These are the archived discussions. To participate in active "Talk Literature" discussions go to the
homepage of ReadLiterature
Back To "Talk Literature" Archives
What does it take to love literature?
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 30/9/2001, 15:47:56
Why is reading literature a basic need for some people and a chore for lots of others? Countless people plough through the obligatory reading at school, graduate and are relieved that they will never have to touch a Good Book again. Newspapers or a cosy romance or thriller are okay, but please, no more literature. I am not talking about people who lack the intelligence required to appreciate literature, but about bright academics (often with a degree in some science-subject) who are simply unable to see what is so great about great novels. Someone told me that all that changed for him, when he had a nervous breakdown and had to rearrange his whole life and his outlook on it. So it seems that experience has something to with it. But what about people like me who have been devouring books since age 6? I remember reading a wonderfully imaginative book about the Middle Ages (widely acclaimed by critics as I found out later) when I was about 10 and telling a friend about it. She said she had read the book as well and had been profoundly bored by it. At the time I was sure that she was lying, that she had not read the book, because to me it seemed impossible that anybody could read the book and not love it. But of course she was telling the truth.
So, what according to you are the requirements (apart from a certain level of intelligence) involved in being able to appreciate great novels? What makes a good reader?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 30/9/2001, 16:25:07, in reply to "What does it take to love literature?"
What is your position on poetry? Or short stories, or the hybrids like Gibbon and Carlyle?
Imaginative philosophers who also write a good style (rare)? Are we just talking novels?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 30/9/2001, 17:37:12, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
For the sake of the discussion, we should include all of them. Earlier, we (and the dictionaries) pretty much agreed that all written works of <insert your favourite qualifier, artistic, creative, imaginative, etc.> and long lasting merit consisted literature. People are particularly scared of poetry, for instance. So it is definitely in. Not just novels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 1/10/2001, 0:53:48, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Just making sure that we talk about the same thing. And you are right on the money, that an
appreciation of poetry brands you as a leper. So we talk about the appreciation of imaginative
literature in general - poems, epics, essays, drama, short stories, novelettes and novels.
Perhaps we should make a list of all the relevant aspects:
1. The biological aspect: everybody who learns to read and write goes through a transition. This change is not just educational - the step from orality to literacy - it affects us even physically: unnoticed by most, we go through a brief schizoid phase where we hear "voices," before we have fully internalized and integrated our reading skills and safely settle on a new (literate) persona. Cervantes, who is a witness to the beginnings of modern literacy, in his adolescence used to read simply everything; he even picked from the streets scraps of scribbled on paper.
Chinua Achebe's "Things fall apart" is another testimony to a fundamental transition in our human condition. Reading can be a compulsion, something that on the john makes you study the inscription on your toothpaste tube.
2. Most of Dicken's Victorian readers fell in the category of soap opera consumers - they read installment novels for no other reason because there was no other inexpensive medium around to dissipate the tedium. So are they actually real readers, and is it so surprising to see their numbers drop out from the total, after new media, film and telly, had been made available?
3. The cultural aspect: an author by his education, by his upbringing, by his ambition, by the modes of recognition or rejection, by the kind of patronage he receives, is always the (perhaps unwitting) spokesperson of a certain social stratum or caste. In this position he may fill a number
of roles: as an (unwitting) propagandist, as the gadfly, or as the tolerated court jester. Who is
there to patronize literature in our day and age?
4. What kind of reader are we looking for? I already mentioned the media junkie. Then there is the compulsive addict, the genre-nerd (who reads everything in, say SF, and knows all there is to know about,) the sucker for big messages, or happy endings, the trend surfer, and the rarest of all animals, the critically discerning reader who depends on his own educated ressources of
judgement. (Test: are you able to appreciate on its own terms the merit in a book you don't really like?)
5. The absence or failure of institutions and educational means to motivate and educate independence of judgement which does not just follow a consensus in the media or of the academic establishment.
On a personal note: Whenever I am confronted with a novel, I have a feeling of apprehension - "not again another novel." Really, I rather see and hear a good production of a drama (like Shakespeare's "Titus.") It is true, fat novels make me hesitate. Given the choice I rather read the "The Approach to Al-Mu'tasim" - look into a collection of Jorge Luis Borges, and you know what I mean. It saves time. I am an atheist but also a firm believer that in the beginning was the word. Poetry means a lot to me. The word in the beginning was magic - not many are under its spell these days.
