Ren's mention that she is reading Proust has linked up with something that is going on on my radio station, and has got me thinking about all those books that we really feel we should read, but don't, to be perfectly honest, want to very much.

On the radio it's Joyce's "Ulysses" - probably the book most of us feel that we *ought* to read, in order to be considered well read, but I suspect that I am not the only one who is rather scared of it. I have read some 'easy" Joyce - "Dubliners" and "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", but that's as far as I have ventured down that road. I haven't read "Don Quixote", or Proust, or "Moby-Dick". I've gotten a couple of dozen pages into "War and Peace" a few times, but never more. So, am I alone? How many of you have read those scary thick books, and how many of you are, like me, a little ashamed of yourself because you haven't?

Yes, I've always felt guilty for not reading Ulysses too and it's on my "should" list along with a lot of works by Russian authors. I've gotten through a lot of intimidating, big, weighty books before by "reading" them in audio version while I put on my makeup, cook dinner, etc. In fact I've been meaning to order an audio version of Ulysses from my library...

It is an interesting topic, Agony. Although I have read most of those , except for Moby Dick (the story line isn't what I would enjoy,) I certainly do not think anyone should feel ashamed of not having read certain "should' reads. You might get around to it one day, like when you get to my great age, for instance. I loved 'War and Peace' , that, to me, is well worth persevering with as the characters are so diverse and well drawn. (There is always the movie, which is delightful!)I don't think one misses an awful lot by avoiding Ulysses. Sorry , Joyce fans, but I don't think it was his best. My advice would be , don't worry, I am sure there are lots of others that you will enjoy. Certainly don't read something because you think you should.

I have also put off reading some "should" books. The strange think is that I read a lot as a child--not that I'm very old now, but during college there isn't much time for pleasure reading. Now that I have graduated college I have a long list of books that I would like to read, some of which are big ones that--I am ashamed to say--I have been putting off. For me, going so long without reading for pleasure makes it weird to read now. I have read Don Quijote, in fact, I had to read it, in Spanish, for my Hispanic novels class (I majored in Spanish). I have to say that it was really enjoyable.
When I was younger, I started reading some "should" books, but found them boring--War and Peace, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Moby Dick, etc. I think that maybe I was too young for them, but the thought of them stills makes me want to put them off for a while longer

I've read Proust and Zola as I didn't find them nearly as boring as all that for some odd reason. I have never managed to crack open Moby Dick past the second page without falling asleep. Don Quijote, I saw the play as a child and loved it dearly...never read the book.
I did read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

I have to find a reason within the first twenty pages to continue.

Well, I have read War and Peace, Moby Dick (twice) and Don Quijote.

I had to read Moby Dick for High School and college. It made much more sense in college (I was older and had better teacher)

I figured I should read Don Quijote because I had been to Spain twice and was going for third time...great idea and I traveled part of the DQ trail. Once I got into it I loved and it is really funny --

War and Peace is one of my favorites amd a great antiwar book.

Tried Proust -- nonstarter.

Never tried Ulysses, read the easy Joyce ones.

I loved Moby Dick, it was so exciting and descriptive and actually funny in the beginning, and everything else by Herman Melville I enjoyed equally. But I haven't read anything else that's been mentioned here except Dubliners. I'm not familiar with Proust - what is recommended by this author?

Some of the should reads are worth going back to again. I know that some I tried reading when I was younger and didn't enjoy them at all. But going back when I was older I did and got much more out of what I had read.

My husband is a big Zola fan, and so I read a few of his books. I found them neither difficult nor boring, but oh so depressing.

This post inspired me to get "Vanity Fair" out of the library today. Always thought I should read it.

... and a lovely choice! That's a favourite of mine, and a real easy read I think you will find.

I think that in French, Zola is easy to understand for people studying French literature...but that he's definitely boring.
He really went to the line to study the people he described.
I also liked Flaubert. He wasn't as hard to get into as I feared.

Candide by Voltaire is easier to read than many fear.

The only book I own (and I own a lot of books) that I haven't been able to read is "War and Peace". Every time I sit down to try and read it, I get to the second chapter and just give up... sometimes I even give up somewhere through the first chapter... I'm too intimidated by that book.

When I was younger I read through the entire "The Winds of War"/"War and Remembrance" duo in under two weeks.

Ayn Rand - those are some *ought* books that took me a while to overcome.

In my humble opinion, there is no 'ought" about it, with Ayn Rand, unless it is "ought to run screaming in the opposite direction". (But that's just politics)

I read Zola's "Nana", and the one about the alcoholic, can't remember the name just now, but "Germinal" dragged me down into the depths of the black cave....

