny and
oppression.

We found the tools to break this cycle in the enlightenment. This has led to
the largest expansion of freedom and prosperity in world history.

Now I fear we are about to throw it all away. By your logic I should label you
“toxic” for promoting this. But that fundamentally goes against these values I
hold dear.

~~~
theoh
I don't know exactly where you are coming from, politically (or religiously).
But I believe that phenomena like narcissism constitute poorly understood
pathologies of personality, and to be able to see them for what they are,
clearly, is a kind of progress, whether it's science or not.

The Enlightenment wasn't the last word in intellectual progress. Neoliberal
capitalism hasn't decreased inequality in the last 30 years—it has increased
it.

I think you might be projecting a bit when you talk about "shielding oneself
from uncomfortable ideas". If you think the Enlightenment/classical liberalism
is the last word in "thought", maybe that's what you are doing, too.

A lot of PhD students apply Foucault (to take one example) in frivolous, non-
constructive, self-absorbed ways. But Foucault wasn't some crazy guy, he was
part of the establishment, trying to sharpen our understanding of the dynamics
of power and intellectual life. A lot of his contemporary academic followers
certainly don't identify with the progress of Western culture. They could be
called "wreckers", but it's hard to say that with a straight face while Trump
is in the White House.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will always be maladjusted kids,
freaks, weirdos, and attention seekers. It might feel to you like they are
taking over the show these days, because everyone seems to be frivolously
labelling everyone else as toxic, like some retro high school clique drama of
teenage girls gossiping on the landline.

But even if widely implemented, their exclusionary attitudes won't stick if
they don't work in practice. The mass of "normative", i.e. "healthy" people
tends to plough through in the long run, for better or worse.

Millennial culture contains a big dose of self-righteousness, but a lot of
fashion and trendiness too. The judgemental side of it will surely blow over,
if you want to see things that way. We can only hope that the heightened
awareness of psychology will stick.

------
BLKNSLVR
The most interesting quote in the article:

 _‘Are you trying to reward the book that pushes literature forward the most;
or are you wanting to select the book that you most want to push into the
hands of people all round the world?’_

That's a darn conundrum. An interesting problem. It's almost having to corrupt
the purpose of the award in order to maintain its value. If an amazing work of
literature requires a university education in languages just to understand,
it'd be self-defeating to award it the prize because the prize then becomes of
interest only to those with a university education in languages.

For the article overall, I feel like it can relate to any form of art by
replacing specific books and authors with their analogies in other artistic
fields. But then it occurred to me that literature / books / novels are
adjudicated differently to music and film for example.

Literature awards are much less a popularity contest than music and film
(movie) awards. Higher-brow by the fact that there's a higher barrier to entry
(ie. reading).

Fundamentally, however:

We need difficult music. We need difficult movies. We need difficult
personalities. We need difficult engineering.

Because easy is for the birds. Easy isn't progress.

~~~
MattyRad
I agree that film is a different beast than literature, but if anyone is
looking for mentally and artistically challenging films, I recommend anything
by A24 Studios ([https://a24films.com/films](https://a24films.com/films)). I
would argue that we're seeing a small/low-budget film renaissance, A24 is
evidence of that.

~~~
Klover
Are those movies good or “good”? A book I can go to the library for and judge
for myself, those movies require me to change iTunes Store, set up payment
methods, keep an evening clear, before I can judge what might be a pretentious
story with painful actors.

~~~
DanBC
Only you can tell if you enjoy a film or not. I've enjoyed most of the films
I've seen from them. You're not going to get such a rigid hollywood 3 act
structure with all the beats being hit according to the formula. Some people
like this, others find the films aimless and meandering. Here's one example of
that: [https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/american-honey-cannes-
re...](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/american-honey-cannes-
review/5103945.article?blocktitle=The-Latest&contentID=598)

> But while American Honey exudes ample energy, this episodic piece doesn’t
> muster much narrative drive over its daunting running time of two and three
> quarter hours. There’s probably a stronger, tighter film in here, but fair
> game at least to Arnold in her commitment to following the winding back
> roads of filmic experiment rather than the well-mapped highway of
> storytelling.

