04-19-2008, 08:45 PM
04-19-2008, 08:46 PM
I use to be like that but I'm better at reading books now.
04-19-2008, 11:53 PM
Natalie Wrote:
I have always considered fiction books to be rubbish.
*warning growl*
Well, I'm hyperlexic and love reading, so I get through most books in about a week.
04-21-2008, 04:17 PM
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
Batman55 Wrote:
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
I'm usually hyperlexic - learned to read when I was 4. If the story is engaging, I can hyperfocus and finish a novel in a few hours. Some things take forever, though. "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson was a very difficult and slow read - it's a short novel, but I took a month and a half to get through it. Several others, both fiction and non-, have been absolute drudgery as well. Has to do with the writing style, I think. I do best when there is a smooth "flow" - when one idea leads into the next without having to hold much in mind. "Dr. Jekyll" was very choppy and convoluted, and I have to re-word the sentences in my head before they make sense, and mental manipulations like that are my weakest skill.
Based on that, it looks like James Joyce's "Ulysses" is not something you can realistically aspire to... Nor can I, of course.
Ummm, are you being sarcastic? Would you be pleased if I had trouble with it?
Perhaps better asked: How do you mean that?
Ulysses is just about the hardest book to follow in the universe. I tried it once; I think I could read it if I was really determined and went over each chapter three or four times, but seriously it's not worth it. If you want to read a book that's hard to follow read Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, which seems to have been written on cue-cards which were shuffled before being typed up but is still hilarious.
04-21-2008, 05:26 PM
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
Batman55 Wrote:
outsideL00kinN Wrote:
In 9th grade, we read "Animal Farm". I thought it was a pretty cool story, what with the talking animals running their own farm and all. Then we were given a test on how the book corresponded to Communism, and which animals represented real-world Communist leaders. I had absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what they were talking about, and got a 10% or something on it. Even when things were explained in detail, the metaphors and keeping straight who corresponded to who was near impossible.
Based on that, it looks like James Joyce's "Ulysses" is not something you can realistically aspire to... Nor can I, of course.
Ummm, are you being sarcastic? Would you be pleased if I had trouble with it?
Perhaps better asked: How do you mean that?
Erm, nevermind, Batman. Disregard that. I think I owe you an apology for my paranoid thinking.
I read the first 70 pages or so of Joyce's Uylsses. Shades of Animal Farm, right? I get the gist of the story (rather depressing and a bit crude). I get about a third of the references, and I can read Latin and French well enough to get about 3/4 of that.
What would be excruciating would be to understand the parallels with the Greek Ulysses, and which characters were Joyce's counterparts.
So, you're right. It's not something I can realistically aspire to. Curses on Executive Dysfunction!
Pages: 1 2