Raelyn
from California is reading The Doll's HouseOctober 7, 2011 - 4:16am
I definitely agree with those who say it's more embarassing to not be familliar with a book than have read it. As an actor, I'm almost oblivious to most classic plays (I didn't know les mis was a musical until I had to sing a song from it for an audition).
Three books ate the top of my reading list are: Great Gatsby, See Under; Love, and Ghostwritten.
Fylh
from from from is reading is from is reading is reading is reading reading is readingOctober 7, 2011 - 6:31am
It's a shame so many good books are being mentioned here. Not because you "should read them" (although you probably should), but because, damn, some of them are going to be the best things you'll ever read. Among a hundred other reasons.
postpomo
from Canada is reading words words wordsOctober 7, 2011 - 7:46am
there's only so many books and so much time in which to read them. Can't do 'em all. It took me three tries to get through Catch-22, finally did and it's one of my favourites.
Shakespeare's meant to be seen, not read. It's like reading the screenplay to Casablanca.
After my B.A. in English, I decided to catch up on the classics I hadn't read in high school or uni. That solved a lot of the issues with this thread. There's a lot of American Lit I have yet to get caught up on. But for me, I prefer more recent works as opposed to "classics" for the mostpart.
haven't read the Odyssee, the Iliad, anything by Dickens (I refuse), Harry Potter (I refuse) and despite multiple attempts, could never get past the Two Towers.
I don't feel embarassed about it - maybe a bit of pride in my stubborness (esp. when people tell me how great Harry Potter is).
HoboWriterDK
from Upstate, New York is reading The Tenth of DecemberOctober 7, 2011 - 7:56am
@Mark
Damn man... I've read On The Road three times and after your post I feel like I need to pick it up again. It really is amazing. One of the high points of college, for me, was taking a class on "The Beat Generation." We basically just talked Kerouac and On The Road for the first month.
Mark
from Lexington, Kentucky is reading The Chronology of WaterOctober 11, 2011 - 4:50pm
Here's an obvious truism, I suppose, but the literature of The Beat Generation speaks to some people more than others. There's a chance it will never speak to you. There's a chance it will grab you when you're nineteen but seem appropriate only for nineteen-year-olds by the time you're twenty-six. And there's a chance you'll love the best of it more when you're forty and better read in the classics and more seasoned in life than you could have possibly loved it the first time through.
In addition, wherever you stand on Beat Literature as a whole, there's a chance you'll think Jack is dull and plodding and the real genius is Ginsberg. But there's also a chance you'll think Ginsberg bombastic, a charlatan, and Kerouac sublime.
The problem with a 'List of Shame' approach to literature is people end up way too invested in trends and way too attached to having a superficial knowledge of a wide assortment of cultural props. A deep experience of twenty books is vastly more beneficial than a superficial acquaintanceship with two hundred. And by 'beneficial' I mean good for your mind and good for your writing. That's a different goal than sounding clever at cocktail parties.
postpomo
from Canada is reading words words wordsOctober 11, 2011 - 5:21pm
facetious comments aside - @Mark - it's a breadth vs depth issue, and both have value - the difficulty occurs when either is taken to an extreme - a balance between the two is more effective wrt writing & one's mind -
Mark
from Lexington, Kentucky is reading The Chronology of WaterOctober 11, 2011 - 6:10pm
facetious comments aside - @Mark - it's a breadth vs depth issue, and both have value - the difficulty occurs when either is taken to an extreme - a balance between the two is more effective wrt writing & one's mind -
I wouldn't argue with that, at all, but I've so far been the only person stirred by this discussion to speak up explictly for depth over acquaintanceship. I believe in the value of having a relationship with a book that deepens over time, and I'm sure you do, as well, but as no one had waved that particular flag just yet, I thought maybe I should.
To me, a truly extreme argument in the depth direction would favor the reading of one sacred book over and over again to the exclusion of anything secular and profane that might contravene it. A kind of depth that suffocates in literal-mindedness and happens at the expense of a broader mind.
