Wil Self: In Praise of Difficult Novels

But 'their very existence is predicated on the distinction between cultural and financial capital that, under existing neoliberal conditions, is being comprehensively annihilated... Of course, people will object along these lines: “Joyce’s Ulysses only garnered a smattering of writers during his lifetime—and considering it’s regarded by many critics to be the most important novel of the 20th century, it’s hardly attracted that many since his death…”'

I don't understand how neoliberal conditions--or anything else--would comprehensively annihilate the distinction between cultural and financial capital, or how one "predicates" the existence of difficult novels on that distinction. In fact, "cultural capital" doesn't make much sense to me in this context. And surely Ulysses only gained a few readers during his lifetime--I'd have thought a scattering rather than a smattering.

Stopped reading there, but hey, I learned a new word.

I did skim on, though, because I am kind of interested in the topic of difficult novels. My favorite novel, Neuromancer is at least marginally "difficult", based on the reactions of the high school friends to whom I recommended it in the late 1980s -- but I don't think it really is. It introduces many things before they are explained, and probably uses a wider range of vocabulary than most novels of its time, but it's really not that demanding.

A better example is probably The Road, the post-apocalyptic masterpiece by Cormac McCarthy, versus, say, The Dog Stars, the post-apocalyptic masterpiece by Peter Heller. Though the meat of both stories is similar, the former is an energy-intensive slog (but wonderful), while the latter is a light read that can be completed in a couple nights of falling-asleep-reading (and also wonderful).

The reason that I am interested in "difficult" novels is that I find myself incessantly badgering my friends who don't read, or who don't read fiction, to read novels. And even buying them books. But I've found that I can't start with the very best novels because then they won't complete it and it won't take. They won't even finish the first one.

Anyway, before this comment itself grows to novel length, let me just recommend some great — but decidedly not difficult — novels I've recently read.

REAMDE by Neal Stephenson, who often does write difficult novels, but this one is like his version of a supermarket paperback (and still good). Seveneves likewise.

Spin by Robert Charles Wilson, probably my favorite novel of the past few years (published in 2005 but I didn't find it until years later). Hugo winner.

December 6, by Martin Cruz Smith, a well-known but (in my view) pretty hit-or-miss author, who nevertheless has written a few great novels (Gorky Park being the most famous, but not as good as December 6).

Ancillary Justice, the debut novel from Ann Leckie. It was great, although I didn't find the rest of the trilogy had much to add to it. Hugo, Nebula, and Arthur C. Clarke award, though, holy shit right?

City of Thieves by David Benioff.

Memoirs of a Geisha, the unbelievably awesome debut novel from Arthur Golden, from which an unbelievably horrible move was somehow extracted (this story is the kind that cannot be told in a movie, and is a great proof of why we need novels).