On a less personal note: Literature is the foremost battle line for the human spirit. Literature is serious busines. Which means in our day and age the proposition of "counterfactuals" and parallel worlds that open our perception and widen our perspective. Now when I look at what rotates at an accelerating rate over the bargain tables in our book-shops, than I can't help getting the feeling, that this is going to be a losing battle - and not just for economic reasons or because of new media technologies. I just don't see the kind of lobby or disinterested social elite that used to patronize literature in the past and set a point of gravity for esthetical and ethical values. (I am all for democracy, but hereditary peers had a function - even and especially in the Thatcher years.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Gerrit Venema on 1/10/2001, 0:19:09, in reply to "What does it take to love literature?"
Not really good timing for me to enter into the fray since I'm going on a short holiday tomorrow but since I'm partly to blame ;-) for Anna asking this question I feel I should put in a few words. At the age of seventeen I had to read a number of books of known literary standing to pass some exams. I loved to read science fiction and popular science but found these books very mysterious and the task of reading and understanding them annoying. Since then I have come to the understanding that I was at that time lacking the interest in the mostly social themes that these books were really all about.
So I think that in order to appreciate a certain book you have to be interested in its main themes, otherwise you either start to get interested or get fed up.
Now for the question about liking a book at a very early stage of life. There are a lot of books that have multiple layers of meaning in their stories. The surface story can be very attractive to a lot of people, even if the layers underneath remain obscured. I remember that I read Dune by Frank Herbert at about the same time I was reading the dutch literature and found it a very attractive story. Later on I came to appreciate it even more because of its efforts to understand religion But even if this makes the stepping-in easier it doesn't work for everybody because the surface-story has to make a choice for the representation of the underlying theme and that choice as good as defines your public.
Finally I think there is no such thing as a universally good reader who would be able to understand and appreciate anything that was and will be written.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 2/10/2001, 15:45:57, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Good stuff has been said by Gerrit and Michael. I am having difficulty collecting my thoughts this morning, so this might sound more like a rambling than a participation in a discussion:
-- The point about "interest" is a good one. Not everyone can (or would want to, or should be expected to) read every topic or every genre. I try to read a variety of books, because I want to
and need to *learn* (more on that later) . However, not everything interests me at the same level. When I am choosing a new book I tend to go for the things that have interested me more in the past.
-- Not everyone can "get" everything. Just 10 days ago, I decided that I was not created to read Ulysses and Ulysses was not created to be read by me. I will still read it, because I am curious about a book that famous, but I will get help, I will buy one of those Annotated Texts of Cliff Notes or something. I read a lot. But I cannot read Ulysses. Does that mean I don't have what it takes to love literature? Maybe, but I hope not.
-- People have a fear of getting bored. Take my daughter for instance (16), she is scared to death of getting bored. If you tell her "we are going to a concert tonight", her first reaction is "Oh, I'll be bored out of my brains, when will it end, is there any way I can get out of it", like that. She doesn't know what instrument, what composer or anything about the concert. And she doesn't ask. Mom and dad's idea of music is boring, period. My daughter doesn't show the same severe reaction to books. She is much more curious, tolerant, accepting of books, maybe because it is something she can do at night in bed, and give a break or drop totally is she wants to. But I know people (many) who show the same reaction to books that my daughter shows to classical music concerts.
-- Michael's dread every time he is starting a new book: I guess we all have that, don't we?
-- People who don't read books are very bold. They say it out right, "I don't read books". I don't know whether to applaud them for their honesty or to despise them for... for what? For missing out on one of world's pleasures, for not having the intelligence, patience or taste to enjoy a good book, for voluntary ignorance, for something...
-- When I first started this site, I sent messages to old classmates, people I haven't seen for years. I informed them of my activity and invited them to check the site out and see if it interests them. I encouraged them to tell about it to their friends. I got emails back saying "Lale, what a wonderful site. I, myself, do not read books but congratulations..."
