reading as a lifestyle

[threeplusfire]

I'm deeply interested in the results of the poll in Saturday's entry. (Thank you for filling it out.) Many of the comments touched on reasons or ideas that I didn't include in the poll.

Currently I'm reading a book called Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima that I admit I picked up because I read something that compared the author to Dostoevsky and because my knowledge of serious business Japanese literature is sparse. Honestly though, it feels a little like a formal Japanese Catcher in the Rye and I've never had fond feelings towards that book. I'm not sure what it is that is preventing me from getting invested or interested in the book. Partly I think it is the style and maybe that's a translation issue. Maybe it sings and flows better in Japanese.

If there was a simple super power I could have, it would be a mastery of all languages so I could read everything.

As I mentioned, I've quit very few books. Something that surprised me in the poll results is the number of people who said they were more likely to quit reading a book they didn't enjoy if it was Serious Business Literature. (Those Books With Important Ideas! Books Professors Assign! Though the debate over whether we need such a distinction is for another time.) I'm even less likely to quit reading if it is something that falls onto that pile because I feel like I should figure out why I don't like, or what I'm missing that causes other people to feel it is such an important book. Sometimes I'm secretly worried that I'm not smart enough to get why the book seems to matter or why people find it important.

Catcher in the Rye is one of those books. I loathed it so strongly and was so genuinely puzzled by the appeal that I read it five times during a semester and made it a major part of a paper I wrote comparing it to another novel. I still don't like it, but I understand it more now. At least, I understand why it appeals to certain people and why it received the critical reception it did. But I had to read the damn book five times.

Two notable exceptions to my general habits - I have never made it through any Faulkner ever and I forced myself to read the entirety of the execrable Twilight. Proof perhaps that I care more about vampires than Americana, I suppose. (Though I did stop after the first one and I couldn't get rid of it fast enough.) In the case of Faulkner I found it nearly unreadable with the dialogue and dialect, but not in the way of William S. Burroughs. When I first read Naked Lunch I could only manage fifteen or so pages a day before my brain would begin to hurt and I had to stop. I'm still really not sure why I can't find Faulkner engaging but I've stopped trying.

I'm far more likely to stop reading nonfiction, or fantasy fiction that I don't enjoy. I gave up on Robert Jordan a few years back because I had just stopped being interested even though at times his writing was engaging and cinematic. I stopped reading a book on the history of pineapples because the writing (by a television producer with the BBC) was so deplorable and wretched that it wasn't even worth it to gain a few more exciting bits of trivia. (I love food trivia too.) But I ultimately don't feel the same compulsion to understand why I'm bored or the same compulsion to keep going in search of some elusive literary merit.

At this time, I've read about 75 pages of the Mishima novel and I think I'm just going to put it aside in hopes I can come back to it some other day. Feeling vaguely guilty at my lack of literary fortitude I went and bought an armful of books - two historical novels of vastly different time periods, two memoirs from women of the early 20th century, some classic science fiction short stories and a book of nonfiction about food. Surely one of them will capture my interest.

If you're curious about what I have read recently, I have lists from the past couple years.
2008
2009
so far, 2010

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

I think Mishima is hard the way the Russian writers are hard for a lot of people. You either sort of innately relate to the style and tone or you don't know why you're reading it. I like Mishima a great deal, but it's really not everyone's bag.

[quixotic.livejournal.com]

I haven't read that particular Mishima book -- the only one I've ever read was Confessions of a Mask, which I picked up for the subject matter. I really liked that book, but I specifically enjoy that sort of masochistic/self-loathing story for some sick reason I should probably discuss with my therapist, and the writing didn't leave me wanting to read anything else he did.

I don't know what Japanese writers you've read, but if you're interesting in trying some other serious/classic Japanese literature, I recommend The Woman in the Dunes by Kobo Abe and A Personal Matter by Kenzaburo Oe.

[halfacork.livejournal.com]

When everyone tells me a book is supposed to be good, that it is Serious Business, I think I give the book less of a chance actually. I don't believe genetic "people". If someone I know tells me it is a good book, then I might try harder.

Books are my escapism. If I'm not enjoying myself, it defeats the reason I picked up a book in the first place.

The exception being books I'm reading for professional development. I look at those as a necessary evil.

[psylent1.livejournal.com]

Weird - I was going to mention "Catcher In The Rye" as another book I punted after restarting it 3 or 4 times, but got caught up in Kerouac's Wiki page and forgot to mention it. Same with "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair."

Serious Business Lit - I skim generously, pick and choose.

[coyotegoth.livejournal.com]

FWIW- as far as Mishima goes, I liked Forbidden Colors (which Larry Kramer once tried to make into a movie) better; as far as Catcher goes- it's too much a book of its time; Holden Caulfield loses his meaning when I run into two dozen of him each time I scan my friends list. (I can't speak as to Faulkner, myself, although I got The Protable Faulkner recently.)

[alainn-sorcha.livejournal.com]

Just last month, I gave up on "Jane Eyre." I kept trying because it was a book club assignment, and I kept thinking that if it's part of a "classic" canon, it must be worth reading. But then I decided they must have been letting illiterates vote in that poll because it's the most ridiculous thing ever. I hated "Wuthering Heights," too. Frankly, if I decide I need a bunch of doom and histrionic nonsense, I'll go buy a Harlequin romance. At least then the language will be familiar and I won't have to translate every damn sentence. Trying to read this book also led me to believe that sometimes being the first at something fools people into thinking the book is better than it really is.

I also tried to read "The Elegance of the Hedgehog" this year, and all it did was remind me of all the reasons I find French people annoying. So I gave up on that one too.

I'm impressed that you were willing to read "Catcher in the Rye" so many times. I barely got through it once, and I'm convinced the reason I never liked it is because I've never been an adolescent boy. Or had the luxury of being a bored rich person. It's the same reason I think I couldn't finish "On the Road."

I do finish books occasionally, despite the evidence offered by this comment. I've hit my goal for this year already, and if I could just get through this fucking class, I might be able to add a few more to the list.

[splix.livejournal.com]

The Possessed: Adventures with Russian Books and People Who Read Them

I'm reading this now! I'm moving pretty slowly, but I'm about halfway through and still engaged, though I'm not sure how I feel about what feels like her sneering at non-academics. I'm waiting for her to change my mind...

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I hated that book so much. The essay about Tolstoy was the only real highlight for me and I'd read it when it was originally published in Harper's. The book frustrated me because it felt so unfocused. It hardly seemed like a book about Slavics at all, aside from a few moments. It also made me think "Thank heavens I didn't end up going to Stanford with this girl because I would have disliked her intensely."

[splix.livejournal.com]

Seriously? Shit. Does this mean I have to hear more about her grad school adventures? Bleh. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking "Isn't this about RUSSIAN LITERATURE?" BAH.

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

It's really not about Russian literature at all! Except the Tolstoy thing and she only sort of half baked that up (like any good slacker student) to get grant money if I recall. Seriously, that's the only interesting part of the book. What a misleading title.

[splix.livejournal.com]

Well, I've got that finishing-compulsion thing, so I'll press on, but I'm annoyed and disappointed that I'm not actually going to be reading about, yknow, BOOKS. Feck.

[maldeluxx.livejournal.com]

From Mishima, I loved "The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion". There are some of his books however that I've really not liked that much, so I think some of his books might work, some not. It really depends. :)