On Not Reading
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
This being a literature-oriented full-year class, there was naturally a list of books to be read. Somebody asked: "Do we have to actually read these?" His answer was: "No. In school, you can almost always manage if you read 30 pages from the start, 30 pages from the end, and the author's bio. The important thing is not to read every page but that we talk about the books."
No other teacher at that school would have said that. For an 8th grader, it was like turning a key to unlock something that felt fundamental: books are not checkmarks on an assignment list; school is not a collection of tightly defined rote tasks to be performed for their own sake; what you get out of books and school depends entirely on what you bring to the table yourself.
But, on reflection, maybe you are actually saying that the teacher meant you could get away with only reading the start and end; but the point was that you got out what you put in, and so the focus shouldn't be on what you have to do, but on what you choose to do?
I'm not sure which you're saying :)
1984: A HORRID read, but a very telling archetype of distopia.
The Great Gatsby: It really took 8 chapters to cover the thin vain outer shell before cracking in to the empty but interesting destruction of it all? Maybe a good metaphor for market crashes and corrections, but not a good read.
The discussion part; I don't recall having a single meaningful actual /discussion/ of the books in class. That might have actually helped make the mindless drudgery of reading them have more meaning and allowed for deeper reflection about the meaning of the content we head read.
By analogy, what you wrote is like saying:
> The Mona Lisa? Roughly 75% of it is just kind of blurry. I can see her face in the middle, which I guess captures her likeness, but a photograph would've probably been better.
It's easy to miss the point or merit of these books in class: often they're forced reading, you read them too early, etc. I would strongly encourage you to pick up 1984 or The Great Gatsby again, and read it one of these days. You'll probably get much more out of it.
These books are considered among the greatest ever for good reason, and I'm sure you'll pick up on that if you give them another try. I think that Gatsby is so good that I re-read it once a year.
Personally I don't think anyone would be missing out by not reading it. It's just a weirdly written snapshot of life that's presented in such a tedious and uninspiring way ... what do you like about it?
One of the worst books I've read.
I'm interested in more detail on this perspective of the story.
I felt the same way about the Bell Jar. About halfway through I tossed my hands some up exclaiming "just walk into traffic and get it over with already". I couldn't possibly care about that character either. Never went back to finish it.
1984 had some disturbing beauty, and I did find myself concerned and caring. Pretty sure I read it twice by the time I was in my mid twenties.
When you're 11-15 you just don't have the context for many of the "great works". Would be interesting to sit in on the curriculum meetings of that age and hear what the rationale for those choices was.
My kids both had a high school teacher who taught high school to support ( I think less financially than as experience ) his real job - writing textbooks. Huge influence for both.
Turns out, blog-posts aren't really as sellable as books.
Think of it as being like food, or some other sensual pleasure you enjoy.
If you could condense all meals into a pill and just swallow it would you? Probably not, because sometimes you want to just 'get the sustenance' and sometimes you want to enjoy the experience, to revel in the presentation, flavour, texture and company you're with. Books are exactly the same. There are times when the we want the key pieces. But sometimes, fiction and otherwise, it's worth enjoying the writing itself, the mental images that are created, the use of language, rhytmn and flow to make both major points and to explore subtleties.
For a book about the Art of explaining things it sure did a lousy job of getting to the point.
Often audio book versions of books are abridged. You might try those for the classics. If you get a good narrator it can add to the experience as well.
Personally, I'd rather read 100 pages of clear, concise prose than 1000 pages of the author rambling and making sure everybody's on the same page and adding his buddy's research about something remotely related to the subject and blah blah blah...
In fact, that someone else may even be yourself at some later date - I have found that some previously read books make more sense and become more enjoyable after having personal life experiences that enable you to relate emotionally, or just get you interested in the subject.
... maybe you are reading too slow. I know I was reading faster when I was much younger
It's certainly a long book but you don't have to treat it like a academic paper to enjoy reading it. It's a fun read, for real! Well actually it's kind of depressing but moment to moment it's fun.
His first novel (V.) is similar in prose though and was so enjoyable for me at a young age I have been planning to read it again.
The Crying of Lot 49 is the foil—short, with a meaningless story only good for the experience reading it.
Maybe I'd just had enough.
What hooked me on GR was the similarity to Richard Farina's book, which is not a slog at all and one of my favorites that I'd read when younger. When I found this was probably intentional, it was a very cool thing to find out.
DFW's Kenyan commencement speech is what got me interested in his writing. I'd like to go back and finish Infinite Jest at some point, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
The stuff you don't read don't become part of a knowledge base. Figuring out how to circumvent that in order to learn and think is a huge issue, especially if you want common culture and/or more knowledge growth.
