In 2009 I walked the French Way, also known as, Camino Francés. Started in Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port.
In progress. Much harder than it sounds.
Planning to do a road trip in the States soonish.
Finally seen Built to Spill live in 2019 in Dresden. Had a chance to meet Doug Martsch before the concert and take a picture with him.
This will be my third language. Still working on it. Speak a bit but can't say I'm fluent yet.
I started playing the piano recently, but still not sure if this will be my next instrument.
I finished a half-marathon in 2014, and I'm not planning to run a full-marathon, due to problems with my joints.
I follow a lot of industry channels. My idea is to dedicate a day every three months to just watch their most popular videos to keep up to date on everything.
I wanted to make an article about hobbies that are cheap or free for a long time. Most of these require little to no money. I admit, some of them cost a few hundred dollars, like starting a home gym which saves you money on gym memberships in the long run.
I love bread baking. I often let my friends have some, and they all love it. I enjoy trying out different recipes and adding random stuff to see how it turns out.
It is very fun and if you have a kitchen already with an oven then every bread costs only like $1 and will be better than anything you can ever buy. Once you try your own, fresh bread, you will never go back.
If you want to make some basic sourdough it’s pretty much just flour, water, and salt.
Then once you have your starter you can mix the other stuff, let it chill in the fridge and bake it. Plus it’s kinda fun setting your oven as high as it will go and hoping it doesn’t explode.
Or you can cheat and use commercial yeast to make regular bread today.
There's tons of free info online, plenty of books that are available at the library. Flour, water, and salt are all extremely inexpensive. Even a 5 lb bag of excellent flour like King Arthur Unbleached is just a few bucks.
|King Arthur Flour 100% Organic Unbleached Bread Flour, 5 Pound||243 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
This is a great sourdough starter video tutorial:
I definitely recommend this book!! Super helpful because it goes into detail about the science of breadmaking, and the role each ingredient plays, rather than just giving you recipes to blindly follow.
Forkish's pizza dough recipes are also amazing. I never thought I could make restaurant-quality pizza at home, but his Overnight Straight Pizza Dough really turns out THAT well for me every time.
If you're serious about making pizza, Ken Forkish also published a specific book on this topic, The Elements of Pizza.
|The Elements of Pizza: Unlocking the Secrets to World-Class Pies at Home [A Cookbook]||593 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Some of these accessories and equipment requires an investment, but you will use that stuff your whole life. Bread is going to be almost free for you after some time.
If cooking is an art, baking is a science. You'll want to be as precise as possible. Have a scale, weigh everything precisely, calibrate your oven, mix things consistently, take note of humidity.
If you want more consistency, you can consider getting:
LoafNest: Incredibly Easy Artisan Bread Kit. Cast Iron Dutch Oven and Made in France Non-Stick Perforated Silicone Liner [Blue Gradient]. A Dutch oven is probably the most important accessory you can buy if you're serious about baking bread. You can't really make a good loaf without trapping the moisture in some way. It's an investment.
OXO 11214800 Good Grips 11 Pound Stainless Steel Food Scale with Pull-Out Display,Black,1.2 Get a food scale for more consistent measurements. Once you really learn to bake bread, you won't need a food scale. I'm doing everything by heart now and experimenting more.
9 Inch Proofing Basket,WERTIOO Bread Proofing Basket + Bread Lame +Dough Scraper+ Linen Liner Cloth for Professional & Home Bakers Get a proofing basket for fancy looking bread. A proofing basket is a good investment if you're serious about this. It's cheap too. It can also be called a banneton. Proofing baskets should be made out of wood and come with a liner or without one.
Ultra Cuisine 100% Stainless Steel Wire Cooling Rack for Baking fits Half Sheet Pans Cool Cookies, Cakes, Breads - Oven Safe for Cooking, Roasting, Grilling - Heavy Duty Commercial Quality Buy cooling racks, but most people have these already. Get a proper cooling rack if you're planning to really get into this hobby. It really helps when you're baking a lot of loaves.
Winware Stainless Steel Dough Scraper with Wood Handle Get a dough scraper. It's useful too. It allows for the handling of high-hydration dough without making your hands messy. It works well for scraping the leftover dough from your work surface and for cutting your dough. A large plastic dough/bowl scraper really upped my game and saved so much time and frustration from the dough sticking to the counter.
King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour, 5 Pounds (Packaging May Vary) And then there different types of flour. Rye is best for starters cause it's the most biologically active. Soft white is suitable for delicate things like pastries, tortillas, and stuff, and it will also lighten/fluff up your loaves of bread if it's partially mixed in. Buckwheat has a hearty/earthy flavor if you want a little of that.
Powerful Electric Grain Mill Grinder for Home and Professional Use - High Speed Electric Flour Mill Grinder for Healthy Grains and Gluten-Free Flours - Electric Grain Grinder Mill by Wondermill For me I take it one step further and buy grains and grind my grains into flour using an electric mill. I fancy hard red wheat the most. It's expensive but has an incredibly deep taste.
|1||Flour Water Salt Yeast: The Fundamentals of Artisan Bread and Pizza [A Cookbook]||2,678 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||Bread Baking for Beginners: The Essential Guide to Baking Kneaded Breads, No-Knead Breads, and...||2,147 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||The Bread Baker's Apprentice, 15th Anniversary Edition: Mastering the Art of Extraordinary Bread [A...||339 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|4||Bread Illustrated: A Step-By-Step Guide to Achieving Bakery-Quality Results At Home||586 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|5||Tartine Bread (Artisan Bread Cookbook, Best Bread Recipes, Sourdough Book)||1,256 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|6||The Bread Bible||554 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|7||Paul Hollywood's Bread||1,344 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|8||The New Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day: The Discovery That Revolutionizes Home Baking||1,447 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|9||Poilâne: The Secrets of the World-Famous Bread Bakery||209 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|10||Betty Crocker The Big Book of Bread (Betty Crocker Big Book)||122 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
What is the added benefit of using the Dutch oven? Wouldn't it turn out the same if it was baked without it?
Baking bread uncovered allows the moisture to escape. Baguettes and loaves of bread with a crunchier exterior are often sprayed or misted with water during baking to achieve a crunchy exterior. Bread like sandwich bread, challah, and softer types are baked uncovered, no mist or added steam yielding softer bread with a shiny exterior by use of egg wash before baking.
This is the best Dutch oven on the market, bar none:
A Dutch oven will still retain moisture initially, and you'll probably be able to get the loaf out more quickly. I have made beautiful loaves in an even larger cast iron pot with no problems.
