Chronicle of black_son_of_gray's failures

[black_son_of_gray]

The fitness component intrigues me. There is one test: "Carry a 25 pound pack over a 4 mile distance with ~1300 ft elevation gain in one hour and 35 minutes."

An update on this: I have started putting together a rucking route so that I might train for this. From my front door I can walk to an impressive chain of staircases that ascend a steep hill (Bay Area, what can I say?). The views are glorious and it is partially shaded and open air. Nice. Recently, I tested out the following: walk to staircase, go up and down the staircase three times, walk back home. The route was 2.62 miles and had a cumulative elevation gain (and loss, because out-and-back) of just under 700 ft. It took ~1 hour and I was wearing my light backpack with a 5lb plate in it. It wasn't exactly easy (my cardio is pretty trash right now), but I wasn't exactly pushing it either: it was reconnaissance!

Coarsely, each trip up the stairs adds ~140 ft of elevation in about 0.15 miles round trip, so in theory, I can test myself with a decent approximation of the route by walking to the staircases, going up and down them seven times, then heading back home. That gets the elevation roughly correct, although my route would be a little shorter. I don't think distance is the key variable here though: the workload of huffing 25 lbs up approximately 2300(!) stair steps in an hour and half is way more energy intensive than a flat mile.

This goal is looking more formidable now that I have a real sense of what it involves... Can you do stairs with a moderately heavy pack for 90 minutes?

Writing:

Some of you know this, most don't -- I'm currently knee-deep in writing a novel. I spend a few hours working on it per day, and it has been a great experience so far. [...]

Anyway, a goal for this year is to finish it. [...]

This is part of the reason my cardio is trash

I share a lot of writing-specific details of this journey with the forum's illustrious writing MMG, but I shall lay bare some details for the general population.

I started pursuing fiction writing in earnest (a little dabbling before...) about two years ago. That was when I started writing for a couple of hours a day, most days. I even spent real money to attend classes/workshop at a local writers consortium. On the whole, that was a great experience and provided some very useful insights. Worth it. Would I do it again? Maaaaybe.

To date I have written perhaps a dozen or so short stories of various lengths, a novella that doesn't end well (I'd like to revisit that), and now the novel I am working on. The novel is somewhere into ~draft 3, meaning it's very readable (or will be when the current draft is done in a few weeks), but it still needs a good spit polishing with another draft, maybe more.

A few thoughts/observations:
I would encourage those interested to give fiction writing a try*. It is deeply humbling. You think to yourself while reading a mediocre book, "This is rubbish--I could do so much better!" Oh, you can? I'd like to see your attempt. You think you know how people really interact/speak/behave, not just some cliched archetype? Show me. In many ways writing a novel is like marathon training. There are generally two motivations among the runners: 1) finishing, and 2) racing. The finishers are the NaNoWriMo types who derive satisfaction from having done the feat. "I buckled down and wrote a 50k word novel in a month!" The racers hear that and say, "Yes, but is it even readable? What you've done is write a 50k word 'shitty first draft'. Now the real work begins, which is revision. Anything less than a masterpiece, where your soul is utterly poured out on the page, is bullshit." Of course, both are right. It is an accomplishment, and writing something good takes so much more effort. Also, like marathon training, some are more innately gifted than others. But the biggest factor for most people, regardless of whatever linguistic edge you may or may not have, is simply time. The number of miles run.

