Today's Sunday Guardian column.
Now
that Jaipur's "largest free literary festival on earth” has come to a
close, it’s time to return to the quiet, private activity that makes all such
festivals possible. Reading. As Anna Quindlen observes in How Reading Changed My Life, “Of all the many things in which we
recognize some universal comfort...reading seems to be the one in which the
comfort is most undersung.”
Her
own love of reading is what Wendy Lesser, founding editor of the Threepenny Review, unpacks in her new
book, Why I Read. Why does she read? “To
pass the time. To savor the existence of time.To escape from myself into
someone else’s world.To find myself in someone else’s words.To exercise my
critical capacities. To flee from the need for rational explanations.” In
short, as the book’s subtitle has it, reading yields serious pleasure.
Lesser
goes on make clear where she finds such pleasure, and in this, she reveals
herself to be more conservative than catholic. Nineteenth century literary
realism is her touchstone, and Henry James her exemplar. Authors bare their
prejudices and partialities in the books they write; readers do so with the ones
they read.
Many
of Lesser’s opinions – and some can be incisive – arise from a dissection of
her favoured tradition. On plot and character, for example, she writes, “it
doesn’t make sense to think in terms of plot versus character: plot modifies
character and character modifies plot…we know what people are only by seeing
what they do when confronted with what happens to them”.
It’s
not that Lesser only focuses on so-called literary fiction: happily, murder
mysteries and detective stories come in for praise, too. “A novel like A Coffin for Dimitrios or Ripley Under Ground is as good as almost
any book written during that time, and I venture to say we will be reading
these novels for as long as people read John Updike or Toni Morrison.”
She
is acerbic, however, when it comes to those who fall outside her preferred
purview: “There is a certain kind of writer who seems to feel that unless he is
breaking apart everything that came before him, composing something that in his
own view is astonishingly new, he is not writing great literature.” She makes
the point that style and structure should be at the service of overall intent
and not merely ornamental, but strangely, scorns those who have done so. Franz
Kafka’s “strongest works are almost unbearable because of the airlessness of
their self-enclosure” and Joyce’s Ulysses
“is a novel that has always gotten on my nerves”. The past, as always, has the
answers, with Cervantes and Swift held up as successful innovators. (To be
fair, there's also praise for Murakami and Bolano as well as -- oddly enough --
Norman Mailer.)
Other
Modernists are hardly mentioned, and she also disdains the unreliable narrator,
“that foolish, pathetic guy who thinks he’s telling us the whole story when we
and the author are obviously meant, at least eventually, to see around him”.
Anyone who’s read Ishiguro’s The Remains
of the Day, to take just one example, would find that hard to digest.
Lesser’s
slightly more accommodating of e-books. Preferring the physical object for its
spatial orientation, among other things, she nonetheless is a fan of Project
Gutenberg and rightly points out that those "who have grown up reading
bound books will miss them if they disappear, not because printed books are
objectively preferable, but because we will feel deprived of something we care
about".
Such
devotion to reading in an age of electronic distraction is admirable, but
Lesser's insistence on preferred texts makes her book overly prescriptive. Then
again, her title does have a personal pronoun. For a different point of view,
one has to turn to another logophile, Alberto Manguel, who, echoing Kafka, once
wrote: “I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book
we are reading doesn't shake us awake like a blow on the skull, why bother
reading it in the first place?"