I was intrigued by Melville’s previous post and I wanted to respond at length because I think it sparks a longer topic: What does our reading say about who we are?
I think Melville’s steadfast loyalty to a few books speaks volumes about who she is. (Loyalty is one of her best qualities—I hope she doesn’t mind me saying this about her).
If I could describe the type of reader I was it would be passionate and devoted yet inconstant. When I read a book, as previously mentioned, I will be completely rapt; I will devote all my time to a book I love and come up very little for food and company. When I am with a good book, I need nothing. Then, when the book is over, I despair because I miss whatever I found in that book. However, I can never reread a book. I have tried, but I find all the magic is gone. I know this part of the story, and I do not want the same story; I want a different one. I like the newness of a story, the discovery of characters and then watching them grow. I like to unfold it and see the plot for the first time. (I have reread books for school—and I will say it is helpful analytically, it’s just not as fun).
And, I find that I do not feel the same way about it over time. I hated Jane Eyre when I was in high school and loved it in my twenties. When I was a kid, all I read was mysteries, but now I do not find them as spectacular as I once did. I can be completely enraptured by a book and then in a few years I will wonder what I loved so much about it. Just as our palates, I think our taste in books develops and changes over time, which I guess why it would be interesting to reread a book with different eyes.
I also find that an attachment to a certain book at a certain time reflects a part of my life—and I think that it does for others also. I can remember reading Paradise Lost for the first time and having it absolutely shake my life. It shifted my future and I think its turmoil and confusion spoke to me. Although, Paradise Lost is different to me for that reason; it is my soul mate text, and the only book I am and always will be loyal too.
Any thoughts on the type of reader you are and why?
Aww, Wolly, stop, you're making me blush. :)
ReplyDeleteLove,
Melvy
It took me a while to think of what type of reader I am, to be so self-aware, but after some thought, I think I basically try to find meaning in everything I read, however trivial it might seem. More specifically, I try to take away a book's cultural and historical meaning--how does it reflect the environment/world of when it was written, of the setting(s) it takes place in, and what can I learn about that particular culture/history as a result. This kinda sounds like my theoretical approach, but I think I naturally treat reading and books as a form of learning, even if some of the texts aren't as "literary" as others. At the same time, though, I think that's why I tend to read more of the classics or critically acclaimed books/novels than strictly more entertaining reads, like (please don't stone me!) mysteries, science fiction, romances, etc. This may sound sort of pathetic to some people, or maybe even elitist, and I'm sure I'm missing out on a lot of great reading because I tend to focus on more of the "classics" than anything else, but after W.'s post, I am going to make more of an effort to read, enjoy, and appreciate texts that aren't necessarily classics. I think why I haven't done so in the past is because I feel like I have a limited amount of time to read (as I have mentioned before, I am easily distracted by other aspects of life, for better or worse), and I'm not exactly a fast reader, so I feel the need to spend the time I do have reading "classics" because I know I will find something meaningful, thought-provoking, and even life-changing from them. But at the same time, I'm all about being open-minded; I'm going to now try to read books outside of my comfort zone so that I can experience something different, and hopefully purposeful and enjoyable!
ReplyDeleteShelley, have you read any Agatha Christie? She's a CLASSIC mystery writer -- best of all worlds!
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I would never stone you...you're too wonderful. ;)
There's even a journal devoted to classic mystery writers:
Volume 28, no. 2 (2010) of _Clues: A Journal of Detection_ has been
published. VICTORIA subscribers may be interested in the following articles:
Horace Dorrington, Criminal-Detective: Investigating the Re-Emergence of
the Rogue in Arthur Morrison?s _The Dorrington Deed-Box_ (1897)
Clare Clarke, Queen's University Belfast
Regarding _The Dorrington Deed-Box_ (1897), Arthur Morrison?s critically
neglected second contribution to the post-Sherlock Holmes detective short
story genre, the author argues that as Dorrington is both a detective and a
criminal, and the victim is the narrator, the stories subvert the usual
reassuring moral and formal conventions of the late-Victorian detective
genre.
Darwin and the Detective: Aspects of the Darwinian Worldview and the
Sherlock Holmes Stories of Arthur Conan Doyle
Hilary A. Goldsmith, University of Greenwich, UK
Charles Darwin?s _The Origin of Species_ (1859) was written in the same
year that Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle was born. The author
examines relationships between the work of Darwin and Conan Doyle, and
suggests ways in which the Sherlock Holmes adventures aided the assimilation
of evolutionary theory into late-Victorian thought.
Daniil Kharms and Sherlock Holmes: Between Imitation and Deconstruction
Lisanne Sauerwald, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitaet, Germany
Daniil Kharms (1905?42) is known as an author of Russian absurd literature.
It is generally overlooked that the pseudonym Kharms encodes Sherlock
Holmes?s Russian name of Kholms. An intertextual comparison between Kharms
and Holmes shows how Arthur Conan Doyle?s Holmes made his way into Russian
absurd literature.
Elizabeth Foxwell
Managing Editor, _Clues: A Journal of Detection_
Thank you, Melville, for your insight! I knew I was shooting myself in the foot with that reference, but I think (in an effort to right my wrong!) I was referring more to the onslaught of contemporary crime fiction, just like the onslaught of crime television. Not to say that all of these are worthless; obviously, they are some great ones out there, and as I mentioned in my previous comment, I am down to read more of these, starting with Agatha Christie ;)
ReplyDeleteI know -- I just like to spread the gospel of golden age crime fiction wherever I go.. :)
ReplyDelete