>>A book isn't going to do it. If you want to learn C#, you need a real project and force yourself to use it.
>
>True, that about force. I remember there were some languages where I had to force myself - let's see, the PDP-11 command language (sort of interesting, but hated it), Hayes codes for modems, ESC/P, the HP printer language, GwBasic (which was just plain fugly compared to GfA or even Spectrum or Spectrum Beta dialects), OPL for Psion and a few oddballs more. Even Cobol didn't require force - it was curiosity that led me into learning. I guess trying to learn Cobol now would require forcing myself, just like C# would. They're both too verbose - in Cobol you had to do all the work for the compiler (define all the variables and buffers, what with data types and lengths); in dot net you need to know the hierarchy of anything you want to use, and there's too much of it. Intellisense will get you the next name in the sausage, but you still need to know where the sausage needs to start. And you may be using a piece of abandonware at that.

Define "too much."

The .NET framework is unquestionably complex but I don't think it is bigger or more complex than it needs to be. Anyone who is going to use it day in and day out should be willing to learn at least the most important parts. The rest can be learned as needed. You wouldn't expect or want a streamlined way to fly a jet, would you?

My hat is off to you for all the different languages you have used. I have worked with only half a dozen or so languages, all mainstream.