Here are three films, but i've watched loads and I like most of them:

 _A Prayer Before Dawn_ is a better version of a film we've seen before -
westerner goes to a harsh prison in a foreign country. It's not pretentious
and the film avoids being too sympathetic to the lead. Metacritic gives it 76.
[https://www.metacritic.com/movie/a-prayer-before-
dawn](https://www.metacritic.com/movie/a-prayer-before-dawn)

 _Eighth Grade_ is I think amazing. A really difficult watch of a young person
struggling to be a young person. It captures the awkwardness and cliques. The
lead actress is brilliant. Metacritic gives it 89, but that has been pulled
down by one reviewer who clearly hates the film. All the other scores are over
75. [https://www.metacritic.com/movie/eighth-
grade](https://www.metacritic.com/movie/eighth-grade)

 _How to Talk to Girls at Parties_ is a film that I didn't enjoy. But I'm glad
they made it and some people do like it. MC gives it 50, but there's a mix of
high and low scores. [https://www.metacritic.com/movie/how-to-talk-to-girls-
at-par...](https://www.metacritic.com/movie/how-to-talk-to-girls-at-
parties/critic-reviews)

~~~
Klover
Thanks for the response. I will keep your comment with me for next week for a
movie night.

To other comments who might be wondering: I do not live in the USA, so I do
not think I can find _Eighth Grade_ at the library. I can find many books. So
I prefer asking for clarification over spending an hour or more to set
something up.

------
yesenadam
As is often the case, the word "Books" is used when they apparently just mean
"Novels".

 _Tristram Shandy_ difficult?! Strange. Would you call Monty Python
'difficult'? It is, however, hilarious, and still seems very modern, despite
the first part dating from 1759. The humour is quite Pythonish, but goes
further in every direction. Including mocking 'difficult' scientific and
philosophical writers, real and imagined, on (probably) most of its pages.
Very highly recommended. As is Sterne's second (and last) novel _A Sentimental
Journey_ , much shorter and less crazy than _Tristram_. The less that happens,
the better it gets.

~~~
avinium
Plowing my way through Tristram Shandy at the moment, and I would definitely
agree that it's "difficult".

Not so much the contemporary vernacular (though that doesn't help), but rather
the discontinuous hyperactivity with which the author jumps back and forth
between time periods and characters. It's also pretty long-winded and Sterne
takes his time to labor his point.

It's definitely enjoyable, but it's not an "easy" read.

~~~
yesenadam
Ah ok. Well, if it feels like 'plowing', read something else. If it seems too
long, read something else. If you don't think it's super-funny, read something
else. Life's too short. I was going to suggest _A Sentimental Journey_ , which
is more like a....continuous narrative, but maybe you'd think that long-winded
too. But like I said, the less that happens, the funnier it gets. And people
who like a movie don't complain about it being too long! I can understand
someone not liking/appreciating the humour, which is craziness on a grand
scale, but to hear anyone (much less someone who writes for the Guardian)
found it _difficult_ is a surprise.

~~~
yesenadam
Gee, downvoted for that. Also a surprise. Would downvoters care to explain
why?

------
netcan
I think the goodness or badness of hardness hinges on the reason for the
difficulty.

Sure, doing hard things is a good thing for satisfaction and character
building. That doesn't mean a math book that's harder to understand is better
than one that's easy.

I think Finnegan's Wake (mentioned in the article) is a good example. It's
difficult and good, but for different reasons. Joyce was being expiremental.
He wrote from inside a characters head, a POV style that's very common in
modern novels. So, the expirement worked.

So, in a sense, it's hard in the way driving an early, expiremental car is
probably hard.

Trying to read Joyce for entertainment is like trying to learn physics from
"Principia." Cute, but probably a terrible idea. Reading either to engage with
the history of novels or physics... this is why people still read these today.

People might get a sense of satisfaction frim the difficulty, but this does
not mean we need people to write like Joyce or Newton.

There needs to be an _honest_ reason for difficulty, and the problem with most
difficult writing is bad reasons. Poor technique. Partially formed thoughts.
Intentional obscurity. Orwellian use of jargonized dialect...