If you have a plain cast-iron pot, don't forget to use parchment paper. I have heard some horror stories of loaves stuck in pots using this method!
The Dutch in the 17th century had a better method for producing cast iron cookware. Something about their process made very smooth cooking surfaces. An Englishman took the method back to England, where they were made and exported heavily to the colonies.
In the Americas, many changes were made to the pots for use during exploration and living in the wild. Dutch ovens became a part of American history as the defacto cookware for those heading west.
A lidded Pullman is a great alternative to a Dutch Oven. Personally, I like a loaf of crusty sandwich bread, so I leave the lid off, but if you want softer crust, the lidded Pullman seems to the best.
I also like brushing the loaf with milk when it comes out.
I usually bake around 450-475 with a Dutch oven.
I usually let it go for 30 minutes with the lid on, and then I remove the lid and let it bake for another 15-20 minutes. Pretty much until I see the ears get as charred as I want.
|1||Lodge Enameled Cast Iron Dutch Oven With Stainless Steel Knob and Loop Handles, 6 Quart, Red||10,981 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||AmazonBasics Enameled Cast Iron Covered Dutch Oven, 6-Quart, Blue||6,761 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||Lodge 5 Quart Cast Iron Dutch Oven. Pre-Seasoned Pot with Lid and Dual Loop Handle||5,829 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|4||Crock Pot Artisan Round Enameled Cast Iron Dutch Oven, 7-Quart, Slate Grey||704 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|5||Lodge Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron Double Dutch Oven With Loop Handles, 5 qt||3,941 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Cast iron is good, but the reason behind it is to trap the steam and make a nice crust. The same results could be achieved with a clay 'le cloche' type of thing or on the cheap via pizza stone and a lid of some sort.
I've used just about every method out there and can achieve the best results with my le cloche, but this one came out from the stone/lid combo.
I just use a big aluminum lid I got from Sam's club. Put it in the oven while preheating, use gloves to load the bread/lift the lid, and cover for 20 minutes. Voila!
|1||Lodge Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron Skillet With Assist Handle, 10.25", Black||35,281 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron Skillet - Utopia Kitchen (1, 12.5 Inch)||5,490 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||Lodge Pre-Seasoned Cast Iron Griddle With Easy-Grip Handle, 10.5 Inch (Pack of 1), Black||8,409 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
The pizza stone works well, never had any issues. It's made for that kind of dough as pizza dough is high hydration as well.
|1||Cuisinart CPS-445, 3-Piece Pizza Grilling Set, Stainless Steel||1,057 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||Pizza Stone for Best Crispy Crust Pizza, Only Stoneware with Thermarite (Engineered Tuff...||946 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||Hans Grill Pizza Stone Baking Stone for Pizzas use in Oven and Grill/BBQ Free Wooden Pizza Peel...||921 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
A baking steel offers superior thermal mass, and the results are a bit better with it versus the results with a regular stone once you cover them up. The baking steel is awesome in that it's huge so I can bake larger loaves, but since they're both covered with a lid, they cook more or less on par with one another.
|1||Pizzacraft PC6302 Square Kitchen or Barbeque Grill Steel Baking Plate, Black||1 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||Dough-Joe Pizza Steel Baking Sheet The Samurai--15" x 15" x 1/4||367 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||Artisan Steel - High Performance Pizza Steel Made in the USA - 16" x 14.25" (.25" Thick)||Check Price and Reviews|
I love making bread in my bread machine. The bread machine takes all the work out, you just put the ingredients in, and 3-6 hours later you have amazing bread.
Bread from the machine will be better than the one from a supermarket but way worse than an artisanal hand-made one.
I almost always make my own hamburger buns. I use a bread machine set to the dough cycle and then form it into buns and bake them. It only takes a couple of hours of wait and only about 15 minutes of active work, and they taste amazing. I just can't eat store-bought buns anymore. They're either disgusting or expensive.
|1||KBS Pro Stainless Steel Bread Machine, 2LB 17-in-1 Programmable XL Bread Maker with Fruit Nut...||1,745 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|2||Pohl Schmitt Stainless Steel Bread Machine, 2LB 17-in-1, 14 Settings Incl Gluten Free & Fruit, Nut...||253 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|3||Hamilton Beach 2 Lb Digital Bread Maker, Programmable, 12 Settings + Gluten Free, Dishwasher Safe...||4,148 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|4||Elite Gourmet Maxi-Matic EBM8103B Programmable Bread Maker Machine, 3 Loaf Sizes, 19 Menu Functions...||Check Price and Reviews|
|5||Cuisinart Bread Maker, Up To 2lb Loaf, New Compact Automatic||4,900 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Goodwill and some antique stores will sometimes have Dutch ovens for cheap. They'll be old and probably have roosters or flowers all over them, but as long as it's not rusty, it should be fine.
Typically salt is the key to bread flavor. Using a "pinch" is not enough. I work on a 2% basis (yeast varies depending on your time).
So for a "regular white" 70% hydration recipe, it would be:
10g of salt is not a small amount, its between a teaspoon and a tablespoon in volume.
The recipe makes two loaves.
Regular bread is much easier to work with than sourdough but has a less rich taste.
I make this bread all the time, and the family LOVES it, so I've dug out my recipe, which I got from a youtube video. It's come out well every time. I make the dough in a bread machine but bake in an oven. I also go by weight, so you'll need a scale. The thing about a scale when baking is that if you eventually want to tweak something you can because everything else you've done has been consistent. That and you'll get pretty similar results every time.
The recipe calls for bread flour, but I've also done this with AP flour, and it's come out fine.
For the starter mix:
Heat in a pan until goo. It can be pretty moist. I aim for a Cream of Wheat consistency.
Let goo get back to room temperature before using, though I've dumped it in slightly warm with good results.
The dough should be smooth and only slightly sticky. Proof, flatten, and rest for 15 minutes. Flatten again and shape or put in the bread pan. Rest 30 minutes. Brush with egg wash if you want a perfectly soft top. I often skip that last step, and the top is still soft.
Bake 355F for 25 minutes. About 20 minutes if you're making sub rolls out of it. 15-20 if you're making buns.
There's a lot of ingredients in this type of bread. If you're absolutely brand new to this, you may have a better time starting with plain white bread. Fewer steps and ingredients will just help to simplify the whole process.
Proofing (or rising) dough is when you first make the dough and then you let it sit for a while, typically about an hour, to let the dough roughly double in size. You're allowing the yeast to do its thing so that the final product will come out light and have all those tiny air holes in it. Without proofing, the bread will come out dense and hard.
