Have you read the complete works of a single author?
January 25, 2020 9:21 AM Subscribe
If you are a completist, how did you choose your author? Or is it worth being a completist at all?
I am thinking of reading all of Cormac McCarthy's works to immerse myself in his world, art, and methods. I am going with my gut, and feel he would be a great inspiration to my writing career.
Would love your thoughts on the topic of literary completion.
Would love your thoughts on the topic of literary completion.
I used to be a completist, and at some point I decided that it was kind of compulsive and also not the best way for me to read. I ended up at some point getting sick of the author, and reading started to feel like work, not pleasure. I also don't know if it was good for my emotional well-being, especially when I spent months reading the entire output of an author with a kind of grim worldview, which would definitely describe Cormac McCarthy. Finally, I definitely found that my own writing style took on characteristics of whomever I was reading, and I think that could be a problem for a writer, especially one at the beginning of their career who was still developing their own voice.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:38 AM on January 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:38 AM on January 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
I have read all of Bill Bryson's books, and he keeps on writing new ones. His style is so smooth you don't realize you've read as many pages as you have. He writes memoirs, travel stories, history of the American/English language, about Shakespeare's time, science and anatomy books. Whew! He covers so much and so well.
posted by ydaltak at 9:41 AM on January 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by ydaltak at 9:41 AM on January 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think it depends on the author, and your goal. You said that you're looking for writing inspiration, so I think it would be worth considering what else you can get from reading more books by the same author. Some authors definitely change and grow between books, but others may be more formulaic, or set in a pattern, so reading more than a few books won't give you new lessons, so to speak. And there is so much to read, so why not branch out if your goal is to learn more from authors.
On the other hand, if you enjoy the style of an author and would like to absorb more of that for your own writing, reading everything from an author or set of authors, and then re-reading it all, could also make sense.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:43 AM on January 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, if you enjoy the style of an author and would like to absorb more of that for your own writing, reading everything from an author or set of authors, and then re-reading it all, could also make sense.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:43 AM on January 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
I am the sort of person who would take on something like being a literary completionist. I don't think it's bad, per se...as with most things, I think it depends on where it comes from. If it's in a sort of manic, chore-like way (which is my own tendency), I don't think it's great. I mean, the point is to do something enriching that you enjoy. But if you find it rewarding, then I think there's nothing wrong with it! I think it can be really cool to dive deeply into the works of an author, and like you said, really get a sense of their evolution, how they tackle various themes, common scenes.
So I'd say go ahead and give it a try...but if it begins to eat at you, from the beginning give yourself permission to drop it. I think the "I want to drop it but cantttt" is where it can be counterproductive.
I'll read everything Jin Yong has written eventually but...he wrote a lot!
posted by wooh at 9:45 AM on January 25, 2020
So I'd say go ahead and give it a try...but if it begins to eat at you, from the beginning give yourself permission to drop it. I think the "I want to drop it but cantttt" is where it can be counterproductive.
I'll read everything Jin Yong has written eventually but...he wrote a lot!
posted by wooh at 9:45 AM on January 25, 2020
I don't think reading everything by McCarthy will accomplish what you imagine it will. I've read four of his books, would certainly recommend them, and am open to reading more by him, but as ArbitraryAndCapricious describes, being a completionist just for the sake of being a completionist is more work than enjoyable. So, start reading him, and when you get to a point where you're not enjoying it any more, take a break or just stop. I've read all of Borges' fictional works (they're all nicely collected in one book!), and damn near all of Hermann Hesse's, and I can't say that it's done anything more for me than if I'd left a couple things out.
