Beowulf, currently number 2 on this list, isn't a novel at all. And many of these books, like Anna Karenina, are not difficult, they're just long, which isn't the same thing.

Ditto on the point that difficult is not the same as long. Dickens and Rand, though verbose, are rather transparent.

Oh, I just saw in the description that these difficult books are supposed to be worth the effort. Well, that would change things.. hehe.

What about The Phantom of The Opera? I just couldn't read that one. Too difficult!

What might be difficult to one, may not be to another. What might be interesting to one, may not be to the other.

Unless you are severely handicapped, Neil Gaiman's novels are not difficult.

I agree about Gaiman, and The Count of Monte Cristo is not so difficult that it needs to be listed four times.

Ulysses and Sound and the Fury aren't at all difficult if you understand "stream of consciousness." This is all personal taste and reading ability....utter baloney!

How is it that Finnegan's Wake is so far below Ulysses? Seriously? Ulysses is WONDERFUL. (!!!!!)

Why are there like 8 versions of CoMC on this list? Maybe that's what's so difficult...people think it's 8 books instead of one.

Katherine wrote: "Why are there like 8 versions of CoMC on this list? Maybe that's what's so difficult...people think it's 8 books instead of one."

Haha, yeah it confused me as well. And we also read it in my 8th grade reading class...

Finnegan's Wake is below Ulysses because not as many people have even tried to read it, I imagine.

Ah...that does make sense. When I say I've trid to read it, I mean I opened it to the first page, opened it to a random middle page and looked the last page and decided it was impossible.

I added the Aeneid. I have to agree with most of the assertions that the books listed (the ones I have actually read anyway) are often merely LONG rather than hard. BUt the Aeneid has so many layers, and is so artificial that it is in a different category... of course technically it is NOT a novel, so I guess I won't add Paradise Lost. But I also have to support Ulysses as "hard." Stream of consciousness IS hard. So is a multiple leveled experimental retooling of an ancient epic poem. And Finnegan's Wake is harder, but I suspect fewer people even try...

OK, as a Librarian, I am deleting books that really hard, but are clearly NOT novels (including my own insertion of the Aeneid). Beowulf, Kant: buh-bye.

If hard equals BORING, the "Unbearable" heaviness of both book and movie should shoot that snooze up to #1.

Technically, Canterbury Tales is not a novel, but so what.

I have not read HEART OF DARKNESS, although I do own it. Should I bother?

The passages I have read are brilliant, but I have never mounted a successful assault on the whole... and it is only 100pp!

Yes, you should definitely read Heart of Darkness--very worthwhile. And as Antoine points out, it's only 100 pages.

Susan wrote: "

Anna Karenina was very repetitive, in my humble opinion. Nevertheless, I couldn't put it down.

I once implied to a bright well-read friend that I didn't think Infinite Jest was something she'd get through. However, it's one of my personal favorites.

I loved it (though I hated some aspects of it), but I couldn't possibly describe it as "easy."

I read Tale of Two Cities in HS English class and have re-read it since then.I would not consider it difficult but I do think its a worthwhile for anyone to read.

Tom wrote: "Beowulf, currently number 2 on this list, isn't a novel at all. And many of these books, like Anna Karenina, are not difficult, they're just long, which isn't the same thing."

It's all rather subjective isn't it? What makes a book a hard read for someone else wouldn't be the same for you, and vice-versa.

If anyone likes to read into and analyze books, then Heart of Darkness is like a tiny treasure chest that can be broken into so many different schools of thought, that it's amazing. Even if one is incapable of disecting a book, or feels that it takes away from it's literary value, it is an enjoyable, though some would find difficult, read, either way, though much more enjoyable in the former case.
But, this is all opinion, so...

Sound and the Fury is easily the most difficult book I've ever read!

Why do I get the feeling that, with the exception of Finnegan's Wake, most of the titles on this list say more about the readers than the difficulty of the books.

