[HN Gopher] Short Little Difficult Books
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Short Little Difficult Books
        
       Author : crescit_eundo
       Score  : 129 points
       Date   : 2025-11-18 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (countercraft.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (countercraft.substack.com)
        
       | vunderba wrote:
       | _> Moby-Dick remains perhaps the best reading experience of my
       | life._
       | 
       | I sometimes half-jokingly maintain that _Moby-Dick_ was really
       | written as part of an early BOOK-IT [1] reading incentive program
       | to improve literacy among whalers by disguising a novel as a
       | cetological guidebook.
       | 
       | There are entire chapters devoted to the harpooning process,
       | sperm whale anatomy, maritime legal disputes over whale
       | harvesting, etc.
       | 
       | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Hut#Book_It!
        
         | quercusa wrote:
         | _Moby-Dick_ really is a great book. If you want a dolphin-sized
         | taste of Melville, try _Billy Budd_.
        
           | InitialLastName wrote:
           | For a salmon-sized taste, Bartleby the Scrivener. Great
           | annotated version here: https://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c
           | ulturebox/2015/10/herma...
        
         | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
         | You suckered me into reading the article by mentioning _Moby
         | Dick_.
        
         | hearsathought wrote:
         | Not unless elementary kids were whalers back then.
         | 
         | > [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Hut#Book_It!
         | 
         | Talk about nostalgia. Haven't thought about pizza hut and book
         | it in ages.
        
       | nluken wrote:
       | Nice little article.
       | 
       | Another personal suggestion in this vein: _The Queue_ by Vladimir
       | Sorokin (trans. Sally Laird), which consists entirely of
       | unattributed dialogue. It 's challenging at first but once you
       | get a feel for the rhythm and start recognizing characters by how
       | they speak, it becomes a really charming read.
        
         | gonzo41 wrote:
         | The Road by Cormac McCarthy is like that. It's best read in the
         | pit of a cold winter.
        
           | the_sleaze_ wrote:
           | Great book.
           | 
           | And a counter point, Blood Meridian by the same author.
           | Extremely difficult for no reason whatsoever. Terrible book.
        
             | robot-wrangler wrote:
             | > Extremely difficult for no reason whatsoever. Terrible
             | book.
             | 
             | Many people believe this is the mythical "Great American
             | Novel" we've been arguing about and/or anticipating
             | forever. Strong argument for that because it's actually
             | very Hollywood, isn't it? It's an absurdly action-packed
             | cowboy-horror mashup that's full of gratuitous violence and
             | manifest destiny.
             | 
             | I know several people that thought it was "extremely gory
             | for no reason whatsoever" and did not finish for that
             | reason, but none that thought it was difficult. I was
             | surprised TFA mentioned it in that light, because I
             | remember Child of God being more of a slog and BM being a
             | page-turner.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Novel
        
             | havblue wrote:
             | I just finished Blood Meridian and consulted AI as-needed
             | to cover the many, many metaphors. The funny thing was that
             | Google AI got a lot of the book wrong, getting the fate of
             | some characters mixed up as well as confusing some faceless
             | deaths with others. Too much wanton violence to keep track
             | of.
             | 
             | The book definitely covers evil and nihilism thoroughly, so
             | why would you want to read something like that? Well, for
             | every bad decision someone makes in the book, the reader
             | has the opposite response of, "oh crap, don't do that!" So
             | reading about nihilism doesn't make you more nihilistic.
             | While I thought it was a great book it isn't something you
             | should just read without consulting outside sources.
        
             | viccis wrote:
             | Last time I read it, I did not find it challenging outside
             | of some of the more obscure words used (particularly things
             | like names of types of buildings and similar mundane
             | objects), and my Kindle's built-in dictionary was able to
             | define all of those in one tap.
             | 
             | As far as "for no reason", I would say that McCarthy's
             | impressionist prose that meanders, leaves out some details
             | while focusing on others, etc., is some of the best English
             | language prose ever written. It's beautiful and conveys
             | affect better than almost anything else I've encountered.
             | All the "reason" I needed.
        
           | hearsathought wrote:
           | Much of the dialogue is between father and son, so the
           | dialogue is easy to keep track of. It is a great book for the
           | bleak days of winter. Easily one of the most devastating
           | endings to a book.
        
