My Doubts

I don't think impertinence has anything to do with it. Although there are criteria that are applied to works that are considered great, personal taste is an intangible, and you're entitled to your taste.

I'm not a fan of the work or its author. However, I'm able to see merit in the writing and how it was appropriate for its time.

As a student of literature, you sometimes have to read things that aren't to your taste. If you can see the merit in the work, all the better. If you can't, consider it a learning experience.

Your approach strikes me as a little odd only because you're missing a lot. I don't know how you can maintain continuity of thought, plot, or character. When I was assigned to read a book I didn't much like, I usually just forced myself to plow through. If I felt especially tortured, I would establish a daily page quota. It worked for me.

I do not think you impertinent either, though I love Great Expectations.


The style is certainly not in vogue today, but there is much in the book to love, in my view...


I think your hopping style of reading sucks, though, JB!


I can see it as a way of getting a flavour of a book you HAVE to study, but a book you are reading for pleasure?


Either read fully, or don't read would be my view.

Re: My Doubts


No, you haven't finished the book. You've leafed through it. Very different things, J-B.

(I have no strong feelings about "Great Expectations," I'm not even certain I've read it though I think I have, in high school or something. I can think of many many books that would suffer by such an approach, though. I'm with dlowan -- read it, or don't.)

At different stages of life, we come to appreciate things we never were interested in before. I started to read Hard Times several different times, but could not "get into it." But, one day I picked it up and read it straight through, loving it. Then, there are some "great works" the individual can never appreciate. I have started Don Quixote countless times, but simply do not like it. I have not gotten half way through it. I think projection and hype makes people admire the central character, who, to me, is not admirable, just old and piteable. Absent the nobility others see, I can't take reading his escapades.

I love Great Expectations too. I'm the kind of reader who will re-read a sentence several times. (I've read the book twice, maybe three times, not sure). I guess you could say I "savour" each word, each sentence. Sometimes I'll stop down and ponder what's being said or implied, or visualise the scene.....On down side, I'm one of the slowest readers ever!

I shudder at the thought of missing a single page, let alone the method described here! It's just ....an abomination !!! Now, I'm starting to scare myself...

So I am unanimously critisized :wink:

O.K. I try to explain something from my point of view.

First, the method I described is one that I often resort to -- but not always! I give myself ample time and chance when I step unto something entirely new (like the case here, Dickens). For example, I have "the 100-page-'trial' " Yet if the book fails to attract me, what else step should I take then? There are times when I force myself into reading a work over and over again even it's superbly dull. But I cannot afford doing this all the time.

Overall, my problem is, there are so many books either I want to read, or I must read, or are packed there, or piled there, or lined there for me to read -- yet there is so little time I can squeeze. Then the obviously way for more efficiency is: shun the book that doesn't suit me, find the book that does.

Now comes the paradox: How on earth could I judge which book suits me, which doesn't? What's the meaning of "suit"? Will one book that doesn't appear to "suit" me today "suit" me greatly tomorrow? What I called "impertinence" is the risk of making a mistake here.

You see, it's so delicate a matter.

Only one thing is certain --- I try do read, to feel and to be impressed by as many books as I can.



Eorl,

I deeply admire the kind of person like you. I deeply admire words, languages and cultures. Yet I am not a person made entirely for them. I can never be over-sensitive on words. I am more of deed than of word (like here, I could feel more comfort in actually writing than reading. Though I seldom write pieces that bring me comfort... ). Maybe it's because I am relatively young and, in some sense, I am impatient. Sorry if I make you uncomfortable.



BTW, the problem about plot doesn't seem to annoy me. Like I said, I could even have a more clear view of the whole book. If there is still a problem, I could just read a plot summary before my "leafing". After all, the foundamental question we face is, what will we get with reading? Plot? sheer words? joy? or memory?

Words of a book are like the water in rivulet.
As they pass one by one under the scan of fingers and the scan of eyes
They swirl and caress
Around the paddler's feet
leaving hardly a trace,
Other than,
An icy sensation of being wet.


JB

JB- I leaf through books too. If I have doubts about whether or not it's worth my time, I also frequently read the ending, usually not first thing, but if I'm kind of stuck about halfway through and trying to decide whether or not it's worth it to continue. If the ending looks at all promising (as in not predictable- which says to me, something other than what you think is going to happen actually does happen somewhere in the intervening pages) I continue.

I only read books like Great Expectations when I know I have time to devote my entire self and focus. When you have the luxury of time and can really immerse yourself in the story and characters (the world the author has created) it's an entirely different experience than when you are slogging through page by page with your mind only half engaged on the book while all your other responsibilities are pushing at the doors of your consciousness. Maybe it's a book you should take on holiday with you- if it feels like something you think you should read. If you don't like it though- maybe you would be better off devoting your reading time to books and authors you enjoy.


