I picked the book up and find the prose hard to read. Are all classics this hard? Why am I so retarded?
>>25194764>Are all classics this hard?Yes but Moby Dick is pretty hard even among classics.>Why am I so retarded?You aren't. You just have to work your way up. Start with something more modern.
Moby-Dick is noticeably harder than your average 19th century novel. I recommend starting with something easier if you're new to reading. Or power through it and enjoy the magnificent language, it's up to you really.
>>25194764Just try to relax and flow through it despite not understanding everything. I'm ocd on subvocalization so it took me a while to read
>>25194789>>25194774What are some period books that can help me acclimatise to this style? Is Jekyll and Hyde easier?
>>25194774>Start with something more modern.That's a very dangerous tip. Just watch him pick up Joyce, Faulkner or Pynchon.I think great entry points for new readers are:>Cervantes>Dumas>Tolstoyevsky>Flaubert>John Williams
>>25194808>to this styleMelville mostly imitated Shakespeare, Milton and the Bible (KJV). But if you want something 19th century, then Dickens is your guy.Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. Fog on the Essex marshes, fog on the Kentish heights. Fog creeping into the cabooses of collier-brigs; fog lying out on the yards and hovering in the rigging of great ships; fog drooping on the gunwales of barges and small boats. Fog in the eyes and throats of ancient Greenwich pensioners, wheezing by the firesides of their wards; fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little ’prentice boy on deck. Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky of fog, with fog all round them, as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds.Gas looming through the fog in divers places in the streets, much as the sun may, from the spongey fields, be seen to loom by husbandman and ploughboy. Most of the shops lighted two hours before their time—as the gas seems to know, for it has a haggard and unwilling look.The raw afternoon is rawest, and the dense fog is densest, and the muddy streets are muddiest near that leaden-headed old obstruction, appropriate ornament for the threshold of a leaden-headed old corporation, Temple Bar. And hard by Temple Bar, in Lincoln’s Inn Hall, at the very heart of the fog, sits the Lord High Chancellor in his High Court of Chancery.Never can there come fog too thick, never can there come mud and mire too deep, to assort with the groping and floundering condition which this High Court of Chancery, most pestilent of hoary sinners, holds this day in the sight of heaven and earth.
>muh entrypoints nigga put the phone down, take your adderall and just read
>>25194764Read it slow and OUT LOUD. You will get used to the style of it. If you finish it and then go back to the early parts you will find that you are no longer struggling.
stick to anime and disney
>>25194790>subvocalizationHow can anyone read Melville and not subvocalize is my question? Thats basically demanded in this work.
>>25195156by being 18 and having a valid high school diploma
>>25194789Hmm interesting axis, so basically first 50k words in classics are generally unique and then diverge, and half of Ulysses is already 3x richer than the entirety of pride and prejudice
>>25194789someone input finnegans wake into this graph kek
>>25194789>Dostoevsky is closer to Jane Austen than Tolstoy in terms of difficulty
>>25195199Despite this fact (I mean Ulysses is in a league of its own when it comes to linguistic richness, surpassed only by… well I don’t even need to say it) Pride and Prejudice is a still a pretty great book. It is unfortunate that these days it’s mainly loved by tumblr bitches who post their awful fan art or fan fiction of Darcy and Elizabeth, They also read it so they can claim they read classic literature. I believe goodreads has it as the highest rated classic literature book of all time, that should tell you something at least.
>>25195206The man couldn’t write but he could at least create good drama and expound interesting ideas.
>>25195213I watched memoirs of a geisha isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Idk I don’t waste time with female authors, you just know that tranny George had a thesaurus as a dialator because no way midwitmarch is that complex
>>25195216>memoirs of a geisha isn’t that pretty much the same thing?Yeah but no, not quite. They’re mostly aristocrats in Austen’s novel. As many have stated, the book boils down to “a woman wants to have her cake and eat it”. I found it to be well written but exasperating nonetheless, I sort of liked Darcy though I guess.Emily Dickinson is where it’s at when you want actual amazing writing from a woman
>>25194809>Just watch him pick up Joyce, Faulkner or Pynchon.Dubliners, Light in August, and Slow Learner are all easy reads.
I'm about to read this, having never read any Melville.I just finished Blood Meridian, which many apparently view as a "difficult read", how does it compare to that?