         | ssttoo wrote:
         | Let me add also _Blindness_ by Jose Saramago, it has pages-long
         | paragraphs and sentences, characters have no names just
         | descriptions... it's surprising at first but not hard to get
         | into. Amazing book!
        
       | paulorlando wrote:
       | I happened to have been assigned Moby Dick in 9th grade English
       | class. Foolishly put off reading it until the night before the
       | book report was due. Got about 1/3 of the way through and went
       | through life thinking it was boring. Fast forward decades, I'm
       | now reading it for real. It hilarious, it's pause encouraging, I
       | love it! (And I'm still only 1/3 through.)
        
         | watwut wrote:
         | It is very likely that a book funny to adult you would went
         | over 9th grade you regardless of reading speed.
        
           | beams_of_light wrote:
           | This is a problem I have yet to see schools tackle. A kid in
           | junior high school has no mental context for the Russian
           | Revolution of 1917, for instance. Having them read Animal
           | Farm is a pointless waste of time.
        
             | shuntress wrote:
             | Reading allegory is the way start building mental context.
        
             | QuercusMax wrote:
             | Same with things like (picking at random) The Great Gatsby
             | and a lot of literature having to do with adult
             | relationships and romance. How on earth is a 16-year-old in
             | 2025 going to understand what's happening in Gatsby? I read
             | it, wrote some papers and got As on them, but didn't really
             | make sense of it at the time.
        
               | threetonesun wrote:
               | The Great Gatsby is an Americanized version of a Greek
               | tragedy, I don't think it's too hard for a 16 year old to
               | understand. It's no "Rabbit, Run", at least.
        
               | teachrdan wrote:
               | In addition to being a short classic, I think teens could
               | identify with Gatsby being obsessed with getting the
               | approval of people who have nothing but contempt for him.
               | There's a devastating scene at the end where the
               | narrator, Nick Carraway, organizes a funeral for Gatsby
               | and literally none of his friends show up. I think that
               | might resonate deeply for more than a few teen readers.
        
               | forgetfreeman wrote:
               | That's more a commentary on 2025 than 16 year olds I
               | assure you. In the 90s adult relationships weren't
               | particularly mysterious to your average 16 year old.
        
               | QuercusMax wrote:
               | I was a 16 year old in the 1990s and it was mysterious to
               | me.
        
               | layer8 wrote:
               | ...or so the 16-year old still thought.
        
               | IAmBroom wrote:
               | So you were born circa 1979?
        
             | jayspell wrote:
             | I read Animal Farm in 9th grade and it had a profound
             | impact me. Hmmm is that you Napoleon?
        
             | IAmBroom wrote:
             | Poor choice. Animal Farm is way, way more than an allegory
             | of one historical event. It's a broadbrush statement on the
             | kind of people likely to seize power at every opportunity
             | (or if you prefer, the effect unrestrained power has on
             | most people), and a humorous jab at authoritarianism.
             | 
             | The other books mentioned (Gatsby et al.) really require
             | context, but literal pigs sitting down to dinner with
             | powerbrokers is something a 14yo can grasp.
        
         | lucaslazarus wrote:
         | Honestly, even getting through 1/3 of it in a night is pretty
         | impressive. Certainly took me several weeks freshman year of
         | college.
        
         | theoldgreybeard wrote:
         | In grade 9 I had to do a book report that compared two books by
         | the same author and I chose Moby Dick and Billy Budd.
         | 
         | My teacher tried to talk me out of it, but I insisted and
         | ultimately she let me do it because Billy Budd is very a short
         | novella.
         | 
         | To this day, Moby Dick is still my second favorite book of all
         | time (with my all time favourite being The Lord of the Rings).
         | I only read it once, 20 years ago, for a book report but it
         | really stuck with me.
        
           | RealityVoid wrote:
           | I read it maybe 15 years ago and I just remembere it as that
           | book with wale facts.
        
         | wavemode wrote:
         | I had a similar experience with the play "A Raisin in the Sun".
         | Reading it in class, it was boring and difficult to relate to.
         | Watching the play live as an adult, you realize it's actually
         | hilarious and heart-wrenching.
         | 
         | Part of it is growing up, but part of it is (obviously) that
         | plays aren't meant to be read. There's a lot of detail and tone
         | that doesn't really come across properly, and it sucks the life
         | out of the story. Not sure why it's such a common practice in
         | school.
        
       | vhantz wrote:
       | What prepares one to read Finnegan's wake?
        
