A French Book Reading Resource

[MorkTheFiddle]

Umm, I meant to post my latest post here to my own log, so my apologies for my mess-up, as, for instance, the video on Márquez.
As for B's 90 works, did I once read he wrote for 16 hours a day and consumed pot after pot of coffee? Hopefully he did not consume tobacco, at least not Gauloise cigarettes, though they came perhaps later.
And I did not know but it does not surprise me that B researched Les Chouans. The very opening of Illusions perdues is, "À l'époque où commence cette histoire, la presse de Stanhope et les rouleauz à distribuer l'encre ne fonctionnaient pas encore dans les petites imprimeries de province."

[MorkTheFiddle]

On the other hand, there are many French authors that I really do enjoy. Among them are:
-A. Nothomb***
-Éric-Emmanuel Schmitt
-Blandine Le Callet ***
-O. Mirbeau ***
-F. Sagan ***
-H. Malot ***
-B. Vian ***
-M. Duras ***
-A. Gide***
-and many more.

Okay, it's time to give this a go. It will be easier than I thought, because I (1) either agree with your opinions or (b) have not read the authors.
So for (1) Mirbeau and Duras are excellent. They wrote novels well-observed and well-told. Their main characters are well developed and easy to sympathize with and to care about their futures. All this can be said as well about Sagan's Bonjour Tristesse, except perhaps sympathy for the main character is a bit of a stretch.
Those under b, authors not read, are Schmitt, Blandine Le Callet, Malot and Gide.
That leaves Northomb and Vian. As for Northomb, I can't remember which novel of hers I looked at, but I could not get very far. It seemed pretty cold and distant.
Of Vian, I read J'irai cracher sur vos tombes and have begun but not got far with L'Écume des jours. My first opinion of J'irai cracher sur vos tombes was that it was trash from the line of "Mandingo" novels of the USA. But later I thought it might have been an attempt to write such a novels seriously not exploitatively, except that though well told and written, it failed. I stopped shortly after beginning L'Écume des jours, and I need to let it mariante a bit before continuing it.
Cheers,
Mork

[kanewai]

The long-winded novels of the 19th century, French and English and Spanish, wear me out, though for whatever reason the works of Austen, Dostoevsky and Tolsoy get a bye. The Hugos, Balzacs, Sands, and Zolas of the French scene all have their moments, but by and large, they are all bores to me. (But so are Dickens and George Eliot, for that matter).

I went through a phase where I wanted to read all the "great" works in the canon. There was another period where all I could afford were free books on kindle, which meant: 19th century books. And I went from thinking I loved those long-winded novels to hating most, but not all, of them.

En garde, western canon!
Melville - Moby effin Dick was so pompous that it felt like satire.
Dickens - One-dimensional and insipid.
Balzac - I hated Le Père Goriot. I liked Illusions perdues more, but really only read it because I heard what a great villain Vautrin was. Too bad he only appears at the end.
Stendhal - I don't really hate him, but I've never been able to finish any of his books.
George Eliot - Middlemarch was a challenge, but the last chapter was really quite good.
Mark Twain - He's only funny in short doses.

I'm not a total pagan. I genuinely enjoy a lot of Zola, Flaubert, Hugo, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. And Dracula was awesome. One day I'll read Frankenstein and see how it compares.

For the moment, I have started Hugo's Quatrevingt-treize, taking Kanawai's judgment that Hugo's focus stays sharper than with his other novels. Also, as I have said before, Hugo's poetry is a different story from his novels. Hugo keeps his wits about himself when he writes poetry. I don't know where I am going with this. Maybe moving to France for a few years is the only answer for me, though that is not going to happen.

Uh oh. '93 was tight for ninety pages, and then it was all-description no-plot for sixty. It looks like he returns to the action after this.

The plot line for Victor Hugo's Quatrevingt-treize is for me very complex. I doubt I could read it in English and understand it. So that is another book I won't be reading.

Surprisingly, the actual plot is simple: there are two armies who are willing to burn an entire region to the ground rather than let the other side win in a Guerre des Ignorants. There are digressions that go into the complexities of the revolution and the terror, but I don't even bother trying to keep track of all the names in these parts.

[Carmody]

My thanks to everyone for sharing what they really liked and Did Not like; that is greatly appreciated!

I was speaking with someone yesterday who mentioned that he had read Marcel Proust, but I did not get a chance to delve into the topic with him.

So would people please do me a favor and discuss Marcel Proust À la recherche du temps perdu. I want to hear the good, the bad and the ugly.