I decided to finish the Bible, a few Shakespeare plays, Paradise Lost, and a bunch of Greek/Roman history and mythology before I begin Moby Dick. I have long heard that the "whiteness of the whale" was symbolic of God's holiness, and suspected that the dry, boring chapters people complain about might mimic books of the Bible like, Leviticus. but idk lol im retarded
>>25195206the number of unique words matters to you? that is what you use to judge difficulty? are you 16 and trying to be pretentious or are you an adult who is a retard? you’re worthless and need to learn how to think like a human.
Eminem uses the most unique words out of all musicians. His music is the most complex and challenging to engage with.
>>25195420Wow this is deep. Complexity in and of itself doesn't actually make a work better. I can confidently say Melville sucks now and stick to Goosebumps.
>>25195257>reading Blood Meridian before Moby Dick
>>25195431You don’t have the intellectual capability to engage with this discussion.
>>25195449what's the big deal
>>25195257I would not call BM a difficult read. I would however call MD a difficult read.Moby Dick the closest thing America has to a true epic. It also uses a lot of archaic nautical, pair that with the already dense prose and you get quite a slog of a read
>>25195215He should have gone into philosophy instead then.
>>25195420*Blackalicious
>>25195520The only MD that can be called a masterpiece is Mason and Dixon, the true great American novel
>>25195603never heard of it
>>25195591Not mentally ill or smart enough.
>>25195206AK and TBK are neck to neck
>>25195389Benjy's chapter and The Making of Americans use laughably low number of unique words, and yet they're difficult. Unique words are a helpful measure, but they don't capture everything.>One is doing something and then doing that thing again and then doing another thing and then doing that thing again and then doing the one thing and then the other thing and that one certainly would be doing some other thing and doing that thing again and would be then doing another thing and would be doing that thing again and would then be doing the one thing and then would be doing the other if that one were not doing the things that one is doing in being one being living. Certainly some are doing something and doing that thing and doing another thing and certainly some are completely ones needing to be ones doing that thing and that thing again and then some other thing and then that other thing again and then one thing and then another and then another thing to be ones being being ones living. Certainly some are doing something and are doing it again and are doing another thing and are doing it again and are doing the one thing and are doing the other thing and are completely wanting to be needing to be doing the one thing and the other thing to be one being living. There are some that certainly are almost completely wanting that they should be ones needing to be one doing one thing, to be one doing that thing again, to be one doing another thing, to be one doing that again, to be one doing the one thing and the other thing, to be one needing doing the one thing and the other thing to be one being living. There are some who are almost completely wanting that they should be one who is one that is needing being one doing the one thing and doing it again and doing another thing and doing it again and doing the one thing and the other thing to be one being living. Certainly each one being living is doing something and doing another thing and the one thing again and the other thing again and the one thing and the other thing and something and that thing again and something.
>>25195794I know mate. That’s what I was saying and why I was mocking the other fuckwit.
>>25195206And that determines the quality of the writing itself, why? This is what you seem to imply anyway. If unique words aren’t required for you to tell the story, or expound the ideas of what you’re writing, then why should you force yourself to use them? If linguistic complexity or experimentation is one of your main goals in what you’re writing then this method could likely reinforce your work, depending on the prosaic or poetic skill of the author of course; for one such as Dostoevsky, or Austen, who don’t set out to do that but employ more thematic, character or narrative elements, then as I say, it’s not necessary.
>>25195835You’re correct but your comment uses the same superfluous language you’re talking about.
>>25195835>If linguistic complexity or experimentation is one of your main goals in what you’re writing then this method could likely reinforce your work, depending on the prosaic or poetic skill of the author of course; for one such as Dostoevsky, or Austen, who don’t set out to do that but employ more thematic, character or narrative elements, then as I say, it’s not necessary.lol you tried so hard with this sentence
>>25195842>>25195847I’m not very terse. Forgive me.
>>25195276Enjoy, those are arguably the best of the best of western literature.For the Bible, the most important chapters to keep in mind while reading Moby-Dick are Jonah, Job and Ecclesiastes, though Melville also references Genesis (Ishmael), Kings (Ahab) and a bunch of other ones.Shakespeare also his own internal difficulty, Love's Labour's Lost is one of his hardest, while Macbeth is one of the easiest. For MD, the one to keep in mind is King Lear, one of the main inspirations behind Ahab.For Greek/Romans I'd focus on Metamorphoses (a crash course in mythology) and Prometheus Bound (potentially an Ahab inspiration)
>>25194764Maybe I just got lucky but I read a random chapter from Moby Dick at a bookstore and did not find it hard at all, and in fact found the prose to be super charming. It definitely piqued my interest. I’m hearing so many people call it hard and dense, though, so I’m guessing it was either a lucky break or I thought I understood more than I actually did
>>25195875Thank you
I don’t really enjoy prose any more, but this, Gargantua and Pantagruel and Ulysses will always be the ones I could never get bored of. It’s definitely not an easy book OP, but once you get used to Melville’s style, you’ll love it, I hope.
