Challenging Reads

I am reading Don't Panic: Douglas Adams & The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and I am thoroughly enjoying it. But I read a 700 page novel in 2 1/2 days a week before and I am finding that I can only read 10-20 pages at a time in Don't Panic. I suspect I am running up against two things. 1) The novel is one I'd read before, more than once. 2) Don't Panic is non-fiction.

What if anything have you found makes for a challenging read? How does the challenge present itself to you? (For me I find I can't read for as long or at full speed as compared to other books.)

(Edited to add touchstone.)

I'm currently finding A Dweller on Two Planets to be slow going. The late 19th-century prose is further bogged down by Atlantean terminology, and the plot is fairly plodding. But it's not "challenging" in the way that Terra Ignota supplies a myriad of characters, factions, and motives, or the way Wolfe's Solar Cycle gives understated cues about technology and aliens.

It’s an interesting question. I am reading The Order War right now and it is an enjoyable read but not a compelling read. More like spending time with good friends. In contrast, this summer I read the last three books of The Expanse and flew through all three in a couple of weeks. Those were very compelling reads where I didn’t realize that I had read for a couple of hours without taking a break. Last month I read Epiphany of the Long Sun and the last 1/4 to 1/3 was compelling that read quickly but there was a middle portion where a contingent of the characters are wandering through subterranean catacombs that just seemed to go on and on. That was slow reading.

So what made the difference for me with The Expanse? I really cared about what happened to the characters as written and the action built up well and was riveting when the denouement arrived.

I am not being very articulate! Like I said… good question.

I also think it's an interesting question. But I think the first step in answering it would be to determine what is meant by challenging.

To me, challenging can break down along a couple of different lines.
1. A book can have challenging writing. This would be most similar to readability scores or the level of language and words being used in the book. To me this can take me out of the story very quickly if I'm having to slow down a lot just to understand what is being said.
2. A book can have a challenging plot. Essentially, this would be the complexity of the story. This might also include some of the writing issues that sometimes come along like having too many characters, unresolved plotlines, or deus ex machina situations.
3. We could also define challenging by looking at it's antonym. In this case, my assumption is that the opposite of challenging would be a fun read. Other than what's been mentioned before, a fun read to me would be something that I am interested in the topics or provides a sense of wonder (stealing from Brandon Sanderson). This is somewhat a catch-all category because I think there is more involved than just the first two things above.

Looking at some of my recent reads that I thought were challenging, Gene Wolfe's Solar cycle (as mentioned by >2 paradoxosalpha:) was horribly challenging on both #1 and #2. For me, I also found that after 1.5 books I just wasn't interested in finishing the story. I know it is complex and many people may find that a good thing, but at the time I just wasn't willing to figure it out. As an alternative, the Kingkiller Chronicles also has a very complex plot similar to the solar cycle, but the writing is so much easier that I don't mind the plot complexity.

Babel was also a challenging read for me mainly because of how it was written. Being written like a scholarly work with citations and asides throughout the text just meant that I wasn't getting pulled into the story at all. There wasn't anything particularly bad about it, but I found myself struggling to get through it. The plot was mostly normal though.

>3 Neil_Luvs_Books: I love the Saga of Recluce series, but I've had some friends tell me they can't get through the stories because they are too slow. I think this falls mainly under #3 above where I like a well thought out story even if it is slower but I know many people just want action packed stories.

Those are my ramblings on the topic.....

I love China Miéville's work and have read all of his fiction and some of his non-fiction, but I found Embassytown quite challenging. I had to concentrate on the language and linguistic structuring, and pay close attention to how the protagonist worked out what to say. It was a bit of a struggle, but worthwhile.

>5 Luke.w: In this case, my assumption is that the opposite of challenging would be a fun read.

And I'm much the opposite. While I can enjoy books that offer little challenge to me as a reader--say, an ordinary murder mystery or a conventional sword and sorcery adventure--I don't find them so memorable or satisfying. I savor a challenge, and I think they come in many forms, some of which have been identified already:

1) Erudite and exotic language
2) Complexity of plot and proliferation of character (e.g. Gravity's Rainbow)
3) Strangeness of setting (e.g. A Voyage to Arcturus)
4) Moral and/or emotional remove (e.g. Naked Lunch)
5) Sheer quantity of text (e.g. A Dance to the Music of Time)

I think Wolfe's Solar Cycle and Palmer's Terra Ignota tick all of these boxes, and I loved them both.