My own sense is that he is just way too introspective; I mean way deep and way convoluted and I am not sure I want to go down that rabbit hole, but I value peoples judgement on the topic and so far he has not been even mentioned. My sense is he is way too heavy duty for me, but please tell me what you think.

[kanewai]

For me, Proust is like a beautiful but doomed friend who seems too smart, and too fragile, for this world. Some afternoons you spend with him are magical. Some are unbearably tedious.

I read Du côté de chez Swann about six years ago. My first reactions were that 1) Proust was far easier to read than I expected, and 2) he's actually got a great sense of humor. I didn't even know the French did humor. There were sections that took my breath away. And I thought: I'm going to have my own "year of reading Proust."

And then I hit the novel-within-the-novel, Un amour de Swann (Swann in Love). It's a flashback to his neighbor Swann's obsessive love for the courtesan Odette. This was slow going. This is also the section that French school kids have to read, and the reason so many of them hate Proust. There's no magic, just desperate social climbers trying to break in to Paris high society.

Swann in Love took me forever to get through. I was completely bored, and couldn't keep track of all the new characters. I started following a book-club discussion on the series, and discovered that I didn't like Proust-lovers at all. Sometimes they would help me understand a passage. Sometimes it felt like satire. The conversations would go like this:

- Did you notice on page 537 that Odette wore a light blue dress? And that on page 38 Proust looked at a painting that had a light blue sky?
- I think light blue was really important to Proust. In the second book one of the girls on the beach had light blue eyes!
- The symbolism is amazing!!! Proust is a genius!!!

And I am not exaggerating.

The first book ends with a twist that took me completely by surprise, and which forces you to reevaluate what you thought you knew about the characters. I went from wanting to quit Proust forever, to being impatient to read the second book.

I've been reading about one book per year, and only have Le Temps retrouvé, the last one, left. I think I'll start that one next year. Every book has passages that are truly beautiful. And every book was passages, usually the ones set in the Paris salons, that are just dull.

My own sense is that he is just way too introspective; I mean way deep and way convoluted and I am not sure I want to go down that rabbit hole, but I value peoples judgement on the topic and so far he has not been even mentioned. My sense is he is way too heavy duty for me, but please tell me what you think.

too introspective: He is insanely introspective. A lot of times this works. When his beloved grandmother dies he micro-analyzes every emotion he feels. It's some of the best French writing I've encountered. But he also micro-analyzes every emotion he feels the first time he rides an elevator. Seriously - it took him five pages to ascend a couple floors.

way deep: sort of. He goes way-deep when examining his own emotions. But on the outside, it's a story of Paris society. There's lots of sex, gay and straight, and everyone is having affairs with someone.

way convoluted: I have to refer to this website, Proust, ses personnages, to keep track of all the characters, and who's sleeping with whom. It's a great site, as you can track a character chapter by chapter, and avoid spoilers. As for his writing, the sentences are long and can be complex, but they also flow.

too heavy duty: Nah.

I'd say give him a try, and commit to the first book. I'm still not sure if I agree that La Recherche is the greatest novel of all time, but I'm very glad I've been reading it. And Proust is not at all what I was expecting.

[Carmody]

Thank you very much for the very comprehensive review of Proust; it must have been difficult to write about it so honestly. It sounds as if one needs to be able to know when to read parts and then when to be able to walk away from others.

Two questions if I may:
1
Since À la recherche du temps perdu consists of seven volumes totaling around 3,200 pages (about 4,300 in The Modern Library's translation) and featuring more than 2,000 characters it would appear to require more than a year to read, at least by me.
• 1Volume One: Swann's Way
• 2Volume Two: In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower
• 3Volume Three: The Guermantes Way
• 4Volume Four: Sodom and Gomorrah
• 5Volume Five: The Prisoner
• 6Volume Six: The Fugitive
• 7Volume Seven: Time Regained

So are there some volumes you would skip entirely or is that cheating?

2-
Which French edition or publisher would you suggest is the best to try?

For my part, I love long books but the length and nature of this book sounds beyond my reach. I am not confident I could follow through. "The well is deep and my rope is short."

Thanks again for your comments.

[MorkTheFiddle]

Thank you very much for the very comprehensive review of Proust; it must have been difficult to write about it so honestly. It sounds as if one needs to be able to know when to read parts and then when to be able to walk away from others.

Two questions if I may:
1
Since À la recherche du temps perdu consists of seven volumes totaling around 3,200 pages (about 4,300 in The Modern Library's translation) and featuring more than 2,000 characters it would appear to require more than a year to read, at least by me.
• 1Volume One: Swann's Way
• 2Volume Two: In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower
• 3Volume Three: The Guermantes Way
• 4Volume Four: Sodom and Gomorrah
• 5Volume Five: The Prisoner
• 6Volume Six: The Fugitive
• 7Volume Seven: Time Regained

So are there some volumes you would skip entirely or is that cheating?