The psychology of writing is peculiar. At least, for me it is. For background it is worthwhile to point out that, before starting to write fiction, I had a large amount of experience writing non-fiction (e.g. scientific journal articles, etc.). Fiction and non-fiction are different kinds of beasts, although some of the skills are transferable. Concision is transferable. Clarity of prose is transferable. The satisfaction of the read is... maybe not? What do I mean? I mean when I wrote a lot of non-fiction, sciency things, there is a very logic-driven, organized framework to the whole thing. It reads well when the blocks are put into place just so. After a lot of work on a manuscript, I could find a very pleasant sort of satisfaction with it...perhaps in the way that some people find something well-engineered. To this day, I find myself waaaay more critical of the writing in non-fiction works. I see little cracks in how something was laid out, a bit of sloppiness around the edges, and I almost consider it intellectual malpractice (god, I'm insufferable...I know). It's somewhat peculiar to me, then, that I am considerably less judgmental with a lot of fiction that I read. I think this is largely because I don't have a ideal form in mind when I read it...that or the goal of fiction doesn't seem so cut-in-stone the way it does with non-fiction. Sometimes the goal is crass, formulaic escapism. Sometimes the goal is absurdist or surreal. Sometimes the goal is 'cozy horror'. I may read something I don't particularly like or enjoy or understand in a story, and I usually cast it off as simply a difference in creative preferences. Over the last two years, I have experienced something with my fiction writing that I never have with my non-fiction: genuine enjoyment. It doesn't happen very often, mind you, but occasionally I am able to work a story (or part of a story) into shape, and I'll start reading it...and I just keep reading it because I'm enjoying it so much. (Of course, that doesn't mean anyone else finds it enjoyable.) Part of why I find this so interesting is because what is enjoyable in fiction is so often difficult to figure out. If it is all made up, and doesn't have an ideal goal or form to follow, why do some stretches of text just 'click' in my brain so well? To me, the craft is simply trying to figure this out, or find it when it happens. And there are macro versions of this as well...hours spent writing where I think to myself "this is amazing!" as I carve out some character arc or whatever, followed by the next day where I can't help but think how absolutely inane and boring everything I've written is. It's very interesting to observe this in your own thinking patterns. Thankfully, there is a 'me' that sits outside all of this whipsawing with a bucket of popcorn and finds it interesting to watch...

On expertise and becoming an expert. Like most people with a fancy degree, I am a card-carrying expert in something so niche and specific as to be essentially irrelevant when it comes to practical matters of living. A decade of specialized training and I am left with the ability to kick your ass in a single category of Jeopardy. (I'll do it too, ruthlessly: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!) So it has been really interesting to observe myself progressing along in another skill. The thing about expertise is this: it is only rear-looking. You can't see what it is off in the distance. You don't know what it is as you approach it. It is only after you get there and mull around for a bit, realize that there is a group of others mulling around with you because you've all ended up in the same place (peers, in a way), can you look back and see the journey for what it was. With my fiction writing, all I know is this: I have put in perhaps 2,000+ hours of "butt-in-chair-hands-on-keyboard", and I have by this point read several dozen craft books. I have developed a depth of experience, therefore, to know what a writing practice looks like, what works for others (and for me), and I have an awareness (fairly confident) of most of the major theories/concepts/methodologies. I know I am getting better. I can read the difference for myself. I'm not exactly sure, though, where the destination is or how long it might take to get there. I have learned a very important thing, though: I am more than happy to write for up to 4-5 hours a day, every day of the week. This is more than most people seem to be able to handle, even many people serious about writing. I am not saying I'm better, just that I have discovered my manageable workload capacity. (Apparently, 'full time'.) Maybe this means I get there sooner, maybe not.

This is getting long, so I'll stop here.

*I encourage everyone to have any kind of writing practice. Good writing is good thinking (even if fiction). Practicing good writing, therefore...

[black_son_of_gray]

Another update on climbing stairs:

I found this calculator online to get a better sense of the parameters. [I am using kcal burned as a gauge of difficulty/exertion]

The fitness goal is 4 miles, 1300ft elevation, carrying 25lbs, in 1.5 hours. I have DIYed a plate carrier that will get me up to 20lbs.

Question: What variables are most important? I can 1) change distance, 2) elevation gain, and 3) pack weight easily.

Pack weight: With no pack on a flat course, I burn 100 kcal/mile. A loooooong time ago I remember reading that a good shorthand for running is 100 kcal/mile, and this is apparently dead on. With a 25lb pack, I burn 110 kcal/mile, so 10% more.

Elevation: With no pack on a 1300ft elevation gain course, I burn 156.5 kcal/mile, so 56% more. With the 25lb pack on a 1300ft elevation gain course, I burn 56% more (vs. w/pack but flat) or 72% more (vs. no pack and flat).

Distance: If instead of 4 miles (no pack), I covered the 1300ft elevation change in 1 mile (meaning 6% vs 25% grade), then it takes 387 kcal vs. 626kcal (62%). A quarter the distance, but only 38% fewer kcal...

