La Conjuration des imbéciles

"Oh, my God! Do I believe what I am hearing?"

A masterpiece

I can’t believe it took me so long to read this. Big Joseph Heller influence, I think, but a wholly original and memorable book.

What a fun read. Ignatius J. Reilly is a slothful, foolish, and self-righteous anti-hero filled with contradictions and flatulence. I laughed at his delusional attempts to change the status quo and fight against modernity. He perceives himself as someone that thinks and lives outside of the norm and equates his tribulations to those faced by minorities — which is both appalling and wrong. He resents selfish ideas on success, the middle class, and the notion of upward mobility. His values are deeply rooted in medieval philosophy. He relies on fate in order to prevent taking any responsibility for his actions and fights with almost everyone. There are other eccentric characters in this book influenced by Ignatius in some way or another. I enjoyed how John Kennedy Toole described New Orleans at that time and the love and hate relationship many characters had with this city. The plot was intriguing, and it made me anxious about how everything will turn out in the end, especially for Ignatius. As a reader, it was fun trying to understand these characters and determining where they lie on my likability scale. There were many themes in this novel such as the impact of slavery and segregation laws to Black people in the South, their relationship with the police, and the reality of modern slavery in the 60s. Examples of white saviour complex were aplenty. Some of these characters appear to care about other people when, in fact, their actions are hypocritical and based on blind self-interest which exploits other human beings. Ignatius' values and beliefs are not to be praised, but by reading about his journey as an intellectual forced to find work in New Orleans, I find myself rooting for him sometimes. Although he continuously blamed his current situation and mistakes on external factors, I was still hoping that he'll transform and change his core believes in the end. On the other hand, Jones is probably the hero of this novel; and unlike Igantius, I found myself cheering for him from the beginning. Anyway, there are so many things to unpack in this book such as toxic masculinity in the police workforce, homosexuality, sexuality, and other political issues in the 60s (i.e. racism and paranoia regarding communists). If you want a book that will make you laugh but still have those bitter and sad undertones, you'll enjoy this book. I also recommend this to those who enjoy a satirical novel filled with colourful characters living in the vibrant city of New Orleans. This book was published 11 years after Toole's suicide with the help of his mother and Walker Percy. P.S. I can never look at hotdogs, hotdog vendors, and hotdog stands the same way again.

I really enjoyed it but it wasn't as funny as i thought it was going to be. The main character Ignatius got on my nerves, and despite his high level of education was extremely stupid and child like, i did feel bad for him towards the end. The only tolerable character was Jones as all he wanted was a decent wage

I think if Ignatius and I ever met, crossing paths for whatever reason, I think we'd be able to become friends.

my valve!

This took me forever to read. I didn’t think it was laugh out loud funny, but I definitely smiled while reading this more than any other book. I wouldn’t say there’s a strong plot, exactly, but I think there’s a point to that; Ignatius doesn’t have a direction in life. He (and the book) just kind of rumbles around. Overall good book. Never read a book that did comedy that well.

Entertaining but very odd book. Lots of funny characters, but don't ask me to explain what the book is about.....

'...I doubt very seriously whether anyone will hire me.' 'What do you mean, babe? You a fine boy with a good education.' 'Employers sense in me a denial of their values.' He rolled over onto his back. 'They fear me. I suspect that they can see that I am forced to function in a century I loathe. "Have you read widely in Boethius?" "Who? Oh, heavens no. I never even read newspapers." "Then you must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age," Ignatius said solemnly. "Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books." Funny, loving portrait of Arts grad pretension / wilful ineffectuality, and of New Orleans. (Ignatius is a dogmatic Boethian, but the pattern repeats in neo-Aristotelians, neo-Thomists, ecocriticism, technocriticism, Heideggerians...) Ignatius is a perfect tragicomic figure, managing to be both physically and intellectually parochial (he never leaves Norleans) and but eloquent and ridiculously overconfident. But it's about twice as long as it should be.

Comic excellence. Video review.

One of my favorite books. I love Ignatius and he cracks my shit up. How had I never heard of this? Would gladly read again.

Ignatius isn't likeable, but he is hilarious. His valve, his catch-cry of "Oh, my god!", and his railing at everything everyone else does made this book worth reading. Not to mention his favourite bus story.

one of my fav all time — third re-read!

