I don't get it, /lit/.
I'm coming up on half way through and this supposed comedy classic has barely made me smile. I'm a Britbong, so it's not a cultural difference, and I'm familiar with the academic setting it's satirising. But I just don't find it at all funny.
Anyone else read it and can enlighten me? The humour seems quite subtle, so maybe I'm too plebeian, or maybe it's just dated- I guess humour is one of the fastest-changing things in our culture. Thoughts?
>>9703214
It's probably just too subtle for you. You should check out his son, he's probably more up your alley.
>>9703214
I feel the same way. I bought while I was on a comedy kick, but it's about a guy getting drunk and abusing his wife and trying to kill his kid. I can find humor in a lot of things, but Lucky Jim was a real disappointment.
>>9703283
I was going to add actually that I do like his son. Very punchable face but style to burn (and funny when he goes for humour)- London Fields is brilliant.
In comparison, aside from not finding Lucky Jim funny, I don't get much else from it- some nice turns of phrase, but the prose overall seems unremarkable.
>>9703298
>abusing his wife
>>9703298
What now? I haven't got to that, assuming you're not rusing. Wouldn't mind things taking some darker turns, since the comedy isn't doing it for me.