         | miltonlost wrote:
         | A little bit Ulysses, a little bit knowledge of every language
         | ever.
        
           | SanjayMehta wrote:
           | It took me 20 years to read Ulysses and I still don't know
           | what happened in it.
        
             | shagie wrote:
             | You might consider visiting Dublin on the week of June 16th
             | and partake in the readings and pub crawls... though there
             | are other Bloomsday commemoration events. That said, the
             | only time I've stumbled across this was trying to find a
             | seat in an Irish pub in the early '00s and being confused
             | as to why it was _that busy_ that night.
        
         | sam-cop-vimes wrote:
         | It's been sitting on my shelf for a few years now. I take it
         | out and read a couple of pages each time and then put it back.
         | Keep thinking I should buy a guide to reading this book but
         | never got around to it.
        
         | acclay wrote:
         | Absolutely nothing, just let it carry you. I'd recommend a
         | skeleton key after going through it the first time if you want
         | to go deeper.
        
         | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
         | The only thing I know about it is that the book is supposedly
         | the inspiration for the naming of the quark. I feel as if this
         | satisfies any obligation I have regarding it.
        
         | ramesh31 wrote:
         | >What prepares one to read Finnegan's wake?
         | 
         | Listening to Joyce read it aloud: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v
         | =M8kFqiv8Vww&pp=ygUcam95Y2UgcmV....
         | 
         | I had so much trouble trying to read him before understanding
         | the intended pacing. It's more poetry than prose.
        
         | pattisapu wrote:
         | Willingness.
        
         | pklausler wrote:
         | Your previous readings of Finnegans Wake are your preparation
         | for your next one.
        
       | robot-wrangler wrote:
       | > why would you want to suffer and anyone who would read such a
       | book must be pretentious, phony brodernist snob!
       | 
       | Ok, this nerd-sniped me. Are we saying this now? Feels like a
       | reference. Found it: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/against-
       | high-brodernism/
       | 
       | WTF? If the term is about superficial depth wouldn't the bros be
       | into like, abridged graphic-novel adaptations of difficult
       | Russian classics, and not actually diving into genuinely
       | difficult stuff regardless of quality? Shouldn't highbrow
       | literary types sneer with greater cleverness or at least clarity?
       | 
       | > I also find it strange to even worry about "pretentious"
       | readers or "brodernists" hyping themselves up to read some new,
       | huge tome (Schattenfroh this season it seems) in an age when few
       | people read anything at all. Reading a very long book always
       | takes some dedication, some challenging of yourself. So what?
       | 
       | Ok good, TFA actually does get it
        
         | dhosek wrote:
         | >WTF? If the term is about superficial depth wouldn't the bros
         | be into like, abridged graphic-novel adaptations of difficult
         | Russian classics, and not actually diving into genuinely
         | difficult stuff regardless of quality?
         | 
         | --Apes don't read philosophy!
         | 
         | --Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!
        
       | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
       | If anyone is looking for a reading list, or even just a book-
       | downloading-binge list, I pulled 18 titles off of this one. There
       | are, of course, even more, but if you're doing that then you
       | probably already have the McCarthy and Dick titles. Usually HN
       | loses on any given day, but with a score like that I doubt all
       | the other sites I skim will be able to beat it even together.
        
         | robot-wrangler wrote:
         | Agreed, good list for HN. Especially Calvino, Cormac, and PKD
         | tend to be popular with math nerds. Also if PKD qualifies as
         | difficult enough, maybe Borges can fit here too.
         | 
         | Not fiction or difficult, but I suggest Calvino's "Six Memos
         | for the Next Millennium". It's novella-length lecture series
         | for writers/readers, but I'd say it's really a
         | critical/creative framework that's as relevant for math as it
         | is for myth, or novels, or code.
        
           | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
           | I've been working off of the Penguin Classics list found on [
           | Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penguin_Clas
           | sics) for the Borges stuff. It's a bit of a slog, and not
           | everything is on libgen (I'd guess about 70% is, at best),
           | but it was a quick (hah!) way to add a few thousand books to
           | my library.
           | 
           | >Not fiction or difficult, but I suggest Calvino's "Six Memos
           | for the Next Millennium".
           | 
           | Thanks for the recommendation. Grabbed it too. Now back to
           | the Fs in my Penguin Classics list...
        
