You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'reading' category.
There’s no way I could come across an article on “slow reading” and not write about it, so for those of you who still care about such things (and I hope, hope, hope that there are many), Lindsay Waters, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, writes about how current society, particularly teachers of reading, conspires to get us to read more quickly. I guess my use of the word “conspires” tells a bit about my take on this, eh? Here’s a bit (well, maybe more than a bit) of what Waters has to say, albeit a little pedantically :
“In departments of education, professors talk about the “fluency” that those who are learning to read need to achieve to become good readers. Unless one can digest the letters on the page fast enough, one cannot comprehend what one is reading. But once one learns how to read, there is a speed beyond which one stops reading in a truly effective way. I am convinced that most speed-reading is impaired reading, just like the sort you do when you have a fever or are tired or engaged in other tasks at the same time you are supposed to be reading. Unless you are very smart, speed-reading forces you to ignore al but one dimension of a literary work, the simplest information. What we lose is the enjoyment that made people turn to literature in the first place….“I want to ask what reading would look life if we were to reintroduce, forcefully, the matter of time…The mighty imperative is to speed eveything up, but there might be some advantage in slowing things down. People are trying slow eating. Why not slow reading?…
“The role of literature is to mess with time, to establish its own rhythm. A new agenda for literary studies should open up the time of reading, just as it opens up how the writer establishes his or her rhythm. Instead of rushing by works so fast that we don’t even muss up our hair, we should tarry, attend to the sensuousness of reading, allow ourselves to enter the experience of words.”
We English majors (once an English major, always an English major, says Garrison Keillor) were taught to read this way in college. It was called close reading (it is still called that, isn’t it?), and although not equivalent to slow reading, close reading requires that you read slowly, and the end result is much the same: a much richer reading experience. Wine lovers sip each glass slowly to give the wine time to reveal itself, and to give themselves time to savor the full range of its flavors. So with reading. Reading quickly doesn’t lend itself to the pleasures of seeing layers of meaning in a sentence or understanding why the writer chose to use those specific words, or any of the other discoveries and joys of reading good writing. And, then, once you’ve found a book you truly love…well, there’s always rereading.
For the second time (our first took place last fall), one of the book clubs of which I’m a member held a weekend “retreat.” Our book club was started by and is held monthly at Malaprop’s bookstore, an independent bookstore that we all frequent (at right, some of our “retreaters,” including, at far right, Malaprop general manager Linda Barrett Knopp). We convened late last Friday afternoon at a nearby retreat center and headed home early Sunday afternoon. In between we discussed two books and two novellas: David Oshinsky’s Polio: An American Story, Haven Kimmel’s She Got Up Off the Couch (ugh! — the first book I’ve read for this group that I couldn’t stand to finish), Tillie Olsen’s Tell me a Riddle (which I loved), and The Death of Ivan Ilych by Tolstoy.
My own bias about book club reading is that fiction should rule the day, and that if non-fiction must be introduced, it should be in small doses — say, four or five novels for every work of non-fiction. So I was disappointed to learn that most of our reading for the retreat would be non-fiction. As I said to my bookmates, fiction provides much more fertile ground for discussion. Beyond the actual topic and story, fiction, if it’s good, offers many riches to mine, from the writer’s style, technique, and syntax to structure, themes, and imagery, to the use of symbols, metaphor and simile (and more). It fascinated me, for example, that Tolstoy used the structure of his chapters to parallel the deterioration of Ivan Ilych’s body (leading him to his spiritual birth) by making each chapter progessively shorter than the next: from approximately 300 lines in the first chapter to approximately 72 lines in the last; and that Tillie Olsen enriched Tell me a Riddle by using the voice, mouth (not just words, but coughs, screams, rasps, songs), silence, and listening in giving meaning to a story that’s much about finding one’s own voice. And I derived pleasure from a small thing: how Olsen helps move her protagonist from the specific to the universal by naming her Eva, as in “Eve,” the Bible’s first female creation.
Non-fiction can be a source of good discussion about the book’s topic, particularly if that topic is controversial and/or timely, and you can certainly argue about whether the writer accomplished what she set out to do or told her story effectively. And, of course, I’m not denying that good writers of non-fiction may use literary devices to enhance the reading experience. But at the end of the day good fiction gives the curious reader much more to work with and explore. (This just cries out for a rebuttal from a non-fiction enthusiast, don’t you think?)
