Reading is a host of very different activities. As you know, I have developed a highly specific focus for rereading but this is because of blogging. Pre-Internet, I would have written articles, and maybe a book, on Poul Anderson's works but would have struggled to get them published and would hardly have gone into as much detail as on the blog. This is a new kind of (re)reading and writing experience and everyone does it their own way. Another blogger seems to read anything and everything as long as it is sf. I am just no longer interested in that. Maybe eventually everyone will just write their own blog and not look at anyone else's?
Other Reading Styles
(i) CS Lewis pointed out two differences between high- and low-brow reading. Low-browers not only read different kinds of books but also read them differently. Nothing is ever reread. A book taken from a shelf is immediately put back as soon as it is realized that, "I've read that one." Read books are discarded like empty cigarette packets.
(ii) I heard of someone who endlessly reread Pride And Prejudice. I though that that sounded very limited. However, P&P is an extremely rich text.
(iii) I do not share the common enthusiasm for endlessly rereading Tolkien.
(iv) In John Grisham's Camino novels:
bookseller Bruce Cable loves buying, selling and sometimes just owning rare first editions but likes reading new authors whom he knows and whose books he sells;
novelist Mercer Mann prefers living female writers.
We are just not doing the same kind of reading.
Regarding first editions, to switch to comics, I will never own Action Comics, No. 1, because:
I will never see it for sale;
if I did see it for sale, then I would not be able to afford it;
if I were able to afford it, then I would have other things to do with that amount of money.
If you want to read it, then you buy a later edition or a reprint. "First editions" have a value that is entirely disconnected from any pleasure in reading them.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have heard of passionate Tolkien fans who reread THE LORD OF THE RINGS every year. But I'm not like that. In fifty or more years I have read LOTR maybe ten times. And THE HOBBIT about the same number of times. And I must have read THE SILMARILLION at least three or four times. And I love THE CHILDREN OF HURIN, which I've read twice. So I suppose I'm a fairly hard core Tolkienian!
But nothing like Astrid Larssen! (Smiles)
And I disagree with those who say a book only needs to be read once. My view is that GOOD books deserve to be read multiple times. Because second and third readings will often show readers many things they missed the first time. Also, a well written and interesting book should be reread simply for the pleasure of it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So you are a bit fanatical, then?
Some books are meant to be read only once. There is nothing to be found in them on any further readings unless maybe so much time has elapsed that the reader has forgotten even reading that book.
Paul.
(I am more so, of course.)
Kaor, Paul!
I think it's fair to say I'm a teensy bit fanatical about the main works of Tolkien! I've also read and collected quite a lot of commentary on Tolkien's Middle Earth legendarium.
Interesting question, what kinds of books need to be or should be read only once? I would say popular romances, the kind of stuff I derisively call "bodice rippers," are good candidates for that category. Another might be the kind of dreary and depressing things many students have to read in schools as part of their class work. For me, that would be Arthur Milller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN.
Ad astra! Sean
I think Lewis is explaining a distinction that’s more or less faded.
Kaor, Mr.. Stirling!
But we have lots of people who never REREAD a book, no matter how good and interesting it might be. A matter I discussed at greater length in my "A Defense of Rereading Books" article (maybe I got title wrong).
Ad astra! Sean
I think that Mills & Boom romances are meant to be read only once.
Kaor, Paul!
I have never heard of "Mils and Boom" romances before. In the states we have "Harlequin" romances.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I was not sure whether Mills and Boon were only on our side of the Atlantic. "Harlequin" is probably the same or similar.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
"It was a dark and stormy night when a tall, cloaked form rapped on the door of Annette's inn. As she opened the door and the stranger entered, he threw back the hood and Annette saw this was a tall man with broad shoulders, a narrow waist, with long dark hair framing pale, aristocratic features dominated by intense, brooding eyes of a greenish color."
Is this parody cliched enough to belong at the beginning of a romance? (Smiles)
AD astra! Sean
Sean,
Too over the top! I believe that the editors look for formula stories (they have no alternative) but also want fresh phraseology, settings etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Well, I MEANT it to be like that! Parodies are supposed to be "over the top." But, yes, I can see editors looking for variations in formula stories.
Ad astra! Sean
Apparently, in North America, Mills & Boon would be Silhouette which, from googling, seems to be linked to Harlequin.
Kaor, Paul!
And I think romances tend to be read mostly by women in both the UK and USA.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment