(As our maiden post, here's some thoughts on why I support tackling Big Things.)
I should say initially that I have no intention of using
this title as an excuse to serve up my own fairly small list of Ambitious
Things That I've Made It All the Way Through on a bed of Sniping at
People Who Don’t Treat Reading as an Extreme Sport. If I end up slipping up
and it comes across that way, please don't hesitate to catch your waiter's eye
and send this back to the kitchen.
What I do mean to do is to make a case for moving
consistently into deeper and more distant waters than those that you are used
to. I've used "reading" as my main axis, but I take in my sights any
medium with enough breadth to offer the choice.
(I should probably also mention that one of the things
that has informed my view of this has been studying foreign languages and the
debate/terror surrounding reading set texts "in the original". My view is that
making the effort to do so is like seeing a painting in real life as opposed to
in a textbook. Incidentally, if you’re not a native English speaker then not
all of this will apply to you as is, though I think there are parallels.)
Don't Fear Them, Reader [link]
I think one of the best things about my education (fairly
atypical in many respects) was that I was exposed to difficult things on a
fairly frequent basis. I had a more-or-less unbroken succession of English
teachers who threw The Classics (as distasteful as the canonisation drive is)
at us, and indeed Classics teachers who did the same. I don't mean to imply
that as an eleven-year-old I instantly got and appreciated the whole of Grey's Elegy, but that I was made aware of the existence of More Difficult Works, and
shown that, while it would be impossible that I understand everything going on
at first blush (even after puzzling over particular passages and looking up
words and allusions, this being just before the Internet got serious), there
was still value in attempting to grapple with something big, and the effort
involved made what I did glean all the more valuable.
In short, I think that it taught me not to fear works.
For me, this was an incredibly liberating feeling: once you have attained your
literary maturity (more thoughts on which later), you essentially have the
freedom of the whole of human civilization at your disposal. You are free to go
up to any great Canon writer in the street, introduce yourself, and they will
happily sit with you and hold a conversation. You might be surprised at how
like you they and their characters are. The best part is that you can ask them
to repeat themselves as many times as you like; it’s as though the same
paragraphs or verses throw different shadows each time you read them, or
gradually come more into focus as you grow. I don’t think educational background need
necessarily affect your ability to do this – if you don’t get (say) a Classical mythology reference, you can look it up, and no-one will think less of you (or
if they do, you have my full endorsement in smacking them about the face with a
Classical Greek-English lexicon).
Taking Exception [link]
It's also possible, of course, that on meeting a
particular writer you find that you don't really get on with them, or that you
find that a writer that you once felt you had something in common with feels
distant, or trivial. It will occasionally happen that their world-view strikes
you as actively harmful, and so should be kept away from those at risk from it;
sometimes you know this yourself as you used to get on with them, but now see
that they affected you negatively, much as can happen with people. That case isn't really what we’re examining here, though.
How do you react to this lack of a spark? I think an
indication of having achieved a certain level of growth is that you can like or
dislike a work without needing to justify your decision, but without your decision
needing to demonise or canonise the work in question. That is, you can dislike
a particular author without needing to pass a value judgement on them, and
without the need for a third party to agree with your judgement; if asked, you
might be able to crystallise the particular reasons why you dislike their work,
but your preference essentially stands alone, set in enough respect for its own
validity that it doesn't need to beg.
In this light, dismissing an author (and again, this
extends to musicians, painters and directors) becomes quite a serious
statement. It implies a certain lack of respect - both for the author
themselves but also for anyone who happens to enjoy their work. For works that
incite jingoism, hatred and small-mindedness, it is precisely a lack of respect
that we show by dismissing them, and with good reason. To my mind, though, it
is a sign of immaturity to dismiss something that we once admired purely
because we have grown out of it. I don't see any shame in writing for a
particular audience; we don't dismiss teachers for spending their time with
children instead of adults in their workplace. Who’s to say that in the future,
you might not find what you enjoy now similarly childish? Or, indeed, that you
might not find a new appreciation for what you now dismiss?
This requires a certain humility, even as it requires a
certain level of pride. It seems to me that you have to say "I will not
understand all of this, or I may see more than is in fact there" at the
same time as saying "I am worthy of attempting to read this". There’s
nothing to stop you going forth into the Canon and sampling its riches; all you
have to do beyond paying the price of admission (which is frequently nothing in
these days of Project Gutenberg and streaming) is to lay down the awful burden
of needing to understand everything, or worse, to have everything explained to
you.
Child- and Adult-Level Learning [link]
I think this latter curse comes from the schools method
of learning being regretfully applied to literature. We take Hamlet and
carve it into scene-by-scene homework analysis, predigested with modern English
"translations", glossaries for old words and Classical allusions, and
scene-by-scene summaries so that you never read an honest pentameter without a
swarm of angry explanations cutting it into a train of textureless mouthfuls.
This is what I think of as child-level learning.