-- Learning is joy. We, avid readers, know more than people who stick to their own professional specialities and read nothing more than newspapers, magazines, technical books and how-to books. I find people who read make better friends for me. Not because we talk about books. Most of the time we don't talk about books. We talk about anything and everything. People who read literature make better conversations. And are wiser. It is as simple as that. They are multi- or poly- as opposed to uni-.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale's Daughter on 2/10/2001, 17:44:05, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Hello.. I am Lale's daughter.. and I would just like to say that this passage that my mummy wrote: "Mom and dad's idea of music is boring, period." is absolutely not how I think... I love classical music.. I have been playing piano for ten years now.. and if it was true that I found my "parent's music" boring.. then I would have quit playing years ago.
When I am not very enthusiastic about going to concerts.. it has nothing to do with the music.. I don't like the idea of just sitting there.. I know that you're supposed to listen to the music, but I can never enjoy it because the seats are so uncomfortable, you can't eat or what not.. it doesn't relax me at all, it just makes me tense because if need to cough or something.. you have to hold it in.. why can't we just buy the cd, sit at home, get comfortable, get a book, with some chips.. and relax.. that's how to do it.. but anyway, I am just a teenager, and that's the way we think unfortunetly (for the grown ups).. when I'm older I am sure that I will love to go to concerts.. at least my parents hope.. luv you mom.. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 2/10/2001, 18:13:49, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
You don't listen to the CD at home either. But thanks for the note. Keep playing the piano.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 2/10/2001, 23:18:49, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Lale, I think your daughter is telling us more, than perhaps she is aware off: we really should concentrate more on the media-aspect. (Btw, what about listening to a book on CD?) Going to concert or theatre means booking tickets, being scheduled on certain days in advance, dressing up, and sitting still for hours on an uncomfortable chair and suffering the unwanted company of hordes of total strangers for no other reason, because it became the customary way of listening to music in a time when it was the ONLY way. I know, that we continue doing this sort of thing is meant to lift an ordinary day to an occasion, especially when afterwards we go eating out. But setting this aside, there are such trivia as dubious acoustics, second rate performers, that for some reason happen to jam in for the indisposed star, and that old lady in the front row spraying left and right in convulsive fits of whooping cough. All this seemed to be acceptable in an age without other choices - but now? Why should I suffer through a life performance of the local small town ensemble, if I can have all the fun and a first rate production without hitches on a DVD, with Sir Anthony Hopkins in the lead?
This coin has a flipside: the new media are more effective for a price - their intrusiveness. They are literally shouting into our sitting rooms, sending us to sleep, hypnotizing us. A book can do this too, but this requires a reader agreeing to lower his shields. Shields of ever heightening sensitivity due to the intrusive nature of modern media. Because between author and reader there is a tacit contract, an agreement to suspend judgement and disbelieve. The new media don't ask for this. They just kick in the door. Reading a book these days, requires a willingness to plug out and distance yourselves, in ways that almost resemble the deliberate mortification of
medieval monks. There is a benefit in it, something that affects us mentally, but not many would choose to go there, if they were made fully aware of the possibility. Of which one aspect is, that you can put the book down and stop the show, not just for a pee and another bag of chips, but actually to collect your own thoughts and listen to your inner voice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Dave on 3/10/2001, 5:51:49, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
I've been reading this current discussion and so many things come to mind as a result of my past weekend, hope you do not mind if I barge in. How is it that some people can be so "prone to read" and others can not even IMAGINE it? I visited an old college friend and spent a few days with him and his wife. He is the pastor a very large and successful church... in a sense, his profession is (or should be) very academic, very literary. I mean, he does a 30 minute soliloquy each week in front of over 500 people! Anyhoo, while waiting for the service to begin on Sunday morning, I was just browsing through the WALL of books in his office. He joked that "it is just a cardboard facade, there are no actual books in there". By this, he was referring to the fact that (by his own admission) he can probably count on ONE hand the number of books he has read since graduating from college over ten years ago. Him and I are almost extreme opposites in this respect. If anything, I read MORE now than I ever did in college. And my reading is VOLUNTARY, and is more DIVERSIFIED! Anyway, a few minutes later, the young youth pastor came in. I had never met him before, but we struck up a conversation and somehow it got onto Tolkien. I told him I had just finished re-reading The Lord of The Rings... he said he had just finished it too (for the 2nd time) and he had read it in four days! (Well, it had taken me a couple MONTHS!) Needless to say though, soon I was in Raja's office, looking over and TALKING ABOUT the books on his shelf that he and I found we had mutually read! It was very refreshing.
