Dear Keri & Kira (together, you're Kiri),
I totally agree with you, Keri. I came from a reading family and was encouraged to read from an early age and I think that this has had a huge, positive impact on my life. I read constantly, and I read everything, from non-fiction biographies of civil war heroes to the Game of Thrones series, but there are some books which just don't live up to my standards. I have no problem not finishing a book.
Sometimes, I feel bad about abandoning a book (like, when I tried to read The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which was so very boring), but usually, I'm able to justify my decision. Sometimes, it's hard to admit to yourself that you've failed with a book (which is why I've been reading The Age of Innocence for almost two years and I probably should just start at the beginning again). In my mind, there are two good reasons to stop reading a book.
Firstly, if the book is poorly written, cliched or just plain bad, it's not worth reading. There are some books that are so bad that it causes you mental anguish to try to read them. I think you both know the sort of book I'm talking about; a disproportionate amount of these books happen to be about vampires. Although I'm in favor of light, fun reads, I still think that you should make an effort to find non-serious books that are well written. The way I see it, a poorly written book is doing you more harm than good. Everyone knows that writers improve with reading, if you go from reading Shakespeare to reading Twilight, your writing will certainly suffer.
The second reason to abandon a book is if it's just not making any sense to you. It's okay to admit that you're not in a place where you can understand or appreciate a book. There are some books that are just never going to make sense to you because you have no interest in the subject matter or you just can't identify with the characters. That's all right; that's why there are so many different books. Somewhere out there, there's a book for you. However, I think that, in most cases, if you don't succeed with a book the first time you try to read it, you should put it down for a year or two and then try again. Sometimes, you just need to gain a little perspective and maturity before you can understand what the writer was trying to do. For example, after taking an Ancient Civilizations class last fall, I now have a much greater appreciation for Greek Drama.
When this happens, I wouldn't say that I've 'quit' on a book, I'm just taking a break. Don't get me wrong, sometimes its worthwhile to struggle through a book, but you have to know yourself as a reader first. If you find yourself giving up on a lot of books, however, you may need to pull up your literary socks, buckle down, and do some power reading.
This sort of ties back to Keri's last post. I think that kids these days give up to easily on books. Increasingly, children expect instant gratification from their sources of entertainment. It breaks my heart when I see kids playing on their iPads and phones instead of reading books. While I'm as guilty of enjoying Angry Birds as the next person, I know that there is nothing like the satisfaction of reaching the end of a nice, thick book (unless, there's a sequel and the author has left everything on a cliff hanger, then, you just get angry). For example, for me, Tale of Two Cities did not come together until the last two or three chapters. The last few lines of the book break my heart, but, in order to appreciate them, you must first wade through several hundred pages of hefty, Victorian prose. However, in the end it's a lot more satisfying than any app or mindless TV show.
Speaking of TV, I'd like to move on to my next question for the two of you. As you both know, I've been watching a lot of 'historical' television drama series lately. I put 'historical' in quotation marks because shows like The Borgias and The White Queen are more 'based on real events' than hard and solid textbook facts. Of course, I also read a lot of historical fiction as well. I am currently reading a novel about The Borgia family that differs significantly from the TV show in the way it portrays some of the main characters. Of course, this makes you wonder, what were these people really like? Is it even possible to know? In the case of people who have been dead for hundreds of years, like the Borgia family, I think that the answer is no, but what about more modern historical figures.
For example, I recently read a novel called Z about Zelda Fitzgerald. The book portrays her as a woman who struggled to find her own voice in a household that she shared with one of the greatest writers of her generation. This is a more sympathetic view of her than other books about the same people/time period that I have encountered. In The Paris Wife, for instance, Hadley Hemingway is juxtaposed with Zelda. The message seems to be that while Hadley is tough and dependable, Zelda is flighty and vapid. Which book is correct? Obviously, neither author could truly know what it was like to be Zelda Fitzgerald, but it makes me upset when authors present a view of a historical character that is so obviously skewed.
I recently wrote a post about Shakespeare's malignant of Richard III on one of my other blogs. While I understand that authors, especially greats artists like Shakespeare, are entitled to a little artistic license, is it fair to completely destroy the image and reputation of a real, flesh and blood person in the way Shakespeare destroyed King Richard? Where do we draw the line when it comes to dramatizing real life?
Maria
No comments:
Post a Comment