This is a good point. I read all of Thomas Hardy's novels when I was a teen-ager and LOVED them. I thought he was my favorite author. When I came to England, I thought, "Okay, I'll reread them- go down to Dorchester and the area of the country he called "Wessex" and really experience them that way.
Didn't work...I don't know what happened in the intervening years- I know I wasn't smarter and more patient back then- but for some reason, I couldn't reread him. I chalked it up to all the more modern stuff I've read that has influenced and changed my taste as well as the fact that I knowing I'd already read it, affected my ability (on a subconscious level) to read it again. I'm like you- so many books, so little time- so I rarely take the time to reread anything..most of my pleasure in reading a book is finding out what happens in the story. If I already know that-I'm usually not able to pretend that I don't-not even if I like the language.

A poem on the other hand, I'll read over and over again for beauty of the language.

But yeah, things suit you differently at different times in your life.

I've been staring at the above paragraph trying to figure out how you can not know what suits you. I'm bewildered. If you like it, it suits you. If you don't, it doesn't.

It's true that our tastes change. Something that's appealing now maybe seem trite or irrelevant a few years from now. So what. You're reading it now!

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to read what you have to read now. Save what you want to read for when you have time. When I was in college, we rarely got to read more than one or two books by the same author. If I found someone I liked, I made a list of the other books I wanted to read by that author. It was a huge list. After I graduated, I read each and every book on that list--on my terms, in my time, and in the order I wanted.

One more thing. If you read something because you have to, then I say read it, don't skim it.

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic or scolding. Don't mean to. But, JB, you confuse me.

J-B, you don't really make me uncomfortable !! (and I admire your honesty).

When I was in high school, and we had to read set material, I was the secret nerd who had to pretend to hate being forced to do it. Like the "Diary of Anne Frank" - we all hated that...(except I didn't).

As for Dickens being about words, well it's really only a little bit "about words" for me. It's more about characters, and humanity to me. Dickens, I think, along with Tolkien, (and maybe even Anne Frank) made me the humanist I see myself as today.

I agree with you Eorl. Good books aren't or shouldn't be just about words. On another thread in this book forum, someone asked me what I though made a book great. Here's the link:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2483390#2483390

I feel very strongly about books. Very strongly. Maybe what's confusing me is that I understand why J-B is reading, other than books he has to read.

I'm sorry I'm being so dense--and stubborn. I'll be quiet and go away.

Dickens is one of the more inventive crafters of the paragraph you will find. I read over some of his works a few months back, seeking clues how to improve my own performance. I concluded that no one can be taught that kind of genius.

JB
You have not been unanimously criticized at all. Mostly, we are in sympathy.

Hi J-B,

I don't have a particular problem with leafing per se -- especially in the circumstances described (so many books, so little time...)

I was taking issue with the idea you'd "finished" a book you'd leafed through, though. In terms of discussing it intelligently (like at your University of Chicago program) or just ticking it off of your list as "finished," it's not. If you merely leaf through it, it remains unfinished.

As for suitability:

I usually read a good chunk of the book (maybe 1/5?) before I decide that it's just not something I want to read. (I've gone back to "Life of Pi" several times, getting maybe a third through it, before deciding I just don't like it and that's that.) I'm never too final about these decisions, though. I very much agree with what Edgar had to say about coming back to books. I find that things run in both directions -- books I had no patience for the first time around end up grabbing me, and then some old favorites seem boring (or contrived, or pretentious, or...) the second time around.

Hi everybody

I have spent a zesty reading night on the floor of our local bookstore ( called Avant-garde, private-owned). For hours I leapt from astrophysics to capitalism, from Fassbinder's biography to ancient Chinese poems --- and I seemed to have absorbed all... Superb night. (though I will have a big exam tomorrow...)


Roberta,

No, don't leave. You quite remind me of the nature of this particular reading. Though it's not "required", its still written in the course description. I will think of the page quota method.

I don't often have doubts on what books "suit" me. Yet they are evident when a not particularly interesting book becomes my aim of work.



Sozobe,

I will by no means shut my door forever to Dickens I am always open, both consciously, and, unconsciously (and who are not always open on this unconscious level?)


Ed,

I have taken by heart your comment on Dickens.


Aidan
I keep my "London-book-reading-purchasing-hunting" on Virginia Woolf. She is the writer I feel who could only be read in the land she lived on, in the book-cover that was perfectly torn by age, not so old and not so young.

I kind of love her. I don't want to waste her words in some cheap environment with some cheap paper. I haven't read her longer stories yet. Those, as I say, are reserved for the future.


Eorl
Guess what? I was just thinking of Tolkien before turning on the computer. I was thinking that, writers like Tolkien (and also Borges, Arthur C Clarke...) should only be read on pages that were printed decades ago, with, their book-covers delicately frowned and every turning of the page sending forth a wooded flavor.



