In that vein: why look at a sunset, when you can have someone describe how they look? Why go on a rollercoaster when you can have someone describe the sensation to you? Hearing a secondhand summary of an aesthetic experience != that experience.
If a review of The Sound And The Fury were as good to read as the book itself, then why would Faulkner bother writing the former instead of the latter? (Then again, I suppose Borges did famously take advantage of that shortcut.)
If you aIf you aIf you If you are reading the book to read it and enjoy it,, yay! The OP said he was reading the book and hating it. and wondering how to understand the book.
When someone asks about solar hydrodynamics do you object to the recommendation of a textbook? Why don’t they just get a telescope and smoky lenses and take the data and derive the theory for themselves?
There is more than one way to understand something. If one is not working, try another.
I guess we have different interpretations of charlemango’s motivation here. I assumed they (“they” because I don’t know his/her gender) were seeking to get some aesthetic enjoyment from the book but were struggling to do so. On the other hand, you state that they are probably reading it to determine why it’s famous. This seems strange to me: I don’t think someone would try reading a book for only this reason. I agree that if that is were indeed someone’s motivation for reading a book, they’d be as well reading the reviews.
Edited to add: there’s some insight in your claim that modernist literature is, in some sense, aimed at an audience of specialists.
The OP may have assumed that the book being famous would therefore also be unusually enjoyable. This might be a bad assumption, or it might be a good assumption, but the book is only unusually enjoyable for people who are properly prepared to read the book with particular bits of historical and/or literary knowledge in place.
That the OP persists in trying to wrest enjoyment from a book which is clearly not giving enjoyment to them suggests that the OP would be best served understanding more about why she thought to pick up this book in the first place. Whether the extra knowledge allows her to enjoy the book, or whether the extra knowledge makes it clearer to her why she will not enjoy the book, given what I know about reading books or seeing movies 50 or 100 years after they are produced, that learning the context will be revealing and valuable in many ways.
So even if the goal is enjoying the book, their best shot is to learn the history, learn why the people who rate this book so highly do so.
Whether the extra knowledge allows her to enjoy the book, or whether the extra knowledge makes it clearer to her why she will not enjoy the book, given what I know about reading books or seeing movies 50 or 100 years after they are produced, that learning the context will be revealing and valuable in many ways.
Agreed. My only point of disagreement is that this is a sufficient substitute for reading the thing itself, as opposed to a supplement to it. (In my own reply to the OP I suggested looking at a study guide.)
In that vein: why look at a sunset, when you can have someone describe how they look? Why go on a rollercoaster when you can have someone describe the sensation to you? Hearing a secondhand summary of an aesthetic experience != that experience.
If a review of The Sound And The Fury were as good to read as the book itself, then why would Faulkner bother writing the former instead of the latter? (Then again, I suppose Borges did famously take advantage of that shortcut.)
If you aIf you aIf you If you are reading the book to read it and enjoy it,, yay! The OP said he was reading the book and hating it. and wondering how to understand the book.
When someone asks about solar hydrodynamics do you object to the recommendation of a textbook? Why don’t they just get a telescope and smoky lenses and take the data and derive the theory for themselves?
There is more than one way to understand something. If one is not working, try another.
I guess we have different interpretations of charlemango’s motivation here. I assumed they (“they” because I don’t know his/her gender) were seeking to get some aesthetic enjoyment from the book but were struggling to do so. On the other hand, you state that they are probably reading it to determine why it’s famous. This seems strange to me: I don’t think someone would try reading a book for only this reason. I agree that if that is were indeed someone’s motivation for reading a book, they’d be as well reading the reviews.
Edited to add: there’s some insight in your claim that modernist literature is, in some sense, aimed at an audience of specialists.
The OP may have assumed that the book being famous would therefore also be unusually enjoyable. This might be a bad assumption, or it might be a good assumption, but the book is only unusually enjoyable for people who are properly prepared to read the book with particular bits of historical and/or literary knowledge in place.
That the OP persists in trying to wrest enjoyment from a book which is clearly not giving enjoyment to them suggests that the OP would be best served understanding more about why she thought to pick up this book in the first place. Whether the extra knowledge allows her to enjoy the book, or whether the extra knowledge makes it clearer to her why she will not enjoy the book, given what I know about reading books or seeing movies 50 or 100 years after they are produced, that learning the context will be revealing and valuable in many ways.
So even if the goal is enjoying the book, their best shot is to learn the history, learn why the people who rate this book so highly do so.
Agreed. My only point of disagreement is that this is a sufficient substitute for reading the thing itself, as opposed to a supplement to it. (In my own reply to the OP I suggested looking at a study guide.)