There is no rigid orthodoxy in my peculiar notion that it's better to have twenty books (or 25, whatever) that are sacred to you for purely self-driven and idiosyncratic reasons than it is to have a dazzling Cliff's Notes acumen for the entire Western Canon. Please note: I have no stone-etched idea of what the best twenty books should be or that the same top list should be standard for all educated people.
Fylh
from from from is reading is from is reading is reading is reading reading is readingOctober 11, 2011 - 6:27pm
Even a passing acquaintance with a lot of books that you don't read over and over again is better than nothing, though. Sure, having a dozen books that you keep returning to is nourishing and important. I'd still argue that breadth should be given a good deal of significance.
I know I tend to come across as much more reactionary than some people are comfortable with when it comes to literature, but the point that I keep trying to make is that we are cultural products as much as anything else. Having a basic idea of the currents in society which, historically, have played a role in making us who we are... that seems important to me.
Nobody needs to read any book at all. But the very fact that someone might not want to read, say, the New Testament (because it's old, because it's boring, because they think religion is bullshit), to me, says a lot more about that someone than about the New Testament. In this particular example, for centuries, if you were an "intellectual" in a Christian environment, you were likely to spend your life thinking about theological issues. That means some of history's brightest minds contributed their wisdom and creativity to the great debates that we can now dismiss out of hand as old-fashioned or stupid.
Mark
from Lexington, Kentucky is reading The Chronology of WaterOctober 11, 2011 - 6:50pm
Nobody needs to read any book at all. But the very fact that someone might not want to read, say, the New Testament (because it's old, because it's boring, because they think religion is bullshit), to me, says a lot more about that someone than about the New Testament.
Well, you're right, of course. A person who would never dream of suffering through a university lit course that approaches the New Testament as a monument of world literature--to be considered from all angles instead of only through the frame of literal-minded belief--is a person too callow or anti-intellectual to be reasoned with.
Someone might get a temporary pass for being scarred by religion or inflated with dogmatic athiesm at the age of nineteen, but such dismissiveness is a bad sign much past the absurd certainties of late adolescence. Hopefully, we're both preaching to the choir around here.
Liana
from Romania and Texas is reading Death by Sunshine by Allison BurnettOctober 11, 2011 - 9:22pm
I hope I'm not the one who encouraged a "who's read more books" competition - I didn't intend the thread to go that way. I personally am willing to give a try to a book that's been declared great by more than the entertainment industry willing to make a movie of it. I'm willing, in other words, to read it fast, on the plane, whenever, or begin it at least. If it speaks to me, I finish it and if it really speaks to me - if it gives me moments of envy for the craft, and some sort of revelation, that's when I want to give that writer more of my time and energy and go in depth. I may read it again later, or I may try to read as many books by the same author as I can.
That's what happened relatively recently when I read McCarthy's Blood Meridian. When you take classes, you have both the advantage of depth because of discussions (if you bother to be involved in reading and discussing), and variety (reading writers you would not have thought of looking up). On your own, you go by what people seem to like (such as on this site, I'm making a list of writers to "try out" based on what sounds interesting in what people recommend) and if something really turns some light bulb in your mind , you can go back for more.
razorsharp
from Ohio is reading Atlas ShruggedOctober 11, 2011 - 9:29pm
The only time I've read a book twice is when it was required in multiple classes I took. No matter how much I loved a book, I can't pick it up again knowing there is something unread on my shelf.
I have to argue for breadth over depth. You only need to read a book once to grasp the depths the author intended unless its a doozy. After that, the little details you pick up from multiple readings may make it seem more personal, they may unlock little easter eggs here and there, but I can't imagine them having more value than a new book.
Rereading a book always lacks the thrill of discovery reading a new one provides. You can't ponder the possibilities because there are no possibilities, there's only what you know will occur. The most satisfying thing about reading for me is being floored by a great ending. While beautiful sentences and clever witticisms may make the ride smoother, I really only care about where it takes me. Once I know the great ending it cannot floor me again.
edit: just to clarify, I'm exclusively talking about fiction. Obviously it does no good to read a math textbook and acquire no depth.
lynx_child
from Seattle is reading The Real World of Sherlock Holmes: The True Crimes Investigated by Arthur Conan Doyle by Peter CostelloOctober 11, 2011 - 9:57pm
The only one I can think of at the moment is 1984, though I know there are many others.
