A Confederacy of Dunces
Ratings266
Average rating3.8
2.5 Stars
How long do you give a book before dropping it? My answer is about 20 percent, which is where I dropped this one. I didn't absolutely hate it, but it just wasn't doing anything for me. It was amusing at times, but it was also boring quite a bit of the time. Ignatius is a character you understand immediately and he just... lives. That in itself is fine. I like overexaggerated characters. It's just that there is no real depth to anything that happens in this book. It's just standard satire. I guess I'm one of those people who was not that into it.
This book is set in New Orleans and documents the interrelated lives of a number of poor and generally unattractive people, central among them one Ignatius J. Reilly, a lazy, gluttonous, fat slob spoiled by his mother and distinguished by his extraordinary conceit and his incongruously fastidious command of the English language.
I struggled to get through A Confederacy of Dunces. Ignatius Reilly is not a charming eccentric, but a self-absorbed, entitled caricature. His endless whining and bizarre behavior grew tiresome rather than humorous. The supporting cast, while colorful, felt like mere props for Reilly's antics. The novel's humor, if present at all, is buried beneath layers of pretentiousness and narcissism. A painful slog from start to finish.
One of the strongest criticisms against A Confederacy of Dunces basically boils down to the fact that there's not one single likable character in this entire tome. Although not entirely devoid of truth, this book is arguably filled to the brim with characters vivid and pretty much alive! Moving with spectacular alacrity across pages, streets, from homes to factories and to bars, and back. And do you like everyone you meet daily?
Leave these characters with different worldviews to interact with each other, hinder each other, assist each other, and accompany each other in a bleak world of meaninglessness, confusion, and misunderstanding, then add a total lack of ability to correctly and humanely connect with each other. The final result tends to turn out exceptional one way or another.
I really enjoyed it but it wasn't as funny as i thought it was going to be. The main character Ignatius got on my nerves, and despite his high level of education was extremely stupid and child like, i did feel bad for him towards the end. The only tolerable character was Jones as all he wanted was a decent wage
It was a painful experience to get through it and I'm going to puke if I have to endure a single sentence from Ignatius' mouth so I hope you are happy, John Kennedy Toole.
Not as Don Quixote as I was led to believe, but Ignatius J. Riley is certainly an eccentric personality to follow. It's a shame this seems to be a cursed production in regards to adapting it to screen, as I really think it'd do well in the right hands. The likes of Belushi, Divine, John Goodman, Will Ferrell, and Zach Galifinakis have all been linked, yet each production seems to fall apart.
Take a shot for each time Ignatius says “Oh my god,” and when Jones says, “woah!”
There is a great brouhaha around the reviews of this book. Either people hate it or love it. And that is expected of all literature.
Yet, I think while everyone has extreme opinions of this book, we are still playing into its plot. Those who hate it either do not understand what type of character Ignatius is, or do not want to recognize they have a bit of Ignatius in them. The critic, the revolting, the never satisfied. With the pompous critical opinion to not like a Pulitzer prize book (even if, and I have to agree, maybe it is not a Pulitzer worthy book) that is adored by a generation with its slapstick, and satirical humour.
The prize might not even matter at all, I for sure do not care if a book got a prize or if the author got a Nobel Prize. Those who love the book do not, sometimes, understand that it is not just Ignatius the horrible character, he is surrounded by characters, and horrible ones, all of them with their wrapped ambitions, and their will to survive in such a city where immoral, religion, slavery history and industrialism meets.
In my sincere opinion, Confederacy of Dunces is a book that showcased a future literary career for its author, unfortunately his mental health led him to suicide.
P.S. To those who comment John Kennedy Toole's suicide as a laughable and part of a stock of authors who took their life due to their unrecognition, do understand that mental health is not as simple as failing to be an author. As failed authors who have good supporting families tend to live and reconcile themselves with their failure. It is important to understand that for John Kennedy Toole his failed novel also represented failing to his tyrannical mom who constantly remarked his father as a failure, as someone who threw away their prospective future. Thelma Toole is probably a crucial part to understand John's suicide. But for that, I would recommend the various biographies of the author.
An intimate look at a Shaquille O Neal sized human who spends his days working at a pants factory, selling hot dogs and communicating with Myrna, a New York beatnik friend? Not as funny as I was expecting; a sense of comedic repetition can drag the story down, but Toole does have things to say about capitalism, consumerism and race that ultimately make it more than just a laugh-out-loud type book.
An intimate look at a Shaquille O Neal sized human who spends his days working at a pants factory, selling hot dogs and communicating with Myrna, a New York beatnik friend? Not as funny as I was expecting; a sense of comedic repetition can drag the story down, but Toole does have things to say about capitalism, consumerism and race that ultimately make it more than just a laugh-out-loud type book.
“Canned food is a perversion...it is ultimately very damaging to the soul.”
