Recently, I have decided to pick up reading again. A friend (Yay!!!) and I ventured to the public library near to our school yesterday. He picked out 2 books for me,
-A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway -The Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C. Clarke
I started to read 'A Farewell to Arms' first, but I found that it is rather hard to read. I'am just starting Chapter 3 and I just can not imagine the scene that he describes. I don't know if this is because of my lack of reading or my poor imagination, because all I see are just words. Also, Hemingway writes in a style (in this book I guess) that doesn't use much punctuation. I'm not used to this and it sort of breaks up the flow of my reading.
No, it is just that some writers have very specific styles and Hemingway is one of those. With certain styles means that some people will love it to death and others will have a hard time swallowing it. I have a hard time reading Faulkner myself, but that is common with a lot of people.
If you are into reading, please read some Kurt Vonnegut as he is my hero and very easy to read. Then talk about him on this thread. =)
Unfortunately I haven't read anything by Ernest Hemingway but I'm reading James Joyce's Ulyses and it's pretty hard to get into. In fact I've always had the same problem you have, ever since the days I first explored Diagon Alley or watched as the Hobbits were almost eaten by trolls. I guess one of the only things that's helped me is to read more, and to keep reading consistently. How long has it been since you've read a book? Another point to remember is that quite often the introductory chapters of a novel can be pretty hard to grasp compared to the middle and end (The Hobbit is probably notorious for this).
I read For Whom the Bell Tolls a few months back so I know what you mean by punctuationless imagery xD. I find that with Hemingway knowing the exact locations of every tree or rock is not as important as drinking in the atmosphere he creates with them, so my advice is not to spend too much time on figuring out where things are and just enjoy the narrative.
Hemingway requires, in my opinion, a rather large amount of imagination. He wrote in a style that was very sparse and basic, requring the reader to fill in a lot of the blanks. This is even more apparent in his short stories.
I think though that even if you lack imagination, Hemingway can still be enjoyed. Just don't try to hard to visualize scenes. Focus on the characters and what is being said and done. There are those who don't like his writing. For unexplainable reasons. You come across stuff like that a lot.
Edit: Try reading it aloud. Reading a loud is always a great tool to get through difficult text ( if helped me slogg through Hamlet and Othello.)
I love Hemingway and his style (along with Ray Bradbury) is something I greatly admire.
I've had this happen to me before. Also, sometimes my imagination creates things I don't want it to and I can't stop it.
Just read the story and don't stress so much about your imagining. If you forget about "having" to imagine it you might find yourself picturing things anyway when you stopped thinking about it so much. Personally I never imagine faces in detail because that is way too difficult and I enjoy it that way anyway.
Anyone find that you sometimes recycle settings from your own life into the books you are reading?
When I came back to the front we still lived in that town. There were many more gunsin the country around and the spring had come. The fields were green and there weresmall green shoots on the vines, the trees along the road had small leaves and a breezecame from the sea. I saw the town with the hill and the old castle above it in a cup in thehills with the mountains beyond, brown mountains with a little green on their slopes. Inthe town there were more guns, there were some new hospitals, you met British menand sometimes women, on the street, and a few more houses had been hit by shell fire. Jt was warm and like the spring and I walked down the alleyway of trees, warmed from the sun on the wall, and found we still lived in the same house and that it all looked thesame as when I had left it. The door was open, there was a soldier sitting on a benchoutside in the sun, an ambulance was waiting by the side door and inside the door, as Iwent in, there was the smell of marble floors and hospital. It was all as I had left it exceptthat now it was spring. I looked in the door of the big room and saw the major sitting athis desk, the window open and the sunlight coming into the room. He did not see meand I did not know whether to go in and report or go upstairs first and clean up. Idecided to go on upstairs.
It is kinda tough. It takes some time to wade through and digest. I read The Old Man and the Sea for school but I don't remember his writing being this thick. I think it is a good idea to kind of skim the descriptive parts and think of it more like a dream than a movie. For example, if you just bounce around a bit you can get some nice subtle imagery. -we still lived in that town -the spring had come -small green shoots on the vines, the trees along the road had small leaves -the hill and the old castle above it in the hills -the mountains beyond, brown mountains with a little green on their slopes Idk how to explain really. Just try to get the major words first (town, spring, green vines, trees with small leaves, hill, castle, brown/green mountains). Then after you've read his words for a while you can start to skim, and then maybe fall into a sort of dreamlike pace as you read. That's one thing about classic authors, they tend to have very different styles. It's like brain acrobatics trying to learn how to read each new author.