People like you are why I threaten nearly every day to leave this shithole site. Moby Dick is nothing short of a miracle. Idiots like you don't understand it's not the plot or the characters that make a great book. It's the theme. It's the digestion. It's the seriousness.Moby Dick is Shakespearian (no, I won't explain what this actually means). It is Paradise Lost (no, I won't explain what this actually means). It is biblical (this one is pretty plain from the text desu he goes on about the bible A LOT).You are not worth my time. Maybe you should read Flashman, it might be more your speed.
>>25196009Kekaroony
>>25195215Joyce disagrees, you're just a pseud.
Try something easier first, like The Woman in White OP.
>>25194764>>25194789>>25195206Moby-Dick isn't difficult at all. Melville literally explains it to you in The Whiteness of the Whale because Americans are retarded which is why their press dismissed the book upon its release (it was praised in Britain) and only dug it back up again after their infantile insecurity over not having a "GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL" reached critical mass. The Brothers Karamazov (the favorite book of thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud, and Einstein, as opposed to the American government trying propagate their supposed greatness) is both wider and deeper, and significantly harder to parse.
>>25196269It was Wittgenstein's favorite as well.
>>25194764havent read in a long timethought it was just boat bros chillingare you guys saying its a tough read?
>>25195449>Reading either before Pardise Lost
>>25196269>The Brothers Karamazov (the favorite book of thinkers like NietzscheHis favorite was The Red and The Black I thought.
>>25196009Yeah this is based and correct. Updooted.
>>25194764What about it is hard? I read maybe a hundred pages of it when I loaned it from a library but someone had reserved it so I had to return it so I’m just going to buy it but does it get harder at some point because I don’t remember it being very hard?
>>25196718Those first 150 ish are the easiest part. It does never get actually hard though.
i read this as one of the first books when trying to 'get into reading' srsly. you just have to look up words or references you dont understand and then reread the paragraph. i think in that time i wouldnt get more than 30 pages in before completely losing my attention span. no shame in having to readjust yourself.its worth getting through for sure, allot of imagery i still think about often (whale carcass temple measurement tattoage specifically..)
>>25194789ulysses uses made up words. that's like comparing the number of distinct words in the jabberwocky and the raven.
>>25196718>What about it is hard?As I said the prose, and it is hard in reference to myself, I am not claiming to be the case for other readers. To be precise it is the run-on sentences with multiple difference parts taking the sentences in different directions, added are words that are not used in modern lexicons.I am not saying it is bad or hard, but simply that I, personally, am struggling with the winding verbosity.
>>25194789I wish there were similar graphs for other languages since not everyone is a pleb monolingual
>>25197094As an addendum, I am trying to get back into reading after 10 years of not doing so and back then I was reading trash male young adult novels.
>>25194764Use e-reader, so you can quickly check unknown words. You can also highlight passages and ask AI for explanation/summary
>>25197099You can make one yourself:https://github.com/khgiddon/misc/tree/main/book_vocabulary/web_testAlthough declension etc can fuck with the results, since it's a very simple algorithm. kot, koty, kota, kotów, kotu, kotom, kotem, kotami, kocie and kotach will all be counted as separate words. Although I suspect that if you compare books in the same language to each other, e.g. Finnish to Finnish, you should get legible graphs regardless whether the language has no cases or 15 cases. Ulysses translated to Swahili will be more complex than The Making of Americans translated to Swahili.
>>25194789Ulysses is modern trash where his intent was a pell-mell piling up of unique words so as to be "original" (to say nothing of the stream of consciousness nonsense prose) and Moby Dick is padded due to being laden with maritime jargon. Note that by far the best book on that list (Anna Karenina) isn't particularly wordy
>>25197221>the best book on that list (Anna Karenina)
>>25197228Ah you're right, I didn't see Little Women. That's the best because it's written by a woman and it's about women. Thank you.
