4 ms·

Happened to me in HS: Other guy: Why do you read all these books? Me: I don't know, just to say I've read them I guess. Other guy: Well I still say I've read

• projektfu 10y ago
  So, does this suggest that the new canon is full of books that are actually uninteresting? Because it seems to me that canonical books should be there because everyone found them worthwhile, even if some of them seem daunting. For example, Les Misérables, is a worthwhile book, fully interesting in my opinion. I do sometimes read books because of the hype, like Catcher in the Rye, that I later wish I read something better. But the only book I read to say I read it was "The Beautiful and Damned" because I heard it called a book that you always wish you could say you had read but you never did. Of course, it wasn't as good as I hoped. But, dang, if you are reading just to be able to drop names, get a new hobby...
  • majormajor 10y ago
    David Foster Wallace (amusingly enough) wrote on such themes. IIRC, the piece I'm thinking of is a review of a biography of Dostoevsky. He talked about how many old classics are full of sincere, deeply held beliefs, that in more modern (postmodern) literature would be mocked endlessly. Strong beliefs are now mainly written about to tear them down with snark, and being ironic/jaded is the default posture of fiction. Is that accurate, and does that result in less interesting works? I think there's a definite argument to be made there.
    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      I think that finding something worth caring about that doesn't prove to be hollow is one of the fundamental problems of modern life, perhaps especially for intellectuals. So those works may be more interesting to people who wrestle with that in their personal lives.
      • majormajor 10y ago
        Ah, interesting side-question there: does the arrow point both ways? Disillusioned authors writing for a disillusioned public -> increased chance of public being disillusioned in the future if they grow up exposed primarily to media telling them everything is empty?
        • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
          Sure, there's a feedback loop. There always is in culture. But then the voices that go against the culture are sometimes the ones most worth hearing.
  • daxfohl 10y ago
    You read stuff because it's supposed to be genius. And sometimes you don't get it at all. So you wonder what's wrong with you. If you're committed you try again. And again. Until you get it and it's genuinely one of your favorites. That happened for me with Marquez and Pynchon. Still rereading Joyce and Proust. So yes you can't read just to say you've read, but you can start down that path just because you've heard you're supposed to. At least that's what my experience tells me. FWIW The Catcher in the Rye is meh out of perspective, but when you look at the American canon before vs after you can't help but notice the originality and the influence.