Different artists have different ways of approaching problems, and I think just because McCarthy has been successful with his method doesn't mean there aren't other, equally successful methods to go by. I'm in architecture, and I don't think visiting all of say, Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings would necessarily make me a better architect - he kind of does the same thing over and over (although that changes over the course of his career), which is kind of what most architects do (just look at Gehry's work over the last 20 years). You'd probably benefit from exposure to how other authors have solved their problems, and it might take only a handful of titles by each to get the gist of what they're dealing with.
posted by LionIndex at 9:48 AM on January 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
Different artists have different ways of approaching problems, and I think just because McCarthy has been successful with his method doesn't mean there aren't other, equally successful methods to go by. I'm in architecture, and I don't think visiting all of say, Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings would necessarily make me a better architect - he kind of does the same thing over and over (although that changes over the course of his career), which is kind of what most architects do (just look at Gehry's work over the last 20 years). You'd probably benefit from exposure to how other authors have solved their problems, and it might take only a handful of titles by each to get the gist of what they're dealing with.
posted by LionIndex at 9:48 AM on January 25, 2020 [4 favorites]
I read all of Jane Austen together. (I had previously read 2 of her books.) It was just right, in part because her books are perfect or near-perfect, and in part because there aren’t many of them—not enough to get tired of the project. Instead of reading them in chronological order, I read a little about each of them and then mixed the ones I was less interested in in with the more interesting ones to keep the variety. I saved the one that appealed to me most for last and went out on a high note. It was glorious.
posted by sallybrown at 9:51 AM on January 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:51 AM on January 25, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm a completist when it comes to films and music and I often pick a director and watch all of their films in order. I've tried doing the same with authors but I inevitably get to long book which I'm not interested in and never manage to finish.
posted by Chenko at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2020
posted by Chenko at 9:53 AM on January 25, 2020
I've read all of Terry Pratchetts books, multiple times if that counts. Though in my favor I'm old & when I started reading the series from his first book in the discworld series, but have slowly read all his fiction & non fiction books, I've been lucky in that I've had decades to read them all a they came out. I have also read all of Bill Brysons books, but again started early so it's not as intimidating.
The plus side of reading all of the books is you see the styles change as well as the points they are trying to make changing with them, it's fascinating to compare the times the books were written with what was going on in their actual lives. I feel reading one author in a vacuum could only teach so much. Having said that nothing wrong with you giving it a shot if that's what you want to do. I might suggest if you do finish, revisiting any particularly favorites of the books again in ten years or so, it's amazing what you see differently in books as you the reader or as a writer grow & change.
posted by wwax at 9:56 AM on January 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
The plus side of reading all of the books is you see the styles change as well as the points they are trying to make changing with them, it's fascinating to compare the times the books were written with what was going on in their actual lives. I feel reading one author in a vacuum could only teach so much. Having said that nothing wrong with you giving it a shot if that's what you want to do. I might suggest if you do finish, revisiting any particularly favorites of the books again in ten years or so, it's amazing what you see differently in books as you the reader or as a writer grow & change.
posted by wwax at 9:56 AM on January 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
There are two kinds of people who I am completionist about
1. Series mystery types. I've read everything by Louise Penny, Archer Mayor, Daniel Silva, Jacqueline Winspear and maybe some others I'm not remembering. It's simple to read these and it's mostly like watching soap operas, you like to keep up with your characters. Now that I think more on it, there may be some low-output scifi people who I've read everything by. Same kind of thing.
2. Others. I've read everything by Barthelme and Brautigan and the other Jessamyn West. They're all dead so it's easy to be completionist and I think I get a lot out of knowing an author's entire body of work. That said, it's pretty much just "I liked doing this" because I liked the writers and wanted to know more about them. There are probably some magazine articles or short stories by JW that I haven't read and I don't stress over it.
posted by jessamyn at 10:07 AM on January 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
1. Series mystery types. I've read everything by Louise Penny, Archer Mayor, Daniel Silva, Jacqueline Winspear and maybe some others I'm not remembering. It's simple to read these and it's mostly like watching soap operas, you like to keep up with your characters. Now that I think more on it, there may be some low-output scifi people who I've read everything by. Same kind of thing.
