/lit/ - Literature

>>7243

Read The Tree of the Folkungs by Verner von Heidenstam.

try some Conrad.

but i must say that you are a little mystified about classics. usually they are not hard to read.

you fell for the trap of those pretentious pricks that namedrop them to look smart.

and at the end of the day, if you have to check the dictionary every now and then, it's worth it.

i'm not a native english speaker, the first unabridged, not simplified book i've ever read was "never die alone" by donald goines.

it's not a hard read, but i read more dictionary than book. the second book i read, also by goines, went down more smoothly, and now i barely use the dictionary and a world opened to me.

>>7259

Proust is definitely hard to read.

>>7278

keep in mind i said "usually".

but yes, rereading it, i sound overoptimistic.

also

the old man and the sea though i don't understand its appeal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo

the books from this series.

it really shows how to use a simple vocabulary, being brief and to the point and not being dry as a desert.

>>7259

>you fell for the trap of those pretentious pricks that namedrop them to look smart.

Not OP, but my biggest fear of the classics or at least works consider classic, is that I'll be too dumb to understand what the writer is saying.

>>7291

Honestly this is the biggest problem with the mentality at a bunch of places (like half-chan /lit/) when they act like inaccessibility = depth. The truth is anon that you can be pretty well read while reading books that a highschooler (or whatever the equivalent is for non-Americans) can understand. And even if you have trouble with it, most classics have a ton of secondary content to help with that. As long as you don't fall for the meme that esotericism and obscurity means that the book is better, you'll be fine.

talking about this how can i get through a clockwork orange?

>>7307

If you missed the fact that the back of the book has a glossary for all the made-up words, then look at the back of the book. If not, then I dunno, you could scan the glossary and read with it next to you or something.

>>7311

my book has no glossary at the end.

what hurt me the most is not the lack of glossary, it's the lies!

>>7319

Well that would make it more difficult. When I read it I just didn't realize that there was a glossary, which made reading it a lot harder than it needed to be. I just thought that part of the point was having to figure out what things meant.

>>7243

i just came here from /b/ because some asshat was spamming a thread with the lit link

so i dont really know how you guys operate.

but when i was a kid, i read a lot, and i wasn't particularly good at comprehension. i'm going to list off some of my favorites from way back then

encyclopedia brown

the chronicles of narnia

nancy drew

the hardy boys

some of stephen kings early work like Carrie, 'The Eyes of the Dragon, and Different Seasons''

>>7328

also A Wrinkle in Time was very good but not too hard to understand.

>>7328

>encyclopedia brown

>the chronicles of narnia

>nancy drew

>the hardy boys

>some of stephen kings early work like Carrie, 'The Eyes of the Dragon, and Different Seasons''

Oh boy!

>>7321

i was thinking about downloading it from the internet.

but i think i will do without, for kicks.

Flowers for Algernon and Brave New World are easy to read.

>>7288

Hemingway, please go.

>>8307

i've read hemingway and i've read those books. and i can tell you that they feel completely different.

the warmth and the comfy feel of guareschi is something that i have not found with hemmmmmmmmmingway.

>What are some great, classic books for people with subpar reading comprehension skills?

Some big name authors with a reputation for the straightforward presentation of their writing include:

Isaac Asimov

Graham Greene

Charles Bukowski

George Orwell

Stephen King

A huge problem with judging a writer's simplicity of language is there are so many other tools and techniques of writing. Themes, allusion, action, piling on the topics, plot – a writer may choose any of these and go long and deep into complexity. A typical complaint when a reader dives into a more literary work done in simple language is the lack of action. Nothing ever happens! A good example would be Cakes and Ale by Somerset Maugham. The language is simple enough, but a tale of writers and their writings, of love and infidelity, of life, would put many to sleep.

You should take all of these authors for a test drive, but with an awareness that your tastes, education, and interests might not mesh.

Here are a few suggestions you should consider, but might find difficult in other ways:

The Quiet American by Graham Greene.

The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov.

The Wardove by L Niel Smith.

Pulp by Charles Bukowski.

The reissued, rewritten and much shorter edition of Dark Green, Bright Red by Gore Vidal.

Inherent Vice by Thomas Pynchon.

Grendel by John Gardner.

Take a look at these and see what you think.

>>8309

I said that because of "simple vocabulary". No, use the best vocabulary to describe something. If there's a word that expresses a complex idea and/but is equal to or more than trisyllabic, use it.

>>8313

of course.

in guareschi's case that's exactly what happens.

especially in the don camillo short stories which are set in rural northern italy.

>>7307

How far are you? The further you get into the book, the easier it gets to understand the context clues of Nadsat slang. I admit, I was like "what the fuck am I reading" when I first read it a few years ago. Now I can fucking pony the whole malenky language, o my brother.

>>8310

I think Asimov being straightforward is an understatement. His books are seriously here, then here, then here, then finish. It's to the point where it almost feels novice if the stories weren't so damn good most of the time. Like, I was barely able to make it through Caves of Steel.

>>8319

Should I buy the republic or the complete works?

>>8323

The chapter on adverbs is wonderful and somewhat difficult, but, yes, good book, but I don't think he'd want to read ~1600 pages of grammar that, in all likelihood, he won't understand. But the book really doesn't help with books like Tolkien's Beowulf.

>>8325

I should add to that, because something had occurred to me. Any grammar book will really do. Comprehension and analysis of books became much easier when I read through my first grammar book, which was not as comprehensive as Quirk et al.

>>8323

Acquired. It's can be found in the usual places.

Might be added to the writing guide as a comprehensive, exhaustive and final reference suggestion.