Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with the sentiment that it's got plenty of artistic merit lurking around in there, but about 90% of that is going to be anachronistic to a modern reader who isn't using a heavily annotated version, at which point a lot of the genuine wit gets beaten down by footnotes. Art has a way of losing its impact when you need it explained.

That's why I say most people shouldn't bother. It is legitimately almost impossible for a modern reader to experience the book the way it was written to be experienced unless you spend a graduate degree working up to it. Instead what you will get is akin to a painting which has been blurred over by a foggy window, with someone standing on the other side trying to describe it to you. There are just many better ways to spend a dozen or so hours.