When you finish kneading the dough, get out a big bowl or just place it on the counter. Put a little oil on it and cover it with plastic or a damp tea towel. Let it sit for roughly an hour until it's doubled in size (no, you don't have to be exactly precise on the doubling). Then you shape it or put it into whatever container you're going to bake it in. Then you let it rise again for about a half-hour.
That final proof takes a little practice, and you'll get better at it. Underproof that final time is ok, but the bread won't be quite as big as it could be. Overproofed, and it'll come out flat and deflated.
Kneading isn't so much about how long you do it, but getting the dough to be the right consistency and smoothness. Generally speaking, the dough shouldn't be too tacky/sticky, it should look smooth, and if you poke the ball with your finger, the dough should softly bounce back. As you get better at knowing when the dough is through with kneading, you'll begin to learn if it needs a touch more water or a touch more flour. Recipes are great to get you very close to that, but they basically all need a little bit of fudging on the part of the baker to add just a touch more water or flour.
Warmth helps the yeast fungus do its magic faster, but there's no temperature requirement. Actually, my pizza dough I'll proof in the refrigerator overnight.
The dough can technically be overkneaded in the same way that it's technically possible to drown in a few tablespoons of water. Realistically, you can't overknead dough.
We love no-knead bread. This recipe has one of the greatest "finished product to effort" ratios around.
We bake a lot of our bread at home, and we use this method. A trick we learned recently is how to make the crust softer.
If you keep the bread for a few days, you can keep it fresher by wrapping it up in a tea towel. But you'll find the crust is lovely and crispy on the first day but gets notably harder in a few days.
So we now lightly brush the top of the loaf with nut oil, macadamia in our case, right after we put the dough in the preheated cast iron pan.
Just take the hot cast iron pan out of the oven, put the dough in the pan, then lightly brush the top of the dough with some nut oil (helps if there isn't too much flour on top) and cook it like normal.
The bread will still be amazing, but the crust will stay lovely and soft for 3-4 days after baking it!
Another great and precise recipe was originally published in the The New York Times.
The first time I tried baking bread I had a few spices at my disposal. I wanted to be fancy, so I started adding a few dashes of different spices. All the spices were labeled in Spanish, so I didn't really know what each one was. I was looking for cinnamon so I added a spice labeled "Comino." I later realized this was Cumin, which is more common for stews, I believe.
Another problem was I added the spices late, so they weren't mixed properly. So I was eating the bread afterward, and it was ok, then I would bite a pocket of Cumin bread, and it tasted like old soggy socks. It was horrible. It took me a while to figure out what was happening.
Once brought a homemade bread to a potluck with the inlaws. Everyone loved it. They loved it enough that there was a vocal disappointment when I didn't bring one the next time we were invited over.
We had dinner with them almost every week. Every time after that, my mother-in-law would call the day before to remind me to bring bread. It became a bit of a chore.
I make my own bread because I hate super soft supermarket bread, not because it's cheaper. I do find it relaxing, which is cheaper than therapy.
High-quality sourdough bread is VERY expensive where I live, and personally, I prefer eating organic unbleached spelt sourdough, which is hard to find.
I find the active time on sourdough to be way, way less than on yeasted bread.
I spend 10 minutes active time mixing the dough, 8-10 hours passive time raising it, with an optional 2 minute turning/kneading time in there, another 10 minutes shaping, a further 2-4 hours passive proving time, and then the time it takes to bake, most of which is passive time. The sourdough starter involves feeding it about 4 times a week; a cup of flour and 5 minutes each time, max.
Using this approach I can bake bread (even during the workweek) without any real-time imposition. It's extremely easy, cost-effective, and tasty. Probably my collection of thrift-shop baking vessels is the most expensive and time-consuming aspect of it all.
As for cost? My bread is way cheaper than commercial bread of any kind. A loaf costs me about 4 cups of flour, about a heaped teaspoon of salt, and water. The cheapest possible sliced white bread around my neck of the woods is about $1.50, and it is pretty unappetizing. Standard sliced white is about $3.00-$5.00, depending on the brand, and sourdough similar to mine but much smaller loaves, $6-10 each.
Baking bread saves a heck of a lot more per year when you have a family. Four people with a couple of slices of toast each at breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, we easily go through a loaf a day, saving about $4/day or $1300/year.
Then start adding in hamburger buns, dinner rolls, and other one-offs, you're up to at least $1500 per year.
From there, start making non-yeasted baked goods. Cookies, muffins, granola bars. I'd say that if you have teenagers in the house you can save at least $2500/year and everyone is eating food that is both tastier and healthier.
Even if it wouldn't be cheaper, I'd still do it as it's a true hobby of mine. With the energy cost involved in actually baking the bread you bake won't be cheaper... but if you know what you're doing, you're going to be tasting a healthier bread with better ingredients.
Don't bake bread for the money, do it for the taste and experience.
Keep a log!
Yep, I do this, and it's invaluable. I have a spreadsheet that lists every variable and a cell for notes/photos, which is insanely useful.
I also make bread pretty much every weekend and I usually make two loaves, but change one variable between the two of them, to get a much better understanding of how the changes affect the outcome. For example, this past weekend, for the final proof I sent one loaf directly to the fridge to retard and let the other proof at room temp for just over an hour. When I baked them the next day the difference was astounding!
Always remember that sticky dough makes good bread! Try working with very high-hydration dough and very high temperatures in the oven. That's the secret to amazing loaves.
I've baked through 200lb of flour and now I am baking my way through Jeffrey Hamelman's bread Bible.
|Bread: A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes||357 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
I tried baking bread on and off for literally decades before it all came together for me. The turning point for me was the gift of a sourdough starter that really worked. That was before Youtube and all this Internet info and I just didn't know how to make proper starter by myself. Once you get a good one, everything else just falls into place. Or at least it did for me.
Hearing crackling of my first loaf of bread is something I will never forget.
Making a perfect sourdough loaf is a 3 day process and if you try to rush any step, you can always tell in the final bake. Take your time. It's a lesson in baking and living life that I'm still working on 🙂
Which bread stays fresh longer?
Fresh bread is definitely better on day one out of the oven. But I will take a 3 day old loaf of bread from the grocery store over a 3 day old home baked loaf of bread.
So if by better, you mean superior taste for a day, then yes. But for some people, better means that it has a longer shelf life so there is less waste.
I have made that exact title loaf from FSWY without salt once. My mother in law was on a low salt diet so I made it as usual just without salt. It was very flat and not tasty. I recommend using a different recipe. There are some types of bread that have little to no salt but the FSWY loaves really rely heavily on salt for flavor. A sourdough works better for people who need to limit salt intake.