2. Others. I've read everything by Barthelme and Brautigan and the other Jessamyn West. They're all dead so it's easy to be completionist and I think I get a lot out of knowing an author's entire body of work. That said, it's pretty much just "I liked doing this" because I liked the writers and wanted to know more about them. There are probably some magazine articles or short stories by JW that I haven't read and I don't stress over it.
posted by jessamyn at 10:07 AM on January 25, 2020 [2 favorites]
I do this all the time, most recently with Trollope (who wrote a ton of books!) Certainly it makes you very familiar with their methods and their fixations, but my real reasoning is very simple: Once I like a writer's work, it's much easier for me to find his next book than it is to find another book I like by somebody else.
posted by Polycarp at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by Polycarp at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2020 [8 favorites]
I wouldn't arbitrarily pick a single author to become a completist of without already having seriously engaged with their work. That's something you do either because they're a reliable fast food franchise (I've read all the dozens of Nero Wolfe novels at least three times over) or because you're deeply interested in the problems they're addressing and/or their methods for doing so (Henry James's corpus is vast, but I believe I've knocked it all off). If you're a writer, studying another writer's techniques in depth can be very helpful--just be careful not to get overwhelmed.
posted by praemunire at 11:20 AM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 11:20 AM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
I am not a completist. However, I have read all of many author's works because they were good and also I read a lot so series reads are easy for me because I don't have to make decisions or find new books to read next - I just read what's next in the series. Obviously, I don't do this if the first book in the series is rubbish.
Jane Austen. Conan Doyle. Vladimir Nabokov. Agatha Christie. Louise Penny. Octavia Butler. Dana Stabenow. Elizabeth Hunter. Dick Francis. John Le Carre. John Irving. John Updike. Clive Cussler*. Georgette Heyer*.
(This list is, on reflection, embarassing and obviously need to read deeply of the well of authors of colour. Don't be me.)
*Not recommended due to racism.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
Jane Austen. Conan Doyle. Vladimir Nabokov. Agatha Christie. Louise Penny. Octavia Butler. Dana Stabenow. Elizabeth Hunter. Dick Francis. John Le Carre. John Irving. John Updike. Clive Cussler*. Georgette Heyer*.
(This list is, on reflection, embarassing and obviously need to read deeply of the well of authors of colour. Don't be me.)
*Not recommended due to racism.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2020 [3 favorites]
I've never decided to be a completist about someone, it just happens. I've read Sylvie and Bruno Concluded three times. It's NOT GOOD, people. The algebraic geometry books have more narrative tension and probably better characterization.
If you're thinking of reading all of a corpus to change yourself, maybe you could reframe it as being a scholar of that artist, or something about their style? You might want to add their influences, and histories of their time, or travelogues of their places.
posted by clew at 1:40 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you're thinking of reading all of a corpus to change yourself, maybe you could reframe it as being a scholar of that artist, or something about their style? You might want to add their influences, and histories of their time, or travelogues of their places.
posted by clew at 1:40 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Elmore Leonard
Jack Vance
Robert Crais
Those three, I re-read a lot.
Heinlein, except for the last few.
Thomas Perry, until he lost the knack.
Archer Mayor, until I could no longer believe his Korean War vet was still a policeman 50 years later.
I was working on Dick Francis, but at some point, it felt like it was the same book again and again, so I stopped.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:12 PM on January 25, 2020
Jack Vance
Robert Crais
Those three, I re-read a lot.
Heinlein, except for the last few.
Thomas Perry, until he lost the knack.
Archer Mayor, until I could no longer believe his Korean War vet was still a policeman 50 years later.
I was working on Dick Francis, but at some point, it felt like it was the same book again and again, so I stopped.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:12 PM on January 25, 2020
I can think of three authors whose complete works I've read: Franz Kafka, Flannery O'Connor, and Grace Paley. What they have in common is that they didn't write damn near enough.
posted by aws17576 at 6:18 PM on January 25, 2020
posted by aws17576 at 6:18 PM on January 25, 2020
Thomas Pynchon -- he averaged about 2 books per decade, so, as a fan, it was as easy as reading all of Pynchon can be.
Joyce -- not many, so again, perseverance (with the Wake) pays off
Patrick O'Brian -- It's hard not to follow the A/M books through to the end. His non-fiction is just okay.