The way that I am reading the above is that variables matter, from most important to least important, in the following order: 1) Elevation change, 2) Pack weight, 3) Distance.
I'm putting distance last in part because it is somewhat intertwined with elevation change, and because anything under 6 miles at once is literally a (near) daily distance of a walk for me. In that sense, the main consideration of how "doable" a hike is for me is basically a matter of answering, "what is the elevation gain?" Good to know!

I would think this also applies to rucking: that is, elevation matters more than pack weight. At least, that is what the above calculator suggests, but I'm not quite sure things would scale linearly as pack weight increases.

Part of the reason why I am so interested in stairs is because it seems to offer a great opportunity for cardio other than running. (I am also interesting in cycling for that reason, in addition to transportation). My understanding is that stairclimbing is considerably lower impact than running, and I would guess, based on it burning kcal at a greater rate per step, it would also help minimize overuse issues?? (Fitness people here, your thoughts on this?) I am very familiar with "hill workouts" from my high school days of cross country running, and to a degree I would say rucking is somewhat similar (swapping weight for speed), but the difference with stairs is that each foot placement is consistent and flat, for better or worse. I'm thinking from an Achilles or plantar fasciitis perspective, probably better.

I'm not finding all that much information (vs. say, for running) that really goes into stairclimbing physiology/training with much academic sophistication. A lot of content is about elderly people climbing stairs, or something like HIIT sessions on a stairmaster at the gym.

I did discover the ultra-niche sport of tower running, though.

So for now I'm going to focus on adding vertical, vertical, vertical!

[jacob]

Surface also matters. Hardtop is a lot easier on the muscles but tougher on the joints. At the other end of that scale, you have sand and snow. Somewhere in the middle, you have grass or trail.

Distance should be linear. Strangely, speed matters very little as long as you scale it for distance: 10k in 2hrs by walking is almost the same as 10k in 1hr if you ran it. That said, everybody has an optimal speed/natural cadence (goes by leg length, think natural pendulum period). It's harder to deviate from this whether it's slower or faster. The best way around it is to vary your step-distance, but at least in my case, that's very habitually set.

[suomalainen]

I thought this was all a matter of work (from a physics definition) and so the reason walking and running on a flat surface are roughly the same is that you do very little work as you move horizontally. Your center of mass oscillates vertically by only a few inches per step in either case. I can't remember where I saw a video about it a decade ago or so, but presumably you could find something. I wonder if you could compare the "vertical" achieved in horizontal movement vs the more direct vertical achieved in tower running, etc. to see how they compare. I would assume the vertical work actually performed is greater than mere elevation gain as your center of mass presumably goes a bit higher than needed with each step and settles down to avoid tripping, etc.

[black_son_of_gray]

@Suomalainen

I agree that there is a little vertical "slop" involved in each step cycle of walking, running, and stair climbing. In response to your comment, I skimmed over a dozen or so stock footage videos of crowds ascending/descending staircases. I gather the slop in climbing stairs is similar to that of walking/running, which is to say that most people have a little (an inch or two), and some people at the ends of the distribution have either very little or are noticeably "bouncy". As @jacob mentioned, there are natural efficiencies with specific strides/speeds. Some of this slop could be a mismatch between the stair geometry and the climber's limbs. As to tower running specifically, it does indeed look less efficient vertically in general. From what I can tell, the elite tower runners have developed some 'interesting' techniques for how they negotiate the turns or deal with odd numbers of steps. They are very interested in minimizing the inefficiencies, but the task itself is sometimes just awkward to deal with. I'm reminded of footage of speed-climbers in the last Olympics. Their limbs are flailing but their center of mass is smoothly, consistently moving upward! (Not all that bad as a parallel for 'purely vertical' stairclimbing, because most of those climber's vertical thrust is going to be coming from their legs). For my purposes, I'm sort of using stair climbing as a way of achieving the energy output of a light run but with the cadence/leg turnover of a medium speed walk.

[mountainFrugal]

Sounds like a great way to get back in shape.