Hey, remember "difficult" does not mean bad. That we talk as if it does says even more about us (as people of our time) than our choice of books. In fact, to nominate a book you are supposed to have actually read it, AND felt it was "worth the effort." I, for one, doubt that all 48 people who voted for Finnegan's Wake have actually read it and liked it, but whatever. It is certainly famous for being "difficult."

Fiona wrote: "Joyce wrote: "I have not read HEART OF DARKNESS, although I do own it. Should I bother?"

I wouldn't bother if I was you - a turgid novel detailing a land long forgotton in a time that no one car..."
Yes, Fiona, you should bother. Then you will understand about colonialism, and why it informs so many international issues today, which clearly the viewer of Apocalypse Now has failed to do.

Antoine wrote: "OK, as a Librarian, I am deleting books that really hard, but are clearly NOT novels (including my own insertion of the Aeneid). Beowulf, Kant: buh-bye."

Good! Thanks...

I'm amazed at the inclusion of some books on this list. How could anyone literate find Dickens difficult?? I read and enjoyed his books (and I mean almost all of them) when I was about 14. Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea???? It isn't even long, and Hemingway is a master of simple short sentences!
This list makes me despair about the future of the written word if books that were read and enjoyed by *teenagers* of my generation are considered 'difficult' now.

Well, that begs the question, "what is difficult?" I have always found Hemingway "difficult" despite the simplicity of his diction. He isn't hard to read; he is hard (for me) to care about. As a teacher, I find my teenage students far more passionate about Jane Eyre than about Hard Times. For them, Dickens much simpler (technically) novel, was less meaningful to them, and therefore more "difficult." Whereas Bronte's much weirder novel spoke directly to them, and so the superficial "difficulty" of the text melted away.

I suppose I was assuming that respondents here were adults. I mean, for example, a primary school student would find Dickens difficult to read even when they could decode the words because they wouldn't have experienced reading 19th century writing styles nor have any understanding of the social issues that Dickens was writing about. But I would assume that students in secondary school would (should) have been exposed to a bit of classic literature and have some knowledge of history and the humanitarian/philanthropic issues that were a cause for concern in those days.
Of course one reason why students find Jane Eyre easier is because they can fake reading it by watching the movie LOL...

Well, the same could be said of a lot of Dickens, vis-a-vis film. A couple thoughts, as someone who tries engage teenagers with literature professionally (although I teach in a private school, which is known locally for attracting serious readers). Most people don't pick up and enjoy novels for the thrill of examining related historical and social issues, unless they are required to do so for school. Those things may be present, but what a reader wants above all is story. Dickens is a master, perhaps THE master of story, but the conventions of his style and time require drawing out an element of mystery for 2/3 to 3/4 of a novel. Only then do all the disparate elements of the story come together and hurtle towards their compelling conclusion. In Bleak House, to take one example, that's almost 700 pp of matter (much of it rather didactic and preachy-seeming) before you figure out what's really going on with the story. That's a lot of time to lose interest in finding out what will happen at all.

I think difficulty of engagement, difficulty giving a damn, is really the issue with a lot of these works for some readers, and reading conprehension, raw ability, has little or nothing to do with it. Take Moby Dick, a book that I am reading right now, and enjoying very much. Melville's diction isn't difficult, and he has great "issues" in hand. But a lot of readers find it difficult to sustain their interest through the whole novel. Its almost a cliche of boredom. And what is more "difficult," in the end, than sticking with something that fails to interest you?

I just deleted several books that, while arguably difficult, are clearly not novels (the Bible, Thucydides, Paradise Lost). I chose to leave the Canterbury Tales for some reason; not sure why.

P.S. I also deleted the 77pp retelling of the Count of Monte Cristo. I direct those who voted for it to the complete novel, also featured in this list, currently at number 33.

Difficult is a very obtuse and general word. Certain books may not be so incomprehensible (Like most of later Burroughs that I've read, Nova Express, parts of Cities of the Red Night-- certainly difficult books) and still exhausting to finish despite their quality; thus my votes for The Glass Bead Game and Something Happened.