I need to re-read this, but based on my last - and first - reading, this is one of the funniest, most acutely observed books I have ever read. One of the reason why I haven't re-read it is that I am worried my first impression was wrong.
This is going back on my Want To Read list so that I can finally lay this to rest...
After re-reading: while not as laugh out loud funny as the first time, it is still a hell of a trip.
The description of the book says “tragic comedy” and that says it all. Not because you feel sad for any of these characters. Kennedy Toole masterfully gives us distance to see what is absurd about them.
Ignatius is both a slob and a snob. A buffoon who behaves so badly to everyone that you're laughing and amazed at the same time at what he tries to get away with. Most of the people reacting to him are not exactly “the straight man” because they are all for the most part onto him, and in some cases perpetuating schemes of their own.
My favorite element is how well all the groups of characters and their storylines converge for a chaotic ending. I love books that can do that and have it be, not exactly believable in the realistic sense, but perfectly fitting for the tone of the book.
I started to read this before I was planning to visit New Orleans. I got bored with it and went there without finishing the book, then just recently decided to knock the rest of it out. It picked up and was not a slow read, but I still feel like the book was missing something, from what is often hyped as one of the great, most hilarious books of the century. Learning a bit about the origin story is oddly poignant for a book with many fart, burp, and other physical jokes at the expense of its slob lead character, but alas the story about Gottlieb telling him he should revise the work makes me want to side with Gottlieb. The book may have been better if Toole had been able to revise it. And I'd have been interested in his follow up works that were never created.
I think if Ignatius and I ever met, crossing paths for whatever reason, I think we'd be able to become friends.
The cast of characters in the book is very colorful and interesting, and the prose and mastery of language are just great. At the same time, I found the book excessively over the top, based on the premise that all the characters are stupid and incapable of having a conversation or make any decision that makes sense, or even remotely listening to each other. This makes the book the literary equivalent of a Mel Brooks movie and it is just not that funny. The overall tone is a little condescending, like if the secret of human nature eludes most of the society apart from few literate blessed people.
Here's another Great American Read book I probably would never have read if it hadn't been shared there.
Deservedly so.
It's a wowser of a book. I will never forget Ignatius or his mother or Miss Trixie or the owners of the pants factory or Myrna...honestly, there isn't a character in the entire book that is forgettable. It's a book I'm glad I listened to; I loved hearing these New Orleans folks. And the little twists and turns of the plot...so funny.
I see why this book is so loved.
“You learnt everything, Ignatius, except how to be a human being.” -crux, I guess.
“My being has many facets.” -one of the few things that made me laugh out loud.
+0.5 stars for the sad parts.
Without a doubt, the funniest book I never actually laughed out loud while reading. But I spent the entire time pleasantly and quietly chuckling inside, where it counts.
I have known all the characters, every one. I never lived in New Orleans, so those who say the book is entirely place-dependant are not quite right; but I did grow up in Houston, and for some purposes that may be close enough. But no matter where, be it Texas, California, or Washington, these very real persons are findable.
Toole was a genius. I'm sad he is gone, but I am grateful for his gift to readers.
Un très bon livre, extrêmement drôle, qui m'a valu plusieurs fou-rires dans mes trajets. Un personnage haut en couleurs, une sorte d'anti héros parfait que l'on ne peut quand même pas s'empêcher d'apprécier un peu. L'écriture est un peu lourde, mais l'histoire est vraiment intéressante, et a une touche d'absurde désopilante, à découvrir à l'occasion ;)
Ignatius J. Reilly - bumbling buffoon or revolutionary thinker? Almost certainly the former, though I suspect inside his head lurks a fantasy world revolving around the latter. At times I thought A Confederacy of Dunces resembled a treatise on mental illness - narcissism, delusions of grandeur, paranoia - possible schizophrenia - then I remembered the book is supposed to be a comedy. The tragedy of Ignatius J. Reilly is that, much like his valve, the tragic comedy that is his life is portrayed as (or by?) an increasingly ambiguous and wavering mirage that may or may not exist.
Toole's representation of New Orleans mirrors the turbulence in Reilly's mind as much as it does the events which unfold around the wily antagonist. Everywhere Reilly goes, calamity seems to follow. However, as the noose slowly tightens, our anti-hero refuses to acquiesce, instead opting to double-down again and again.
My only issue with the book is the ending. I felt frustrated that Reilly managed to escape what he sorely deserved, however I was left with the impression that he was not going to get far - satisfaction denied but not forever.
Yes there are some laugh out loud moments! But mostly, this book is ridiculous. I did not like the main character, he was uneducated, lazy, and irresponsible. Not to mention a slob. I kept hoping for an “epiphany” moment that never came.
This book would translate well into a comedic film. It's packed with hilarious situations and a well-developed cast of characters. I loved each and every one of the characters and can't decide on a favorite. The book is a lengthy one and the story doesn't really pick up until you're a few chapters in. It's definitely worth sticking with and reading from cover to cover.