Is it possible to go do the route without weight, or a little weight, first? This will give you a lot of data outside of how much you have to train. It will help make sure you can navigate the course, see how rocky it is, and provide a baseline for you to train against. As an example, If you cannot hike the course without weight in under 1:35 you have a lot more training to do than if you can. Going down while weighted is also a consideration as the course you linked above is a loop. You can easily shred your quads if you are not used to it. If it is the fitness that you are training for, figuring out these other variables will also help reduce your time. A neutral foot placement of stairs can help for longer training sessions, but strengthening your lower leg by moving over uneven terrain is going to better prepare you for this event. You are also training proprioception of foot placement and pick-up. This is very important for trails.

[black_son_of_gray]

Is it possible to go do the route without weight, or a little weight, first? This will give you a lot of data outside of how much you have to train.

Good points. I can get to the trail in about an hour drive + an annoying bridge toll, which is to say, I haven't done it yet Whenever possible, I refuse to drive places...

But hiking conditions are really getting nice in the Bay Area right now, and the North Bay has some mighty fine geography (and much bigger hills), so maybe that is in the cards soon. Any other thoughts on training for technical trails (in terms of substitutions, more important vs. less important priorities, etc.)? I have done a fair amount of trail running, but that was decades ago and more East Coasty stuff like smooth rolling singletrack rather than the gnarlier trails of the West.

You can easily shred your quads if you are not used to it.

Yes! That is one of the thoughts I had recently about why climbing physical stairs (rather than, say, a stair machine) is a better option: I want to train down as well as up. Controlled eccentric down in addition to the concentric up. It's not a bug, it's a feature. I've read a lot of race reports from ultra runners who specifically mention how going down can be soooooo much worse on the legs. They pray for another climb to start so the pain will ease up.

[mountainFrugal]

Any other thoughts on training for technical trails (in terms of substitutions, more important vs. less important priorities, etc.)?

Trying the event w/o weight to see where you are at generally and then gradually increasing weight on subsequent tries would be how I would approach it.

[black_son_of_gray]

Hill-climbing fitness update:
I have successfully ticked off some boxes in the last couple of weeks.
First, I completed a walk of 4 miles, 1300ft elevation without my DIY weight vest. Then I completed it with the weight vest (20lbs rather than 25lbs). Since then I've been stretching out the distance/elevation a bit (recent walks of 6-7 miles/2000ft elevation). So in theory, all I need to worry about is the technical aspect of trail footwork. Hiking season is starting around here (wildflowers are peaking during the next month or so and the rainy season is petering out), so in coming weeks I'll be looking to get a couple trail hikes in, probably also with a loaded pack. The easiest Bay Area trail system with lots of vertical for me to access is Mt Tamalpais, which I can hike from sea level to ~2500ft on tons of varied trails (meadow, doug fir, coast redwood, ravines, waterfalls, switchbacks, lakes, etc.).

Literary findings:
Just for fun, two little literary tidbits I've run across in recent weeks.
1) The idiot plot.

a narrative where its conflict comes from characters not recognizing, or not being told, key information that would resolve the conflict, often because of plot contrivance

I can forgive and even embrace an Idiot Plot in its proper place (consider Astaire and Rogers in Top Hat). But when the characters have depth and their decisions have consequences, I grow restless when their misunderstandings could be ended by words that the screenplay refuses to allow them to utter.

We've all come across these stories--sometimes it feels like they are everywhere. Now you have a name for it!

2) Retroactive Continuity, aka retcon

a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work that have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.

Example: Oh, you thought the main character died in the previous novel? Why did you think that, because the author actually did kill them? Well guess what, it was all an elaborate ruse...

The term "gaslighting" is pretty commonly used these days (and abused), but this is an adjacent term that is well worth understanding, if for no other reason, you'll probably see a lot of it going forward:

Though the term "retcon" did not yet exist when George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime depicted in that book is involved in a constant, large-scale retconning of past records. For example, when it is suddenly announced that "Oceania was not after all in war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia and Eurasia was an ally" (Part Two, Ch. 9), there is an immediate intensive effort to change "all reports and records, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound-tracks and photographs" and make them all record a war with Eastasia rather than one with Eurasia. "Often it was enough to merely substitute one name for another, but any detailed report of events demanded care and imagination. Even the geographical knowledge needed in transferring the war from one part of the world to another was considerable."

[Scordatura]

Justing showing up to do an "Attaboy."
I enjoy your writings on writing.

Much like you, I find that writing is a method of thinking.
It seems that most people work out what they think by talking to other people, but you can find out what you think by writing about it instead. I tend to get different results when using this method.