If you need to limit your sodium intake, you can replace salt with Morton Lite Salt. It contains half sodium and half potassium and it's better for you, in general.
|Morton Lite Salt, With Half The Sodium Of Table Salt, 11 oz||190 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
I think depending on the moisture, the point for recognising if it has been kneaded enough changes quite a bit. Like I said, my go to is to let it ferment over night and I don't need to knead it all that much/at all. More specific than "it should be smooth" I couldn't tell you.
How yeasty are we talking? Notice how long you're letting the dough to raise. Because 3h is not that much for the first fermentation (depending on the temperature of the room and how much yeast you put in in regards to flour, and in this case it doesn't seem like too much). You could try another variety of yeast if you don't like that one.
Watch out so the bread is not too dense — and I think that has to do with not letting it have the final proof and/or not developing the gluten enough. Since I'm lazy, what I do is mix ingredients except yeast, let it sit for 30 min and then add yeast and knead it until smooth. Then, cover, put in fridge overnight. Next day, punch the dough down, shape it, let it proof and then it can be baked.
I don't weigh or measure, and have had very few failures. It's more about the look/feel of the dough.
It's practice/repetition, I think. After a while you just get to know what's going to work, from previous experience.
That, and responding to the way the ingredients are. Flour seems to vary a whole lot in how much water it can absorb, so if it looks dry, I add more water. Also sourdough starter changes with the seasons and so you have no choice other than to be more flexible with it, and let it rise until it's 'done' (or conversely stoke up the oven a bit ahead of schedule).
So just keep baking, and one day you'll find yourself thinking, 'hmm, this needs more X or Y' and you'll be on your way.
Learn the art of bread baking:
This guy is baking his breads in lava in Iceland.
I wonder if it actually tastes better compared to an oven-baked bread...
You don't really need all these accessories to make amazing bread, but they make your life easier. If I could choose only only 1 item to make my baking awesome, I'd choose really good flour.
King Arthur flour is very good, but it money is no object and I want to bake some exceptional loaves, I always buy flour from Great River Organic Milling. It costs way more than regular flour, but I'm glad to pay premium for its quality.
Don't want to read the entire article? Here's the list of life-changing books:
To be fair, most highly-acclaimed books are somewhat of a rollercoaster ride. They manipulate you to feel a lot for a short time. I've been on hundreds of rides. Sometimes, just sometimes, one of these rides will change you, but it doesn't mean it will change me. Everyone is different, so take all of my recommendations with a grain of salt.
I tried my best to sort these books in order from easiest to hardest.
1984 was the first book ever that had a significant impact on me.
I read a few pages, and I got hooked up instantly. The love affair between Winston Smith and Julia was exactly what I needed at that time. The dystopian reality was terrifying. Orwell's writing and mastery of words were something that I haven’t experienced before. I admired how straight to the point, yet profound the book was.
So what 1984 is about? I think there is a powerful practical message in 1984. That we should fight the state before it becomes completely totalitarian. In the fictional world of the book, there is no hope of tearing the system from inside anymore. The resistance is a joke.
1984’s society was controlled by the state, but, ultimately, the people—brainwashed and compliant—were the ones who kept the state in power.
How 1984 relates to today? When reading 1984, I felt like it was an obvious reflection on what Soviet Russia would become. But as I got older I realized I was wrong. It was actually a cautionary tale for what the West might become.
Think about today's China. They created their own version of the Internet and the ability to shut out any outside voices or curate their own version of Wikipedia.
The people won't rebel anymore because they don't have a comparison with the outside world thanks to constant propaganda and censorship. Unless the state runs out of steam, only outside forces can put it down now. Fortunately, as history shows, every empire falls one day.
I think the book is more relevant now than ever because many of the specific tactics described are technologically and economically viable today.
Cameras are ubiquitous, and people are openly accepting them in their lives.
The ability to monitor people's social media posts is the last step before you start scanning people's brains for thought crimes. While in the US, we have freedom of speech, many other countries don't, and it's theoretically possible to be prosecuted for things you say that's against the state.
We might be going in the direction of a 1984-kind-of-world, or not, but we should know what to do when Big Brother starts snooping too much in our lives.
1984 made me realize that good books do exist, and I started reading them like crazy.
"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood."
― George Orwell, 1984
What's The Catcher in the Rye about? It’s a book about a real phony if there ever was one. Holden struggles with nihilism, alienation, and the general disillusionment with our boring capitalist reality.
It was edgy at the time because the writing revealed innermost thoughts that many other books would leave out from their character's narrative. It helped give the original hipsters and beatniks a leaping point for the introspective thoughts just like On The Road did.
I think the best place to start the book is with Salinger himself. While WWII's long-term effects on him can only be speculated upon, it is an absolute fact that he was emotionally scarred by the war. Shortly after Germany was defeated, he was treated in a hospital for CRS (Combat Stress Reaction).
Many people have drawn a parallel between soldiers having trouble re-entering society after the war, and Holden having trouble re-entering society after expulsion.
I don't bring this up to push any sort of narrative of Holden as symbolizing soldiers. I think he represents what he is, a teenager. I bring it up because this, as well as the fact that Salinger writes an entire book from Holden's perspective, makes me doubt that his work was intended to be solely a criticism of Holden. As someone told me once: "Salinger seems very sympathetic to his loser."
I think that the book is about how we look at people with mental problems. We often think that, for some reason, we can ignore the pain of people who are unpleasant to be around.
Did Salinger write Holden to be likeable? More often than not, we are supposed to laugh at him as opposed to with him. The reality is that Holden's brother is dead, he has witnessed a friend die, and he has possibly been the victim of sexual abuse.
Holden is undoubtedly an ass, and as you say, cannot seem to reconcile his behavior with his trauma. Is it surprising? Should he possess unusual mental strength and resistance? He's a teenager.
The book was banned for a long time in the US for multiple reasons. It features vulgar language, sexual scenes, excessive violence, and general moral reltivity, which the state isn't fond of.
The Catcher in the Rye to me is a test: can you see beyond the superficial unpleasantries and locate the beautiful character study of a teenager trapped between multiples axes of trauma (sexual abuse, unreasonable parental expectations, sibling death, friend death, stunted sexual development)? If not, you're likely to find the novel shallow and annoying.
I've never before identified with a book as strongly as I did with this one. I was a fragile white kid from an upper-middle-class neighborhood who saw a psychologist on Wednesdays and an extra-curricular maths/algorithmics tutor on Fridays. I haven't realized why I was trying so hard to be successful even though it wasn't making me happy. Holden's idea of happiness helped me understand how to reshape myself into my own person.