Mark
from Lexington, Kentucky is reading The Chronology of WaterOctober 12, 2011 - 12:15am
I have to argue for breadth over depth. You only need to read a book once to grasp the depths the author intended unless its a doozy. After that, the little details you pick up from multiple readings may make it seem more personal, they may unlock little easter eggs here and there, but I can't imagine them having more value than a new book.
My version of the depth argument doesn't stress re-reading. Didn't even mention it, so far, as a matter of fact. I'm talking about depth of relationship and not perpetual or frequent re-reading. I don't begin to return to books the way some people watch a favorite movie for the twentieth time. Rather, I'm talking about a book lighting fire in a way that changes your reading of other books, your relationship with language, and your understanding of people. Even if it's not a book widely considered great.
When you find one that does that, you'll reflect on it, even when not feeling compelled to revisit and thoroughly reread it. That said, when I find such a book, I confess I can profitably reread it about once every five years. Not only do important elements grow occluded and subject to false memory, but it will be a different book each time because I've grown. I've read other things, I've made new comparisons, I've gained a deeper understanding of heartbreak from direct experience, my mind has matured.
Also, I think of a good or great book as a cultural construct existing within a huge matrix of potential meanings. The author can't possibly have intended every meaning that coheres within. A great book not only engages in a sort of dialogue with predecessor works, but it will seem to predict or anticipate later books, films, and real life occurances. Just living through one decade after a significant book's release, you can re-read it through a lens of connections that didn't exist when the author was drafting it.
jacks_username
from Louisville, Kentucky is reading Flashover by Gordon HighlandOctober 12, 2011 - 12:27am
I think my favorite writer of the beat group was William S. Burroughs. Naked Lunch is overrated in my opinion but after watching a documentary about him, I think he is one of the most influential writers of the 21st century.
Liana
from Romania and Texas is reading Death by Sunshine by Allison BurnettOctober 12, 2011 - 12:51am
I will never grow tired of reading Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! (though I haven't read it in a few years now). That's one book I've said I'd take with me on a desert island if that scenario ever arose. I always find newness in this book and it's rewarding every time. I've read Slaughterhouse Five many times because I happen to teach it in some classes, and that's another one that is never boring to reread.
I can see action-oriented books being less rewarding on second read, once you know what the action builds toward.
averydoll
from Kentucky is reading Lisey's Story by Stephen KingNovember 1, 2011 - 4:45pm
I am TOTALLY judging everyone who hasn't read The Great Gatsby. Really? I mean...really? I think it's one of the greatest books. Fitzgerald had an amazing style of writing. I'm surprised so many haven't read it.
But, to be fair....I haven't read The Screwtape Letters. I tried a couple times and never made it.
Also, I have read The Shack, and I'm more upset about that than anything I haven't read.
Bradley Sands
from Portland, Oregon is reading Blake Butler's Sky SawNovember 1, 2011 - 4:45pm
There's so many great books. Why be embarressed that he haven't read some of them? Just try to get to them eventually.Although I'm often surprised when someone tells me that they haven't seen a particular movie. Like Star Wars or something.
Limbless K9
from Oregon is reading Fat Kid Rules the WorldNovember 1, 2011 - 9:32pm
The Road, A Clockwork Orange, The Lord of the Rings, and Lolita. I have all of them except A Clockwork Orange. I just haven't gotten around to reading them.
The Count of Egmont
from cali is reading Damned by ChuckNovember 16, 2011 - 12:08pm
You don’t have to read books when you can watch them or hear them. I like to listen to them on audio CD or watch the movies. Like Mark, I sometimes listen to books when I’m driving. I don’t hear every word because there are lots of deers where I live and sometimes I have to steer the car so that I don’t hit the deers which are all over the streets.
It’s really not important to read a book when you can just see the movie. Like, I’ve never read The Clockwork Orange but I’ve seen that movie about 100000 times. And I don’t really see why I have to read The Naked Lunch or The Catcher in the Rye when I can just watch the movies. You don’t have to read lit when you can just watch lit or hear lit.
postpomo
from Canada is reading words words wordsNovember 16, 2011 - 12:52pm
@the Count of Egmont - worst troll job ever.