           | 4ndrewl wrote:
           | Agreed. I've read about half the books on this list and
           | wouldn't consider them difficult. But I've got some new books
           | to buy now, which is always a good thing.
           | 
           | If you like Ubik, Martian Time Slip might also pass as
           | difficult.
        
             | robot-wrangler wrote:
             | PKD's VALIS, Transmigration, and Stigmata are the ones
             | people usually propose for the postmodern canon. I honestly
             | think stuff like this will probably age better than say,
             | DFW's Infinite Jest. The Exegesis[1] is less known and
             | difficult in a different way since he really lost his mind
             | and isn't even _aiming_ for a narrative.. pretty just much
             | unedited journal entries.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exegesis_of_Philip_K._Dic
             | k
        
           | robot-wrangler wrote:
           | Brainstorming more on this and checked my shelf, I got a few
           | more. If not difficult per se, I remember them at least as
           | experimental or otherwise postmodern.
           | 
           | Pynchon short stories:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Learner
           | 
           | Delilo has many short ones including some of his best:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Noise_(novel),
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americana_(novel)
           | 
           | Haddon's breakthrough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curi
           | ous_Incident_of_the_Do...
           | 
           | DFW's breakthrough (maybe pushing it on "short" though)
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broom_of_the_System
           | 
           | Ludwig still the reigning champ of short/difficult:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
        
       | erikerikson wrote:
       | Knut Hansun's Mysteries was difficult like this for me. I think
       | I'm glad I read it but I wouldn't have made it through my reading
       | if Growth of the Soil hadn't been so damn good.
        
       | marknutter wrote:
       | I've been slogging through Blood Meridian for the past couple of
       | months, only taking little sips of content here and there, but it
       | finally clicked for me last night and I'm fully engaged with it.
       | And man was it worth the effort. The way he paints scenes with
       | just the right amount of words is pretty amazing. I'd love to see
       | this book adapted onto film.
        
         | nemo1618 wrote:
         | Ha, I'm in a similar position, having given up on it after a
         | few months of sips. At what point did it click for you?
        
           | therealdrag0 wrote:
           | Maybe this is sacrilege but I find audiobooks help for this
           | because the narrator just keeps going with little effort on
           | my part. Even if I miss things it's okay, and getting through
           | it helps get into it.
        
           | havblue wrote:
           | There was that Friends episode where Joey got halfway through
           | Little Women thinking "Jo" was a guy and he had to start
           | over. Blood Meridian was kinda like that where I realized I
           | had lost track of what was happening in a chapter, who was
           | killing who for what reason, and had to backtrack. So yeah
           | the book makes you feel like Joey on Friends.
        
         | throwforfeds wrote:
         | Blood Meridian is one of the few books where I reached the end
         | and then just started again right from the beginning. It's
         | probably the book I've read the most amount of times and each
         | re-read still manages to amaze me.
        
       | jrmcvngtn wrote:
       | "Short little difficult plays" - Anything by Ionesco: Rhinoceros,
       | The Leader, etc., etc.
        
       | allknowingfrog wrote:
       | Do what makes you happy, but don't pretend that reading
       | "difficult" books makes you morally-superior to the rest of us. I
       | read fiction for fun, and non-fiction for personal growth.
        
         | viccis wrote:
         | There's always that person who needs to make a knee-jerk
         | inferiority feeling into the author's problem. The author never
         | made value judgments about people. In fact, he starts by
         | pointing out that he thinks those kinds of judgments either way
         | are silly.
        
           | allknowingfrog wrote:
           | The first paragraph labels me a "social media poster who
           | identifies as a reader", based on my reading preferences.
        
             | gitarre wrote:
             | It doesn't, really. It labels a person a "social media
             | poster who identifies as a reader" based on them passing
             | negative judgment on difficult books ("fundamentally
             | fraudulent") and those who read them ("anyone who would
             | read such a book must be pretentious, phony brodernist
             | snob").
             | 
             | Sure, there is the middle part ("books are supposed to be
             | fun and the world is so awful why would you want to
             | suffer"), but I took the bit about negative judgment to be
             | the main thing the author was complaining about.
        
         | hearsathought wrote:
         | > I read fiction for fun, and non-fiction for personal growth.
         | 
         | You could read fiction for personal growth and non-fiction for
         | fun as well.
        
         | stonemetal12 wrote:
         | Some people find Dark Souls style games fun, I assume this is
         | the book reader's version of that. I don't get it, but whatever
         | floats their boat.
        
