On Reading

image from grammarly.com

"If you don't have time to read, you don't have time (or the tools) to write."

                                                                                                -- Steven King

Reading and writing are kinda like the chicken and the egg for me. Not because I wrote before I could read. But I'm sure I told stories before I could read. So the gift of writing just made it possible to tell stories whether or not I had an audience.

When it comes to reading, I think people read according to their need. If you are considering buying a car, you read for information -- collecting facts, comparing them, and considering them. If you are on a spiritual journey, you read with the heart, seeking enlightenment. If you are tired and need to
relax so you can sleep, you read to be taken away from the day that has pushed you and pulled you into such knots and grotesqueries that you do not recognize yourself. Reading frees you to drift into Shakespeare's "Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleeve of care."

And then there's assigned reading for a grade in class; reading recommended by a colleague or friend so you can share thoughts and opinions; and, maybe best of all, entertainment -- purely entertainment. To scare you with things that go bump in the night. To thrill you with a high speed chase, with high decibel explosions, with a death-defying leap from a rocky cliff. To break your heart with lost love or failed dreams. To exhilarate you with love found again and dreams realized.

But, if you're a writer, you may have become an analytical reader -- someone who parses formats and language use and rules of style.

Dull! you say. Then you are not a writer. I have in this later part of my life come to enjoy discovering formats and language use and style in those books that I particularly like.

I used never to reread a book. Any book. No matter if I liked it and certainly not if I didn't like it.

First, I learned to watch movies more than once. If the movie was done well, I almost always got caught up in the story the first time I watched. I could not then and cannot now appreciate the structure. Indeed, if it is done well, I can't even see it. I do not hear the words as word choices the writer puts in the actors' mouths. I do not recognize the nuances the directer catches and keeps -- the framing of a scene; the lighting on the main character's hair, sometimes beautiful, sometimes disheveled; the color of a ribbon; the way an actor walks, shoulders upright and proud or collapsed in on them self, defeated. The first time through, I am unaware of all the intentional components used to draw me into the story, to help me experience it as if it were first-hand.

I watch it again looking for those intentional things.

Now I read that way, too. First for the story. Then, if it works, I read it again to see how it's put together. What is it about this book that generates thought, that inspires emotion? What is it that keeps me turning pages and wanting to see how it ends? That makes me care what happens to the characters? These are the elements and strategies I want to employ in my writing.

The hard kind of analytical reading comes when I don't like the book. Whether I like or dislike a book seems not to be dependent on how revered the author is or if it's on The New York Times Best Seller List. And it is the book I don't like that I must explore without the comforts of enthusiasm and admiration. I must identify why I don't like it?

Is it inaccessible? The James Boys come to mind -- James Joyce and Henry James.

Is it the story's premise? Steven King whose books I cannot finish before dark and can't read after dark. Tom Clancy who starts wars in altogether too believable ways. Both, by-the-bye are excellent writers. I just don't like such terrifying stories.

Poorly written books by people I like. I always want to give them the name of my writing teacher and encourage them to hire a good editor -- not just a line editor, but content, too.

These are the books that may very well improve my writing the most. These document the places I do not want to go and the manner I do not want to use to get there. I want to write books people can read reasonably easily. Books that will be exciting enough, but without the danger of nightmares. And books that will not jar them out of the story because of poor craft.

Writing is hard work that requires I study the craft. That's what reading is -- analytical reading is studying the craft.

To the barricades! Into the trenches! I raise my clinched fist and shout, "Read on!"

The Hobbit -- a review

Where were you when . . . ?

I do not remember where I was the first time I read most books. But I do remember where I was when I first read The Hobbit. I was working in the State Office of the Oklahoma Welfare Department and going to college. I was not yet married and had no children.

The Hobbit was ostensibly a children’s book. My attitude has always been that if I hadn’t read a book when I was the traditional age to read that book, then now was as good a time as any. I’ve since read The Hobbit three times and as of yesterday, a fourth.

The first time I could read it only on breaks, at lunch, and in between classes and studying, and those my normal life activities that seemed necessary. I resented terribly those intrusions into the world Tolkien was telling me about. The wizard and dwarves, the trolls, the goblins and worgs. (Such a change from the classical fare one gets in college literature classes! Thackary and George Elliot and the so-called modern writers James Joyce and that other James boy, Henry. My professors must have been as old as they seemed.) The spiders and elves and the dragon. It was awful to have to quit reading and enter data into the computer or answer the phone or read an assignment when what I really wanted was to find out if Bilbo Baggins survived.

Thank goodness, the book is both short and a quick read. I wasn’t left long, dangling by a thick thread of spider’s silk or wandering through a dark and dangerous wood or trapped in an elf king’s subterranean castle or a dragon’s lair.

Now when I read it, I know the end and life’s interruptions don’t seem so frustrating and I can think fondly of my return to Bilbo’s story. Now my only dissatisfaction is that my grandchildren live 817 miles away and I can’t read it to them. Tolkien wrote this book to be read aloud. You can hear it in his conversational telling of the story.

“Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty.”

It’s like sitting before the fireplace with your favorite uncle and you’re not sure that his stories are not true. In fact, you hope they are true. And even though it’s quiet and safe where you are, you can see and feel and smell Bilbo’s dangers and he’s no bigger or stronger than you are.

Maybe I shall have to barge into my neighbor’s home at bedtime and read to their children. Tonight, and tomorrow night, and the night after that until our hobbit is safely back in his hobbit hole under the hill with his sword hung over the mantelpiece and his coat of mail lent to a museum. Of course even his homecoming turned out to be an adventure of sorts.

H is for Hemingway

 

I like this picture because he's smiling, a rather mischievous smile, at that

My cousin and I recently discussed Hemingway. There are few famous writers whom I appreciate less than him. Faulkner and James Joyce, being two. I must admit that I think the failing is mine in their cases. I simply can’t follow their stories. John le Carré fits in that group, now that I think about it.

          Ernest Hemingway and Henry James, however, I do not like because I do not like their writing styles. They both tell good stories, but it’s the way they tell them.

Henry James’ run-on sentences bring out the editor in me. I heard someone once describe him as “chewing more than he bit off.”

Hemingway, on the other hand, never met a complex sentence he liked. And very few compound ones. In The Old Man and the Sea he makes me crazy with his uninspired attributions: “and the old man said,” “and the boy said,” “and the old man said.” But it is a good story and it’s a skinny little book so I wasn’t frustrated with it as long as I was with James’ The Golden Bowl.

Generally speaking, I am not interested in authors’ biographies. If I like their work then I don’t want to know much about them, because I might not like them and that would color my enjoyment of their work. If I don’t like their work, then who cares about their lives?

 Call it inspiration or curiosity or maybe just a way to avoid working on my own book – I found myself reading Wikipedia’s entry on Hemingway. His story would make an epic novel, filled with sex, violence, exotic locations, famous people (some wealthy and powerful), and a tragic ending.

 After all this complaining, I can recommend For Whom the Bell Tolls and A Farewell to Arms. Plus, I think his short fiction is excellent. Now I think I’ll read A Moveable Feast, his autobiography, and see what he thought of his life.