<story><title>Why We Need Difficult Books</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/10/anna-burns-milkman-difficult-novel</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ilamont</author><text>&lt;i&gt;“I see fiction as being divided into two categories. Work that confirms and celebrates and panders and work that confounds and perplexes and challenges.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This type of thinking is toxic, akin the bullshit aphorisms spouted by politicians (&amp;quot;you&amp;#x27;re either with us or against us&amp;quot;) or smug VCs (&amp;quot;if you&amp;#x27;re not working 14 hours per day, you&amp;#x27;re not an entrepreneur&amp;quot;).&lt;p&gt;It forces authors and audiences to contort themselves into this black&amp;#x2F;white view of literature that tosses anything that&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;difficult&amp;quot; into a pile that&amp;#x27;s not worth creating or reading.</text></comment>
<story><title>Why We Need Difficult Books</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/10/anna-burns-milkman-difficult-novel</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>yesenadam</author><text>As is often the case, the word &amp;quot;Books&amp;quot; is used when they apparently just mean &amp;quot;Novels&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Tristram Shandy&lt;/i&gt; difficult?! Strange. Would you call Monty Python &amp;#x27;difficult&amp;#x27;? It is, however, hilarious, and still seems very modern, despite the first part dating from 1759. The humour is quite Pythonish, but goes further in every direction. Including mocking &amp;#x27;difficult&amp;#x27; scientific and philosophical writers, real and imagined, on (probably) most of its pages. Very highly recommended. As is Sterne&amp;#x27;s second (and last) novel &lt;i&gt;A Sentimental Journey&lt;/i&gt;, much shorter and less crazy than &lt;i&gt;Tristram&lt;/i&gt;. The less that happens, the better it gets.</text></comment>