7>

Mentioning Wolfe (and adding Priest) another factor can be the reliability of the narrator or narrators. An extremely unreliable narrator tends to make the reader work a bit harder.

>8 andyl: extremely unreliable narrator

Oh yes, definitely. I think it's interesting that this conversation is in "Science Fiction Fans," because I find that sf is prone to supply either extreme of challenging and easy/accessible. Easy sf generally has a third-person omniscient reliable narrator. The minute you add first-person narration to sf, you start to encounter difficulties because of the speculative elements that are either opaque to or taken for granted by the narrator. Add some moral culpability (i.e. motive for dishonesty) to your narrator, and then you're off the charts for what ordinary readers can manage.

>3 Neil_Luvs_Books: >5 Luke.w: I have never found any of the Saga of Recluce novels a challenge, although other books by L. e. Modesitt, Jr. have been challenging for me like The Corean Chronicles and I had to DNF The Octagonal Raven, although I intend to give it another shot later this year.

>7 paradoxosalpha: I think everyone's view on what is challenging depends on what they are looking for from reading. In my case, I read a lot of research and legalese in my job, so I read as an escape from that. Reading a book where I have to take notes just to keep up sounds too much like work to me. I would rather relax while I read. Now, this doesn't mean I always choose the most simplistic book, but taken as a whole I would rather have an interesting fun read instead of something that will just give me a headache.

>11 Luke.w: Legalese? Hah! I laugh at legalese, and rewrite it in English.

>7 paradoxosalpha: I need to read the Terra Ignota series. Too many people have said it is worth reading and placed it in the same category as The Solar Cycle which I have been enjoying despite finding it a challenge. An enjoyable challenge!

To me what makes a challenging read is if it is the opposite of a great book - if it is not immersive and not memorable. The other factor is if I dislike the subject matter or characters. No matter the subject, that makes it a chore to get through. For example, I am very, very slowly reading East of Eden by Steinbeck. I extremely dislike the characters and the concept, but I have to admit it is memorable and well written. I just don't want to know what happens.

>13 Neil_Luvs_Books: I think that's a really good point. Just because a book is a challenge, does not necessarily mean I don't like it!

Dream of the Red Chamber by Xueqin Cao and Melmoth the Wanderer by Charles Maturin are probably the most challenging stories I have ever read. Particularly Melmoth. Melmoth is a wonderful and dense story that can be hard on the eyes but reaches in and shreds the senses.

Riddley Walker is challenging for the post-apocalyptic creole it's written in, but translated into English it's a reasonably straightforward tale. Dahlgren was, plotwise, a bit of a mindscrew across the board, at least for my money.

>17 spaceowl: Dhalgren
Good pick! High on my list of books deserving a second read.

I read the whole of Return to Neveryon recently, and it was challenging in ways that sword and sorcery (its intended genre) hardly ever is.

>17 spaceowl: and >18 paradoxosalpha: Yes! Dhalgren was another enjoyable challenge. I’ve read it once a few decades ago while an undergrad. It is due for a reread.

for me, if I describe a book as 'challenging' it only means that it is the opposite of an easy read. That can mean several different things:
- I need to go slow and put extra thought into it. Example: most nonfiction.
- it is densely descriptive, or has intricate world building. Examples: Obsidian and Blood by Aliette de Bodard, Semiosis by Sue Burke, the Stormlight Archive series by Brandon Sanderson.
- it is deep and I have to put it down periodically and ponder the points made. Ex: The Cemetery of Forgotten Books by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, Imajica by Clive Barker, The Book of Longings by Sue Monk Kidd.
- it is painful or sad and I have to take it in smallish doses. Ex: I Never Promised You A Rose Garden by Joanne Greenberg, We Need To Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver.
- it is an older book that didn't age well but I want to understand the sensibilities of the time in which it was written. Ex: Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert Heinlein.

some challenging reads were more rewarding than others, but usually if I describe it as challenging that means it was worth the time and I did finish it.