I tore down most of my preconceived ideas that were there just to cover up for the darkness that had to be dealt with. Not much was left, but it was a good start. Exceptional writing can transform you.
For what it's worth, it's one of my favorite books, especially when I first read it in my teens.
Yes, I can identify with Holden, and yes, I know he can come across as spoiled and annoying. But those feelings, his worldview, his feeling of utter detachment, bewilderment and being intimidated by the outside world when at the same time being disappointed in adulthood: I know that feeling. I knew it then, and I know it now.
I guess that means that there's a spoiled, lonely, and somewhat whiny brat somewhere inside me, and... it's fine.
This book is a book you read and hate, then you remember it. You feel it. Experience it. In a very strange way, it changes your view on growing up. Years later, I think it is one of the best-written coming-of-age books.
Millennials hate this book because in the millennial culture, complaining and being angsty is stigmatized. It's a book about being dissatisfied and unhappy and restless. It's not cool to be dissatisfied. Apparently - you're supposed to be positive and not be a hater.
"What really knocks me out is a book that, when you're all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That doesn't happen much, though."
― J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
I first read Siddhartha when I was still a teenager. I related to how the protagonist tried to find his own path despite what the society had ready for him.
Everybody is looking for the answer to the big question. We want to discover our individual raison d'etre — a reason to live. Nobody wants to find themselves on their deathbed to realize that they wasted their lives. So what does the book teach us about all of this?
Siddhartha is a good entry to Hesse. He can really resonate with the reader. Everyone can identify with the shit Siddhartha goes through, and the insights they gain can be applied by anyone.
What is Siddhartha about? Siddhartha is a very loose retelling of the story of Buddha -- ie, a wealthy, fortunate boy gives up his life of privilege and tries a series of different ways of living in search of some sort of enlightenment. He follows a few spiritual teachers, tries having no spirituality and focusing on business, and ultimately finds a sort of peace after experiencing many different approaches to searching for it. It's not actually the story of Buddha (in fact, Buddha shows up in it early on, as Siddhartha follows him for a while), but it follows a similar path.
The book explores different paths as he pursues a lifelong quest for enlightenment. Most of these paths were not the correct ones. He's making a ton of mistakes upon which he's building a foundation of true wisdom.
Western thought offers a more fragmented approach to understanding the world. Everything is always good or evil, black or white. Eastern thought is more holistic and involved.
Because of this book, I realized that most of my problems come from external expectations. Instead of finding my own truth, I was fixated on social constructs that were forced upon me by other people.
When it comes to writing, Siddhartha is probably the worst book on this list. Hesse always seemed like a glorified Coehlo to me, but because of it, I became interested in Eastern philosophies, which opened me up to a multitude of new possibilities.
"Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it."
― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha
What is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about? It's neither about Zen nor motorcycles.
I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a class and many times thereafter. We were asked to replace the word "motorcycle" with whatever we do like programming, hiking, or whatever to make it relate to our own experience as we read.
The takeaway is that you and everyone else knows care and quality when they see it. People will sense your care and quality in the work you do after you leave this class. It was a fun way to take in the book's message - one of them anyway.
I read it without any expectations and I enjoyed it. I didn't read it because it was touted as a philosophical treaty. I read it because it was recommended to me at a time when I was at a crossroads in my life.
The cover depicts a crescent wrench with leaves growing out of it. The whole intersection of the natural and the mechanical that the book deals with so well.
You'll also notice, no doubt, that the wrench is essentially "sprouting" from those leaves. It grows from them, making a single organism as is, to a not unremarkable extent, what Pirsig's sort of working at throughout the book.
If you really like learning about philosophers without resorting to dry academic books, I highly recommend Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. It's about a high school girl going from ancient greek philosophy (pre-socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles) to renesance (Decarts), enlightenment (Kant, Hobbs) to early modern (Nietsche, Freud).
It's explained in a simple to understand way. Some topics I found a bit boring but usually its a chapter for every topic and none of the chapters are long, so it easy to keep reading.
“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
What is The Unbearable Lightness of Being about? Sex and relationships are the core areas of interest here. How does one person decide to devote their life to another? What if the other person has a different concept of love? How different people display emotions using sex?
The book also challenges Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence — the idea that everything happens in cycles, which was a perfect metaphorical background for his ubermensch. Hence the lightness of being.
As I get older, the novel is getting closer to my heart, and I tend to agree more with Kundera's views. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is meant to be read several times. Preferably with a few years gap between readings. It's one of these books that will set your life in perspective.
I have read The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, and The Joke. While I absolutely love and agree with most things said about them, I find it odd and slightly disjointing that no one ever mentions the political nature inherent within each.
Wonderful narratives about human relationships as they are, they are also such magnificent allusions, allegories, and blatant references to the political situation the author encountered under an oppressive regime.
There's a decent movie starring Juliette Binoche and Daniel Day-Lewis.
"Anyone whose goal is something higher must expect someday to suffer Vertigo. What is Vertigo? Fear of falling? No, Vertigo is something other than fear of falling. It is the voice of the emptiness below us which tempts and lures us, it is the desire to fall, against which, terrified, we defend ourselves"
― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
In January 1955, Camus said, "I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: In our society, any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death."
I read The Stranger for the first time about a year after my mother's funeral. It was the first time I understood that it's okay not to feel what I'm supposed to feel. And that sometimes it's better to pretend.
I strongly related to the protagonist's general disconnection from society and alienation. If you're not crying when you're supposed to cry, you get strange looks from friends and family. It turns out, we all unknowingly agreed with many rules of the society, and we have to abide by them. If you don't play by these rules, you will be condemned.
What is The Stranger about? The book is supposed to show the absurdity of social constructs — and specifically, how little they matter. The protagonist represents one of the few real human beings in the story, a Nietzschean ubermensch, so to say, who always takes things at their face value and never lies. Telling the truth all the time doesn't end well in our society.
The novel is about fitting in and the predictable consequences of not doing so. If your natural reaction to the death of your mother doesn't seem normal, then you are "The Other," and people strangers to one another. Take that very human condition to its logical extreme, and you have the novel. The irony is that so many readers can't get past considering the narrator as someone who "isn't one of us."
Mersault is the only sane person in a crazy society. We are not supposed to take him literally. Nobody is extreme to this extent all the time. Camus used his persona to make a statement.
Everybody that interacts with Mersault judges him for not behaving in an expected way. Still, the rules of human conduct they are following are often based on prejudice, ignorance, and vanity.
