I did the opposite (unintentionally) once and it was kind of surreal. I read The Bear and the Nightingale (set in Russia in winter) on a tropical vacation. Do not recommend (the book was good though).

Reminds me of this joke from On Writing, by Stephen King:

A friend came to visit James Joyce one day and found the great man sprawled across his writing desk in a posture of utter despair.

James, what’s wrong?' the friend asked. 'Is it the work?'

Joyce indicated assent without even raising his head to look at his friend. Of course it was the work; isn’t it always?

How many words did you get today?' the friend pursued.

Joyce (still in despair, still sprawled facedown on his desk): 'Seven.'

Seven? But James… that’s good, at least for you.'

Yes,' Joyce said, finally looking up. 'I suppose it is… but I don’t know what order they go in!

Basically shot in the back of the head. Execution style.

I think banning books is super stupid, but I would think that the percentage would be smaller than back in the day when something like Ulysses was published, just due to the amount of books written today!

The first question about the book raised in OP is about the story. I think this is the failing, if you read books for the story you wouldn't get James Joyce. You'll have more fun reading a Wikipedia article summarizing the book. In fact if you're looking for just the story in general, you are better off reading summaries. James Joyce's books are puzzles that the reader is supposed to unravel. If you can't unravel them then they bring the same frustration that failing a tough puzzle brings: the feeling that it is nonsensical or the creator is just flaunting over you.

There are books of different kinds, some are plot driven (like those dry Three Body Problems books), some are character driven. Then there are James Joyce's books, which are language driven. Not every book is for everyone.

Also, a review which boils down to "I didn't get it, therefore it's a waste of time" is foolish gibberish. You could have simply looked up existing reviews/analysis of the book and exposed yourself to second opinions. If you then still have disagreement, you could have found some people to discuss to, which is kind of the point of these internet forums.

>The problem is, i can't stop reading or seeing content about books(since I'm depressed and books it's the only good thing i have besides some silly videogames in my life)

Yes, you can. The books are the good thing, read books. Content about books is what ruins your good thing for you, so don't read the content. (So getting off socials, as the others have said is most likely to be a positive change). Or at least don't read the content you're reading now: find/focus on something healthier, like writing your own reviews, making/engaging with fanart, looking up stuff about history/mythology/the author. You'll need to monitor how you feel and moderate the content accordingly, though.

I second this so much. I deleted all social media at the height of my depression, what a weight of unnecessary noise lifted of my shoulders. This reddit acc is new and I litterally follow books, bookshelf and I think 4 others book related subs.

When I was 20, I spent a summer working in Nantucket. I checked Melville's Moby Dick out of the local library, and read it over a few weeks. It felt like the perfect spot for that book, and I'm sure I enjoyed it more because of the location.

(I only discovered years later that Melville hadn't actually been to Nantucket before writing about it in Moby Dick. Didn't spoil the experience for me though.)

The Wild Trees by Richard Preston. It would probably be more fitting for the Pacific Crest Trail, but I think you'd appreciate it anyway.

So glad to see this book talked about. I read it in my late teens and I deeply identified with Elaine's inability to grasp at her trauma >!due to her repressing her memory, until the pivotal scene.!< I've been itching to re-read it but I'm not sure about re-entering such a heavy book.

Sometimes I try to smash out a particular book during certain weather. Like Jurassic Park in a thunderstorm or some Sherlock Holmes on a foggy night.

Alias Grace is my favorite. I absolutely love it for Atwood's wordplay and her use of Victorian writing tropes.

People who like Joyce get a huge amount of fun from reading him, but the Wake in particular is like learning a new language-- or, more accurately, it's like regressing to a more primitive form of language, where words and sounds intuitively invoke feelings and images.