There is so much wrong with this list.

A Clockwork Orange? The Bell Jar? It took me a mere two days to read A Clockwork Orange, and I don't know if it's my knowledge of the Russian language and Burgess' application of it in the book, but I did not find this novel the least bit challenging.
While the Bell Jar was lengthier, I do not see any challenge with this book.

Maybe its a flawed list-one person's easy beach read is another's nightmare. But the top ten seems like a good selection of worthy and genuinely difficult books.

Paradise Lost is not a novel, neither is The Divine Comedy. You should either change the title, or edit the entire list.

Uhm.. What's so difficult about Crime and Punishment , Lolita, Heart of Darkness or One hundred years of solitude? I finished the first three in a relatively short time, they read well and are quite engrossing. I admit that I'm stuck in the middle of "Solitude" but that's because I'm lazy and can't remember who's who ;). One can't even compare the difficult-ness of these with Ulysses (tried - failed).

ETA Catch 22 is a piece of cake and a very pleasant read. What's wrong with some people?

Joyce wrote: "I have not read HEART OF DARKNESS, although I do own it. Should I bother?"

Of course you should. It's wonderfully mind-f*cking ;).

I think that it's sad that so many people are repeatedly commenting on the intelligence of others simply because they thought a book was difficult. I'm also disappointed to find that the majority of posts involve people complaining at how the list is configured and how "easy" a book is to them. This list isn't perfect but, as too many people before me have had to post, this is based on people's OPINIONS and not fact. I wish that those who post messages would refrain from making such comments, but since I'm not the "web police" I can't enforce it. Oh well.
On a more positive note, I must say that, after reading both War and Peace and Ana Karenina, I have a lot of respect for Tolstoy as a writer because for him to not only write novels as long as they are and to make them so good (in my opinion) shows what I characterize as superior writing abilities. Of course that's just me.

the description says these should be books that made you work super hard but that, at the end, you found worth the effort. i think this is entirely subjective; moreover, the fact that some books someone found extremely easy have been voted for more than once proves that there is something challenging -- and worthwhile -- about them.

Divine Comedy, Iliad, Paradise Lost, Anti-Oedipus --> not novels.

It's fun to see what some people call difficult. Of course, by fun I mean dishearteningly elucidating as to the current state of functional illiteracy. AKA: Little Women is a children's book.

Chloe wrote: "It's fun to see what some people call difficult. Of course, by fun I mean dishearteningly elucidating as to the current state of functional illiteracy. AKA: Little Women is a children's book."

hey chloe, did you take a look at the book the people who voted for Little Women have on their "read" list? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they were joshing. in fact, if i weren't such a stickler for accuracy and earnestness i would vote for Little Women myself.

I suppose that could be the case. These polls have not, in the past, made me especially optimistic. And, well, 80% or more of these books are not difficult so much as long or well-constructed.

I see some people (above) dislike critical comments. And, I appreciate encouraging people who may not read very much. But, this is a place for people who love books, ostensibly. I think deteriorating standards are not a non-issue in that arena. Pretty much every poll or list here is steeped in mediocrity. It's okay to notice this. We care too much about emotions today, and it just feeds the appetitive side of human nature.

While a lot of these books are more "long" than "difficult," I think that some books are difficult to finish because they are long. War and Peace, for example, is very easy to understand, but it's length makes it very tedious at times (particularly the historical sections that veer away from the far more interesting fictional sections). Proust, on the other hand, is not always easy to understand, but the length of the novel and the separate volumes can make the otherwise engrossing read seem trying for even the most ardent followers. I found it impossible to read from beginning of Swann's Way to the end of Time Regained. I don't understand how any of Dostoevsky's works are perceived as difficult, though.

Ultimately, I very much agree with Joyce's high placement on the list. He earned it by being both long and difficult.