No, I've never felt too immature to appreciate a book and nothing is stopping you from giving it a go and putting it down until you're more "matured" if you find it too difficult or whatever.

op, it's ok if you read a book twice, no one's gonna laugh at you

sort of

sometimes i'm hesitant to start something because i feel like it'll be way too big an effort but that sentiment almost always turns out to be retarded

>implying you will ever appreciate any book on your first read
impossible. if you are afraid you won't be able to appreciate a book yet the best thing you can do is read it, so at least you have a framework of it to sit in your head for a while before you come back to it - take some time to acclimate yourself to what the book was/is actually like and dispel the expectations which are always unnecessary baggage on a first read - figure out which parts you weren't able to appreciate and question why that is, then either do appropriate research - contexts, referenced literatures - or sleep on it a few weeks days years

>>8076519
No but I'll hold off on an author's later books if I have their earlier ones and haven't read them yet. Like I waited until I was done with Dubliners, Portrait of the artist, and Ulysses before reading Finnegans Wake.

>>8077518
you coulda started with finnwake if you wanted to.

its actually just a fun book that anyone can enjoy provided they don't bring a bunch of assumptions to it

>>8077526
I partially agree with you now that I've read it, but being familiar with Joyce before going into it makes it less daunting.

>>8077536
It certainly does. It's a funny paradox really.

You have to go through the labyrinth of Ulysses in order to realise that Joyce is "having a go" in the most supreme way possible in the wake, and can therefore treat it as such

All the time

>>8077541
It really is hilarious to imagine him spending the better part of two decades coming up with dirty jokes like pennis in the sluts maschine.

>>8076519
Lolita

>>8077560
I love it