21st Century Literature discussion

You miss a critical plot point... You accidentally skip a page... At some point in reading, you misread. You might confuse characters. You might misinterpret what an entire book is actually about. Sometimes it's your fault, sometimes the blame should really be on the writer. What have been some of your notable misreadings?

I don't read a lot of reviews or summaries ahead of time but often will after I finish a book. I read Killing Commendatore. Afterward, I kept seeing references to The Great Gatsby & I was ????? (I did ask & someone kindly pointed out to me the reference I had missed.)

Also, I still feel clueless about all the talk about how Life of Pi will make you believe in God. That makes zero sense to me. Imo, that book would make you renounce God. I still don't get it.

And, one more I can think of: Slip of a Fish. Spoilers ahead. The entire book is very unclear, as far as the writing is concerned. But, I think there's child molestation, as well as the main character killing her daughter. Just ?!?! Especially because all the cover blurbs mention things like "bemused" and "linguistically dexterous". I don't know if I missed everything or if the blurb writers actually didn't read or comprehend the book. Just horrifying. (I think the blurb writers didn't actually read the book.)

Stacia wrote: "I don't read a lot of reviews or summaries ahead of time but often will after I finish a book. I read Killing Commendatore. Afterward, I kept seeing references to The Great Gatsby &..."

I think Life of Pi is says that is because, superficially, the plot, is essentially a survival tale.

My worst misreading was Ling Ma's Severance - I thought it was just a dystopia but in reality it's a criticsm of work habits.

Another one is the Ferris Wheel scene in Joseph O'Neill's Netherland - it's supposed to represent a life trajectory - I saw it as a couple on a ferris wheel.

My worst misreading was Paul Griffiths’ Mr Beethoven. There’s a note page towards the end that explains that everything Beethoven says in the book is taken from words he wrote and the lists all the references. An Oulipian constraint the author worked with. For some reason I ignored the explanation and spent an age trying to work out what all the pages of apparent external references were about. Thankfully, but embarrassingly, Paul & Gumble’s Yard sorted me out (and they did it without even having read the book at that point!).

I have to go back in time but it is In Shakespeare's Henry cycle that Henry makes a classic about face when he assumes responsibility and turns his back on the lovable scoundrels we have been laughing at earlier in the story. The accepted proper read is that this is a mature positive act, demonstrative of his worthiness and nobility. As a young man I could not see this and argued that it was instead showed a pathological flaw in Henry and problems of a class driven society, offering that Shakespeare was obliquely criticizing absolute monarchy and possibly suggesting a democratic alternative in later words of Falstaff. This is in direct contrast to every critical interpretation I have read, but there is a part of me that still likes to think that Shakespeare was voicing dissent though my older self sees that reading as completely wrong.

Sam wrote: "problems of a class driven society, offering that Shakespeare was obliquely criticizing absolute monarchy and possibly suggesting a democratic alternative in later words of Falstaff."

I love this misreading. Way better than the reality.

One of my biggest misreadings was China Mieville's The City & the City, but it's still one I'm confused about. The end has a reveal, and a friend and I disagree about what it meant. And if he is right, which he probably is, it blew my mind since I read things really differently.

I'm sure there were plenty of others, but I can't remember them!

I read the 18th century classic Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady when I was in my late 20's and I had no second thoughts about seeing Clarissa as a prissy sucker, case closed. I re-read it a few decades later and I'm sad at how shallow my reaction was then. You'd think a young girl who unerringly walked into stupid mistakes on a regular basis would have had more empathy for her naive 18th century counterpart. But that's part of the stupidity ;)

Like Nadine I'm continuously amazed by my bad takes on old books although in my case I identified so strongly with the white-male colonial savior-figure that I could inhabit the title of Honorary Male as I read along and inhabit that character and experience his heroism in the deepest way possible for a vicarious experience. Especially if there was scifi involved. I do remember loving Stranger in a Strange Land and To Your Scattered Bodies Go so much! And now I'm like, hey, wait a minute, this is misogynistic claptrap.

