Is it imperative to understand the whole of a piece of writing,

>>9842919
>Is it imperative to understand the whole of a piece of writing, or is the gist of it sufficient?
You're a free reader, you set up your expectations and try to meet them. If at that moment you feel you can't grasp the whole thing, so be it. You know you'll get better with sufficient effort.
>I feel very stupid when I can't comprehend what I'm reading
Happens to everyone, and it is a good thing. If it doesn't happen, it means you're not challenging yourself.
>Is there any way I can get better at understanding difficult prose?
Keep at it, you'll get better. Maybe pick shorter old books, so you don't get too bored, but just keep at it, that is the only way to get better.

>>9842945
>it means you're not challenging yourself.

Irrelevant. He's not competing in a test of who can read the most convoluted prose.

>>9842951
He seems to want to be able to read more classical pieces. It means he at least is competing with himself...