With "War and Peace", it truly is the names that get me. I suppose it would be the same for someone who had no English, and didn't understand that "Bess" and "Elizabeth" were the same person, or "Peggy" and "Margaret". Thinking about name confusion brings me to William Faulkner...

The thing going on on the radio is kinda amusing - every year the CBC has a sort of contest where several minor Canadian celebrities go head to head with book picks, trying to convince the country to all read one particular Canadian book this summer. This year it got quite heated; "A Complicated Kindness" won. The book in question is read over the radio, and sales actually tend to go up. They pick mostly literary but accessible books, think Mordecai Richler. So now there is a bit of a send up on that concept - it's called "Canada intends to read" and our host is finally going to actually read "Ulysses", rather than just avoid the subject as he has for so many years. It's been going on for about a week, he's gotten to page 21. Says he's already confused, I foresee a crash and burn soon...

Ayn Rand is required for kids around here to read, and I must say that my jaw dropped when I saw that.

Can I inquire why (did your jaw drop)?

I had to read Ayn Rand in high school.

I think that the level I'm seeing in the high schools tended to make me think that Ayn Rand was way over their heads.
They never required us to read much of anything in high school though in the old days.

Ever since about 10th grade I've thought I really am not well-read because I've never attempted Atlas Shrugged. What's funny is, I just don't have any desire, yet I still feel I should.

I have read Moby Dick, but not the others. I was more a 1984 kind of a girl.

One should read that I personally think is a should not is Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. I saw it was very high up on the 100 most inspirational movies too... I'm sorry, but that book was horrible. Inspirational? If you intended to jump off Inspiration Point, maybe. Depressing, oppressive, dingy, and probably very well representative of the times and circumstances he was describing, I just still cannot fathom that book. And setting it loose, required reading, amongst angsty teenagers? If someone came out with statistics that showed the suicide rate among high school students rising whenever that book was read, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Another book I always felt somewhat ashamed of never having finished is the Silmarillion. I've started it many times, but I just can't get very far. I don't know why. I've read nearly everything else Tolkien ever wrote.

I think the reason you can't get too far in the Silmarillion is that it is very boring.

Actually, Lothruin, from what I have seen of your politics and outlook on life, I suspect you wouldn't think much of Rand. Maybe it's the leftie in me, but I found myself thinking, throughout all of her books "But what about stupid people? What about those who aren't natural leaders?" I guess they just fall by the wayside, who cares? I didn't like her books at all, can you guess?

I've heard lots of the same thing, Agony, which is one of the reasons I haven't much desire to actually read any Rand. Well, that and that one of my favorite online comic strips...well, one character, Kiki, the ferret, channeled Ayn Rand once, and... yeah, really funny. A characterization that fit so well with what I'd heard of her and her books that it really made me think, "Why on earth would I want that??"

Sorry all you Tolkien fans, but I have never been able to read "Lord of the Rings". I took the three volumes with me on my first-ever trip to London, where I stayed for the next 3 months, but I still did not even get past the first couple of pages, and it still sits in pristine condition in its boxed glory on my bookshelf. I did finish "The Hobbit", but I can't say it inspired me to read more JRR. I did not even finish the movie. I'm not a fan of fantasy.

I have never read them either... and yawned all the way through the movie. (The scenery was nice). I find fantasy a huge bore too.

I've never reread Tolkien...just when I was a young lass. I put the words to music with my little guitar but, I wasn't as keen on it as some of my peers.

In my humble yet outspoken opinion, Tolkien was a literary genius. He did something that revolutionized the way fantasy books are being written even today. He was first and foremost in his way of thinking about the plot of his stories, and frankly, I don't think that he's ever written something boring. There's also something very autobiographical about the "Lord of the Rings", and it shows a lot about the psyche of the author, which is another interesting aspect to the book. Granted, "The Silmarillion" is not an easy read, and must be taken one story at a time. It must be constantly cross referenced by all of the other stories and is only truly understood after the third read, provided you've also read "Unfinished Tales", and selected readings from the "History of the Middle-earth"

agony, sheesh, and you edit all of my Tolkien quizzes too!!

Personally, I've never been able to read Shakespeare, so maybe our literary tases are wildly different. Shakespeare is very overrated, and would never have gotten the publicity he had when he wrote his plays and sonnets had he not been English. The "Legend of Shakespeare" was spread around the world by one thing - British Imperialism. I'm going to get so blasted by our Shakespeare fans out there, but you have to admit, he has so much hype it's hard to wonder why he got it all in the first place.

2 cents? No, more like a dollar's worth...