         | gitarre wrote:
         | For sure; engaging in any particular difficult hobby (be it
         | reading hard books, lifting heavy weights, or playing an
         | instrument extremely well) is unrelated to how moral a person
         | is.
        
       | tech2 wrote:
       | One of my favourites that starts out difficult but you become
       | fluent in by the end is Banks' "Feersum Endjinn". I love seeing
       | people's facial expressions on first attempting to understand
       | Bascule, or read it "normally".
        
         | thesaintlives wrote:
         | Great novel! Love Banks..
        
         | inejge wrote:
         | Eh. The only thing I remember offhand of Bascule's orthography
         | is "Ergates thi ant", although for some reason the book is the
         | rare one where I've effortlessly memorized the names of many
         | protagonists (I'm not very good with names, both IRL and in
         | literature.)
        
       | dontwannahearit wrote:
       | Le Morte D'Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory, Penguin Classics (1981
       | edition).
       | 
       | Extremely tortuous phraseology. But I finished it, with gritted
       | teeth at 15.
       | 
       | I have long since abandoned the desire to finish every book I
       | start. Life is too short.
        
       | idoubtit wrote:
       | I share many of the author's delights. I would add another source
       | of "short little difficult books": old books, written in an old
       | form of your modern language.
       | 
       | My native tongue is French, so in my case it was Rabelais'
       | "Gargantua" (~1500) and "La Chanson de Roland" (~1100). Both
       | books require some motivation to get used to their respective
       | languages. After a while, I could read almost fluently Rabelais'
       | prose ; it was immensely funny, coarse and impudent. Roland was
       | harder to grasp, I had to use a specialized dictionary, but it's
       | a concise and epic tale, and I read some verses so many times I
       | ended learning them by rote.
       | 
       | Even translated, some short books from a very different culture
       | far in the past can be challenging. For instance "Eugene Onegin"
       | or "Gilgamesh". As a counterpoint, "The art of war" is an easy
       | read, though written 2300 years ago in a small kingdom of China.
       | 
       | A last comment: the author conflate books that are difficult
       | because of a technicality in their writing, and those that are
       | strange in their story. The translations of Abe Kobo or Kafka
       | I've read had nothing difficult in their words, but the
       | surrealist plots were very unsettling. In "Pedro Paramo" the
       | reader feels lost in a harsh world and unsure of reality.
       | Meanwhile, Perec's "La disparition" or Becket's "Molloy" are more
       | about style tricks.
        
         | pklausler wrote:
         | I think that English might have fewer opportunities for this
         | sort of thing; I found Beowulf to be surprisingly dull in the
         | original.
         | 
         | Greek, on the other hand, has lifetimes' worth of good stuff in
         | its ancient forms, and can really reward the time spent in
         | learning to read them.
        
           | miltonlost wrote:
           | Shakespeare is from around the same time period as Rabelais
           | in OP. If you haven't read Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, As You
           | Like It, they also take some getting used to but are worth it
           | in the end.
        
             | pklausler wrote:
             | I don't think that English changed as much, but I could be
             | wrong. Shakespeare's not hard for a modern English reader,
             | given a decent edition with vocabulary hints in the
             | footnotes. I got through most of it as a sophomore.
        
               | miltonlost wrote:
               | A good middle point would be Chaucer then who had Middle
               | English vs Beowolf''s Old and Shakespeare's Early Modern.
               | The Canterbury Tales is frequently found in translations
               | now, but that's also due to the lack of spelling
               | standardization until 17th and 18th centuries in addition
               | to just vast vocabulary differences.
        
               | pessimizer wrote:
               | I'm pretty sure English changed a lot more than French
               | from the same period.
        
               | dbtc wrote:
               | Check out the spellings in the original folios though:
               | https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeare-in-
               | print/first-fo...
               | 
               | Our school books have all had some (very helpful)
               | translation work applied to the original text.
        