EG: You could read about the nuance of every computer language by every author out there - how does this help you become a better programmer? Alternatively, how do you know when you should read something, especially if it isn't about your language/issues you are dealing with right now, because it could be insightful to problems you will be about to have in general. Multiply by lots of people facing the same choices, and then what?
Then, at some point, start building on that foundation and get some work done :)
"Did you read Infinite Jest?"
"No"
"Okay"
Academia:
"Did you read Infinite Jest?"
"My small act of countercultural scholarly agency has been to refuse to continue reading or assigning the work of David Foster Wallace. The machine of his celebrity masks, I have argued, the limited benefits of spending the time required to read his work. Our time is better spent elsewhere. I make this assessment given the evidence I have so far accumulated"
"Okay"
>Coming from a critic, this confession sounds both imperious and ignorant
Ugh. Nobody cares about your title or your perceptions on what you should and shouldn't say based on it. How about just state your thesis and let the reader decide how to interpret it.
>My small act of countercultural scholarly agency has been to refuse to continue reading or assigning the work of David Foster Wallace.
Swerve, academia. We're dealing with a rebel here.
My point is, if you don't feel like doing something, great—but then getting prescriptive about it & trying to dissuade others seems like an error.
"Abundance" is not a personal problem in the arts - maybe it's a professional one, but that is addressing an entirely different goal of curation rather than as a recipient of art.
It is the idea that one is supposed to "keep up" or "know everything" ala "last person to know everything" e.g. leibniz, is absurd.
The author has kind of buried the lede and is actually against subjugating herself to accepting what "the literary marketplace put forward as worthy of attention".
There is too much high literature for a scholar to read it all. So like everyone else, the scholars mostly read what makes the popular bandwagon by virtue of reaching a critical mass of interest.
But in the sciences, people are writing about things that matter! The overlooked articles are missed progress.
In literature, writers are writing to write. If masterieces go unnoticed in the avalanche of quotidian works...oh well? There are plenty of perfect wildflowers which go wholy unappreciated as well. Should we mourn the missed opportunity?
But "not reading" is click bait. The author is just being more selective in how they spend their time, since they can only afford to consume an increasingly narrow sliver. But you are seriously missing out if you elect to ignore the (good) stuff that will last, like (IMO) GEB and Infinite Jest.
Other guy: Why do you read all these books?
Me: I don't know, just to say I've read them I guess.
Other guy: Well I still say I've read them!
Me: (feel dumb)
I do sometimes read books because of the hype, like Catcher in the Rye, that I later wish I read something better. But the only book I read to say I read it was "The Beautiful and Damned" because I heard it called a book that you always wish you could say you had read but you never did. Of course, it wasn't as good as I hoped.
But, dang, if you are reading just to be able to drop names, get a new hobby...
Is that accurate, and does that result in less interesting works? I think there's a definite argument to be made there.
That happened for me with Marquez and Pynchon. Still rereading Joyce and Proust.
So yes you can't read just to say you've read, but you can start down that path just because you've heard you're supposed to. At least that's what my experience tells me.
FWIW The Catcher in the Rye is meh out of perspective, but when you look at the American canon before vs after you can't help but notice the originality and the influence.
Figuring out what books you're going to like is really hard. If anyone knows a good way, besides the extensive process of collecting reviewers you trust and making friends who know your tastes - do share.
(Some exceptions are made, for example, if someone recommends the book).
So now, instead of wasting time chasing reviews and recommendations I just read the damned book - this way I increase the amount of 5 star books I've enjoyed for the low price of more 1 stars I can have a good chuckle about.
[1]: http://www.gwern.net/Culture%20is%20not%20about%20Esthetics
On a similar note, I'm increasingly less interested in a lot of old literature due to the "I've seen this before, we've already talked about this, and this perspective is massively outdated" effect.
For all the talk of how there's lots of everything, there are still whole categories of topics I have never seen at all, or they were covered really poorly.
I think this concerns are better addressed by superior aggregators and niche audiences than by the banning of production of media.
This isn't to say I don't see the value in brevity or that I don't believe it's difficult to write good short books: I do think it's difficult. However because reading a 1000-page book does take more time (I don't think it's necessarily harder word for word) you have to make the writing worth it, which is undeniably difficult.
This is probably somehow a Wrong Thing but I can't help it. Ann Coulter (!!!) was flogging her Trump book recently, and she almost came off as human. There's not the same pressure to be a performer there.
The whole idea of the Great Conversation or the like is preposterous and not only because it's not physically possible (and hasn't been for decades). You don't have to have been to all the countries on the planet to find common ground and common language to talk about travelling and contribute to the conversation.
A vast majority belong in the latter.
How to Read a Book is a wonderful read on this topic.
I did something in-between. But applying the principles is probably more important.