Those issues aside, what a wonderful experience it was to again spend two days with smart and interesting women talking about BOOKS! Sheer heaven. A joy, too, to get to know each other a little better, since some of us rarely see each other outside of our book group setting. Not to mention the gratification of eating our way through the weekend, which as delightful as it is while you’re doing it, is nowhere near as nourishing in its aftermath as the discussions.
What’s in us that makes us respond positively or negatively to art? Trust me, it’s not an issue that’s going to be resolved by BookGirl anytime soon, but it continues to fascinate. I thought about this again last night following my Book Club meeting. Three of us, including me, loved the assigned book, James Meek’s The People’s Act of Love; two or three others were enthusiastic, while most either disliked the book or found it bewildering.
Here’s the point in the story where I would usually say: “run, don’t walk to buy this book!,” but I’m trying to be more careful these days about keeping my audience in mind when recommending books. Of course, I’ve known for quite a while that my interests in art (particularly books and films) are not necessarily anyone else’s (and, at certain times in my life, it’s seemed like no one else’s).
But there’s more to it than that. For example, recently I realized I can’t take for granted in this book club things I took for granted in my past book group in D.C. Those book pals didn’t always agree about whether we liked the books we’d read, but we very rarely disagreed about which books to read. In this club, I’m less enthusiastic about the titles selected for reading (to be fair, from time to time, a book that I thought I’d dislike — like The People’s Act of Love — turns out to be a wonder). One reason for the difference seems obvious: in the D.C. group, the members selected the books together; perhaps this group is too large to accommodate that process. And yet, if I’m honest, the democratic approach we espoused in my earlier club was more theory than practice: members put forward specific books and made a case for them, and the rest of us usually went along. Still, none of us felt that we were taking much risk, because, for some reason, we seemed to like reading the same types of books. Not always, but almost always. And, oddly enough, even those of us who didn’t like a particular book were usually still glad we’d read it — because, I surmise, we liked the type of book it was. Too, we read only fiction.
My analytical husband would say that the reason is pretty obvious: we were all either English majors or English-major “types,” such as writers, or related wordsmiths, such as lawyers. I’d disagree with him on the sympathy between lawyers and English majors, but, that aside, he’s probably correct that people with certain training or backgrounds are more likely to enjoy the same types of books. And since the group was started by friends, and grew by adding other friends, it’s equally likely that we’d all have similar interests. My current book club, on the other hand, seems comprised of a wide range of readers, probably with a wide range of backgrounds.
But this can’t be the whole story. Two very different people can love same book. Leaving aside issues of social psychology, which likely play a big role here, one possible explanation is that different people can love the same book for different reasons. In The People’s Act of Love, for example, you can delight in the story alone. It’s cinematic in narrative, has an intriguing and bizarre plot with a few mysteries thrown in, and has interesting characters. Someone else might fall for the language: Meek is an exceptionally evocative writer; there are sections of the book that are simply stunning, such as the pages that detail how the Czech battalion has been decimated over the five years since they left home. Another reader might prefer the tone: the black comedy style that Meek uses to indict just about everyone involved with the war. Yet another might be captivated by the artful way in which Meek weaves his themes through the novel: “love” is one of these themes, and it’s defined in some strikingly contradictory ways by the main characters.
Still, this an argument that’s hard for me to make. You can like a good book for the writing, OR for the story, OR for any one feature, but in a great book that you love, everything works together seamlessly to make the whole much greater than any one of its parts.
And since this is a book I love, I’ll throw caution to the wind. Run, don’t walk, to buy The People’s Act of Love. It’s a real treat.
“The only advice, indeed, that one person can give to another is to take no advice, to follow your own instincts, to take your own reason, to come to your own conclusions…After all, what laws can be laid down about books? The Battle of Waterloo was certainly fought on a certain day, but is Hamlet a better play than Lear? Nobody can say. Each must decide that question for himself. To admit authorities, however heavily furred and gowned, into our libraries and let them tell us how to read, what to read, what value to place upon what we read, is to destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of those sanctuaries. Everywhere else we may be bound by laws and conventions — there we have none. ”
Virginia Woolf, How Should One Read a Book?