Interestingly, Charles Bukowski once said about Camus: "Camus talked about anguish and terror and the miserable condition of Man but he…wrote like a man who had just finished a large dinner of steak and french fries, salad, and had topped it with a bottle of good French wine. Humanity may have been suffering but not him. A wise man, perhaps, but Henry preferred somebody who screamed when they burned."
The world is absurd. There are no rewards for being good. In the end, death can come at any time for anyone. There's no reason behind anything either. You're here, you live, and you die. After you die, likely nobody will remember you. And does it really matter if they do remember you?
After all, you've become nothing. There is nothing in this world that cares for you. There's no big power to give you a hug and make things better. To me, Mersault has always represented this aspect of the absurd. He is the absurd.
But Earth would be a rather sad planet if everyone just lived out their days obeying rules, doing what they are told to, always with a straight face, busy, working like ants until they perish.
The Cure made a really cool song as an homage to The Stranger:
"I looked up at the mass of signs and stars in the night sky and laid myself open for the first time to the benign indifference of the world."
― Albert Camus, The Stranger
Another book that struck a chord with me was about the infinite absurdity of our existence and the necessity to find a way to cope with that.
So what is Slaughterhouse-Five about? It was one of the original depictions of the Dresden bombings during World War 2. The raids were a huge atrocity committed by the allies. Dresden was a city with little strategic significance. When Americans realized their crimes, not much information about these events was released to the public. Vonnegut wrote the book because he wanted to show an honest depiction of what went on during the war.
It is an anti-war book with a focus on post-traumatic stress disorder that is dealt with in a pretty novel way. PTSD as a term was not invented in his time, so it is partly inaccurate to say that's what the book is 'about', but the psychological ramifications that surround the condition still existed in his time.
I don't know where he drew the Sci-Fi material, but I do know that most of the war aspect was, in fact, nonfiction. Seeing that firebombing was no doubt a profoundly disturbing, life-changing experience for him that he tried to process through his writing.
There's also the story of him encountering an Air Force general in real life who asks if Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war book, and when Vonnegut tells him, yes, the general says, "you might as well write an anti-glacier book." Vonnegut pointed this fact out to explicitly say it was an anti-war book, and if so, we can fairly infer that something drove him to write it.
It's one of the greatest books in the world because Kurt Vonnegut created a coherent piece, full of wit, that also has an incredibly strong message that did, in some ways, change the world.
And so it goes... It's about living. It's about dying. It's about the perpetual cycle of violence which keeps happening throughout our history. It tells a tale of sticking to your values in the face of atrocities and discovering purpose somewhere in that overwhelming sadness. We can never undo our mistakes. Its powerful anti-war message has formed me into who I am today.
"There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time."
― Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five
So what is The Art of War about? People say it's not about war at all and that it can be applied to any area of life. It's a book about military strategy written by a general. The intended audience of the work were Chinese military commanders during a bloody period of history.
Sun Tzu never expected or intended it to be read by 21st century Western civilians while they sip their soy chai lattes and ponder on the meaning of life. But we do. Honestly, this book is amazing and its ideas can be applied to almost all situations in life.
All warfare can be reduced to a stalemate through ethical and verifiable expressions of the truth. You can disempower anyone who's trying to war with you by ensuring your peers and potential witnesses/spectators have access to the truth.
People who rely on deception have massive, glaring weaknesses where they'd lie — the truth can be used to disempower rivals completely, forcing opponents to either commit to being demonstrable liars (weakening their status), or forcing them to work uncomfortably under conditions where they need to seem equal to you.
The real lesson of the Art of War is that you need to take the whole of a battlefield into account before engaging your enemies. It'd be impossible to win every battle through deception, with there just being times where the truth is just the best (and most ambitious) tool you can use to fight.
To be able to use the truth as ably as a liar tells lies and to have the reputation of having a strong virtue of ethics, leaves future potential allies and witnesses to take considerations in your favor.
Heaven and Earth, the commander, method and discipline, and moral law. It's on you to take everything into consideration, including ethics, where your battlegrounds are ethical. Know yourself and know your enemy, and not in ten thousand battles can you be defeated.
I think this is probably the most important thing in the book. It's repeated several times with varying contexts. The thesis of it is so simple but so often overlooked when encountering everyday work problems.
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
If Albert Camus caused me to start drinking, Marcus Aurelius helped me to get sober.
What is Meditations about? We are given the option to sleep or work at life, and even if my logic, being disconnected from my emotions, cannot give motion to my spirit. I will get up anyway. And if not today, then bloody tomorrow. Failing will not stop me. The more you do something, the easier it gets. So I'm getting up earlier tomorrow. It is the ultimate motivational read.
Know that if you can't think with your emotions, you are only half thinking. I know that I do not know the worth of the world. I have tasted a bit of life before and have become drunk and mad with pleasure. I will taste it again, only more refined within myself. Have you not tasted life before? Look for what is good, be open, and know that the good, when it first begins, begins slowly. Just like waking.
It is astonishing to read Marcus Aurelius, one of the go-to philosophers currently celebrated by young atheists, making an appeal to natural law. "What I was born for", "the things I was brought into the world to do", animals working in concert to "put the world in order"?
How can destiny exist in a random self-established existence? And then he dares to ask, "Is helping others less valuable to you?" Of course, it is, and the backstabbings throughout Roman history itself prove it! I wonder if some that celebrate him have never read him.
On one hand, I can see how a sense of purpose and a belief in a positive destiny could help someone push through tough times. But what anchors those things? Is there any proof that I am destined for something great? And if I am, if it's destined to happen anyway, wouldn't that demotivate me to act? "Get out of bed, you were made to do this"?
I mean, I'm kind of a skeptic, but I guess I can be guided by everyone else here if you all think there are natural laws and destiny and purpose. But wouldn't natural laws be limiting rather than enabling? If he's reluctant to get out of bed to do things, how does he know that's not destiny trying to keep him from burning out? How does he know that's not a conflict caused by his sense of purpose telling him he's not supposed to be doing what he's committed himself to do?
Nihilistic, sure. But comforting somehow. Although, the fact that we're still reading and discussing what amounts to a man's private bedside notes from almost 2,000 years ago is amazing. But, as Marcus says: "Do not then consider life a thing of any value. For look at the immensity of time behind thee, and to the time which is before thee, another boundless space. In this infinity then what is the difference between him who lives three days and him who lives three generations?"
So why is this book on my list if I have so many doubts about its philosophy? That's exactly why. Aurelius made me question everything and the book itself. Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
It's kind of trippy having one of Rome's greatest emperors telling me to get my ass out of bed.
