When you look at lists of bestselling novels, and then at lists of what the “greatest novels” are, you don’t see as much overlap as you do in other media. It seems as though when it comes to those GOAT lists, people seem way more concerned with magnitude as works of literature as art, when in reality the kinds of books you’re taught in school won’t as often be the kinds of books people choose to buy and read. As much as reading is viewed as an “intellectual” hobby by society, I don’t think most readers are as concerned with that side of it, and often will even read stuff they know is trashy. Which is great! As long as people are reading, in a time when reading seems to be going away, it can only be a good thing. But that being said, having combed through some such lists, I’m wondering which books people consider to maximize both sides, being exciting and engaging reads while also being immensely powerful and well written as works of art. So for instance a Colleen Hoover novel may not be atop many people’s lists of contemporary masterpieces, but Ulysses won’t exactly be something people are addicted to and can’t stop themselves from devouring. What books hit that sweet spot between the two arenas in the best way?
Karamazov Brothers have some unexplainable breaks in the narrative.
I almost gave up when Dostoyevsky decided to take a break in a middle of a murder mystery and chase down life and adventures of a kid of a teriarry character (Kolya Krastonkivov). This takes up entire book 10.
Don’t read the unabridged edition of Les Miserables. There’s a 30+ chapter aside on the Battle of Waterloo.
Agreed, there’s the whole section on religion too which is thematically interesting but feels very divorced from the main plot at times. Far from his most concise work.