Pick up Gold by Blaise Cendrars, it will answer you question about imagination. It is written in a style that should explode your imagination. The rhythms is very fast, it's a greater than life story.
Are you reading in order to be able to boast that you've read Hemingway? If so, all I can do is reassure you that there is nothing wrong with your imagination and that it's just Heming's Way.
If you're reading because you think it will be fun, or because you want to expand your mind, then my recommendation is to put down Hemingway and pick up a contemporary author.
As a rule of thumb, you should avoid books published before you were born. In general, I would only pick up newly published mainstream books, and only venture into the past if I find an author I like.
Mainstream readers are the majority of readers - and the majority of book buyers, who are people who actually spend money on books. So you know you're in good company. If you don't read much, you're safe if you stick to the mainstream category.
Feel free to explore different genres like sci-fi and romance if you get curious, but stay away from literary authors: Hemingway, Joyce - basically any author you would study in literature class. I disagree with people who push readers towards literary books, since all it does is just turn people off reading. You should stick with mainstream until you find your legs.
There are a number of reasons for this:
The best modern authors are better than the best authors from even 50 years ago. There is greater competition and their techniques are more refined. Your imagination is normal, and a skilful author will be able to make reading effortless and fun for you. Styles will vary, but if you find mainstream authors hard to read then you will struggle with anything more niche. Readability is the author's job. If you find a book hard to read, then it's due to the author's lack of skill.
It's better for expanding your mind. Cultures 50 years ago are different to cultures today, and what was considered revolutionary 50 years ago will be commonplace and boring today. When To Kill a Mockingbird was published, the Jim Crow laws were still in effect, and so it pushed the buttons on many hot topics of the time. Classics like that are still useful for learning about the past, but you won't be pushing your horizons as far as you could be. Don't you want to be expanding your mind by learning more about the people who are alive around you right now?
The classics used to be new books at one stage. There could be a book published this year that will be a must-read 50 years from now. It's no less a classic now just because it hasn't been recognised yet.
You might say that looking for a contemporary author you like is a risk compared to a recognised classic like Hemingway, but your experience seems to show that classics aren't a guaranteed hit anyway.
Here's a list of quick tips for getting into reading:
Pick your books from the new books section of the library.
Read the first page (and only the first page!) of a book when you pick it up at the library and then close it. Did you find it easy to read and understand? How do you feel about it right - does it feel like a book you might enjoy? If No to either, then put it back. If Yes to both, then you can borrow it.
Pick out 3 books this way. You won't need to read all of them. They're just so you don't have to return to the library for a new one if a book turns out to be a dud.
Pick the book you find the most interesting from your 1-page read and read the first 10 pages. Are you enjoying it? If not, put it down and move onto the next book.
If at any time you're finding the book a chore to get through, put it down. Even if you're only 10 pages from the end, put it down. You'll know you're reading a good book when you're actually looking forward to picking it up and continuing, and you hesitate to put it down when you need to do something else.
If you get to the end of a book, make a note of the author. You're going to read the rest of their work eventually.
To find authors worth reading, you can always check bestseller lists. I would recommend not using prizes or awards as a way to select books - those things are very literary in nature, which means they won't necessarily appeal to mainstream readers. When looking at bestseller lists, look for authors who have a long bibliography (it means they've had a lot of practice - just stick with their newer works to start with) or who appear frequently.
Just note that mainstream is still a wide category, so you will find many different styles, not all of which will appeal to you. That's normal. Just try a different author.
On March 17 2012 14:16 Roe wrote: Unfortunately I haven't read anything by Ernest Hemingway but I'm reading James Joyce's Ulyses and it's pretty hard to get into.