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
― Marcus Aurelius , Meditations
Disclaimer: I've read Nietzsche for the first time when I was way too young. If you want to start with Western philosophy, choose a more straightforward book like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.
Ahh, Nietzsche. The guy that introduced me to the idea that good and evil are often false prophets.
So what is Thus Spoke Zarathustra about? It's an esoteric book. It takes significant time to read and understand it, but it's worth it. The guy pretty much single-handedly set off postmodernism, relativism, and existentialism. Some people think that by the time he was writing Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he's already lost all his marbles. The book is his magnus opus.
Putting morality down for a second, it's just a brilliant work of fiction. The evolution from a camel to a lion to a child is an elegant metaphor of becoming a real, independent human being.
Zarathustra claims that the power of will alone can liberate us. It pushes us to the outside world where true purpose can be discovered.
The concept that really stuck to me is honoring your enemy. It's a central premise of the book, outlined in an even larger scope in On the Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche disregards the slave mentality as a stance of hating your enemy. To respect your opponent means displaying a high degree of ethical creativity. The end goal being — realizing the need for a strong opposition, which is a driving force for defining ourselves.
Somebody once asked me why is Zarathustra such an asshole and if this is intentional. Yes, it is intentional. Nietzsche was a polemicist, meaning he made intentionally inflammatory remarks and arguments for pretty much no other reason than to get a rise out of the reader in the hopes that it would force them to think about things differently.
I would advise against taking things too literally in the book. There's another passage where Zarathustra states, "one must have chaos within one's self to give birth to a dancing star." "Chaos" here probably doesn't mean a literal chaos, but a general conflict or hardship because, according to Nietzsche, it's through struggle that we become better.
The book is also supposed to be an antithesis to nihilism. Nietzsche's concept of ubermensch is a clever play on religious dogmas of moral absolutism and eternal joy that can be attained without the help of fairy tales.
Btw, Kanye West didn't coin "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." Nietzsche did.
"I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses."
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
What is Man's Search for Meaning about? It's a recollection of the author's time in Nazi concentration camps. He described how there were three kinds of guards and two kinds of prisoners. For guards, the good ones who shared food, the ones who did it as a job, and the malevolent ones who gained pleasure from the suffering around them.
As well as the prisoners, most were just there, but then you had the kapos, and holy hell those guys were crooks. Basically they were prisoners who more or less sold out to the command structure of the camp and were brutal people who oversaw the forced labor done by the prisoners. They were members of the oppressed who turned against their own people and would beat them, berate them, dehumanize them.
It was utterly fascinating to hear of this man, who faced arguably the most oppressive circumstances experienced by anyone come out and say that they were not all victims, that wickedness is a trait encountered in all classes of people.
This book made me feel as if life is absolutely absurd, that human cruelty has no limits, and that maybe at the end of the day humans are less than animals fighting for survival of the fittest. Of course, I don't wish for it to be that way, but that's how it looked to me when I read this book. There was also a glimmer of hope.
The most memorable line was something along the lines of "rest assured, the best of us did not make it out." What does that say about those who did? It sends shivers down my spine. I can not get past the fact that yes, he did survive what most people shouldn't have gone through, but at the same time he had the privilege of being a doctor-a privilege and hope the others in the camp didn't have. At the end of the day all I saw was that people who have privileges come out alive, and those who did not do not and suffered the consequences.
Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'. So are you saying that all those who died didn't have a why? We all have a why. They all had a why. But there are unfortunate great forces of man-made cruelty that won't make it possible for some of them to bear the how.
I understand this book was meant to be like, "It could be worse and if I could survive this you can also survive anything," but I also think "Everything could also be a thousand times better, too." I'm not the type to think, "Let me feel better about my life by reading other people's horrible situation." That doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel worse that to know that it has been worse for someone else and to know that humans have this capability to fuck things over so badly-to create war, to cause death of millions, to cause so much suffering and to be endlessly and relentlessly cruel. For absolutely no fucking logical reason whatsoever. It kind of makes me hate being a human.
"Finding your own meaning" means that you, as an individual, determine what your life means. You determine what is good (you seek it out) and what is bad (you avoid it). You determine what kinds of things are "worth" doing and what kinds of things are not. These are inherently moral decisions, so "finding our own meaning" is an inherently subjective moral stance, incompatible with an objective moral stance.
I was shocked by the part where he shaved by scraping a piece of glass against his skin so he’d appear more rugged and strong and less likely to be executed by the guards. I took my first break on page 3 when he wrote something along the lines of “the best of us did not survive.” I spent a great deal of time thinking about that. I won’t elaborate on my reflection since I don’t want to rob you of the pleasure of formulating your own thoughts, but this book provides a lot to think about.
"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms — to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
I'm a fan of the transcendentalists. If Whitman is my favorite poet, Thoreau is my favorite novelist.
What is Walden about? People tend to point toward Walden as an example of completely self-reliant living, which it definitely wasn't. Thoreau wasn't too far from town, he visited friends and family, and people visited him. He used the resources of the town when he needed them.
But is Walden an example of simple living? Definitely. Small house, simple food that he largely gathered or grew himself, very few material needs or possessions, and entertainment derived from either the natural world or by being with friends and family.
Americans especially tend to equate simple living with complete self-reliance, which is weird. People who want to live more simply sometimes think it means moving onto a homestead and being able to provide absolutely everything you need from your own land, without needing anyone else.
When you remove the community factor from the equation, everything gets much harder and much more difficult to achieve, but it seems to be the only version of "simple living" that some people will accept.
I don't think Thoreau works at all as a do-it-yourself manual for completely independent living. I do think it works very well as an exploration of simple living. Thoreau thought a lot about what he really needed and why during his experiment, and the book is a record of what he discovered and his thoughts about it.
I was introduced to Thoreau in my early 20s. There is a spot along the Appalachian Trail that is called Walden by the people that set it up. It has some seats with shade, a water cache, and a small bookshelf filled with books, lots of printed and strung together copies of Walden.
The bookshelf has a sticker that says, "Books you don't need in a place you can't find." There's a giant cut-out picture of Thoreau, with this quote on it: “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”
I stood there, in the middle of the forest, during a hot summer — dirty, smelly, drenched in sweat, 100 miles from civilization, reading this quote. And I broke the fuck down. It was epiphanous. I had finally figured out the real reason I gave away all of my shit and started hiking that trail.
This book is powerful. And now, I will not go back to the regular rat race. Ever. You will find no incentive to persuade me to do so.
Finally, I recommend going for a swim in Thoreau's pond.
It's $15 for parking. Thoreau is probably turning in his grave.