I'm not sure if this is "misreading" per se since the authors of these books would probably say I'm "misreading" them now, not before.

lark wrote: "Like Nadine I'm continuously amazed by my bad takes on old books although in my case I identified so strongly with the white-male colonial savior-figure that I could inhabit the title of Honorary M..."

I make similar 'misreadings' all the time, lark. My evolution of opinions on works such as 'Memoirs of a Geisha' and 'Flowers for Algernon' into the decidedly negative is hardly an encouraged pathway on this site, but so it goes. I care far more about the communities who have to deal with that kind of dehumanizing representation than someone's fictional hang-ups.

Aubrey wrote: "'Flowers for Algernon' ..."

oh no! not Flowers for Algernon! I haven't read it since I was a teenager so it's still on my 'fondly remembered' list...

I think we may be interpreting misreading differently. In my case I simply interpreted the play wrong based on my youthful inability to see points with which I disagreed. Lark sees different elements in the book with the passage of time now disagrees. Aubrey has changed her judgement on the quality of the work over time. Neil missed an author's explanation. I don't see any of these wrong but Marc may have a clearer idea of what he meant. . I grew up with reader response criticism which pretty much allowed the reader broad freedoms in interpretation if it could be supported by the text.

There are some memorable books known for being misread out there. Hesses's Steppenwolf is one example.

This may be more of a cinematic misreading that got straightened out by reading the book. I watched the film version of Hrabal’s Closely Watched Trains before reading the novel. I’m not sure I was aware in watching the film (brilliantly done by Jiri Menzel) that the young protagonist had attempted suicide before we meet him. This was clearer in the book and lent a patina of pathos to a funny scene where his mother fusses over him, helping him to get ready for his first day on the job as a train dispatcher.

I simply meant any misreading (mistaking character intent, missing an allusion to another work of lit, outright missed story facts/realities). I think not seeing racist/colonialist/sexist elements could be seen as a misreading. You could view yourself as either a more mature or sophisticated reader upon growing up, reading more lit, having a better understanding/appreciation of life/society.

In general, I try not to put strict definitions and intents upon these questions of the week because I think doing so tends to limit discussion and it is fascinating to see what each of us considers their own "misreadings" to be.

I think I was at least halfway through Atwood's The Testaments before I realized I was getting the perspective of one more character than I had originally counted. I just got it in my head that there was one less character than there actually was. Just finished The Mirror & the Light a few days ago and was convinced I knew how it ended (not only was I completely wrong, I have no idea how I got this particular ending in my head; it definitely colored how I was reading the whole book; unfortunately, having not had this misreading would not have improved my enjoyment of the book). And for a completely different kind of "misreading" I once let Amazon talk me into a new John Barth book (I thought this was the Barth of Lost in the Funhouse; it was a self-published book by another John Barth; I read the whole book and it was horrible... I don't know if I was trying to will it into being something else or I just figured I'd give it a try anyway).

Robert wrote: "I think Life of Pi is says that is because, superficially, the plot, is essentially a survival tale."

I get that part.

But I guess that it seems such a traumatic survival tale that a) would you really be better off surviving and b) what kind of god inflicts this tortuous path on humans?

I am sure part of my misinterpretation follows my agnostic/athiest leanings. But I am still flummoxed by the rapturous raves as this showing the "good side" of god. Kwim?

Bad marketing for god, imo.

I guess this is not so much a misinterpretation as I disagree with the more popular opinion, lol.

In my last two years at school, aged 16-18, one of our English Lit texts was Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. I hated it and thought that chapters that consisted only of "My mother is a fish." were utter nonsense. It was only last year, reading it again for the first time in nearly forty years that I understood and realised what a genius Faulkner was.
That is forty years when I have never picked up a work by Faulkner because I was so dismayed and could not see how well he created all those points of view.