@averydoll - I recently picked up The Great Gatsby (I originally read it almost 30 years ago) and was unable to get past chapter 2. Not sure what it is about it, but I will give it another try.
The Count of Egmont
from cali is reading Damned by ChuckNovember 16, 2011 - 3:24pm
Buy the unabridged audiobook. It comes on ten compact discs. There are multiple versions out there, but I can personally vouch for the one narrated by Matt Dillon. Get the discs--comprehensive and high quality--then transfer the content to MP3 format, if you travel better with an ipod.
This is a really cool idea about listening to On the Road. When your on the road listen to the sound of the road. Listen to the lit. The lit is talking to all of us. Kerouac speaks to all of us with his elegant tones.
Movin down the road and listenin to the lit. This is the song that this reminds me of:
averydoll
from Kentucky is reading Lisey's Story by Stephen KingNovember 16, 2011 - 6:29pm
Has anyone read Franny and Zooey? It's by Salinger. I think it's better than Catcher. My opinion. I like both, but Franny and Zooey is something really special. But it didn't get banned, so people don't read it as much.
averydoll
from Kentucky is reading Lisey's Story by Stephen KingNovember 16, 2011 - 11:02pm
Yaaay! Someday...if you're all very good I'll tell you about the lucid dream I had after reading Franny and Zooey. It involved my murdered father and blueberry pie. Also, I think it was a message from God.
the great gatsby
I definitely agree with those who say it's more embarassing to not be familliar with a book than have read it. As an actor, I'm almost oblivious to most classic plays (I didn't know les mis was a musical until I had to sing a song from it for an audition).
Three books ate the top of my reading list are: Great Gatsby, See Under; Love, and Ghostwritten.
I can't go through Moby Dick as well
It's a shame so many good books are being mentioned here. Not because you "should read them" (although you probably should), but because, damn, some of them are going to be the best things you'll ever read. Among a hundred other reasons.
there's only so many books and so much time in which to read them. Can't do 'em all. It took me three tries to get through Catch-22, finally did and it's one of my favourites.
Shakespeare's meant to be seen, not read. It's like reading the screenplay to Casablanca.
After my B.A. in English, I decided to catch up on the classics I hadn't read in high school or uni. That solved a lot of the issues with this thread. There's a lot of American Lit I have yet to get caught up on. But for me, I prefer more recent works as opposed to "classics" for the mostpart.
haven't read the Odyssee, the Iliad, anything by Dickens (I refuse), Harry Potter (I refuse) and despite multiple attempts, could never get past the Two Towers.
I don't feel embarassed about it - maybe a bit of pride in my stubborness (esp. when people tell me how great Harry Potter is).
@Mark
Damn man... I've read On The Road three times and after your post I feel like I need to pick it up again. It really is amazing. One of the high points of college, for me, was taking a class on "The Beat Generation." We basically just talked Kerouac and On The Road for the first month.
On the Road is one book I'm embarassed to say I have read.
well, not embarassed, but I don't see why it's such a big deal. I think I don't get the context in which it was written.
Here's an obvious truism, I suppose, but the literature of The Beat Generation speaks to some people more than others. There's a chance it will never speak to you. There's a chance it will grab you when you're nineteen but seem appropriate only for nineteen-year-olds by the time you're twenty-six. And there's a chance you'll love the best of it more when you're forty and better read in the classics and more seasoned in life than you could have possibly loved it the first time through.
In addition, wherever you stand on Beat Literature as a whole, there's a chance you'll think Jack is dull and plodding and the real genius is Ginsberg. But there's also a chance you'll think Ginsberg bombastic, a charlatan, and Kerouac sublime.
The problem with a 'List of Shame' approach to literature is people end up way too invested in trends and way too attached to having a superficial knowledge of a wide assortment of cultural props. A deep experience of twenty books is vastly more beneficial than a superficial acquaintanceship with two hundred. And by 'beneficial' I mean good for your mind and good for your writing. That's a different goal than sounding clever at cocktail parties.