On March 17 2012 18:35 Warble wrote: [*]The best modern authors are better than the best authors from even 50 years ago. There is greater competition and their techniques are more refined. Your imagination is normal, and a skilful author will be able to make reading effortless and fun for you. Styles will vary, but if you find mainstream authors hard to read then you will struggle with anything more niche. Readability is the author's job. If you find a book hard to read, then it's due to the author's lack of skill. at the library and then close it. Did you find it easy to read and understand? How do you feel about it right - does it feel like a book you might enjoy? If No to either, then put it back. If Yes to both, then you can borrow it.
I dunno about 'better'. Who would you consider the best modern writers? They all have the advantage of speaking to a contemporary audience in a manner that everyone's comfortable with. The publishing houses and their investors seem more interested in pumping out series and catering to their target markets than allowing their writers to spend the amount of time Ernest did on his work. On an even playing field in 50 years time I doubt many modern writers will stand up to Hemmingway and I doubt any will be deemed 'better'.
Readability is not all on the author, the reader's got to do some of the lifting too. If we expect the best authors to cater to weak readers and weak minds we'd all be reading young adult fiction.
To read Hemingway you have to imagine him talking to you. Hemingway wasn't a writer, he was a speaker. Don't try to imagine things, simply hear him tell you these things and say, "yes." Nod your head and listen, move along, and let him tell you about war/bullfights/women, like an old cynical drunk at a bar.
On March 17 2012 19:54 Fishgle wrote: To read Hemingway you have to imagine him talking to you. Hemingway wasn't a writer, he was a speaker. Don't try to imagine things, simply hear him tell you these things and say, "yes." Nod your head and listen, move along, and let him tell you about war/bullfights/women, like an old cynical drunk at a bar.
Hm.. very interesting. But then again, what does he sound like? off to youtube!
On March 17 2012 19:54 Fishgle wrote: To read Hemingway you have to imagine him talking to you. Hemingway wasn't a writer, he was a speaker. Don't try to imagine things, simply hear him tell you these things and say, "yes." Nod your head and listen, move along, and let him tell you about war/bullfights/women, like an old cynical drunk at a bar.
Hm.. very interesting. But then again, what does he sound like? off to youtube!
This was an interesting caricature of him, I think.
I should add that if you finish reading a book, you should consider how satisfied you are with it before you add the author to your reading list. Plotting is an important skill and some authors don't know how to end a story at all.
On March 17 2012 18:35 Warble wrote: [*]The best modern authors are better than the best authors from even 50 years ago. There is greater competition and their techniques are more refined. Your imagination is normal, and a skilful author will be able to make reading effortless and fun for you. Styles will vary, but if you find mainstream authors hard to read then you will struggle with anything more niche. Readability is the author's job. If you find a book hard to read, then it's due to the author's lack of skill. at the library and then close it. Did you find it easy to read and understand? How do you feel about it right - does it feel like a book you might enjoy? If No to either, then put it back. If Yes to both, then you can borrow it.
I dunno about 'better'. Who would you consider the best modern writers? They all have the advantage of speaking to a contemporary audience in a manner that everyone's comfortable with. The publishing houses and their investors seem more interested in pumping out series and catering to their target markets than allowing their writers to spend the amount of time Ernest did on his work. On an even playing field in 50 years time I doubt many modern writers will stand up to Hemmingway and I doubt any will be deemed 'better'.
Readability is not all on the author, the reader's got to do some of the lifting too. If we expect the best authors to cater to weak readers and weak minds we'd all be reading young adult fiction.
"Better" depends on what criteria you're using to compare them.
I think a lot of classics only retain that title through pretention.
There's a reason why many classics don't receive recognition until many years later. What makes a novel a classic? It pushes our boundaries. It deals with difficult issues. How are you going to introduce a book like that into a school curriculum? You can't because it's going to be too controversial. They become classics later once the generation who grew up with those progressive values get to make the rules. You would think that the Great Depression would be a totally innocuous topic, yet The Grapes of Wrath was banned and burned by Steinbeck's contemporaries. A sensation back then; conventional now.
So why is it a stretch to imagine that there will be a book published this decade which will be considered essential reading 50 years from now?
So what criteria are we using to compare books?