Finnegan's wake would have been a better work if it was written easier. The
difficulty is a flaw.

~~~
beaconstudios
it sounds like a parallel with the paradigm of essential vs accidental
complexity in software design. A good book is one that minimises accidental
complexity, a good+hard book is one that also has high essential complexity.

~~~
netcan
Yep. Sounds like another case of the same thing.

------
LarryMade2
Years ago I talked to the local head librarian about donating some programming
books and stuff. She had requested that they can't be difficult or hard...

Part of the reason I patronize my library is because to me it is like a mental
gymnasium, where all this great equipment there to test my intellectual
flexibility and endurance, too tough? I go for easier, but I appreciate the
hard stuff because at some point, I, or someone else will find them useful.

Yes, we all NEED access to difficult books (and old books before they refined
the such subjects and made them so difficult), don't make our libraries and
book shops into mere mental playgrounds.

~~~
kopo
And difficult newspapers! And difficult news!

Our journalist class has somehow got into this ELI5 routine, where they feel
obligated to turn every complex subject into something a fifth grader can
debate about.

~~~
gmueckl
I kind of miss the articles that span 10 pages and really dive into a subject
matter. Modern long form articles seem unnecessarily padded with personal
stories to me. The actual information content is not that much in the end.

~~~
probably_wrong
For a good example of long form journalism done right, I heartily recommend
The Guardian's article about what will happen when the Queen of England dies
[1]. I never thought there would be _that_ much protocol to it, but clearly I
was wrong.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-
happens...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-
queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge)

------
ebullientocelot
This seems silly to me--if an idea or subject _is_ difficult, then so be it.
If something difficult to read is worth it to somebody, then that person will
read it. I don't understand the fascination with difficulty--whatever that
means, as an independent metric. To me, the value of writing is the idea or
set of ideas the writing expresses.

~~~
aaronmcs
I think it is important not to boil fiction down into the 'idea or set of
ideas the writing expresses' because if the author could so well articulate
their 'idea' then wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a
narrative?

Instead, I think the fascination with difficulty is exactly this -- the idea
that some ideas are amorphous and difficult to express directly, and that
authors have tried (successfully and less so) drastic measures to try and, in
their own way, do exactly what you said in your comment.

And there is something, for some, inherently interesting in the different
contortions of text that experimental writers have come up with.

~~~
pure-awesome
> wouldn't they be better off writing an essay rather than a narrative?

There's an interesting quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for
writing the fan-fiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

"Nonfiction conveys knowledge and fiction conveys experience. If you want to
understand a proof of Bayes’s Rule, I can use diagrams. If I want you to feel
what it is to use Bayesian reasoning, I have to write a story in which some
character is doing that."

[https://intelligence.org/2016/03/02/john-horgan-
interviews-e...](https://intelligence.org/2016/03/02/john-horgan-interviews-
eliezer-yudkowsky/)

It's interesting to note that he wrote HPMoR with a specific purpose in mind,
namely to teach the specific skills of "rational" thinking he wrote about on
the LessWrong site.

In his case it seems he saw fiction as something complementary to his essays,
a means of conveying "experience", a simulation of living through situations
in which the concepts could be used.

This is, of course, far from the only use of fiction, but I think it at least
provides a specific example of a way in which fiction can be used to convey
something in a way that cannot be (easily) done using dry prose (even if you
are considering it purely from a practical standpoint without any reference to
artistic merit).

------
dang
There was a recent post about a difficult book I'd never heard of, and
probably won't read, but the article was fascinating.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18052562)

~~~
matthewn
I am 120 pages into Miss MacIntosh, My Darling because of that article. It is
definitely challenging. But two or three of the (very long) sentences I've
encountered are without a doubt among the most beautiful I've ever read.

------
crimsonalucard
Impenetrability creates an illusion of truth. The act of deciphering meaning
produces the same endorphins as solving a puzzle. The end result of reading
such a text is that you see something new from a different angle but that
thing may not be real.

It is the catharsis one feels at the end of the journey of decoding an
impenetrable text that may mask the fact that the core message is a lie. The
bible is a good example of this.

~~~
booleandilemma
I felt this way when reading Karl Popper’s book “The Logic of Scientific
Discovery”.

I feel as if he went out of his way to be hard to understand.

