do you enjoy reading or do you enjoy talking about how much you've read?

You can also get a much clearer image of Paris by looking at it through photographs rather than Monet paintings.

you're not really a reader, are you?

Seven hours left? So you’re not even reading it but listening?

By "editorialized" I think you mean something more like "abridged." But whatever you meant, the Cliff Notes is neither of those things.

It is a summary of the story with some analysis. It's good for faking essays, not so much for experiencing a piece of literature.

If you can't read it, you CAN just put it down. I recommend sort of doing a split between slogging through it and ditching it: power through it at a rapid pace, and don't stop to reread paragraphs and sentences. It's not really doing the book justice, of course, but you might jist find through doing this that you're actually into the story, and then you'll find that you're reading it with interest and pleasure. I experienced this minor phenomemon several times while cramming books as a undergrad with poor time management skills. And if you don't gain interest, at least you'll have learned to read a little faster.

I don't really read to say that I've read something or just to "know" its content, so I can't really think of anything that would actually be more enjoyable as Cliff's Notes. I read for the pleasure and experience of reading whatever it is I'm reading. Reading Cliff's Notes is reading a completely different work in that sense. If I'm not enjoying something, I'll just put it down.

Umberto Eco wrote an Essay about this problem in The Count of Monte Cristo https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/10/28/the-cult-of-the-imperfect/

I started this book three years ago, read a few pages and never picked it up again since. I really want to since I know the story’s good, but I keep getting distracted by other books that I’d rather read. I feel you need to get used to the writing with books like that, and quick read the sluggish passages.

[removed]

Someone affirmed my struggling by telling me the only approach to the political sections in Phineas Finn was 'endure or skip', and somehow it's still a bit of reading advice that makes me smile...and encourages endurance.

I'd still tell Trollope he needs, not necc. an editor, but to make those sections more detailed so they either tie to character conflict, with the reader knowing all the named characters better, or go more deeply into a specific topical political issue, if not both, just to commit himself more instead of being too vague. He got more into the swing of writing the parliament scenes as he went on with the series, partly just due to having worked out how to develop a fictional government: his serious interest in real politics, having stood for election unsuccessfully, resulting in a miserable time in his life (Phineas' difficulties are more sharply depicted than his integration into parliament), may have initially hindered as well as helped, since writing a series of parliamentary novels really ended up requiring inventing and deviating from the real historical government.

So, I've certainly whined while reading before, counted pages, cursed, but even when I've felt an aspect of an otherwise good novel genuinely isn't quite working, find there's still something to get out of that.

You can think about why something works or doesn't, including considering if it simply doesn't work for you personally, compare to what does, it's a way to think about the construction of a work. Reading often imperfect eighteenth century political texts, having had in mind the specific goal of wanting to better understand the period and individuals involved, I've also become very interested in precisely those aspects, moments of hesitancy, where the writer seems to get stuck, lose confidence, perhaps get bogged down and even seems to go on excessively, their quirks and what they get hung up on, in what they don't say so feels missing from the text and what perhaps cannot be said. It can be a form of character study and lead to more of a feeling for the period.

Back to Trollope, I'm forever frustrated by his beloved fox hunting scenes, as a hunt sab supporting vegan (yes, I know hunting with dogs is supposed to be illegal here today, the law isn't enforced, fellow UK people, support your local hunt sabs!). Which is why one of my most memorable literary moments is how utterly moving the letter the Archdeacon writes to his son, ostensibly on the subject, is. I had to figure out how he'd done that, while using a topic I hated so much, and so chose the section for a close reading exercise. As much as I might prefer he'd had a different hobby and want to get through these too-long-to-me scenes ASAP, they generally illustrate character, and that's his key strength as a writer.

Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man

Pale Fire

Crime and Punishment, the first half abridged would be fine.