Why should I continue reading "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole?

Question

I tend to like alternative classics like JD Salinger and Robert Pirsig, but starting this book has already ventured into vomiting and bestiality - things I'm just not interested in being exposed to. Why is this regarded as a modern classic? The prose isn't especially brilliant, and the main character rather grotesque. I can't really understand why Walker Percy found its beginning stimulating enough to find out it is a "great" novel. The rant against modernism was ok but will that be enough to bother going on? I'm only about 30-40 pages in.

Answer 1

The grotesque is an important part of Southern literature, in which "Confederacy of Dunces" is considered a significant work in the modern canon. O'Toole captured an authentic slice of life in New Orleans, and his rendering of dialect and accent is reported to be particularly accurate. Ignatius J. Reilly, in his idealistic fervor, has been compared to Don Quixote.

None of these reasons, however, are compelling if you find the humor offensive. If you continue with it, I hope you enjoy.

Answer 2

I'm sorry you don't find the book as downright hilarious and engrossing as I did. Ignatius Reilly is, admittedly, a less than attractive main character. But for some, that's all part of the fun:

"The book opens with Ignatius Reilly, who may very well be the most disgusting lead character ever in a novel. He is a grossly overweight, intellectual, deadbeat, who, as a grown man, still lives at home with his mother. He passes his days by lying in bed on “stained sheets”, eating, masturbating and writing a melodramatic diatribe in his Big Chief notebook. He rarely leaves the house and only to run errands with his mother, or go to the movies. "

Here's a review that you might agree with:

"Ignatius is a strange character. He's obnoxious, belligerent, and rude. It's hard to think of anyone you would least like to meet. He lives with his mother in a grungy part of New Orleans and treats her and everyone else he meets with utter contempt. His entire life is one disaster after another as he reacts to even the slightest interaction with others as a personal affront to his dignity. This leads to ridiculous and sometimes hilarious circumstances.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at how badly he misreads every situation he is in. It's all the more tragic given the circumstances of the author's death (suicide at age 32). This fact is revealed in the book's introduction and had the effect of causing me to constantly think of Ignatius in terms of Toole. I'm still not sure if this was good or bad. There are a number of interesting side characters and Toole has a way of using their unique slang and speech patterns to convey exactly who and what they are.

A Confederacy of Dunces is not a book for everyone. Though a Pullitzer Prize winner, I don't think it is a book that has great universal appeal. For one thing, Ignatius is a tough person to like. There were times when I thought he should just grow up and get out of his mother's life. Yet his absolute belief that only he is right and everyone else is wrong almost starts to win you over.

It's hard to classify this book. As mentioned earlier, it has both comic and tragic elements. As some have described it, a dramedy. I've read some reviews where it's described as absolutely hilarious and the funniest book ever; others where readers thought it was terrible. I don't subscribe to either view. It has it's moments of comedy, but also some interesting insights to the seedier parts of New Orleans society.

I would be reluctant to recommend this book to just anyone. A good choice if you are into farce, not a good choice if you have a low tolerance for annoying characters. On the other hand, go to a library or book store and read a chapter or two (it's pretty easy reading), then decide for yourself. "

That about sums it up, I'd say. It's one of those books that people either love or hate - there's little, if any, middle ground.

In many ways, it reminds me of the works of another classic writer (which again, readers either love or hate): Rabelais

French Renaissance writer, a Franciscan monk, humanist, and physician, whose comic novels Gargantua and Pantagruel are among the most hilarious classics of world literature. Rabelais' heroes are rude but funny giants traveling in a world full of greed, stupidity, violence, and grotesque jokes. His books were banned by the Catholic Church and later placed on The Index librorum prohibitorumon (the Index of Forbidden Books).

"Afterwards I wiped my tail with a hen, with a ****, with a pullet, with a calf's skin, with a hare, with a pigeon, with a cormorant, with an attorney's bag, with a montero, with a coif, with a falconer's lure. But, to conclude, I say and maintain, that of all torcheculs, arsewisps, bumfodders, tail-napkins, bunghole cleansers, and wipe-breeches, there is none in the world comparable to the neck of a goose, that is well downed, if you hold her head betwixt your legs. And believe me therein upon mine honour, for you will thereby feel in your nockhole a most wonderful pleasure, both in regard of the softness of the said down and of the temporate heat of the goose, which is easily communicated to the bum-gut and the rest the inwards, in so far as to come even to the regions of the heart and brains." (from Gargantua, 1534)"

You might try "Handling Sin" by Michael Malone, a novel I think is equally hilarious, but which isn't as grotesque. See link 3, please.

Answer 3

The guy above is right. The dialogue and setting is expertly accomplished. No other book set in New Orleans captures the city as well. It is one of my favorites -I pick it up from time to time for a good laugh. I'd say that if you aren't finding it funny then you're probably not going to enjoy it.

Answer 4

I don't think anyone expects you to like the main character. I certainly didn't. Much of the humor in the book made my husband laugh out loud, but it made me wince. However, the book is observation, and as such, it is incisive.

I've never finished Ulysses. If you can't get into a book, you can't get into the book. In spite of my personal experience, many would argue it's a "great" book. I think _Confederacy_ would have fewer proponents, but probably just as fierce in their defenses of its virtues.

Answer 5

I thought it extremely funny. Give it another 20 pages.