You can "snap into" the language of the Wake, and you find that you're "getting it", getting the meanings that Joyce was intending, without "reading" the words like you normally would. It's emphatically not some kind of high-brow intellectual thing, like reading Continental philosophy, Hegel or Kant or whatever. It's more like a those "magic eye" pictures that were big in the 90s. If you cross your eyes the right way, the image snaps into focus-- until you look away for a second and then it's all a fuzzy mess again.

It's really an amazing achievement in writing, but it's so weird and impenetrable that many people can't make heads or tails of it, and it just seems like nonsense. That's not because the reader is less intelligent or clever. There's just a perceptual 'trick' to it.

Joyce intended it to be an amalgamation of the whole history of European society and literature, but the chronology and the logical/narrative structure is blended, stretched, fractaled, and loops back on itself. It has "the logic of a dream". Look at something, it's one thing. Look away for a second and look back, it's another. You slip through the layers of history, of words/ideas/events/people without any sign-posts or a stable point of view. One character or object or event bleeds back into others of the same kind, of their opposites.

This is why people either love or hate it. If you can slip into Joyce's stream of consciousness, you get a wild and wonderful trip. If you can't, you just get spun around until you're sick with dizziness and you don't catch any of it.

People who like Joyce get a huge amount of fun from reading him, but the Wake in particular is like learning a new language-- or, more accurately, it's like regressing to a more primitive form of language, where words and sounds intuitively invoke feelings and images.

You can "snap into" the language of the Wake, and you find that you're "getting it", getting the meanings that Joyce was intending, without "reading" the words like you normally would. It's emphatically not some kind of high-brow intellectual thing, like reading Continental philosophy, Hegel or Kant or whatever. It's more like a those "magic eye" pictures that were big in the 90s. If you cross your eyes the right way, the image snaps into focus-- until you look away for a second and then it's all a fuzzy mess again.

It's really an amazing achievement in writing, but it's so weird and impenetrable that many people can't make heads or tails of it, and it just seems like nonsense. That's not because the reader is less intelligent or clever. There's just a perceptual 'trick' to it.

Joyce intended it to be an amalgamation of the whole history of European society and literature, but the chronology and the logical/narrative structure is blended, stretched, fractaled, and loops back on itself. It has "the logic of a dream". Look at something, it's one thing. Look away for a second and look back, it's another. You slip through the layers of history, of words/ideas/events/people without any sign-posts or a stable point of view. One character, or object, or event bleeds back into others of the same kind-- or of their opposites.

This is why people find it so frustrating. You can't stop and regain your bearings, you either slip into the stream of consciousness and flow with it, or you're just spun around into you're dizzy and you catch nothing of it.

no. some things will he very generally fun and good because they touch on general things that apply to everyone. fun if you're into it describes only things that are good, but not through their own value, but in the context of a niche. it's just like how many reviewers will consider anything between a 6 and 7.5 as 'good for the fans of this specific genre' or 'good for fans of the topic the story is based on'.

I do but I do read some books that are set in a historical setting so I realize there are things I wouldn’t understand. As a kid I would either look up the word or use context (though usually it was a word that I just didn’t know due to still being a kid)

I have a day book and a night book for this specific reason.

There’s a “Skeleton Key to Finnegan’s Wake” by Joseph Campbell

I found that with reading To Kill a Mockingbird. I learned more each time.

>It's a work of art, a brilliant one, but Joyce is like a comedian with an extremely specific and absurd sense of humour who doesn't care if anyone else gets the joke.

I like that, that tracks with my take on him. He's certainly a genius, but quite possibly mad as well. Reminds me of Danielewski's House of Leaves in the scope and innovativeness, but also in it's convolution and opacity.

I wouldn't deny anyone the enjoyment of slogging through any of these books if that's your thing, but I don't personally enjoy struggling that much with a leisure activity. I mostly read for fun.

Race Across Alaska is a great book for the outdoors!

Sooo audiobook then

I just finished project Hail Mary and had the most vivid dreams I've had in a long time.

Parable of the Sower during Trump Madness

[removed]