@Mark - tell that to Oscar Wilde =P
facetious comments aside - @Mark - it's a breadth vs depth issue, and both have value - the difficulty occurs when either is taken to an extreme - a balance between the two is more effective wrt writing & one's mind -
I wouldn't argue with that, at all, but I've so far been the only person stirred by this discussion to speak up explictly for depth over acquaintanceship. I believe in the value of having a relationship with a book that deepens over time, and I'm sure you do, as well, but as no one had waved that particular flag just yet, I thought maybe I should.
To me, a truly extreme argument in the depth direction would favor the reading of one sacred book over and over again to the exclusion of anything secular and profane that might contravene it. A kind of depth that suffocates in literal-mindedness and happens at the expense of a broader mind.
There is no rigid orthodoxy in my peculiar notion that it's better to have twenty books (or 25, whatever) that are sacred to you for purely self-driven and idiosyncratic reasons than it is to have a dazzling Cliff's Notes acumen for the entire Western Canon. Please note: I have no stone-etched idea of what the best twenty books should be or that the same top list should be standard for all educated people.
@Mark - fair enough, and well stated
Even a passing acquaintance with a lot of books that you don't read over and over again is better than nothing, though. Sure, having a dozen books that you keep returning to is nourishing and important. I'd still argue that breadth should be given a good deal of significance.
I know I tend to come across as much more reactionary than some people are comfortable with when it comes to literature, but the point that I keep trying to make is that we are cultural products as much as anything else. Having a basic idea of the currents in society which, historically, have played a role in making us who we are... that seems important to me.
Nobody needs to read any book at all. But the very fact that someone might not want to read, say, the New Testament (because it's old, because it's boring, because they think religion is bullshit), to me, says a lot more about that someone than about the New Testament. In this particular example, for centuries, if you were an "intellectual" in a Christian environment, you were likely to spend your life thinking about theological issues. That means some of history's brightest minds contributed their wisdom and creativity to the great debates that we can now dismiss out of hand as old-fashioned or stupid.
Well, you're right, of course. A person who would never dream of suffering through a university lit course that approaches the New Testament as a monument of world literature--to be considered from all angles instead of only through the frame of literal-minded belief--is a person too callow or anti-intellectual to be reasoned with.
Someone might get a temporary pass for being scarred by religion or inflated with dogmatic athiesm at the age of nineteen, but such dismissiveness is a bad sign much past the absurd certainties of late adolescence. Hopefully, we're both preaching to the choir around here.
I hope I'm not the one who encouraged a "who's read more books" competition - I didn't intend the thread to go that way. I personally am willing to give a try to a book that's been declared great by more than the entertainment industry willing to make a movie of it. I'm willing, in other words, to read it fast, on the plane, whenever, or begin it at least. If it speaks to me, I finish it and if it really speaks to me - if it gives me moments of envy for the craft, and some sort of revelation, that's when I want to give that writer more of my time and energy and go in depth. I may read it again later, or I may try to read as many books by the same author as I can.
That's what happened relatively recently when I read McCarthy's Blood Meridian. When you take classes, you have both the advantage of depth because of discussions (if you bother to be involved in reading and discussing), and variety (reading writers you would not have thought of looking up). On your own, you go by what people seem to like (such as on this site, I'm making a list of writers to "try out" based on what sounds interesting in what people recommend) and if something really turns some light bulb in your mind , you can go back for more.
The only time I've read a book twice is when it was required in multiple classes I took. No matter how much I loved a book, I can't pick it up again knowing there is something unread on my shelf.
I have to argue for breadth over depth. You only need to read a book once to grasp the depths the author intended unless its a doozy. After that, the little details you pick up from multiple readings may make it seem more personal, they may unlock little easter eggs here and there, but I can't imagine them having more value than a new book.
Rereading a book always lacks the thrill of discovery reading a new one provides. You can't ponder the possibilities because there are no possibilities, there's only what you know will occur. The most satisfying thing about reading for me is being floored by a great ending. While beautiful sentences and clever witticisms may make the ride smoother, I really only care about where it takes me. Once I know the great ending it cannot floor me again.
edit: just to clarify, I'm exclusively talking about fiction. Obviously it does no good to read a math textbook and acquire no depth.