I imagine mathematical thinking is another useful thought process, along with visual thinking. Mathematical thinking even has its own writing. I personally use a lot of visual thinking for practical problems, and writing to sort them all out. I just can't keep everything in my head. External visual abstraction was such a wonderful invention.

I have a few drafts of things I've written, but I've gotten (mostly) out of fiction. Both reading and writing. I'm exactly reversed from you; I cut nonfiction some slack, but fiction is on thin ice. I spent more time than I'd like to admit reading political theory (I don't do this anymore), and it's apparent in most modern English fiction that agitprop is rampant. I really am tired of the culture war. I like foreign and ancient media for this reason. There may be agitprop, but it doesn't correspond 1:1 with the modern american false dichotomy. I take it as given that clear thinking is a positive value.

I spend a huge portion of my time writing, but it's mostly notes and thoughts. Working through problems. Either my own or the corporation I work for's problems. Much closer to home, much less world shattering.

I look forward to your future entries.

[black_son_of_gray]

I spent more time than I'd like to admit reading political theory (I don't do this anymore), and it's apparent in most modern English fiction that agitprop is rampant. I really am tired of the culture war. I like foreign and ancient media for this reason. There may be agitprop, but it doesn't correspond 1:1 with the modern american false dichotomy.

Interesting. I think I know what you mean. Are you referring to stories with heavy-handed moral bent/positioning to them? How are you defining "modern"?

There are a couple of different ways to phrase it, but sometimes the point is made in writerly circles that "a good novel doesn't seek to answer a question, just to ask it really well," or something like that. I kind of agree. I think the reader needs to have the space to draw their own conclusion. Also, I tend to find that plots/character arcs are much more interesting, moving, or believable when they involve a predicament driving the action/decisions rather than simply a desire.

Off the top of my head, I have recently read:
Dune by Herbert
A Confederacy of Dunces by Toole (currently reading)
Amsterdam by McEwan
Piranesi by Clarke
Heart of Darkness by Conrad
Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury
The Great God Pan by Machen

I'm curious whether there is an agitprop angle to these!

About half of these I nabbed from Little Free Libraries, and some I read because I thought it might be interesting to read through some of "the golden age" of Sci-Fi. Purely by accident, the modern ones do seem to be written by authors from the UK. It is very rare that I read anything off of a best-seller list because it was on a best-seller list. Most of the stuff I read, like above, is smeared across time from ~1900 to ~2000ish. I also read a lot of short stories relative to most people...in the last threeish years maybe a couple hundred? Those are also sometimes older (e.g. Shirley Jackson) or sometimes newer (e.g. George Saunders).

[Henry]

I'm not sure exactly what you're going for, but Cormac McCarthy seems like he would fit into the dialogue, especially in terms of his writings being analogous to Conrad.

[black_son_of_gray]

@Henry

My only encounter with McCarthy so far has been The Passenger, which I read a couple years ago. After reading it, I chose not to continue with the companion novel, Stella Maris. I can see why people laud him--he is really good at crafting a sentence and articulating fuzzy or abstract or tip-of-the-tongue concepts and making them come alive on the page. That said, I personally found The Passenger a little indulgent, if that is right word. As though he knew he could just lean into that incredible skill of his at the expense of, say, advancing a plot? The kind of book where the dazzling prose keeps you turning the page, but at the end you just go...huh? Not my cup of tea right now.

To be fair, Heart of Darkness does read very similarly. It often also feels deliberately vague or evasive. "Just tell me what the damn horror is that Kurtz won't stop blabbing out!" Conrad, it turns out, actually does, but he buries it really deep inside the rambling sailor yarn of Marlow. I had to read it over three times, reeeeally studying what was going on, before I kinda sorta figured it out?

I still want to eventually do a dive into McCarthy's earlier works, though. I always give a highly regarded author a couple of attempts, because... maybe it's just me?

Also, I did eventually sit down to watch Ennio. Thanks for the recommendation. But now I have Se Telefonando stuck in my head...such an earworm.

[Henry]

maybe it's just me?

No. He's a beast. I've stopped and started Blood Meridian many times.

[Scordatura]

@BSOG

Yes, exactly.