~~~
commandlinefan
People get down on Knuth for the same reason (the author of, by far, the
hardest books I’ve ever read), but in Knuth’s case it’s actually just that
he’s being absolutely concise.

------
tabtab
Somebody once said, "Bad teachers prepare kids for bad bosses, which they are
likely to encounter." While I agree with that to some extent based on actual
experience, taken too far it can hamper education. If you flunk math or
English because of a bad teacher, it can set your entire education behind
schedule. Perhaps make sure the difficult teachers are not in key subjects
that have course path dependencies. Similar for books. (You _will_ encounter
poorly-written instructions in the work-place, which difficult books prepare
you for.)

~~~
mikekchar
Random anecdote. I once had a terrible English teacher. I was transferred into
the class midstream (for unrelated reasons). After my first class I went to my
new teacher and said, "I really love writing. In the previous class the
teacher was planning on having a creative writing section. Will we have one in
this class?" At which point the English teacher replied, "Writing has nothing
to do with English and only one teacher in this school thinks otherwise".

I was a bit disheartened, but as English was my favourite class, I decided to
just enjoy the other aspects of the class. We had a midterm exam for which
half of the grade was an essay question on a novel we had been reading. I
admit that I wanted to impress my teacher, so I read the book over and over
again, practically memorising it. When I wrote my essay, I was able to quote
passages of it. I was reasonably proud of my effort.

Imagine my shock when my paper was returned and I received a 0 for the essay!
The only comment on the paper was "Terrible". In tears, I went to my teacher
and asked, "What's wrong with the essay? I studied really hard and even added
a lot of quotes". The teacher seemed surprised. "Oh. You actually care about
this. Well, your essay was badly written. The quotes were nice, but everything
else was terrible. I couldn't give you any marks".

Very frustrated, I went back to my parents and complained. They read my paper
and to their credit they said, "Well, I wouldn't have given this a zero, but
it could use some improvement". Then they taught me how to write. I spent the
next 3-4 months writing essays every day because I was so frustrated.

Fast forward a few decades and I _still_ love writing, thanks to my parents. I
have mixed feelings about that teacher. Truly, she was messed up in serious
ways. She tended to give high marks to cute boys that she tried to chat up
after class. She would also randomly form some kind of hatred for individual
students and would do her best to crush them under her heel. However, she was
the first teacher who ever told me that my writing sucked. All my other
teachers were so focused on my enthusiasm that they forgot to give me
criticism. Without my terrible teacher, my parents wouldn't have intervened
and I think I never would have learned to write.

It's a weird world.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
There's an interesting anecdote in the chess world. Mikhail Botvinnik [1] was
a longtime former world champion and would go on to become the 'patriarch' of
Soviet chess, which would dominate the world scene in chess for many decades.
In the early 60s a child was invited to Botvinnik's school for an assessment
and possible training. Upon evaluating the child and his games and 'feel' for
chess, Botvinnik remarked, "This boy has no clue about chess, and there's no
future for him in this profession."

The boy he was talking about was Anatoly Karpov [2]. Karpov would go on to
become world champion once Bobby Fischer failed to defend his title. But far
from winning by default he took the title and held onto it for many years
becoming one of the most dominant and active world champions of all time. He
ceded his title only once once Garry Kasparov came onto the scene.

And really I think these sort of anecdotes are rife among many who go onto
achieve great things. One of the many reasons I think the current trends in
school of trying to encourage and reward children, particularly taken to the
extreme with things such as participation trophies, are likely deeply
misguided and being driven by intuition rather than data in an area where the
latter often contradicts the former.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov)

~~~
watwut
Early soviet 60s story is hardly reflection on current trend in schools.

I think that this sort of thing happen because it is hard to impossible to
determine future development of child. Misjudging happen to both future
winners and future losers. Same kid is often judged differently by different
adults and same kid can perform differently one year then the other. Same
adult can have bad day and badly judge kid or simply badly judge most of them.

Being told that you are bad by authority sux and you will remember it. And for
winners it is good anecdote to tell later on, when they know it turned up
false.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
The question is what effect does coddling vs doubting have on an individual's
personal development? Does actively praising individuals, regardless of
whether they 'truly' deserve it, encourage them to work harder or does it
encourage complacence? Some research I've read has indicated that the praise
itself is what ends up being desired, with a diminishing interest on the field
from which the praise was derived.

Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is
something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as a
motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from the
start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been hailed as
imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now stand above even
Carlsen?

And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think
anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this
turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places such
as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.

~~~
watwut
> The question is what effect does coddling vs doubting have on an
> individual's personal development?

That is false dichotomy. Not just that you contrast complete extremes, you
ignore options like "say what you really think". There is also massive
difference between who says it, whether that talk is same as other say or
rather outlier.

For example, in here, we are talking about kid meeting high level person in a
chess official situation organized by school or camp. Bad chess players would
not even go to that meeting to be evaluated. Quite clearly the kid was already
in program, already seen value in chess and likely was once in a while praised
by others.

> Does actively praising individuals, regardless of whether they 'truly'
> deserve it, encourage them to work harder or does it encourage complacence?
> Some research I've read has indicated that the praise itself is what ends up
> being desired, with a diminishing interest on the field from which the
> praise was derived.

How old the individual? What stage of learning the individual is? That matters
a lot. Never ever believe anything nuanced about child raising and treatment
unless age is specified. Are we talking 16, 12, 7, 3 years old? Are we talking
about someone new to activity, trying to figure out whether they like it and
whether they could be good? Or rather experienced player who already like it
and all his socialization and identity centers about that activity? There are
massive differences.

> Ultimately the preponderance of these 'driven by adversity' anecdotes is
> something that I do not think is a coincidence. It certainly also worked as
> a motivator in my life. Had Karpov been openly praised and supported from
> the start would he have become the person he did? Had Karjakin not been
> hailed as imminent world champion from his youngest years, might he now
> stand above even Carlsen?

Do you know that Karpov was not openly praised as he learned? There is an
anecdote of a single criticism. Was the "you dont have what it takes" really
the only feedback he got? That is unlikely, because such kids would never ever
met Mikhail Botvinnik. Such kids would be removed from chess program and
redirected elsewhere.

> And these are genuine questions. I don't know the answer and I don't think
> anybody does. But it's something that I think is important since, if this
> turns out to be the case, it could mean that the educational path places
> such as the US have set upon could be entirely regressive.

It is not that US is flawless, but they do have good results in education in a
lot of places. They are country of differences, with both awesome results in
some places and pretty bad results in others.

------
miobrien
I think "difficult" is the wrong word. I think "challenging" is a better one.

In many cases, books (and other forms of expression/art) are acclaimed for
being difficult -- but they're difficult for the sake of being difficult.
There's difficulty but no reward. After having read some of these books (or
attempted to), I think they're pointless.

However, we do need challenging books/art. Challenges are how we grow,
develop, improve, etc. Something can be challenging without being
difficult/impenetrable.

Also, challenges come in various forms: they can be stylistic (difficult
prose) as well as moral or intellectual or political. (One common complaint I
hear about fiction is: "I don't like the characters." Well, yeah, that's sort
of the point: you probably wouldn't like a lot of people if you knew them.)

Some concrete examples:

Novels:

Joyce's Ulysses: I actually really like Ulysses. As a whole, it's a slog. But
there are wonderful passages throughout. It's also very funny.

Wallace's Infinite Jest: same as above, often even funnier as the humor is
more contemporary.

Films:

Malick's The Tree of Life: a wonderful, slow, all-encompassing film that
doesn't rely on the conventional approach to narrative

------
hodgesrm
Yes! Thomas Mann was in the list of difficult books. I remember marveling how
he set up a joke in Buddenbrooks 50 pages before springing the punchline. He's
an incredibly disciplined and patient storyteller.

Who is your favorite 'difficult' author?