As children (in the intellectual sense) we are presented with gobbets of
information that are simply to be swallowed. This is in order to create a
foundation for our adult understanding of the world. You don't need to know the
rich history of the Latin alphabet, travelling as it has right from the
Egyptian hieroglyphs through millennia of sacred knowledge to the present day,
when you are learning to read and write; similarly, when bringing up a small
child there is little place for negotiation - you tell it "no"
without further discussion so that it learns to accept other people’s needs and
opinions as equally and occasionally more valid than its own.
What I think of as adult-level learning requires
what was learnt as a child as its spring-board. Instead of force-feeding,
education takes the form of kindling: a teacher ignites the fire of interest in
a particular field by dousing the dry materials with just enough explanation
that the resultant passion can sustain itself, and steps back as the pupil's
knowledge hopefully feeds itself. On this level the goal of teaching is not to
fill the pupil with enough solid foundation that they can function in general
in adult society (or, more cynically, that they can pass a series of exams),
but to present a particular view of a subject that will excite their pupil's
intelligence so that they charge forward into it in search of more.
You could compare this to the learning of a musical
instrument, or of a foreign language. If you are learning on a child-level
basis, you will swallow enough (hopefully) to be able to perform in an exam or
on the spot if absolutely necessary; if you move to an adult-level one, you
will spend your free time practising and perfecting for the sheer enjoyment of
it, and achieve more than you ever could on the child level.
Invitation to a Canon Ball [link]
If you have never had this experience in reading (or
other media), then I can give you no greater gift than to suggest that you find
a copy of a Shakespeare play and just read it straight through. I would recommend
Hamlet or The Tempest if you haven't had them dissected in school,
or failing that any of the better known tragedies or comedies; get an edition
with absolutely no critical apparatus to distract you. (The Gutenberg editions I've linked might be a bit stark, but there are plenty of others if you look around.) Start at the beginning,
and read. There will be words and references you don't understand, sure, but
ignore them, or try to guess them from context. If you don't understand a
passage at all, by all means go back and read it again, or just move on. Resist
the urge to look up the answers. Read the words aloud in your head, and (if
you're not going to disturb anyone), try reading out a speech or two. Don't
stop until you get to the end. They're not that long without the critical
padding.
Hopefully what will happen is that the beauty, wit and
magic of the play will come alive for you. You are sitting face-to-face with
Shakespeare over coffee, and he's cancelled his plans for the afternoon to sit
quietly with you and tell you a story. You end up laughing frequently. The
whole place is empty apart from the two of you; every now and then he smiles at
you as he talks as if to say, "I hope you like this part. I'm proud of it
- I wrote it as a present, just for you." This is the magic trick with
great works - he says the same to everyone who reads it, and for everyone who
reads it it's still true.
You have the right to stride into the Canon and order
whatever you want; all you have to do is to allow your teeth the time to
sharpen, if you've only been fed on lighter fare before. I think it really is
enriching to take on a work that feels as though it's heavier than you are.
There's certainly a joyful feeling of achievement in getting onto familiar
terms with a name you'd normally see written about to show off a character's erudition - they rarely bite.
Constructive Criticism [link]
And then, if you like, you should read a critical
evaluation. I don't know about you, but I never read the introduction to a book
before I read the book itself. It means that you're no longer alone with the
author - you've got some interloper sitting next to you butting in with
"Well actually, I think..." every couple of seconds. If you read
criticism afterwards (in the proper sense of the word, that is,
"judgement" as in "weighing up"), you have your own
knowledge of the work in question, and it becomes more of an even discussion.
Frequently, if the critic is a good one, you will end up with new perspectives
on the work which will add to your own appreciation of it - but they won't ever
try to replace yours, or suggest that they know "the real" so-and-so,
and if they do you should feel free to take what they're saying with a large
pinch of salt. (Also, by that I don't mean to knock really good stuff like the Introducing... series. I'd say that's more like giving you a push so you don't end up flat on your face with the Big Things.)
This is what real analysis is, if you've only ever been
made to find all the instances of Atticus Finch being a good father in To
Kill a Mockingbird. You read a phrase or a work, it makes a certain impression
on you, you try to fish out what it is about it that made you feel that way.
There might be currents underneath the surface that you had no conscious
awareness of; a good critic will make the case for their existence, and if you
deem it valid they will add to your understanding of the work in question. Good analysis never makes its subject less alive. It might mean that you can no
longer take the work seriously, but it will not make you incapable of seeing it
as anything more than a collection of bones, cartilage and soft tissues
percolating a puddle of blood.
In Summary...
My intention has been to try to convince you, if you are
unconvinced, that attempting to fight above what you feel is your weight is a
worthwhile and nourishing thing to do. I would be distraught to think that this
comes across as a defence of singing the praises of "having read"
books - what I mean to suggest is that expanding your "reading for
fun" books (or "consuming for fun" media) to include ambitious
things (even if they don’t end up agreeing with you) is a rich and rewarding
experience, and more than worth the increase in intellectual outlay over, say,
rereading a young adult novel series.
(Don't take the link attacks too seriously. They're not meant to be. Hope that was at least thought-inducing, and see you in a week!)
No comments:
Post a Comment