OnlineBookClub.org

When I read Madrapur from Merle, in the end of the book I was very confused and annoyed, because I could not understand the end and what actually happened. Did anything like this happened to you and if yes, which book confused you?

Anyway if somebody knows and read Madrapur, can you explain me the end?

The most confusing book I read was Catch-22. I think it is because I read it when I was too young and didn't understand why any of the characters were acting the way they did. Nothing made sense. Now that I am older, I'll have to give it another try.

The Unconsoled by Kazuo Ishiguro. Although I didn't really finish it. It was very confusing and a bit boring. I absolutely didn't understand what's going on and somewhere in the middle I just gave up. May be I will give it a try again some day, we'll see.

Ticker by Lisa mantchen.... I couldn't even.read half it it.

I think one of the most confusing books I have read would have to be fire starter by Stephen King. It would jump back and forth from past and present and sometimes it would take me a minute to realize which part I was reading.

DarkestbeforeDawn wrote:The most confusing book I read was Catch-22. I think it is because I read it when I was too young and didn't understand why any of the characters were acting the way they did. Nothing made sense. Now that I am older, I'll have to give it another try.

You really should give it another try. When you are reading it it helps to know that each chapter at the beginning is pretty much devoted to describing the characters and to give you a growing sense of the plot and background - in other words, don't expect a lot of "story" at the beginning. To put it simply, you just have to go with the flow. A friend gave me my first copy of this book and when I began reading it I had much the same reaction that you did so I put it aside for awhile. Some time later, maybe a couple of weeks, I picked it back up and remembered pretty much all that I had read up to that point because I had not read that far in the first sitting. I don't know how to describe it, maybe I was now in the right frame of mind for this book the second time around, but I found myself immediately immersed in it on the second read and began to understand what the author was doing with it. It proved to be one of the most satisfying reading experiences of my life. The humor is different and takes awhile to get accustomed to, but once you "get it" it really takes off. There were several instances in which I was laughing so hard I was practically on the floor. Joseph Heller had only one good book in him and this was it, but it was a blockbuster.

Good luck if you take another stab at it. I hope you eventually enjoy it as much as I did.

Probably "Something Happened" by Joseph Heller. But the book is deliberately written this way, a disjointed and rambling 1st person narrative by a very mixed up person. Nevertheless it's a great modern novel.

And of course, my fave book of all, "Ulysses" by Joyce. Certain passages are intentionally misleading and disruptive as pert of the quasi-experimental tone of the novel.

Another intentionally confusing book was "Naked Lunch" by Burroughs, a fantasy-riddled book about heroin addiction.

None of the 3 were easy reads but they were deliberately written to be at times confusing and misleading.

I have however read a few unintentionally badly written books which were unreadable. A guy I know slightly self published a book about firefighters and it was so terribly written and had so many typos and other errors that I gave up in frustration after 3-4 chapters. A few other amateurish books or stories have also given me fits and headaches. Some things are better left unread.

I have had many bad books that were confusing only because the story was disjointed and not well written. As for confusing I would have to say the first time I tried to read " A Clockwork Orange." because of the author-created lingo for so many words. But at an older age it was easier. Some of Chuck Palhnuik can be difficult until you really get absorbed.

Clockwork Orange is an astounding novel in that it created a whole dialect "Natspeak" (I think that's the term. So sue me) which was the fictional contrivance of the author. He was a genius and this was a blend of Cockney slang plus Russian and a bunch of other things thrown in.

We occasionally find this even in very non-confusing books which are either US or UK in origin. I've read the occasional Brit story but some of the cultural contrivances aren't easily understood by the other side. One example I can remember is the term "bedsit" which essentially describes a 1-room "efficiency" apartment. Although an American reader can usually figure out what this means it can be slightly off-putting.

Same for any locale. Author Neil Gaiman has written of this. In an earlier version of his novel Neverwhen he spoke of various London areas and neighborhoods which have certain type of culture or spirit. But American readers might not know this, and when Gaiman revised the story for greater distribution, he added a few helpful passages which describe certain British locales or other things a little better for those who aren't cognizant of London.

I myself have this problem in my series of modern Americal private detective novels, which are based in Houston where I live.

I can discuss the areas of "Montrose" or "Heights" or "Fifth Ward" and so on and any Houstonian will know the spirit and general concept of each, but I cannot expect the other readers to know this. I therefore add a passage such as "we were headed to the Montrose district. I have always been fond of this near-town neighborhood, home of Houston's music and arts endeavors, what was once the hippie zone, later a prevalent gay environment, and nowadays, a mixed culture of artist, musicians, empty nesters, and avante garde society."

Something like that helps establish the mental image for those unfamiliar with the area. In truth, I DO live in the Montrose area and it's like Haight-Asbury of Houston.

Things like this help the reader being less confused.

I love Russian literature, so several of those could fall into this category. War and Peace was my first exposure to Russian literature, so I was quickly confused by all the names, surnames, relationships, etc. that presented themselves in the first chapter. The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov was confusing too, but not for the same reasons. I was not quite sure what was going on the whole time. The story is a metaphor for what was going on in socialist Russia at the time, I believe, so without understanding the context, I was a little confused.

A couple of reasons why I'm not a fan of 19th century Russian literature is evidenced by your post.

Not every novel has to tell the whole story of Mother Russia start to end and spend a gaziiion pages detailing the Revolution. It would be as if I were to write a mystery novel but first thought I had to re-tell about our Civil War. Gimme a break.

But if you do include all this then of course you're going to have lots and lots of characters.

I am not a fan of 19th century fiction regardless of the country of origin, however, so my view is a bit skewed. The language is too ornate and burdened with immensely long sentences and paragraphs. Ponderous. Not that this makes the book confusing, necessarily, but I honestly don't like to plow through Victorian style writing. That's just me, of course.

The Master and Margarita is actually vastly different from 19th century Russian literature in that it is actually from roughly the 1930's, so the setting is quite a bit more modern than probably most of the Russian stories you might be thinking of. Not exactly Victorian era.
It is also incredibly different in storytelling technique, and in general tone of the story. It's not a complex web of infinite characters, like Anna Karenina or The Idiot. It is a much more modern story, in many ways: writing, setting, theme. It's complexity is primarily because of the deep metaphorical layers present. It focuses on post-Revolutionary Russia, unlike the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky which linger on or mourn the past Russia. Bulgakov studies the godless nature of Soviet Russia. While interesting, I was a bit lost.

I do understand your dislike of 19th century Russian lit, though. I think it's an acquired taste. Tolstoy is a bit too much for me sometimes. Dostoevsky is much more my pace, with his sarcastic sense of humour and how he doesn't take himself too seriously (unlike Tolstoy). So I see where you're coming from.

Thanks for the correction about the era of M&M.

But each to one's own.

I loved The Master & Margarita & didn't find it at all confusing .... Just saying!

I need to give it a try again! That was several years ago, and I stopped halfway through to read another book and then picked it up again--I'm sure that didn't help at all. I'm sure I could figure it out now that I"m not a flighty teenager.