David Mitchell -- no duds yet in his oeuvre
Barbara Tuchman
Annie Proulx
Tolkien
Colson Whitehead -- also no duds
Anne McCaffery -- I think? started as a kid in the 70's
I've read many of McCarthy's books, but am not interested in several so I probably won't read them
Over a lifetime of reading I know I've binged on a bunch of authors -- W. Somerset Maugham, Hilary Mantel, NK Jemison, Umberto Eco, John McPhee, but haven't "completed" them, so I'd say it's more by chance or inertia than by design, and I certainly don't feel like not reading everything is an unscratched itch. Sometimes it just happens, especially with the good ones.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:21 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
Joyce -- not many, so again, perseverance (with the Wake) pays off
Patrick O'Brian -- It's hard not to follow the A/M books through to the end. His non-fiction is just okay.
David Mitchell -- no duds yet in his oeuvre
Barbara Tuchman
Annie Proulx
Tolkien
Colson Whitehead -- also no duds
Anne McCaffery -- I think? started as a kid in the 70's
I've read many of McCarthy's books, but am not interested in several so I probably won't read them
Over a lifetime of reading I know I've binged on a bunch of authors -- W. Somerset Maugham, Hilary Mantel, NK Jemison, Umberto Eco, John McPhee, but haven't "completed" them, so I'd say it's more by chance or inertia than by design, and I certainly don't feel like not reading everything is an unscratched itch. Sometimes it just happens, especially with the good ones.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:21 PM on January 25, 2020 [1 favorite]
I've never decided to be a completist about someone, it just happens.
This. It's like falling in love.
I casually met Dostoevsky's Notes From The Underground in my 20's, and then dove right into his complete works without thinking. The Idiot is so deliciously complex that I had to take extensive notes just to read it for enjoyment.
posted by fairmettle at 12:09 AM on January 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
This. It's like falling in love.
I casually met Dostoevsky's Notes From The Underground in my 20's, and then dove right into his complete works without thinking. The Idiot is so deliciously complex that I had to take extensive notes just to read it for enjoyment.
posted by fairmettle at 12:09 AM on January 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'd dispute reading a single author's work as a basis of improving your writing. If that's the exercise, what it's going to do for you is bring you closer to covering that author's specific territory. You risk appropriating their voice or their structuring.
Reading widely over the same thematic territory is going to give you more in terms of improving your writing. Like, reading The Road and following it up with say Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, then maybe adding something like Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death to give you three very different takes, structurally and in terms of voice.
If you do want to study the work of a single author as an exercise in observing growth, McCarthy's not a bad choice because it's a small pool of work. Reading in order of publication is going to get you more in that regard and the larger periods between publication are going to be a bit more illustrative than the slow growth you get from someone more prolific, like Terry Pratchett mentioned above.
For the latter exercise I'd pick someone who has supporting notes, too. Tolkien is another good one because there's a lot of scholarship on a smaller body of work, also you can kick back and watch the films from time to time too. Same with Joyce or Dostoevsky.
posted by Jilder at 1:44 AM on January 26, 2020
Reading widely over the same thematic territory is going to give you more in terms of improving your writing. Like, reading The Road and following it up with say Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, then maybe adding something like Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death to give you three very different takes, structurally and in terms of voice.
If you do want to study the work of a single author as an exercise in observing growth, McCarthy's not a bad choice because it's a small pool of work. Reading in order of publication is going to get you more in that regard and the larger periods between publication are going to be a bit more illustrative than the slow growth you get from someone more prolific, like Terry Pratchett mentioned above.
For the latter exercise I'd pick someone who has supporting notes, too. Tolkien is another good one because there's a lot of scholarship on a smaller body of work, also you can kick back and watch the films from time to time too. Same with Joyce or Dostoevsky.
posted by Jilder at 1:44 AM on January 26, 2020
I read all of Bruce Chatwin. I found that after his death, his writings were brutalised by editors reasons that i understand as being scraping the bottom of the barrel for saleable material.
posted by parmanparman at 2:24 AM on January 26, 2020
posted by parmanparman at 2:24 AM on January 26, 2020
When I was about 15 I badly wanted to be a completist of Mervyn Peake, and I don’t think I got there because I don’t think I finished Mr Pye. But Letters From A Lost Uncle is really really good, and I should get bonus points anyway for reading the script for The Wit To Woo.