         | pessimizer wrote:
         | I'm sure Gargantua and Pantagruel is tough in French, but I'd
         | like to recommend it in English translation to people who don't
         | speak French where it's just a lot of good fun. Plenty of older
         | French works (or a lot less old, like Zola) that have been
         | translated to modern English are just good, easy reads.
         | 
         | I'd assume that in French they're tough going for a while until
         | you get your head 500 years back. I'm currently battling my way
         | through Don Quixote in Spanish and though it's a fun and funny
         | (not at all short) read, some of the long twisted sentences
         | (and the old words) can be brutal. I'd bet, as above, that the
         | English translations are breezy. I'm thinking about trying one
         | after I finish this.
         | 
         | In French I'm currently working my way through Voltaire's
         | Micromegas (which is short) but it's a hundred and some years
         | after Rabelais and the prose is really concrete. Very short
         | words and simple sentences. It's the story that's interesting.
        
       | babblingfish wrote:
       | The non-fiction version of this would be to read primary sources
       | from long ago or written in specialized language. I'm reminded of
       | Cal Newport's advice to ease into challenging books by first
       | reading a secondary source which explains the nuance of the
       | primary source. Something like An Odyssey: A Father, a Son, and
       | an Epic by Daniel Mendelsohn before reading the Odyssey itself.
       | 
       | It's been somewhat disappointing researching the reading habits
       | of people who read many books a year. For the reader who tears
       | through ebooks on Kindle Unlimited, they mostly read genre
       | fiction in a few categories. The same thing has been happening to
       | me. I used to challenge myself to read "the classics" but lately
       | before bad I reach for genre fiction written at an 8th grade
       | level.
       | 
       | For many, reading is just another form of entertainment. Maybe
       | call it the hollywoodification of books? While it's far better
       | form of entertainment than TikTok or Instagram, the true
       | potential is in its ability to make us smarter by challenging our
       | thoughts and dieas.
       | 
       | When books are seen as just another entertainment product in a
       | saturated marketplace, why chose something which makes you
       | struggle?
        
       | csours wrote:
       | "The Righteous Mind" by Haidt is interesting to me on the
       | difficulty scale. From any technical analysis (like grammar,
       | sentence structure etc), it's not difficult at all. It wasn't
       | boring to me, and I didn't really get stuck on anything in
       | particular, but it still took me two weeks to finish it.
        
       | viccis wrote:
       | I'll add some recommendations to the author's list, as I have
       | found that reading difficult literature (both fiction and non-
       | fiction) has been like exercising a muscle for me. For example, I
       | read Blood Meridian before doing this and then again after doing
       | it for a few years, right after McCarthy passed away, and it was
       | a night and day difference in how "difficult" the prose was.
       | 
       | A few things I think fit into the "short little difficult books":
       | 
       | Borges is not someone I consider too difficult, but many do for
       | the same reason the author mentioned people finding Calvino to be
       | difficult. His works require that you invest some curiosity into
       | thinking about the scenarios in his fiction. He also plays with
       | the nature of the narrative of the story in a sometimes
       | postmodern way that is still accessible. None of his works are
       | longer than 20 pages or so, so not a huge time investment. I
       | would recommend buying the Penguin "Collected Fictions" edition.
       | It contains a collection of books of stories, and I would
       | recommend prioritizing reading the _Fictions_ and _The Aleph_
       | collections first. Some of his popular stories to start with
       | would be  " _Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius_ ", " _The Lottery in
       | Babylon_ ", " _The Library of Babel_ ", and " _The Immortal_ ".
       | If you want slightly more sentimental, " _The Circular Ruins_ "
       | is wonderful. If you want dryer, more satirical and postmodern, "
       | _Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote_ " is hilarious.
       | 
       | If you want a book that plays with the basic structure of a
       | "novel", Nabokov's _Pale Fire_ is a great read and a good
       | introduction into what the technique of an unreliable narrator
       | can truly achieve. No matter how out-there you think your
       | interpretation of it is, if you look into published literary
       | analysis of it, the rabbit hole goes so much deeper than you
       | might think.
       | 
       | Gene Wolfe is highly regarded among science fiction fans, and for
       | good reason. While he's best known for his Solar Cycle, a set of
       | a dozen novels, I think that the best introduction to him can be
       | found in his short stories. They might not seem difficult at
       | first, but some of them, especially _Seven American Nights_ ,
       | _Forlesen_ , and the trio of stories in _The Fifth Head of
       | Cerberus_ , are similar to _Pale Fire_ insofar as they are far
       | more than they seem on the surface. They require some degree of
       | scrutiny and interpretation from the reader. I wish I had read
       | them before his bigger novels, as I found reading those novels
       | was so much more rewarding after learning how to read Wolfe from
       | his short stories. If you want to buy a few short story
       | collections, there 's going to be some unavoidable overlap, but I
       | would recommend "The Best of Gene Wolfe" (for _The Island of
       | Doctor Death and Other Stories_ , _The Death of Dr. Island_ ,
       | _Forlesen_ , _Seven American Nights_ , _Death of the Island
       | Doctor_ ), "The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories and
       | Other Stories" ( _Tracking Song_ , _The Doctor of Death Island_
       | ), and "The Fifth Head of Cerberus" for its three novellas.
       | 
       | If you want something much more difficult, try J.G. Ballard's
       | _The Atrocity Exhibition_. He was influenced by Burroughs (
       | _Naked Lunch_ would be another recommendation here if you can
       | stomach the Beatnik depravity within) and wrote a novel that will
       | challenge its reader in many ways. It 's very interesting to go
       | straight from this into _Crash_ , which covers a lot of the same
       | material in a less difficult structure. Baudrillard praised Crash
       | with "After Borges, but in another register, Crash is the first
       | great novel of the universe of simulation", but I would say _The
       | Atrocity Exhibition_ deserves this praise(?) just as much, even
       | if it 's much rougher around the edges. Certainly, the political
       | stunt pulled using one of its sections (called _Why I Want to
       | Fuck Ronald Reagan_ ) belong more to the Situationists' games
       | than Baudrillard's universe of simulation, but the stunt relies
       | just as much on the hyperreal breakdown of signifiers as anything
       | Baudrillard even pointed to.
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | I don't have anything to say about the overall subject of this
       | post because I am terrible at reading difficult books but do want
       | to chime in to say that Exercises in Style is pretty fun to read
       | (it's the same dumb story told 99 times in different ways, most
       | just a page or so long).
        