>>25197221Anna Karenina is brilliant, but Ulysses and Moby Dick do what they set out to do perfectly. It sounds to me like you’re just not a fan of encyclopaedic novels or anything that plays with language and stream of consciousness. Calling these books bad because they don’t meet your preferences is silly.
>>25197246Ulysses is a bad novel in that it subverts the novel, where the intent is playing with language rather than the narrative & message. We can call it poetry rather than a failed novel, but I don't think it's very respectable as poetry either. Moby Dick I don't comment on, only that it's inferior to Tolstoy (and has anyone ever said otherwise?)
>>25197250>Moby Dick I don't comment on, only that it's inferior to Tolstoy You comment on its “maritime jargon” which constitutes a lot of the novel. I just took this to mean that you’re not fond of the encyclopaedic nature of it, forgive me if I’m mistaken though. You prefer the narrative and the message, but Ulysses has a narrative, and a message that the everyman can be exalted as a Homeric hero by bending language. I think it touches on very human themes, the same way Portrait did. The stream of consciousness prose lets us embody the thoughts of the two protagonists. We see what ails them psychologically or what lifts them up; how they’re both subconsciously searching for a father/son figure respectively. The latter more than the former. There’s a lot of human beauty to be found in Ulysses. It’s not just a pure language experiment even if it does set out to deconstruct and reconstruct the novel as a medium of literature.
>>25197275What you wrote in praise of Ulysses reminds me of those descriptions they nail to the wall beside a glass of water or suspended banana in art museums. I think there's more to be gained by reading The Life of Dr Johnson and then imagining how the man himself would explode the pretensions of Ulysses, than actually reading Ulysses
>>25197290Well, if that’s your take I won’t contend any further; I enjoy the novel for much more than its linguistic complexity, thats all I wanted to convey. Finnegans Wake you can make a stronger claim for being pure literary onanism though.
>>25197250I still have no idea what people see in Tolstoy. I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea ever since I read AK a few years, and I just can't seem to find any framework under which Tolstoy can thrive. Linguistic skill? Inferior to Joyce, Melville etc.Character psychology? Inferior to Eliot, James, Dostoevsky etc.Moralism? Inferior to DickensA "syncretic" artist? Inferior to Cervantes, Flaubert, Mann etc.Philosophy? Ayn Rand tier
>>25197333You should check out Moliere's Misanthrope. There's a character in it who is desperate to appear cultivated by being a contrarian critic. It might help you understand yourself, so that you can then understand Tolstoy.
>>25197343I'm not even trying to be contrarian, I like all of /lit/'s top 10. Apart from maybe Stoner, which I think should be lower, and IJ, which I just haven't read yet.
>>25197343He listed close to a dozen well-regarded authors he likes.
>>25197355>harry potterdecent bait
>>25197343nta but assuming you’re >>25197250, maybe you should read it again. or maybe just read ulysses because if that’s what you think the book amounts to, then you haven’t read it.
>>25197250you want to sound smart so bad
>>25197437you want to think of a reply so bad but this is the best you could do you
>>25197565you want it so bad lmao
moby dick is far harder than most other classics ive read
>>25197565To be fair to him, it’s all you deserve for being a hypocrite who calls someone contrarian because he doesn’t like Tolstoy despite you only liking Tolstoy and trying to bring down other authors.
>>25197921My Moby-Dick is far harder at the very least.
>>25197333>Linguistic skill? Inferior to Joyce, Melville etc.Define "linguistic skill">Character psychology? Inferior to Eliot, James, Dostoevsky etc.Not true, (re)read AK Part 7, W&P Pierre after the duel with Dolokhov, or Andrei during and after Borodino, or the entirety of Natasha's arc, or all of Ivan Ilyich>Moralism? Inferior to DickensNot entirely sure how you quantify who's better at moralising>A "syncretic" artist? Inferior to Cervantes, Flaubert, Mann etc.Again, how do you even quantify this? Video game brained. Tolstoy's syncretism did inspire key 20th century figures.>Philosophy? Ayn Rand tier(You) personally disagreeing with his philosophy doesn't make it bad.
>>25197921What makes it hard, in your opinion? Because if it's the "meaning" of the text, see >>25196269. If it's the way it's written, I ask why? The language is beautiful and clear. Maybe it's the lack of plot in the encyclopedic chapters? I think the book is a delight and a breeze to read.
>>25195206I mean, is he wrong? Dosto is honestly pretty close to Jane Austen
>>25198468>Video game brainedWhat's wrong with vidya james? If it's good enough for Pynchon, it's good enough for me.