I also wanted to complete Michael Moorcock but even at 15 I knew that wasn’t ever going to happen.
I’ve nearly completed Christina Henry though.
posted by rd45 at 8:08 AM on January 26, 2020
I also wanted to complete Michael Moorcock but even at 15 I knew that wasn’t ever going to happen.
I’ve nearly completed Christina Henry though.
posted by rd45 at 8:08 AM on January 26, 2020
I read all of LM Montgomery's books (I think I'm missing a couple of short stories but I got most of them and all the published novels) a few years ago; I was a huge fan of the Anne of Green Gables books when I was younger and her work is dirt cheap on the kindle store.
I mildly regret it, as I have a somewhat worse perception of her as an author now - none of them were as good as the Anne books, they started to feel very formulaic after a time (which is also the reason why I got 30-odd deep into the Chalet School series and then noped out hard), and the only one I thought I might was going to be able to recommend to like-minded friends ended up dropping the n-word (Lucy Maud how dare you) at the very end of the book, which made it unrecommendable for me.
I read all of the finished works of Jane Austen in my early twenties when I had a terrible job that gave me a lot of time to read during breaks and I don't regret that at all, as I probably wouldn't have read my favourite one (Persuasion) if I hadn't done the read-through.
Given that your proposed author is more modern, working in a different style/genre and has a smaller overall corpus compared to the authors whose complete works I very slightly regret reading, I don't think it's a terrible idea. My bad experiences were very much influenced by the era, genre and sheer quantity of what I was reading.
posted by terretu at 8:32 AM on January 26, 2020
I mildly regret it, as I have a somewhat worse perception of her as an author now - none of them were as good as the Anne books, they started to feel very formulaic after a time (which is also the reason why I got 30-odd deep into the Chalet School series and then noped out hard), and the only one I thought I might was going to be able to recommend to like-minded friends ended up dropping the n-word (Lucy Maud how dare you) at the very end of the book, which made it unrecommendable for me.
I read all of the finished works of Jane Austen in my early twenties when I had a terrible job that gave me a lot of time to read during breaks and I don't regret that at all, as I probably wouldn't have read my favourite one (Persuasion) if I hadn't done the read-through.
Given that your proposed author is more modern, working in a different style/genre and has a smaller overall corpus compared to the authors whose complete works I very slightly regret reading, I don't think it's a terrible idea. My bad experiences were very much influenced by the era, genre and sheer quantity of what I was reading.
posted by terretu at 8:32 AM on January 26, 2020
As far as I can tell, I'm a William Gibson completist, at least of his major published work. I started reading when Neuromancer came out in the mid-80s and just kept reading as new books (and his short story anthology and his essay collection and his disappearing poem and his comic books -- still haven't read the Alien 3 script) came out. He's only written or co-written eleven novels over the past 35 years, so it wasn't hard.
I re-read him as well, usually every couple of years, which also isn't hard. I have concluded that my main attraction to him is a stylist; I have to be careful when reading him, though, lest my own writing style devolves into a bad imitation of his.
I was, at one time, almost a Tom Clancy completist. I quit reading after Rainbox Six, and now restrict my re-reading to the earliest Jack Ryan books and Red Storm Rising, as I found the rise of Jack Ryan to be exciting but too unlikely. I don't like Clancy's politics much, but I have a weakness for 1980s military hardware.
If you're going to be a completist, I think you have to figure out why. Though I don't write anything like William Gibson, I think I have learned a great deal from him...which to me is a side benefit. Will your desire to be a completist prevent you from sampling other works? I'm thinking of my own situation here...getting older (well past the point where Nancy Pearl advises subtracting my age from 100 to determine how many pages to give a book before giving up on it), with so many books I want to read and re-read and still do something with my own writing. I find it's easier to be a music completist than a literary completist nowadays.
posted by lhauser at 9:48 AM on January 26, 2020
I re-read him as well, usually every couple of years, which also isn't hard. I have concluded that my main attraction to him is a stylist; I have to be careful when reading him, though, lest my own writing style devolves into a bad imitation of his.