~~~
bshimmin
I've been very gently dipping into Proust for the last year or so: I find it
hard to read more than a few pages of _À la recherche..._ at a time (mostly
due to the exhaustions of work and children), but when I do, I always enjoy
it. Just the other day I realised I'd read a number of pages which did nothing
more than describe a man waking up and getting out of bed; when I realised
this, I laughed out loud at the preposterousness of it.

~~~
hodgesrm
This.

That's exactly how some of Mann's jokes work. I've had the same experience
with _A la recherche_. After a while you realize the author is kind of having
you on. (Not always of course but there's definitely satirical humor in these
accounts.)

------
LandR
I had a conversation once with a friend about a book I was reading. She asked
what it was about, and I told her.

She said, and I quote, "that sounds like one of those thinking books. I don't
like them."

I miss her.

------
briandear
The real important question: is it a good story?

Booker winners, in my experience have been often pretentious garbage
masquerading as high art.

Examples:

Ian McEwan’s Amsterdam (1998) Ben Okri’s The Famished Road (1991) Kingsley
Amis’s The Old Devils (1986)

While the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is American only, the list of winners is
far more justifiable as prize-worthy.

~~~
EliRivers
_While the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is American only, the list of winners is
far more justifiable as prize-worthy._

Now that is an interesting thing for someone to say. Are you American, or do
you live in America? Where that question is leading is that I wonder if you
find American fiction more accessible because it's written by and for
Americans, and thus you already have the context to understand and appreciate
it.

------
SolaceQuantum
This discussion has already been had and will continue to be had forever. See
_Why experimental fiction threatens to destroy publishing, Jonathan Franzen,
and life as we know it_ [1] on this discussion since 2005, which is no doubt
just a continuation of existing conflicts in the discussion of "what is
literature vs what should literature be".

1\. [https://harpers.org/archive/2005/10/why-experimental-
fiction...](https://harpers.org/archive/2005/10/why-experimental-fiction-
threatens-to-destroy-publishing-jonathan-franzen-and-life-as-we-know-it/)

------
seibelj
The best way to write to convey meaning is to be as absolutely clear as
possible, whether you are writing esoteric scientific papers or mass market
non-fiction. This is why Yuval Noah is such a popular author - he takes
complex subjects and makes them easy to understand without losing their
meaning.

Literature may be different, but I still prefer fiction that tells its story
without me having to scratch my head for hours.

~~~
madhadron
Conveying meaning as clearly as possible implies direct, simple prose when you
assume the reader shares a language game (per Wittgenstein) with you. Thus a
theoretical physicist can communicate a fact about field theories to a
colleague very directly, but that communication is hardly clear to a layman.

What do you do if what you are working on is meaning that doesn't fit the
usual language game, and part of the work is seeing what varying the language
game can do to meaning? Then there is no direct prose. There is a fabrication
of an artifact that leads the reader experientially to this new language game
in all its nuance.

------
nickdothutton
Writing is an art, even non-fiction writing, and it is the art part that I
work-on and worry most about in my own writing (all of which is non-fiction).

Difficult books, yes. That doesn't mean books without stylistic beauty or
felicity. It doesn't mean books that have been poorly edited (IMO the largest
failing in many books, which could easily be 25% shorter with better editing).

------
yters
Easy to read does not mean easy to write. I submit the best literature is a
fairly easy read, but the construction is quite laborious.

------
Koshkin
The most difficult books I have read were just bad translations.

~~~
gnulinux
Maybe try reading Pynchon?

~~~
Koshkin
Thanks for the suggestion! Got a copy of his V. - not bad at all, and does not
seem more difficult than, say, F.S.Fitzgerald or J.C.Wright...

------
tw1010
Really getting sick of using the internet with all these cookie, gdpr,
paywall, newsletter, and ad popups. Starting to feel much more drawn to
getting most of my knowledge from (pop-up free) books.

------
djrobstep
All of highbrow literature and art is a million emperor-has-no-clothes
scenarios.

Everybody is terrified to say that a book is drivel or a painting is just some
random drips of paint, in case it burns bridges or makes them look
unsophisticated.

~~~
fmblwntr
Everybody says this all the time, to such an extent that an article was
written to express the contrary view

I'm also pretty sure that given a famous "highbrow" literature or art work,
you could easily find plenty of respected critics who think it's shit, and
vice versa for "lowbrow" works.

~~~
djrobstep
The article itself is an example of the same phenomenon!

"Philistines say these unreadable books are garbage, but sophisticates like me
say they have great merit."

------
aldanor
The username matches.