The only one I can think of at the moment is 1984, though I know there are many others.
My version of the depth argument doesn't stress re-reading. Didn't even mention it, so far, as a matter of fact. I'm talking about depth of relationship and not perpetual or frequent re-reading. I don't begin to return to books the way some people watch a favorite movie for the twentieth time. Rather, I'm talking about a book lighting fire in a way that changes your reading of other books, your relationship with language, and your understanding of people. Even if it's not a book widely considered great.
When you find one that does that, you'll reflect on it, even when not feeling compelled to revisit and thoroughly reread it. That said, when I find such a book, I confess I can profitably reread it about once every five years. Not only do important elements grow occluded and subject to false memory, but it will be a different book each time because I've grown. I've read other things, I've made new comparisons, I've gained a deeper understanding of heartbreak from direct experience, my mind has matured.
Also, I think of a good or great book as a cultural construct existing within a huge matrix of potential meanings. The author can't possibly have intended every meaning that coheres within. A great book not only engages in a sort of dialogue with predecessor works, but it will seem to predict or anticipate later books, films, and real life occurances. Just living through one decade after a significant book's release, you can re-read it through a lens of connections that didn't exist when the author was drafting it.
I think my favorite writer of the beat group was William S. Burroughs. Naked Lunch is overrated in my opinion but after watching a documentary about him, I think he is one of the most influential writers of the 21st century.
I will never grow tired of reading Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! (though I haven't read it in a few years now). That's one book I've said I'd take with me on a desert island if that scenario ever arose. I always find newness in this book and it's rewarding every time. I've read Slaughterhouse Five many times because I happen to teach it in some classes, and that's another one that is never boring to reread.
I can see action-oriented books being less rewarding on second read, once you know what the action builds toward.
I am TOTALLY judging everyone who hasn't read The Great Gatsby. Really? I mean...really? I think it's one of the greatest books. Fitzgerald had an amazing style of writing. I'm surprised so many haven't read it.
But, to be fair....I haven't read The Screwtape Letters. I tried a couple times and never made it.
Also, I have read The Shack, and I'm more upset about that than anything I haven't read.
There's so many great books. Why be embarressed that he haven't read some of them? Just try to get to them eventually.Although I'm often surprised when someone tells me that they haven't seen a particular movie. Like Star Wars or something.
The Road, A Clockwork Orange, The Lord of the Rings, and Lolita. I have all of them except A Clockwork Orange. I just haven't gotten around to reading them.
You don’t have to read books when you can watch them or hear them. I like to listen to them on audio CD or watch the movies. Like Mark, I sometimes listen to books when I’m driving. I don’t hear every word because there are lots of deers where I live and sometimes I have to steer the car so that I don’t hit the deers which are all over the streets.
It’s really not important to read a book when you can just see the movie. Like, I’ve never read The Clockwork Orange but I’ve seen that movie about 100000 times. And I don’t really see why I have to read The Naked Lunch or The Catcher in the Rye when I can just watch the movies. You don’t have to read lit when you can just watch lit or hear lit.
@the Count of Egmont - worst troll job ever.
@averydoll - I recently picked up The Great Gatsby (I originally read it almost 30 years ago) and was unable to get past chapter 2. Not sure what it is about it, but I will give it another try.
Kerouac isn't speaking to me - he isn't even writing to me. I hate On the Road with a visceral rancor.
People seem to love or hate On The Road. I like Catcher In The Rye so my opinion doesn't matter anyway about On The Road.
Has anyone read Franny and Zooey? It's by Salinger. I think it's better than Catcher. My opinion. I like both, but Franny and Zooey is something really special. But it didn't get banned, so people don't read it as much.
I love Franny and Zooey. Also his short stories.
Yaaay! Someday...if you're all very good I'll tell you about the lucid dream I had after reading Franny and Zooey. It involved my murdered father and blueberry pie. Also, I think it was a message from God.