/lit/ - Literature

>>13789423
Just because you're a lazy reader is no reason to start silly threads.

>>13789423
The only James I've read is "The Romance of Certain Old Clothes", and I must say: not sold on him yet.

>>13790609
>lazy reader
>prefers James to anyone
James is the most arduous shit, in a bad way. You can still be a lazy reader and enjoy reading Joyce.

>>13790617
Read Portrait of a Lady and his three later novels

>>13790623
I've read several James novels and compared to the minutiae of Proust or the experimental baroque wildness of Joyce, he's quite calm, but damn, he can ramble:

Altogether, with her meager knowledge, her inflated ideals, her confidence at once innocent and dogmatic, her temper at once exacting and indulgent, her mixture of curiosity and fastidiousness, of vivacity and indifference, her desire to look very well and to be if possible even better, her determination to see, to try, to know, her combination of the delicate, desultory, flame-like spirit and the eager and personal creature of conditions: she would be an easy victim of scientific criticism if she were not intended to awaken on the reader’s part an impulse more tender and more purely expectant.

Bump

>>13790617
How is that the only thing you've read? Was it in a horror anthology or something? Anyway, it's almost juvenalia, not indicative of his mature style
Would say Proust and Joyce build on James, his treatment of consciousness, subjectivity, interiority etc rather than he is greater than them. Ranking things is silly

Where do i start with him

>>13790834
>she would be an easy victim of scientific criticism if she were not intended to awaken on the reader’s part an impulse more tender and more purely expectant
oooh, metafiction