Something really cool happens when a READER meets a READER! For the life of me, I cannot fathom how my friend who has a career which actually ALLOWS for him to read and study ALL DAY LONG if he chooses to (he gets a book allowance of $500.00 a year)... how he CHOOSES to NOT READ! It boggles my mind. We have a great friendship but it is very UNLITERARY! He laughs at the stuff I read... and he calls me "Tolstoy". I don't mind... but it saddens me. Michael, it's like you said, because the media inundates us with so much stimuli, it takes the equivalent of a RADICAL decision for people nowadays to MAKE time to read. Like you said, "reading a book these days requires a willingness to plug out and distance [ourselves] in ways that almost resemble the deliberate mortification of medieval monks."
My friend is an ordained minister... he is professional clergy. However, even though he and I have "history" and a great friendship, I felt more of a deep "kinship" with this "medieval monk" I had met and spent a few minutes with down the hall in the adjoining office. Meeting you Lale (and your husband and concert-loving daughter) was similar. There is a kinship when readers meet readers. I remember when Suat (Lale's husband) left the table to go book-hunting for a bit (we were in a bookstore) and returned with a freshly purchased "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, I KNEW.... and KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that here was someone who is not afraid of taking the time to "collect his own thoughts and listen to his inner voice" (paraphrasing your last conclusion Michael).
What does it take to love literature? A willingness to have a conversation with yourself, and the restraint to not "flip the channel" as soon as you're lost for words. Some people just will not go there, and I'm sad for them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 3/10/2001, 14:32:03, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
just "some" people? It's epidemic!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 3/10/2001, 17:02:29, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
>if I can have all the fun and a first
>rate production without hitches on a DVD, with Sir >Anthony Hopkins in the lead?
Michael, I like Sir Anthony Hopkins too, he is a great cellist ;-)
Dave, that was interesting, about the pastor. Btw, the feelings were mutual when we met you.
People don't even have inner voices anymore, I don't think. If they do, they are afraid to be left alone with it. With the cellphones, there is no such thing as a moment of peace and quiet, no contemplation, no pondering (and this, on top of the media bombardement, the CNN age, the "get your history lesson from hollywood movies", the instant gratification addiction) . In Paris and in Istanbul, people are talking on the phone while waiting in the supermarket line, while in the car, while in a cafe with another friend... Talk, talk, talk.
I prefer to go to the cafes all by myself, so that I can be alone for a while. I read, I think, I watch the passers-by. All my friends want to get together and go places together. Always with someone. If you are not accustomed to be alone (and not lonely when alone), then you are not likely to enjoy reading.
If you are not good company for yourself, then you cannot be good company for others. If you are bored while all alone, then that means you are not an interesting enough person to keep yourself entertained. How do you expect others to enjoy your company? You cannot entertain them either.
That's why a reader is unlikely to enjoy the company of a non-reader.
Lale who does not own a cellphone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 3/10/2001, 18:50:49, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Sir Anthony a cellist? Didn't know he had it in him. I don't know - I mentioned somewhere on your page the habit of the ancients to read on the walk and always aloud: the antique equivalent of cellphone junkies. When St Augustine caught St Ambrose at reading in complete silence, he witnessed to a true turning point in human history and behavior. But I suspect it was always a minority thing actually to enjoy the new skill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 5/10/2001, 13:54:26, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Yes, I read your note about that and thought that it was very interesting. Reading not-aloud (and without moving your lips) must be the best invention since sliced bread.
That reminds me, Dave we need a biblio-word for people who move their lips (without making a sound) while they read.
In the olden days, families sat around in the evenings and one person read out loud while the women did their crochet or knitting and the father (if he was not the one doing the reading) puffed his pipe. That must have been pleasant and relaxing.
We have digressed quite a bit from the initial question of Anna and Gerrit, which was "Why is reading literature a basic need for some people and a chore for lots of others?" Yes, that's the question, why?