“I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden
What is The Karamazov Brothers about? This single book contains within its pages a complete explanation of how people think, act, and what motivates them. It probably contains the highest number of utterly brilliant lines out of any books in existence.
Vonnegut once said, "There is one other book, that can teach you everything you need to know about life... it's The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but that's not enough anymore."
It's a tough read. Sometimes it's slow and boring. If you can only read a single book from my list, read this one.
Nietzsche once said, "Dostoevsky is the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn." And I think we all have a lot to learn from the Russian literary master.
Our actions do not only affect us. All things in this world are directly or indirectly related to each other. Because of this and relativity of it all, suffering can never be entirely eradicated. Trying to make out any sense of our existence is the sum of human condition. So... live, truly live, but be aware that the effects of your actions are beyond your understanding and control.
Dostoevsky is a genius when it comes to explaining human behavior and emotions while being honest. He even shows compassion for the evil characters that murder and rape. Thanks to his outlook, we can achieve an understanding of a broader scope of humanity.
My only regret is that the author didn't live long enough to write the entire trilogy, to which The Brothers Karamazov was merely a short introduction.
"Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love."
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
What is One Hundred Years of Solitude about? I read it in my late 20s. It's one of the best books I've read in that time. I knew next to nothing about it when I started, just "Colombia" and "magical realism."
It felt like very few other books I've ever read. The prose was incredible, and because of a mix of that and the magical realism, almost every moment of the book had a weird aching beauty to it, even the many very dark events depicted.
One of the things that struck me the most was the sheer density of plot. The book doesn't dwell on events at length, it barrels forward through decades of history in a blur, and with all the strange characters often with similar names and characteristics, everything eventually becomes a blur. Not in a bad way at all though, the entire book has a very fleeting, ethereal dream-like feel because of it.
Would I want every book to be like that? No. It doesn't mean one book like that can't be fantastic.
I'm always amazed that despite its reach, so many people I know have not heard of this novel, or even the author. Admittedly, it took me several attempts to complete it. This is one of those books you need to find at the right time in your life; I just didn't see the appeal in my early 20's, but coming at it again in my 30's, I consider it one of the most important books I've ever read.
Firstly, in case I even have to say it: NOTHING is universally loved. Nothing.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is an experience. When I read it, I was so completely swept up in the world Garcia Marquez created. I was thinking about it nonstop for like a month after finishing it.
Fun fact: Márquez was a friend of singer Shakira, and wrote an essay about her for his magazine. There is a translation printed in The Guardian.
"It's enough for me to be sure that you and I exist at this moment."
― Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
What is Infinite Jest about? The book has some of the best explanations of addicts and their problems I've ever read. It's fucking fantastic.
Not many things make my jaw drop anymore. Infinite Jest did.
The book focuses mainly on addiction. It doesn't read like some shitty D.A.R.E. anti-drug pamphlet. It is an excellent look at addiction from someone who was an addict and got sober.
I'm going to read it again, this time with a notebook, post-it notes, and a calendar. The book uses Subsidized Time, and I want to see for myself the chronology of events. David Foster Wallace put a lot of time and effort into the book, and I really want to figure it properly. By the time I finished it the first time I had forgotten some things from the beginning.
I am a big fan of his work. He wrote crazy ambitious books that defy everything I thought literature was supposed to be. His insights were often spot-on in a scary way. There's a scene in infinite Jest when a women is being interviewed while sitting on a bed in a psychiatric hospital and it's such an accurate portrayal of that experience.
The only way you can write that is if you've been on that bed yourself. His characters are very well written. And he could pack the full range of emotions into a single book. His books were just messy, and I mean that in the best way possible. One page he's narrating in faux Ebonics and the next he's taking you through the history of a made-up video calling system.
A lot of it sounds ridiculous because it is. It shouldn't work, but you find yourself reading it, and you become immersed in this world. And it's not through worldbuilding. Infinite Jest goes through so many characters, plots, and seemingly useless digressions that you feel like you know this world like the back of your hand.
It's my favorite book. I don't care how "hipster" that makes me sound - I'm a married middle-aged man who first read this book a decade ago and fell in love with the work long before it was "cool" to reference David Foster Wallace.
I have read the book cover to cover three times now, once after purchase in 2008, once in 2012, and most recently during the 2016 "Infinite Winter" event. Each time took at least three months of almost daily reading, including breaks.
The book is dense but much more approachable than say "Interviews With Hideous Men." It takes a long slog in the beginning to get the gist of what is going on in the parallel storylines. I think it helps me immensely that I first completed it a decade ago when some of the reference points made a little more sense.
There is no obligation to "love" this book, or any book for that matter. If it's not your cup of tea, stop reading it. I also appreciate the hatred the book gets from folks, many of whom I assume have never been able to endure the 1,100 pages of random internal dialog and fictional setting.
I think something needs to be said about the generalizations about Wallace fans and fans of other similar authors. Every time someone calls all fans pretentious or calls the book overrated crap, they create a more and more hostile environment for the genuine fans. To say you love infinite Jest is to risk being called disingenuous and a snob.
It's a pretty unfortunate situation when you are assumed to have ulterior motives when you want to discuss work that really touched you — just something to consider before anyone makes any comments.
The people who find it difficult often come unprepared. It's not only a long read; it's also a little complicated. But that's only for the average reader, that is, the one whose hardest book they've ever read is Hamlet.
If you're familiar with Ulysses, or, God forbid, Finnegans Wake, then you won't have any trouble.
If, however, the hardest book you have ever read is indeed Hamlet, then I suggest you read the book carefully; don't skim, ever. As I said, it's quite a shock for people that dive into it unprepared, but it's still not that difficult of a book and has a very discernible, although convoluted, plot.
If you enjoy witty commentary and humorous narrative in general, and if you're interested in a little discussion on how humans have become dependent on entertainment, then you'll most likely enjoy it.
It's not good because it's difficult, it's good but also difficult. It's incredibly written, funny, moving, ambitious, well-researched, and interesting. I think it's best if you approach Infinite Jest as a comedy, at first, and don't worry too much about the deep-philosophical aspects of it.
It's brilliant, outrageously funny, and it contains some of the most heart-wrenching depictions of what it's like to be clinically depressed. It's uplifting and relatable. Infuriating. All over the place. Mother-fucking-genius.
Btw, there's a decent Hollywood movie about David Foster Wallace, The End of the Tour.
Addendum: It might help if you learn a little bit about tennis. Good luck.
"I do things like get in a taxi and say, 'The library, and step on it.'"
― David Foster Wallace Infinite Jest
And which book changed your life? Share your experience in the comments below!