Not really sure what to ask here.

>>9384910
look. just isolate yourself and practice. work your way up, and constantly challenge yourself.

plus, if you're not enjoying yourself, there's no fucking point. literature is entertainment, nothing else.

Read The Old Man and the Sea. If you can't understand it then quit.

Why would you do something that you both suck at and don't enjoy? Are you holding on to some kind of fallacy that reading will make you smarter? Most people here are idiots despite being highly educated and reading at an "advanced" level.

If you're having this problem I'd recommend doing something like:

>Read a chapter, try as best you can to understand it, dont try to go fast or anything
>Once you finish and didn't understand it, go read a chapter summary, and maybe an analysis of the chapter
>Go back and re-read the chapter

This should work reasonably well for any major works, especially things like the Iliad.

Over time you will start getting better at reading. Going from shit like Harry Potter to actually "challenging" writing is not something that is just like flipping a switch. It takes time and patience.

>>9384921
>>9384959
>Why would you do something you suck at.
Because the things that I'm good at aren't worth doing, and becoming well-read seems like a worthwhile endevour.
>Why would you do something you don't enjoy.
I'm clinically depressed. Pretty much everything I do is a thing I don't enjoy, I force myself to anyway, because it's better to live than not.
>Read the Old Man and the Sea. If you can understand it then quit.
Duely noted. Will read.
>Most people here are idiots despite being highly educated, and reading at an "advanced" level.
I know. I'm aware that being smart involves a variety of abilities other than sheer memorisation. I want to not only expand my knowledge, but also improve my critical thinking, problem solving, analytic skills, and social skills. But I have no fucking idea how to begin in doing any of those things, and becoming relatively well-read seems like a helpful, if not essential pre-requisite.

>>9384976
Thank you anon, I will keep that in mind.

>>9384910
>When I tried reading Shakespeare, I failed, because I'm so under-read that my brain just couldn't process the early modern English without a translator,
Every Shakespeare work has versions with translations/explanations. Maybe on the next page in plain English, maybe written into the text with definitions. One series that comes to mind is No Fear Shakespeare. Many classic works have versions like this. Also, in the case of Shakespeare, because it is a play, it's best to read it out loud or at least move your lips when you're reading the Early Modern English.

Get a library card if you haven't already, and if your library doesn't have something, ask them to loan from another.

You really just need to keep reading. Even if you know a lot of the words, when you are seeing words that aren't typically used, especially when used together, it can be difficult to get without stopping to think. You will get used to these kinds of sentences.
Since you hadn't even been reading before the pleb-tier books, your brain probably wasn't used to putting a whole lot of words together with anything other than the simplest of meaning, and the pleb shit won't help at all.
Just find an interesting book that will challenge you, but isn't too hard, and eventually your brain will just slide into the groove of understanding the words your looking at, without having to stop and think too much.
I'm curious, what translation of the Iliad did you try?

>>9385519
Willl check out the No Fear Shakespeare guides. Thanks.
>>9385639
Fagles,

>>9385677
I think Fagles is considered to be a pretty easy translation. I like Fitzgerald though, and he may be easier to get, keeps it short, snappy. I'd suggest you read a sample on Amazon or something. Some other advice, read (at least difficult sections) aloud, or listen to an audiobook. It helps to vocalize poetry. And read this for background http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/iliad/IliadGuide01.html to help ease your confusion.

I think you should maybe post a list of books you are interested in reading, and we can tell you where to start, since there's no point recommending something somebody won't be interested in.

>>9384910
Nausea and Dubliners are pretty easy, give them another try OP. Just keep at it no matter how hard it is. The book Thats I used when I first got into reading to start understanding "complex" sentence structure and he use of a wide variety of words was Lolita, read that and look up any word you don't understand in the dictionary.

Lolita
The Great Gatsby
A Portrait of the artist as a young man
No Country for old men
East of Eden
American Psycho

All books I read when I was 18 to get into lit. Give some of them a go.

>>9384910
don't give up op
read what you can, even if its harry potter stuff, just build your skills up

>>9384976
Do exactly what this anon says OP, I did this and it worked wonders. After two or three chapters reading was seamless.

>>9385747
Advice noted. Website bookmarked, and will be returned to.
>>9385772
Portrait of the Artist is the only book on that list that I currently posses, so will read that. Thanks for the advice. Will read Lolita too, at some point.
>>9385774
Cheers, man.
>>9385790
I will, thank you.

>>9385794
I would advise you don't read Portrait of the Artist. You had trouble with Dubliners, and Portrait is definitely more difficult. You don't need to be reading Joyce yet. His language is difficult, and his style is especially difficult.
Lolita is easier. Nabokov's language is complex, but his sentence structure and style is usually simple enough that you won't have trouble knowing what he means.. I think that would help. I would probably read that if I were you.

>>9385820
I'm with you. I tried reading the first three pages there. What the fuck did I just read?
Lolita it is then. That and "The Old Man and the Sea", as recommended by >>9384959

>>9384910

Maybe you're retarded?