I was, at one time, almost a Tom Clancy completist. I quit reading after Rainbox Six, and now restrict my re-reading to the earliest Jack Ryan books and Red Storm Rising, as I found the rise of Jack Ryan to be exciting but too unlikely. I don't like Clancy's politics much, but I have a weakness for 1980s military hardware.
If you're going to be a completist, I think you have to figure out why. Though I don't write anything like William Gibson, I think I have learned a great deal from him...which to me is a side benefit. Will your desire to be a completist prevent you from sampling other works? I'm thinking of my own situation here...getting older (well past the point where Nancy Pearl advises subtracting my age from 100 to determine how many pages to give a book before giving up on it), with so many books I want to read and re-read and still do something with my own writing. I find it's easier to be a music completist than a literary completist nowadays.
posted by lhauser at 9:48 AM on January 26, 2020
they didn't write damn near enough
Edward P. Jones has only published 3 books, Lost in the City, The Known World, and All Aunt Hagar's Children. I wish he would write more.
posted by kingless at 10:41 AM on January 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Edward P. Jones has only published 3 books, Lost in the City, The Known World, and All Aunt Hagar's Children. I wish he would write more.
posted by kingless at 10:41 AM on January 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
It's effortless to be a completist when: a. you like an author, and b. the author has a consistent style, from book to book, so you know you'll enjoy the next book as much as the last one. I just keep going through the author's oevre (screw spelling) because I'd rather pick a book to read that I'm sure I'll enjoy than take a chance on one I might not. That's how I read all of Austen, Trollope, Somerset Maugham, and--here's a name you don't see very often--Sinclair Lewis. Great storyteller.
But on the flipside, if I read one novel by an author that I love, and the next one of his/her books I read is totally different, and not nearly as enjoyable, it tends to be the last one of the novelists' books I ever read. I just drop them. I'm faithless.
BTW: This was a great question, because of all the great reading suggestions in the answers.
posted by Transl3y at 12:32 PM on January 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
But on the flipside, if I read one novel by an author that I love, and the next one of his/her books I read is totally different, and not nearly as enjoyable, it tends to be the last one of the novelists' books I ever read. I just drop them. I'm faithless.
BTW: This was a great question, because of all the great reading suggestions in the answers.
posted by Transl3y at 12:32 PM on January 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
as above: completeism as a specific project is a kinda forced construct, but reading a wider range of authors and following up on the ones that interest you is a more organic process, and after a few years you eventually end up as (mostly) completetist for various authors, (depending on your free time, and the availability of some of the more obscure works). I've read a pile of books from some of the authors mentioned above, and some others (Atwood, Burroughs, Clarke, Delaney, etc)..
(JL Borges is an interesting completist project for the the completists amongst us, his collected works could fit in the palm of a hand, but are dense with thinking-about).
(William Kotzwinkle is an underrated American writer who experimented in a wide variety of popular fiction genres, worth a look for quirky completeism).
posted by ovvl at 6:12 PM on January 26, 2020
(JL Borges is an interesting completist project for the the completists amongst us, his collected works could fit in the palm of a hand, but are dense with thinking-about).
(William Kotzwinkle is an underrated American writer who experimented in a wide variety of popular fiction genres, worth a look for quirky completeism).
posted by ovvl at 6:12 PM on January 26, 2020
I've read every Heinlein wrote that got published; even the political magazine articles he wrote. I kind of fell into 80% but first liking his more popular and then turning to his less well known works as I completed his popular stuff. Then once ebooks came out I figured, what the heck, lets read _everything_. I learned there is a reasons less popular works are less popular.
I've also read all Arthur Conan Doyle's books (fiction and non) and short story collections. That was intentional from the beginning. Pre-internet Sherlock Holmes I thought was a archetypal character and I wanted to immerse myself in the stories and time.
