Top Ten Unfinished Books
 

Can't remember if this was posted before.

Can't remember the details, but there was a list of the books most frequently bought but not read.

1) Vernon God Little by DBC Pierre
2) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling
3) Ulysses by James Joyce
4) Captain Corelli's Mandolin by Louis de Bernières
5) Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
6) The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
7) The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
8) War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
9) The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
10) Crime & Punishment by Dostoyevsky

Wasn't Finnegans Wake on there?

No.

Although it would be on my list.

I've read one and a half of them. Crime and Punishment and Ulysses, respectively. Are any of the others any good? I gave Finnegan's Wake as a gift to be an asshole once.

Lila - Robert M. Pirsig
House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski
Red Mars - Kim Stanley Robinson

Someone lent me the Alchemist and I never finished it. HA!

house of leaves was fucking teeeerrrrrible

It was cool to a point.

The whole horror part of the book was cool enough. But whatever the story that was told in the margins was is the epitome of what i hate about most contemporary literature. Mindless drug addiction portrayal is fucking boring and trite and in no way sympathetic/shocking/interesting. And it seems to be what a majority or writers write about nowadays. Who really gives a fuck about the wreckless/indulgent lifestyle.

You're terrible. :mad:

WHO THE FUCK DIDN'T FINISH GOBLET OF FIRE!? :mad: :mad:

For real, I've read GoF like 4 times, each in less than a day.

Definitely on my to-do list.

I have yet to finish Middlemarch by George Eliot.

I can't think of a whole list, but one book I attempted in high school was Kafka's The Castle. Not because it was boring or anything, but the thing was one long paragraph. No breaks for changing speakers or chapters or anything. I would have to remember the last word of the last sentence I read in order to pick up where I left off, and after a while it got to be too much.

Here is one I'm ashamed that I'm including: The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon by Washington Irving. The FIRST book I can remember reading was the Legend of Sleepy Hollow in the first grade, but I've never read the whole book that contains it. I've attempted it a few times but the early 19th century language is so florid and eloquent that the reading goes at a snails pace. I mean, I consider myself very literate but I still can't read at a normal pace with his language.

from The Legend of Sleepy Hollow:
"
This rantipole hero had for some time singled out the blooming
Katrina for the object of his uncouth gallantries, and, though
his amorous toyings were something like the gentle caresses and
endearments of a bear, yet it was whispered that she did not
altogether discourage his hopes. Certain it is, his advances were
signals for rival candidates to retire who felt no inclination to
cross a line in his amours; insomuch, that when his horse was
seen tied to Van Tassel's paling on a Sunday night, a sure sign
that his master was courting--or, as it is termed,
"sparking"--within, all other suitors passed by in despair and
carried the war into other quarters."

And that is fairly straightforward when his descriptions of the New York countryside are being read.

Not reading that is a huge crime in itself

Umberto Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum'

I got about two thirds of the way through it, feeling quite pleased with myself that I was managing to stay with what was generally thought of as a 'challenging' read. And then it just went utterly bonkers and I realised that I actually didn't have a clue what I'd been reading. I put it down in disgust and have never finished it since.

Oh, I didn't finish Umberto Eco's Baudolino, though I wanted to.

I tend not to finish novels because of outside (usually work or study related) circumstances rather than because I don't like them. I often find it hard starting a novel these days, simply because I know something will come along that means I'm going to have to stop reading it before it ends.

I rarely pick up novels for very similar reasons. I mostly enjoy novels, but I always feel that I shoud be keeping up with something else.


I read that in the summer between finishing school and starting college. From what I remember, it gets very turgid indeed about halfway through. I doubt I'd re-read it, so I wouldn't feel guilty about not finishing it if I were you.

Beckett does this too. What I do is stop in the same place each time...at the top of the left page. It kinda works.

I started Sons and Lovers by DH Lawrence, and its a pretty depressing book, but thankfully i spilled vegetable curry on it, meaning i could leave early.

The rising generation.

Criticizing Danielewski for being trite is like criticizing Joyce for being crude, or Chandler for being pulpy. You'll get unanimous agreement for years before he knocks Faulkner out of the Norton Anthology to much applause.

I think you are overrating Danielewski.

I love House of Leaves, but I don't care much for the Johnny Truant side of the story. All of the great stuff is in The Navidson Record.

The book dissolves into post modern gimmickry. I thought I would dig it but the charm wore off quickly.

I really tried to get into House of Leaves a couple years ago, but I just got tired of it, then I forgot about it. I have no desire to try to read it again. It really did just feel like wankery at the time.

I don't think I overrate him at all. The postmodern elements have nothing to do with his ability--that's just a medium that he enjoys, which he has elaborated on in interviews.

I hear "gimmick" used endlessly to describe both House of Leaves and Only Revolutions, which is a useless word without explanation. People assume that their striking appearance and pseudo-complexity are the depth of his innovation, but that has nothing to do with his writing. The Pelican Poems alone--an irrelevant and apparently useless addition to an already time-consuming work--are an excellent demonstration of his understanding of the art of writing. I think Danielewski as a writer, apart from whatever medium he uses, is genuinely one of the most capable voices out right now.

He does seem quite the prick, but if he can write, who cares? And anyway, Foer and Coupland have a much better hold on contemporary wankery.

I was hoping that his formatting would be more meaningful of a device in propelling the narrative but I didn't feel that was the case. The Three Attic Whalestoe Institute Letters did it well, the main story lost my interest. But I don't want to speculate over Danielewski as a writer any more than I already have. I haven't read any of his other work, nor have I finished this one.

Hah, no worries. I'm just hoping to set myself up for an I-told-you-so with a few of my friends. I think he's talented and have a feeling he's going to get recognized later, but I've lost bets before.

Not this translation, but the same book:


And then this:

a better "The Alchemist":
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/jn-alch0.html

Wow, you're managing to top yourself...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lamebrained

i am not surprised by some of those choices.

a) harry potter-- horrible horrible prose. unfuckingreadable.

b) ulysses -- too hard for most

c) corelli's mandolin --- i dont know but i saw the movie and it was HORRID

d) satanic verses -- im one of them. bought for the fame (over the mail for $1) not because i was realy interested

e) war and peace -- very fucking long! who has time these days? i wish i did...

f) coelho -- new age pap

I've read that translation of NFTU and loved it. Miller is the man, but I'm not familiar with that book. I'll have to check it out. Oh yeah, Danielewski is still wack. I'd rather my generation be crude or 'pulpy' than trite, which indeed describes Danielewski's poor attempts. there is much cooler contemporary literature out there. Junot Diaz's brief wondrous life of oscar wao is pretty dern good.

in response to a)...thank you...fuck harry potter

So I'm unfortunately adding Margret Atwood's Oryx and Crake to the list. Shit needs to take a back seat to FINAL ESSAYS!

Maybe people stop reading Harry Potter when they realize it's a fucking children's book, and that the movie wastes slightly less time.

And while we're at it, fuck Paolini, too.

I've been dipping in and out of Catch 22 for the last six months or so, and don't really know why I'm bothering. I mean, it's a totally pointless book, isn't it. I've realised that its very pointlessness is a metaphor, but, well, that doesn't make it any the less pointless.

Whether I'll ever bother to finish it is debatable.