Writing skill. Here I would put how well an author communicates their ideas and how well they hold the reader's attention. You say that contemporary authors "all have the advantage of speaking to a contemporary audience in a manner that everyone's comfortable with." But that advantage was hard-earned. Just like how doctors develop better remedies from the decades of research and innovations of their predecessors, writers use the styles and techniques developed by writers before them. I would say that a modern doctor is better than a 19th century doctor because their patients recover better from the same illnesses. So I would say a modern writer is better than a writer from 50 years ago because they can communicate their ideas better. No modern doctor discovered pennicillin, but they all learned how to use it. In the same vein, no matter how skilful classic authors were, they wouldn't have been able to reach their audiences as effectively without these extra innovations and knowledge.
Impact of their ideas on society. So Steinbeck stirred up quite a controversy back in his days. Are you saying it's impossible to find a modern author who could make us think about contemporary issues? 50 years from now both authors would be viewed similarly - with the main difference simply being that they exerted their influence during different stages of history.
Relevance of their ideas on society. If someone can only read one book a year, I would prefer for them to read a book that stretches their mind on a contemporary issue than on an issue that has already been resolved in the past. We need people to care about the suffering that's happening now.
Contribution to the art. Hemingway may be able to claim more status here, which is natural because he lived before any of us, and everything is built on what others did in the past. Especially since there is so much more competition now, each individual author's stylistic contributions will be smaller in the scheme of things.
As for what the publishing houses are doing, they're just doing what businesses have always done. Sure, most modern writers won't be remembered, but how many of Hemingway's contemporaries can you name? If we only remember the very best, then it's natural to assume that we will only remember the very best few authors from this decade too.
50 years from now, the very best authors today will be as irrelevant to the modern reader as Hemingway is to us. They'll be remembered as important contributors to the art, but no longer essential reading outside of academia.
As for expecting the reader to do some of the lifting regarding readability, I don't see why it's so hard when there are authors who are an absolute pleasure to read. It has nothing to do with weak minds and everything to do with the fact that time spent reading a poorly written book is time we're not spending reading a well-written one.
On March 17 2012 21:24 jodogohoo wrote: wow, at first i read warbles post and was like, this guy is and idiot. then i realised he was a genius and i was being retarded T.T;;
I never said there wouldnt be great writers in this decade or any other. Of course we'll have 21st century classics, I just believe that writers these days aren't necessarily better than they were 10 or 50 years ago. We're just getting worse at reading them. Your doctor analogy is pretty misleading. After all writing is more art than science. A 15th century physician is grossly incompetent in contrast to a modern day one whereas Shakespeare is still read by many. It's hardly fair to compare some moron with leeches to the likes of Austen. Sure there are new techniques and styles developed in the same way as other art forms but they do not make modern artists better than their predecessors. Just different. All of the classics continue to be relevant because they reflect parts of human nature. We understand ourselves and our past better after reading them, regardless of when they were written.
On March 17 2012 22:29 Warble wrote: 50 years from now, the very best authors today will be as irrelevant to the modern reader as Hemingway is to us.
You think Hemingway's irrelevant to modern readers? War is always relevant, as is love, fear, courage etc. What about Salinger's Catcher in the Rye? It captured the feelings of adolescence and still rings true over 50 years later. Great writers remain relevant. Contemporary writers just fade into obscurity unless there are fundamental truths in what they create.
To be honest I started off reading through the classics just because I thought I should and to be able to say I had. Now as I get older I realise the value in them. It's not pretence. I believe most of the literary canon has great value/relevance and it's not just random chance that they're still around.
My advice to Azera would be: stick at it but try some other ones. You can always come back to AFTAs and other ones you don't warm to later in life. Hemmingway's 'The Old Man and the Sea' is a short, easy read and probably more accessible than his longer works. If you haven't already try some Oscar Wilde, he's more readable than most.
On March 17 2012 14:16 Roe wrote: Unfortunately I haven't read anything by Ernest Hemingway but I'm reading James Joyce's Ulyses and it's pretty hard to get into.
Ouch, how's that going?
It's not going as badly as people seem to say. I think the general reading public isn't used to the "stream of consciousness" style Joyce uses. Somehow I take to it naturally. I'm only a few "chapters" into the book and it's still very heavy at times and always challenging. With that mix in mind, I'm starting to agree with what I heard Stephen Fry say+ Show Spoiler +
. One of the problems I'm still having is connecting and relating to the characters and finding importance in what's being written, though there is a certain lure the more you read the book. I still haven't found out why it was banned.
EPT