I read somewhere that the influence of environment on intelligence was more on people who were already intelligent. In other words, if you were born smart then you enjoy school and reading which makes you more smart.
Maybe some of us were born with an interest towards literature and the more we read the more we want to read?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 6/10/2001, 5:26:52, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
"Maybe some of us were born with an interest towards literature and the more we read the more we want to read?"
Which brings it down to an addiction - but there has to be a critical age and special circumstances to establish the disposition. Once you pass this period unaffected you missed the chance "to get hooked." When? I would say in the first grade. Not later.
This may certainly apply on many cases, but I also know enough people who read for reasons of social standing, but all the same have developed a sound judgement in these matters. They feel obliged to uphold the culture and go through the motions without real enthusiasm, but do know their stuff. Not too bad an attitude.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 6/10/2001, 16:33:22, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
To really love literature you must also have an affinity with its medium: language. But that is probably obvious to everybody.
I kept asking around a bit this week at work and found that some people read high-standard non-fiction but find literature "dull" and "boring". They have not read any of it since high school and are proud of it. My conclusion is that they simply lack the lively imagination it takes to launch into a novel or poetry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 6/10/2001, 16:43:46, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Dave, your story somehow reminds of my next-door neighbour who moved into a house with a lovely garden, but had it completely paved over with concrete slabs, because a garden is untidy and too much work. Going into a conversation with yourself (as you so rightly call it) and waiting to see what happens, is probably too much work, too, for lots of people. Besides, it might even turn out be untidy as well, because in literature interesting questions are usually much more important than clearcut answers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 6/10/2001, 17:08:50, in reply to "Re: What does it take to love literature?"
Michael, I really like your phrase: "you can put the book down and stop the show, not just for a pee and another bag of chips, but actually to collect your own thoughts and listen to your inner voice." It is the main reason why I prefer books to movies.
Music is another matter, though. I visit a classical concert about every two weeks (not the local brass band, but good (inter-)national orchestras and ensembles). Music is an entirely different medium from books and therefore requires an entirely different attitude. I do not begin to properly enjoy the music until I have stopped thinking and begun to surrender to the music. Once I have done that I am no longer distracted by fidgeting neighbours. A book I am reading at present, about the development of language in the light of evolution, claims that the sense of rhythm and prosody probably developed prior to our advanced language sense and our use of symbols, metaphors and so on. So, if that is true, it is no wonder that music elicits a different response than books. Music universally seems to address the emotions immediately, whereas literature requires the interpretation of written language and a lot of deliberate thinking on the part of the reader - something which not everybody is prepared to go into.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Gerrit on 9/10/2001, 2:37:31, in reply to "What does it take to love literature?"
Okay, I'm now officially back from a holiday (not an internet connection in sight for a week).
After reading all the posts on this subject I got really into a hard thinking session about languagewhich seems to be something which is always evolving and building abstraction upon abstraction of our everyday lives.
At first everything written seems new and interesting, after a while it seems that we inevitably :-( develop our own patterns of subjects with high and not so high priority and a book is interesting because it happens to hold some recognized relevance to our own particular interests which in turn makes it much easier to read; anything else in my own experience is often discarded as being to difficult or simply ignored at least for the time being. I do remember the exhilaration of learning to read, the sudden opening up of new horizons to your senses and the problem of scaling up your ideas about the world. For example when I read about volcanoes and earthquakes I began to realise that the ground wasn't as solid and safe as I had always believed it to be and it was difficult for me to rate these new dangers (in other words I got very scared). And on top of that come all the bogus stories floating around about people flying through the air on sleighs pulled by flying reindeer and the such. No wonder that you get a little schizoid in this stage. Of course language runs through fiction and non-fiction. I myself find that my own thinking gets boosted more by stories which contain realistic elements for example about the interaction between people. Those elements can however be worked upon in a fictional setting. Reading purely fictional work tends to lead me into a bit of a doldrum mentally speaking.
I wonder whether you have the same experiences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 10/10/2001, 16:38:00, in reply to "Some thoughts about reading"
Is the question "whether you have the same experiences?" apply to the previous sentence about mental doldrums, or to all of the experiences you recount in your entire note (childhood etc)?