This was one of those books that I would have gladly dropped after reading the first couple chapters, if not for an insatiable need to finish all books I start. I may have chuckled once or twice while reading the book, but I never laughed out loud, and I frequently put the book down and dreaded picking it back up again. The story crawls along at the pace of a snail, and the long diatribes written by the protagonist are painful at best. The book is properly placed on the Satire shelf, but in no way holds a candle to Catch-22 or the works of Oscar Wilde. I have no idea how this book won a Pulizter.

a cult classic, this novel introduces a slothful and educated 30-year-old man living at home and his adventures among a cast of characters during the 1960s. SPOILER-FREE REVIEW: am I finally FINISHED with this rollercoaster of a book?!!!!! I went into this novel with the expectation that it was funny and nothing else. the consensus is you either love it or hate it. and for me, I loved it. although it took me two months to finish, I thoroughly enjoyed the moments I laughed, gasped, and felt emotion. the writing was intense at times, but the comedic timing was perfect. the story follows ignatius j reilley, an unlikable main character who ends up as an antihero. his constant whining and holier-than-thou attitude are evident every scene with and about him, which in turn ruins everything. you’re not supposed to like ignatius. it’s hard to hate him. so it’s a love-hate thing with the guy. my rating is a four-star solely due to some of the lulls I encountered. I found some scenes with him to be very tedious. other than that, I adored the way the author created such depth with his characters without making it too much. it was a smart decision to cut scenes into multiple parts per chapter, which helped smoothly tell the story. one of my favorite parts was the ending. so bittersweet but such a great end to the story of ignatius. I wish the author was still alive so he could continue where the novel left off. part of me is glad it ended the way it did, but another part wishes I could read more. there isn’t much I can say without giving away the whole book. you’re reading about a group of characters that intertwine with one another and have their own lives interrupted by ignatius. although humorous, there are parts where it can be offensive, but I chalk it up to the time period it was written (published in 1980) and the time period it’s set (1960s). it doesn’t overpower the story — it actually draws it together and makes it feel more genuine for the time. → “You learned everything, Ignatius, except how to be a human being.”

Meh. I've seen that people either love or hate this book, but I'm not really strong on either side. I guess it's good, but I don't know about Pulitzer-quality. A few thoughts: - John Kennedy Toole was an average writer, but a good story-teller. There's a whole lot of dialogue and little description, but that's not necessarily bad. - Ignatius Reilly is not a "misunderstood genius", as I've seen some bad reviews say they've heard. He's a huge dick. - It's a bit surprising that the stereotypes in this weren't (or haven't been) more controversial. There's not much harm in it, but anything along those lines usually riles people up.

Although most people rave about this book, I really had a hard time getting through it. It's well written and I liked the wackiness of the characters but I just didn't find the book exciting enough.

Dieser Roman und sein Protagonist, Ignatius J Reilly, sind in jeder Hinsicht außergewöhnlich. Es ist das mit Abstand witzigste, skurrilste erste Kapitel das ich jemals gelesen habe. Ich habe hysterisch gelacht, Tränen weggewischt und ich kann niemandem empfehlen, dieses Buch in der Öffentlichkeit zu lesen, wenn man nicht Gefahr laufen will, zum Schutze seiner selbst und der Öffentlichkeit eingewiesen zu werden. Die gesamte Rezension findet ihr hier: http://bingereader.org/2014/10/29/a-c...

I really have no idea what to think of this novel.

A book whose main character is terrible and disgusting, yet you find it hard to look away. A great comedy.

Ignatius J. Reilly, with his green hunting cap and bushy mustache, is convinced that he's going to change the world. He's got his Big Chief tablets filled to the brim with drawings--but there are a few brilliant pieces in there, and there'd be more if his mother didn't keep barging into his room and disrupting his pyloric valve. When a fateful car accident forces Ignatius to--gulp!--get a job, he's thrust into the seedy world of New Orleans and his quest to fix the world intensifies. A Confederacy of Dunces is a hilarious, rambling introspective look at American society and those who fill it. The characters are deeply unlikable and have little character progression, but they fill their roles perfectly. This novel is unexpectedly enjoyable and thought-provoking.

This book is hilarious. It's a flawless comedy that functions entirely on the endless comic material supplied by the titanic personality of its main character, Ignatius J. Reilly, medieval scholar, social activist, and hot dog vendor. Never has so unpleasant a hero made me laugh so hard and often. Ignatius is now one of my all-time favorite literary characters. And to top it all off, this beautiful farce has one of the most perfect, gratifying endings I've ever read. Buy it.

This is a book that interests me. As soon as I got done, I wanted to know more. Like how much of these characters are based on people the author knew? How much of the author was put into Ignatius? This is one of those books that I would've liked to sit in an English class and listen to other people discuss it. I have a hard time labeling this as Humor, even though that seems to be the most common descriptor. I guess people think Ignatius is funny, has a wry sense of humor, but honestly he's troubled. He doesn't mean to be funny. I don't think he intentionally tells a single joke in this book, or if he did it was poorly received. In this day and age he would've been diagnosed with a multitude of things, but every single person in this book had an issue: ranging from narcissism, martyrdom, alcoholism, or just being flat out mean. I guess it's a sign of a good writer that there is not a single likeable character, yet this book is so popular. Most characters are just hyperbolic versions of normal people. Toole takes one part of their personality and holds it up to a megaphone. There were some very long winded conversations and I did think it ended up being a bit repetitive, like I could've stopped the book two thirds of the way through and been fine, but by the end I did like it.