Btw, by "word", I actually mean every noble thing associated with it. Those certainly include "book", which certainly include what it includes. Since using this word "word" could cause misunderstanding, I will pay more attention with using it

JB

Gigantic mistake in what I wrote:




That should have said that I DON'T understand why J-B reads.

Sorry.

Gone again.

Hi Sozobe,

I have just finished a 30-page-quota. It's a lot better than I expected. The descriptions of characters are impressive. I seem to savour more now.

Books are usually written for contemporary audiences. Dickens works first became popular as serials in "The Strand". Each episode had to catch the reader, continue and develop previous characters and plot, build to a mini-climax, and leave the reader thirsty for more. Dickens was a master of that approach, and his novels were wildly popular. The collected stories tend to be long, with occasional redundancies to insure that the reader doesn't "forget" what's already happened.

In the 19th century books were less common than they are now, and a literate family had to make their books last longer. The most commonly owned book was, of course, the Bible and many folks ended up committing much of it to memory. Shakespeare was probably the next most common book, and the most popular of his plays were well known by enormous numbers of people who might know little else. Modern literature, that is stuff written by and for the 19th century, tend to be long with elaborate descriptions of characters and setting. Intricate plots and action that might cover years in the characters lives were common.

Humans love stories, but during the 19th century finding stories to entertain, instruct and amuse were hard to come by. Families played at musical entertainments. They attended church, revivals and traveling theaters when those were available. People got their stories from reading the Bible, a cherished book, or magazine. The work day and week were much longer and more strenuous than they are today. After a long days labor, a family would eat, and go to bed in the absence of electrical lighting. For the family to gather around a lantern to hear the most literate person in the family to read the next chapter in a long story was a special treat. A Dickens' novel like Great Expectations read in installments might provide a family with a whole year's entertainment.

There is much to learn from a close study of Dickens, and Great Expectations is a reasonably good choice for a college student. This is about learning, not loving ... though that may come later. How does a master writer construct a sentence to carry his meaning while engaging the reader? What power does one word choice have over another? How is a plot constructed so that it seems natural and believable. How did Dickens slowly build tensions to a climax while maintaining interest over a long period of time. 19th century authors, perhaps Dickens more than most, knew how to build fully-rounded characters that capture a reader's imagination and remain memorable long after the book is completed. Dickens was a great moralist and advocate of social reform; how did he manage to communicate those ideas/concepts withing the constraints of writing a popular novel for people who easily recognized preaching when they heard it? Dickens wrote during a time when novels were expected to conform much more closely to the "rules" than novels written after the mid-20th century. These are just a few of the "lessons" to be learned in reading Great Expectations as an example of the 19th century English novel. This is an important part of understanding how literature in the 20th century developed. Read the book!

I never cared much for 19th century English novels until I was forced into reading some of them in college. I really hated Thackeray's Vanity Fair, but felt guilty for not seeing it through. I finally read the book when I was in my 40's, and now it is one of my favorite novels.

When you are reading for pleasure alone, a fast perusal of the book is fine. I've been known to set aside books after a chapter because I didn't like the writing. When I find a writer whose writing is fresh and carries my interest, I'll read everything I can get. Some books, on the other hand, aren't about the writing or enjoyment, but about providing me with facts, ideas, and new ways of looking at the world. Those I read more reluctantly if they are poorly written, but you just grind your teeth and muddle through. Why, oh why isn't it mandatory for writers with important information to be good writers? Which is ultimately better, a good writer with little to say, or a bad writer who has much to say but is unable to communicate?

BTW, I habitually read a book by percentages. I sit down and determine that I'll read 20-33% of the book. That keeps me focused to complete 3-4 books each week. If the book captures my imagination and interest, I might read it straight through. If there is a whole lot to consider, think about, and digest, I might take a whole week to read a book. Some books I've never completed after years of reading, i.e., Finnegan's Wake. I doubt that I'll ever fully finish, much less understand, that book. Oh well ............

Hi everyone

I am thinking of revising this thread into some kind of personal (English) reading diary. It will be a place where I share with all of you what I read, what I savor, what I think, and what I, certainly, doubt. (Technically I seem unable to change the thread's name. Also personally, I like the spirit of the sceptics in this word :wink: )

Bear in mind that I am still a non-native speaker in this language. So, frequently I may raise questions that merely rest on the level of words and expressions.

JB

I like this idea, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Beside my Dickens quota, I am also reading Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grasses these days. Reading may not be a precise word. Actually, it's discovering.

(red words) concern my question)



(how to understand the word "chemistry"?)

Whitman had, an ideal life form and an ideal poet form in my eyes. There was so much energy, so robust a thing revolving in his bosom. He was the one who spoke for new things. He was the chanter of a new stage, a new vision, a new engine and a new hope of humanity.

I like people who chant or strive for new things.

JB