At the beginning of the year I decided that this year's reading goal would be to work through a list of 100 books the BBC thinks you should have read but probably haven't. Several of the works I had not read I have really liked, and several I haven't. These are two that fall into the latter category.
Kent said Catch 22 was really funny. Maybe for a guy. It didn't really do anything for me. I read probably 50 or so pages (how much I should read being under 50), then skipped through the rest, reading bits and pieces. The rest beyond was pretty much like the first, and I was done. I read the last chapter and didn't feel like I had skipped most of it.
Several years ago I selected Reading Lolita in Tehran as a book group selection. I loved it. It was fascinating to read about Iranian women trying, in subtle and clandestine ways, to overcome the oppression they face. I had not, however, actually read Lolita. On the cover of the copy I have is a quote from Vanity Fair. It says, "The only convincing love story of our century." This disturbs me. The protagonist is an aging man obsessed with a child, a twelve year old girl he considers a nymphet. I could not get past the fact that the man telling the story is a pedophile. And how awful is it to think that "the only convincing love story of our century" is about an illegal, disgusting relationship? Seems depraved to me, but more and more I suppose that describes our culture. Maybe the fact that I am raising a sweet daughter I want to shelter from such horror as long as possible colors my view here, but whatever the reason, I didn't make it to page 100, and I'm not going to.
I like to consider myself intellectually open-minded and diverse in my reading tastes, but I couldn't bring myself to like either of these books. Even if some snob at the BBC thinks I should.