No, it's not cheating, and the fellow who does AJATT endorses reading some parts and not others and quitting before you finish, if that is what you want to do. I myself have NOT read so far Volumes 4 and 7, and I don't think I read the other volumes in order (can't remember why) nor did I have a purpose for leaving out Volume 4. I did want to save the last volume for last, and it seemed obvious to do so. I did read volumn 1 first. Its long sweeping sentences in the beginning that carry the reader in many different directions in space and time and mind, including, with imagery, into the Middle Ages, hooked me. I do think you should begin with Volume 1. After that, as you will.

2-
Which French edition or publisher would you suggest is the best to try?

I recommend the Folio edition, of which I have Sodome et Gomorrhe: cheaper and easy on the eyes. The bulk of the novel I read in Editions Gallimard, 1954, the Pléiade edition. It comes in 3 "tomes" (not to be confused with volumes). more expensive and not at all easy on the (my) eyes. But these are the only two editions I have seen.

For my part, I love long books but the length and nature of this book sounds beyond my reach. I am not confident I could follow through. "The well is deep and my rope is short."

Thanks again for your comments.

The Litterature audio recordings run a little over 145 hours. Which would make for a long, but not the longest, TV series.
I will discuss more in response to Kanawai's post.
Cheers,
Mork

[MorkTheFiddle]

I'd say give him a try, and commit to the first book. I'm still not sure if I agree that La Recherche is the greatest novel of all time, but I'm very glad I've been reading it. And Proust is not at all what I was expecting.

Without breaking your post into bits for responding, I will nevertheless try to address everything or most everything.
His sense of humor surprised me as it did you.
Until I learned that listening to Proust was better, easier and more rewarding than reading Proust, parts of the book bored me, too. Proust was a man with the gift of gab, meant to be heard, I believe, rather than read. I think a beginner should take a shot at just reading him, but move to listening when your spirit begins to flag. I should temper this advice, I suppose, by saying to enjoy listening to Proust you have to enjoy the French language, its sounds, and its rhythms (French also can have a lilt that pleases me a lot—just as some Iberian Spanish has, and I wonder whether perhaps Latin had a lilt, too--but the voices of the recordings I listen to do not have it).
His prose can be as beautiful as anyone’s.
The salon conversations do drag; that’s when you need the recordings.
Proust was well read, fond of the arts, and a frequenter of the highest social circles in Paris, accepted if not quite a member of them. And there are society and the arts in the book, but you the reader do not have to be a member of high or rich society to appreciate and enjoy his observations, conclusions and fictions about them. Surely if Downton Abbey and before that Upstairs, Downstairs* can be quasi-popular fare, then so can Proust. His book is a great learning experience as well as a great esthetic experience.
And when I say “book,” I am keeping in mind that A la recherche is part novel, part, memoire and part essay, and remembering this can guide you through some of the more “boring” parts.

*Caveat/Disclaimer: I have not seen Downton Abbey and did not much like Upstairs, Downstairs, so you can not like either and still enjoy Proust.

I am an litle lacking in details because parts of this book I read a generation or more ago. After I started it, life intervened, but I hope this little bit helps everyone a little bit.

As for the other novelist you discuss, my strongest demurral would be about Melville, whose works I find rich and even meaty, and some of which is satire. But a topic for another day, cause it’s my bedtime.

[kanewai]

quick addendum: I had taken MorktheFiddle's advice awhile back and listened to La prisonnière and Albertine disparue , and it was a whole new experience. I'd highly recommend it! Though I think you should read the first book to get used to Proust's writing style. For the last volume I'm thinking about doing both, reading and listening.

Audiobook's have actually helped me get though a lot of books that would have been intimidating otherwise!

[Carmody]

kanewai and Mork the Fiddle,

Thank you so much for the comprehensive guidance; it really is greatly appreciated.

When MorktheFiddle mentions

you have to enjoy the French language, its sounds, and its rhythms

it certainly does ring a bell with me. I believe it is one of the major reasons I have studied French so long. For me it is a bit like music that I have always been drawn to.

As to finally deciding to read it, I think I will hold off for the time being. It just sounds like such a daunting task. Maybe I will take out the first volume from the library and read a bit to see if I can handle it before buying the whole Folio editions. I mean I too would like to say I have read him but I just am not sure I have the skill sets required.

Again, a special thanks to you both for telling me what it is you don't like in your readings. This has been invaluable to me.