Some books are very depressing. They make me sad. I think about them for a while afterwards. That doesn't take away from a book's value. There are some very sad books that I *love*.
Not all fiction leads you to doldrums, right? I mean, there are books that are interesting without being depressing or disturbing.
I agree with the "interest" point, however, it works for people who are already readers to start with. I have a friend who is interested in almost anything he sees in newspapers, news magazines and television. But he does not read fiction.
I am a reader, and I choose books that interest me more. I like the books that describe the life in world's culture centres in the olden days. I love reading about 18th, 19th centure St. Petersburg or Paris or Florence. So, I may go for those books more often than I go for gothic stories, science fiction or fantasy. I read them too, upon recommendation, but I definitely have interest areas.
But some people don't read books even if they are interested in certain things. You would think if one likes nature then one might want to read Kipling or Hemingway. But most people choose coffee table books for their interest areas and hobbies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Gerrit on 12/10/2001, 0:53:16, in reply to "Re: Some thoughts about reading"
The phrase about having the same experiences was referring to the remark about purely fictional work.
You're making me think hard about this remark. The thing is that I have mixed feelings about
fictional work. On the one hand I seem to like the absorption in the sometimes very detailed
fictional worlds but on the other hand this absorption makes it difficult then to lay down the book and connect to things in the real world and I do not like that.
With non-fiction books I do not have this mix-effect I can always put them down to walk the dog or do some washing-up or some other task and if they are really interesting they help to start me thinking.
Of course the distinction is not so easy to make as looking at the library-category, because a so-called fictional book can provide very real material to think about. In these cases it seems the fiction is more like a cover: the chosen representation of an underlying theme. Having a positive energetic effect is maybe the most important aspect of a book for me. It doesn't mean that a book has to make me happy but it has to give me something to think about otherwise I can't really appreciate it.
I do assert that if people read non-fictional books in some area of interest that they will be reading fictional books on that same level of abstration and the same subjects or have made a conscious decision not to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 14/10/2001, 17:08:50, in reply to "Re: Some thoughts about reading"
Sorry for barging in. But I sense in you a certain dread of real literature - which is imaginative literature. Imaginative has a "counterfactual" as point of reference. (Counterfactual = philosophical term coined by Kripke - meaning a truth contrary to facts.) When you read a work of fiction, you and the author go into an agreement: "What if ..." and this stipulates the terms between you and the author. If you look for "message," something to learn, something to carry home, then you are on the wrong track.
Fiction is an exploration of alternative worlds, and it opens your mind and clears your vision, actually to see that there ARE alternatives to that bogyman you use to call "reality" and "common sense." I challange you on this: that every single improvement, physically and mentally, every bit of progress that is more than the fad of the season, was accomplished by people who had this kind of vision, but didn't think of practical consequences. When people began to cover the walls of their caves with pictures their shamans saw the alternative worlds - and we are the product of their vision without actually appreciating what it did for us.
Imaginative literature opens doors - to any number of possible futures. And I am not even talking about science fiction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Gerrit on 17/10/2001, 1:01:55, in reply to "Re: Some thoughts about reading"
I think there is a bit of an misunderstanding about what I was calling fictional versus real. With fictional I meant that a writer intends only to immerse the reader in a kind of virtual world. If a book extrapolates present circumstances or transposes them on another scenery than I consider it to be partially real and partially fictional.
I do agree that imagination is all about pushing forward the boundaries of reality and that reality is not a fixed thing but that doesn't mean that it's products have to be fictional. Great ideas like quantum mechanics and general relativity were expressed in very real terms by their founders. That they are not yet very practical ideas (although quantum mechanics is used in certain technical devices) doesn't mean they're fictional.
Therefore I do feel a dread if you like about reading something which turns out much more fictional than I had thought it would be and about not reading things which are more real than I would have thought.
By the way do I sense some misgivings about science fiction?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 17/10/2001, 2:20:06, in reply to "Re: counterfactual literature"
You are right, SF is too often an excuse for poor writing. But the realm of phantasy needs space to expand; I feel that you try to fence it in, or to domesticate it - and I am not quite sure about the rationale behind it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~