       | arthurjj wrote:
       | He's upfront that it's novels only but I really enjoy short
       | difficult non-fiction more.
       | 
       | * Exit, Voice and Loyalty - about how organizations and people
       | work. Easily the best social science book I've ever read
       | 
       | * Art & Fear - gives a much better model for creating software
       | than most books
        
         | tkfoss wrote:
         | I don't know about the first one, but Art & Fear is one of the
         | lightest books on my bookshelf. Why do you consider it
         | difficult?
        
       | nyeah wrote:
       | Just picking on the Moby Dick thing. I want to like Moby Dick but
       | chapters ~6 through ~85 seem to be extremely boring. The
       | Dismemberment of the Whale was by far the most gripping part of
       | the book so far. And it's not so gripping.
       | 
       | Am I doing something wrong here?
        
       | BrenBarn wrote:
       | Interestingly when I hear the author describe different kinds of
       | "difficulty" I find myself thinking that some of those don't
       | really seem like difficulty. For something like a book, I think
       | the main thing that makes it seem difficult is when there are
       | parts that are not fun to read (or maybe moments where you
       | question the point of the entire read because you pause to go
       | "what the heck is even going on here"). If something's fun it
       | often doesn't really feel difficult.
       | 
       | In particular various kinds of formal experimentation can be
       | quite fun and I wouldn't perceive them as difficult at all
       | (especially in shorter form). I read a short story in multiple-
       | choice form years ago and loved it. I've read most of Milorad
       | Pavic's books, all of which have unusual formal structures (e.g.,
       | Dictionary of the Khazars has the nonlinear structure of a cross-
       | referenced dictionary or encyclopedia). Some were a bit baffling
       | (they also can fall into the "confusing events, surrealist dream
       | logic, and elliptical plots" category) but I didn't find them
       | difficult exactly.
       | 
       | One of the more common practical difficulties that can add
       | friction to a book is a complex storyline with many characters
       | who can be hard to keep track of. But this won't make the book as
       | a whole feel super difficult as long as the content is worth it.
       | War and Peace is a classic example of this, with multiple
       | intersecting storylines and a large cast of characters. A
       | Suitable Boy is a modern example in a similar vein.
       | 
       | But I think a lot of times when people say a book is difficult
       | they just mean either "gosh I actually kind of have to pay
       | attention to this" or "this is really long". To me those things
       | actually are positive qualities if the content of the book is
       | good, since they just make it richer. My favorite novel is In
       | Search of Lost Time, which is one of the quintessential
       | "difficult" books, but if you get into its rhythm, most of it is
       | blissfully engrossing.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-11-18 23:00 UTC)