Hard to say if either was worth it. I don't know anyone else IRL who has read all of either but it's not something that is really brag worthy. In both cases though there was a real sense of accomplishment. And with RAH the essays really contextualized a lot of his fiction. However in a never meet your heros sort of way it made plain some of his flaws.
I've been thinking of try to complete Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography but she wrote _a lot_; I'll decide once I get her Earthsea and Hanish books out of the way.
posted by Mitheral at 10:50 PM on January 26, 2020
I've also read all Arthur Conan Doyle's books (fiction and non) and short story collections. That was intentional from the beginning. Pre-internet Sherlock Holmes I thought was a archetypal character and I wanted to immerse myself in the stories and time.
Hard to say if either was worth it. I don't know anyone else IRL who has read all of either but it's not something that is really brag worthy. In both cases though there was a real sense of accomplishment. And with RAH the essays really contextualized a lot of his fiction. However in a never meet your heros sort of way it made plain some of his flaws.
I've been thinking of try to complete Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography but she wrote _a lot_; I'll decide once I get her Earthsea and Hanish books out of the way.
posted by Mitheral at 10:50 PM on January 26, 2020
I forgot to list Gene Wolfe as one I've read all of, and re-read some of. An awesome talent.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:18 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:18 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I have been a completist at points in the past for Gene Wolfe, Samuel R. Delany, Michael Moorcock, and am still a completist with regard to Joseph Mitchell. I guess I would describe myself as paracompletist with regard to Wodehouse, Conan Doyle, Robert E. Howard, Alan Moore, and Michael Chabon.
I try to read very deeply in the works of authors I become interested in specifically because over time, as the density of the material accumulates in one’s read experience, deeper structures, themes and techniques, repeated use of images and ideas, all become apparent, and the author’s corpus begins to appear in one’s mind as a sort of single work, resonant with self-similarity. I find it deeply, uniquely pleasurable, akin to listening to absorbing, complex musical compositions and performances.
posted by mwhybark at 7:32 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I try to read very deeply in the works of authors I become interested in specifically because over time, as the density of the material accumulates in one’s read experience, deeper structures, themes and techniques, repeated use of images and ideas, all become apparent, and the author’s corpus begins to appear in one’s mind as a sort of single work, resonant with self-similarity. I find it deeply, uniquely pleasurable, akin to listening to absorbing, complex musical compositions and performances.
posted by mwhybark at 7:32 AM on January 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also, I have a tendency to focus on one particular author exclusively, sometimes for very long periods of time (Reading to completion on Moorcock a good ways back took about two years). In the past this also entailed obtaining via purchase hardbacks of the works when available. Now I tend to stick with ebooks.
posted by mwhybark at 7:39 AM on January 27, 2020
posted by mwhybark at 7:39 AM on January 27, 2020
I found Hunter S Thompson at the right age and his attitude to authority resonated strongly with me. So I read anything I could by him.
HP Lovecraft comes in this neat little ebook with all his stories in one place so to be a completist that was easy. See also Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle).
posted by my-username at 4:50 PM on February 3, 2020
HP Lovecraft comes in this neat little ebook with all his stories in one place so to be a completist that was easy. See also Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle).
posted by my-username at 4:50 PM on February 3, 2020
I think I read everything by Colette, maybe? I discovered her as a teenager and was absolutely fascinated by that whole milieu of courtesans, music-hall, teenage girls and predatory men (and her writing, to be fair). She didn’t write that many books, almost all of them are short, and I was a voracious reader. I haven’t read any of them for many years, I should try them again to see how they read to me now.
Usually, though, the law of diminishing returns kicks in after a while. I’m not inclined to be a completist just for the sake of it.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:24 PM on February 21, 2020
Usually, though, the law of diminishing returns kicks in after a while. I’m not inclined to be a completist just for the sake of it.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:24 PM on February 21, 2020
(everything available in English, anyway)
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:24 PM on February 21, 2020
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:24 PM on February 21, 2020
This thread is closed to new comments.
Michael Crichton isn't making me a better person, but damn if I don't like reading about fake scientists fake fucking shit up with hubris.
posted by phunniemee at 9:34 AM on January 25, 2020 [6 favorites]