I had no idea there wasn't punctuation in The Road. I I couldn't figure out what people were talking about in reviews, my sister had to tell me...then I checked the book....

This is hard to describe, but after I read Ishiguro's The Unconsoled for the first time, I felt as though something momentous had happened at the end, a big "reveal" about the unreliable narrator of the story. But when I read the book a second time, this "momentous occurrence at the end" was nowhere to be found; in fact I couldn't even remember what I'd thought it was. Did Ishiguro put a spell on me? Was I just so convinced that there was some undisclosed truth in the book that I willed myself into thinking I'd actually read it?

A most unsettling "ending" for a book that was already unsettling enough without my misreading exacerbating it!

Jennifer wrote: "I had no idea there wasn't punctuation in The Road. I I couldn't figure out what people were talking about in reviews, my sister had to tell me...then I checked the book...."

I'm sure I must have noticed this at the time I read the book as it's the type of detail I normally look for, but I have no recollection of it whatsoever.

I think I was three stories in to What is Not Yours is Not Yours before I realized it was a short story collection and not a novel.

Bretnie wrote: "I think I was three stories in to What is Not Yours is Not Yours before I realized it was a short story collection and not a novel."
Ha! I bought The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick thinking it was fiction. I did realize before I started reading that it was not. (It's like the size of a small shoebox.)

Speaking of acquiring one edition and thinking it is another, some are very sneaky about their being abridged. I recently forgave it in one particular piece of esoteric 19th c. Chinese fiction due to the carved away pieces apparently being even more esoteric (aka requiring several degrees that I do not have in order to actually engage with) in nature, as well as the fact that the full text was apparently 400,000 words, which would be anywhere between 400-1300 pages longer than the edition I had depending on average page word count. Usually, though, it's very annoying to figure out one doesn't have the actual full thing by reading a one line mention halfway through the introduction. It just makes me glad that I minimize my book buying costs as much as I do, as it would be even more annoying to have acquired such for its full price.

Speaking of abridged editions, our book club had a very tough time figuring out why our copies of Les Miserables were different by 100s of pages and none marked ‘abridged’.

Also it’s very hard to find an unabridged copy is The Voyage of the Beagle and the abridged editions aren’t marked ‘abridged.’ Darwin’s weird observations about indigenous peoples have been excised in some editions. I’m not sure about the history here. I just happened to have read an unabridged version and then I learned that other people who had read it had no idea about what they missed.

lark wrote: "Speaking of abridged editions, our book club had a very tough time figuring out why our copies of Les Miserables were different by 100s of pages and none marked ‘abridged’.

Also it’s very hard to..."

Extremely different page design choices? Also, that's a juicy little fact you've put out there regarding Darwin, lark. I only have concrete plans to read his TOoS, but I'd be rather interested in seeing how far attempts at sanitizing this figure have gone in modern day publishing.

Jerry wrote: "This is hard to describe, but after I read Ishiguro's The Unconsoled for the first time, I felt as though something momentous had happened at the end, a big "reveal" about the unreliab..."

I have a hypothesis that Ishiguro wrote that book as a love letter to Kafka's The Castle. Considering how good that earlier author is at achieving exactly that sort of uneasily profound nonentity/banality in tone/circumstance, plus the fact that that work was never finished, it makes it seem as if TU having that effect is a sign of it having succeeded. Doesn't make it easy for the reader, but there you have it.

The only abridged book I can recall reading is Samuel Richardson's Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady. (I have a thing for 18th century Brit lit.) The original is 1500+ pages and the abridged version I read is about 500 pages. In this case, I think the abridged does just fine - it's an epistolary novel, and as far as I can see, the cuts eliminated repetitive letters.

Aubrey wrote: "I have a hypothesis that Ishiguro wrote that book as a love letter to Kafka's The Castle. Considering how good that earlier author is at achieving exactly that..."

Fascinating idea, Aubrey. Thanks for the comment and the insight.