Poorly, probably. Made within this century. I have a rule of thumb when I'm at the library. If I crack open the book and read the publication date, beware anything after 2015. For whatever reason, the fiction section went nuts around then. I can find examples prior, but not at nearly the same saturation rate.

I don't want to be able to tell an author's political or religious views unless they are writing about politics or religion. Disappointingly frequently, I can. And in the strangest places. Last year I read a nursing book, "The Nurses" - Alexandra Robbins. It was Marxist. Literally references Paulo Freire. Sheesh. I'm just here to read hospital stories, lady.

One word I should have used in my original post but didn't was 'popular'.
Rick Riordan, Martha Wells, J. K. Rowling, Etc.
It might also just be the young adult section? Get 'em converted early?
Of those authors, Wells started so strongly then fell the flattest. The Murderbot books are reeeeaaally good. To start. I have an entire stupid monologue on those books alone.

You might think from the above that I'm some deeply engaged right winger in the culture war, perhaps? I'm not. I've avoided the Left Behind series for similar reasoning as above. It's just that a particular view dominates in american popular fiction. And that particular view is virulent leftism. I wouldn't be happy if tomorrow we collectively made Ben Shapiro our Fiction Czar.

I think maybe the lesson to be learned here is I need to pick harder fiction choices. Of those you listed, I've only read Bradbury. (If you have a favorite now's the time to tell me.) That one has political theming for sure, but it isn't hamfisted in execution. The hamfisted part is the part I object to so strongly. Tell the damn story, even if it's low brow hero's journey stuff, and leave the sermons for the pulpit.

That being said, I can remember a time when popular literature wasn't a smoldering mess. Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I can still read The House of the Scorpion - Nancy Farmer. It's not highbrow, but meat and potatoes well served, can be more appropriate than caviar.

Edit: Just noticed your later post, I absolutely adore 1984. Further proof of the "hamfisted" comment.

[theanimal]

I’ve had trouble reading Blood Meridian as well and struggle to see what the hype is about. A friend and I were recently talking about this and wondering what the deal is as we both like westerns and violence. That said, some of his other books are absolutely outstanding. I’d recommend checking out “The Road” and ”No Country for Old Men.” “All the pretty horses” is another good one.

[Henry]

I think part of the Blood Meridian issue is tied to Harold Bloom. The greatest literary critic of the 20th century has stated it may be the best novel of the 20th century and there's tremendous fall out from the conflation of "best critic thinks best book" as it raises the book to canonical stature. So that underlying narrative about the book itself, which seeps into the book reading universe, only exacerbates the suffering in attempting to read the book, especially if the reader was fully cognizant of the "best critic thinks best book" situation before attempting to read the book. So in BSOG, terms, you come to think "it must be me" until you realize there's a lot of "it must be me's" out there who fear their lack of enthusiasm for the book is a reflection of their inability to appreciate "great" literature and especially if they are self-conscious about their preference for the "Dinky Hoffer Shoots Smack" anthology which is just a random allusion to another fictional genre and not an example intending to represent this writer's literary preferences.

[black_son_of_gray]

I think maybe the lesson to be learned here is I need to pick harder fiction choices. Of those you listed, I've only read Bradbury. (If you have a favorite now's the time to tell me.) That one has political theming for sure, but it isn't hamfisted in execution. The hamfisted part is the part I object to so strongly. Tell the damn story, even if it's low brow hero's journey stuff, and leave the sermons for the pulpit.

Given my permissive orientation toward fiction, I'm not really confident in making broad recommendations. Also, the way I've recently been thinking about the fiction I read is more like: "That novel was meh overall, but had great [dialogue/scene setting/ideas etc.]. If I find myself needing to brush up on that, it might be worth studying how the author pulled it off in that novel." In other words, I appreciate a lot of books for the skill-building I can cherry-pick from them, rather than because I felt a personal resonance/enjoyment with the story.

As to how I personally pick my fiction choices: it often comes down to a curiosity driven by cultural references. For example, I've read Hemingway (e.g. "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" and others), Infinite Jest by Wallace, The Metamorphosis by Kafka, Catch-22 by Heller, quite a few Raymond Chandler hardboiled detective stories, and so on...all because there are pervasive social references to those works that I wanted to understand by reading the source. Culturally, we are awash in stories. It's often surprising to actually read these stories/references you think you know. And if someone name-drops a work, I either get the reference (win) or realize I'm dealing with a person who name-drops a book without apparently having read it (also win, in a different way).

[black_son_of_gray]

I think part of the Blood Meridian issue is tied to Harold Bloom. The greatest literary critic of the 20th century has stated it may be the best novel of the 20th century and there's tremendous fall out from the conflation of "best critic thinks best book" as it raises the book to canonical stature. So that underlying narrative about the book itself, which seeps into the book reading universe, only exacerbates the suffering in attempting to read the book, especially if the reader was fully cognizant of the "best critic thinks best book" situation before attempting to read the book. So in BSOG, terms, you come to think "it must be me" until you realize there's a lot of "it must be me's" out there who fear their lack of enthusiasm for the book is a reflection of their inability to appreciate "great" literature and especially if they are self-conscious about their preference for the "Dinky Hoffer Shoots Smack" anthology which is just a random allusion to another fictional genre and not an example intending to represent this writer's literary preferences.

I’ve had trouble reading Blood Meridian as well and struggle to see what the hype is about.

Indeed. To expand on my "maybe it's just me" comment, "...but maybe it isn't?" I have definitely started and then quickly put down books that were heralded by all the top intelligentsia influencers. There is an asymmetry to professional reviewers: If everyone pans a novel, it probably does suck. But the difference between mixed and rave reviews often comes down to personal preference. The Internet is largely useless for reviews at this point.

In my experience, there is a time variable as well--both for me and for the author. I have read some novels multiple times, at different stages of my life, and came away with a very different level of enjoyment. For some reason (is it really hard to guess?), I enjoyed The Catcher in the Rye quite a bit in high school! I read it again in college and thought, "Hmm...not quite as enjoyable this time. Kind of whiny." Ten years out of college I tried and was so bored I didn't finish it. If I tried again now, who knows? Maybe I'll like it again??

And I am also aware that some authors 'drift' in their careers. For example, I rather like Kurt Vonnegut--in particular, his style/voice of writing--and some years ago, having read 3 or 4 of his more famous novels, I decided to buckle down and read all of them. Doing so, I came to understand that the "Kurt Vonnegut style" I like only really solidified around the fourth novel he wrote, Cat's Cradle (and then persisted for the rest of his work). The earlier stuff isn't bad! But it is a little different. Player Piano, his first, is much more 'conventional' in style. (I have tried to read his short stories, written before his novels, and with the exception of Harrison Bergeron find them pretty hard to slog through...) Point being, maybe I just need to find an author 'at the right time'.

I have slowly shifted away over the decades from thinking, as @Henry remarked, "you come to think "it must be me" until you realize there's a lot of "it must be me's" out there who fear their lack of enthusiasm for the book is a reflection of their inability to appreciate "great" literature." I mean, I still do on occasion, but less so these days. I fully believe there are math wizards, mechanical gurus, etc. with real perspicacity that goes well beyond my ability to understand, but with time I've come to realize that the gap between my careful reading and that of some reviewer for the NY Times or whatever... isn't all that large. I'm willing to admit my ignorance to certain contexts or experiences or techniques (all aspects I might fail to appreciate), but I have trouble thinking my English comprehension skills are e.g. two standard deviations lower than theirs... Storytelling is a handshake between the author and the reader. Sure, a writer need not write down to cater to the broadest possible readership, but if pretty much no one understands...I'd call that an error, just as a "brilliant" teacher who fails most of their students probably shouldn't be held up as a shining example of pedagogy.

[jacob]

Indeed. To expand on my "maybe it's just me" comment, "...but maybe it isn't?" I have definitely started and then quickly put down books that were heralded by all the top intelligentsia influencers. There is an asymmetry to professional reviewers: If everyone pans a novel, it probably does suck. But the difference between mixed and rave reviews often comes down to personal preference. The Internet is largely useless for reviews at this point.

One thing I learned early on as an author is that a review is 90%+ a mirror of the reader. It says more about the reviewer than it says about the reviewed. That's not even before considering that reviewers have their own echo-chamber wherein people feel obligated to parrot the (re)views of the 5 people they look up to.

Still, there's the 10% ...