Limiting the books we read

[Lioness_Heart]

A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

[aabbcc]

I believe that one should be acquainted with the basics of classical literature, for the sake of general education, but that by no means one should limit oneself to any prescribed canon. I likewise see nothing wrong with reading pop-culture literature and, if dosed, I cannot see how could it be harmful. Read whatever the hell you please, as long as you are satisfied as a reader, you are doing it right.

Now, if one is professionally into literature, of course that my answer would differ a bit. In that case I would expect greater diversity in choice, including being rather well-versed in classical literature alongside one's personal and professional preferences. However, even some comparative literature majors rest their mind with frivolous literature (even though they say that with time you lose ability to enjoy it).

As you cannot, in your lifetime, read absolutely everything you wish, you will inevitably have to draw a line somewhere, but I do not think that anyone else but you should make a criteria for drawing that line - any critic, professor, anyone else. It is your choice, and the most important is that you are fine with it. Forcing yourself with tons of 'hard' literature you cannot stand is not very wholesome for you or your joy of reading, nor is forcing yourself to read 'frivolous' literature if you dislike it. Just read what you like and do not stress too much over it - make up for some basics if you missed them, if you feel like, and enjoy what you will.

[Dori]

Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

It's not necessary, I don't think. "Frivolous" literature only shows us what we already know and, again, where our appreciation is due. At least, that's what it does for me.

[Charles Darnay]

I don't agree with that at all (limiting yourself). Open mindedness is a great way to experience literature. You take the good, you take the bad - sometimes you don't know what's good and bad until you have already read it. Don't reject a book just because it is not on a "must-read" list.

[Dark Muse]

It seems a lot of people have that idea that one should be picky and highly selective and elitiest about what they read. And that is find for them if that is what they like.

But I personally disagree with that, that is, it does not work for me. Classics are great, but I have had some remarkable experinces with books that many others would not give a second look at. And I do enjoy to read things that others probably would look down upon.

Sure there are somethings I would not read, becasue they do not appeal to my interests, but I am very ecclectic. I read a wide varity of things, and I do not limit myself only to books that have thier high praises sung. Not to say some of these books are not deserving, but just becasue it is a classic, doesn't mean everyone has to love it either.

So sure I enjoy reading what could be considered more "serious" liteature. But I also like Anne Rice, Stephen King, Fantasy, and Historical Fiction, among other things.

And my plan is just to read as much as I possibly can, I know I will not be able to read everything, but I am not going to let that cenosor me from reading certain things I may enjoy just becasue they are not high-brow.

[Virgil]

A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

I assume you live in a free country Lioness. No one should tell you what you should read in your free time. No book is harmful, as far as I could see. If you enjoy a "frivilous" book by all means read one. And if any snobs give you a supercilious look, I say give them the finger.

[Dark Muse]

LOL, good one Virgil

[jgweed]

It is useful to maintain a balance between reading for fun and reading for profit, as long as one is capable of making the distinction between the two.

[Whifflingpin]

"To find your handsome prince you've got to kiss a lot of frogs"

[kiki1982]

I don't know, but I suppose there are many people who feel like that, though.
But we must also bear in mind, that not being open-minded could also result in a problem. Being too picky might result into having not read good stuff because it didn't fit into our list of requirements.
Besides, if you go on holiday you don't go to a museum every day, do you? You sometimes go and lie on the beach...
If you have to choose anyway because there is too much, then choose something that is interesting for you and is also fun, because being interesting and no fun is as empty as being merely fun.
But on the other hand in this society it is very difficult to get something that is interesting because the large majority only wants to have fun without using their brain. So the principle of only, in this case, reading what's interesting or 'great literature' is maybe a reaction against the general public who is not interested because 'too difficult'.
I went to a bookstore the other day for a book of Dumas. It was not in the rack and I asked whether they had it in stock. The shop attendant said: 'Dumas? That one you have to order.' Whereas the rack was full of the most popular books all in three copies, but Dumas was left out... This was in a frenchspeaking shop and I was looking for it in French. According to a student of mine 'Dumas is not read anymore unless required (in school) because his French is too difficult.' No idea where that comes from because I can read it and I am not a frenchspeaker.

I think one must find a healthy ballance between occupying the brain and being entertained, but sadly the largest part of society only wants to be entertained.

[Jozanny]

I am not sure where I really fit on this spectrum, but more towards serious literature, although I read more historical-commercial fiction when I was younger, and more science fiction. Mitchner, John Jakes, Sho-gun. And with SF I was all over the field...

butttt, and I know I am gonna catch heat for this-- I have come to dislike commercial American fiction, horror, thrillers, even better humorists like Weiner.

I want writers to make me work for it, serious, dense, intense stuff, and I freely admit I like too much in that vein--even European mystery writers treat the reader like an adult. American tripe is just too schematic, pooh!

And that is probably bad. I consume policy papers, get high on Foreign Affairs, love American Scholar, and wish I could get my hands on more serious critical books, but they cost more.

Is there a place for trashy entertainment? Yes, but the better educated the reader the better the survival of the West becomes, so I limit the trash.

[jgweed]

"I know I am gonna catch heat for this-- I have come to dislike commercial American fiction, horror, thrillers, even better humorists like Weiner."

Not from me.

"Yes, but the better educated the reader the better the survival of the West becomes, so I limit the trash."

And not just the survival of the West.

Regards,
John

[TheFifthElement]

I think: life is short, read what you like!

But I'm curious about this comment:

I believe that one should be acquainted with the basics of classical literature, for the sake of general education,

what is it about classical literature that is necessary for 'general education'? I'm not sure I understand.

[kelby_lake]

Me, I reckon you have to read a mixture of books to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad. There are some books that you might not want to waste your time with and some you just have to read, but the rest is up to you.

[aabbcc]

what is it about classical literature that is necessary for 'general education'? I'm not sure I understand.

Let me try to explain - I am not sure if there is a better syntagme to address this concept in English, though.

We have an expression cultura generale, which would roughly be applied to the basic set of "common knowledges" an educated individual is expected to have in a specific society (i.e. the exact definition of what are those "common knowledges" would depend upon one's time and place, though there certainly would be much overlapping), regardless of their personal and professional interests or what they do for living. Even though that set of knowledges is never 'officially' defined, each society is usually rather aware of what belongs to its cultura generale, and the set itself is usually an extended set of basic 'general education' one can receive in a better high school. Public demonstration of lack of that general knowledge is usually considered a shameful sign of bad education, in any society; and the more 'educated' and 'elitist' are the circles one finds oneself in, the more broader are the knowledges one is expected to have, and the greater shame if one demonstrates not having them.

Now, what I actually had in mind was that, for each society, there is a set of 'classic' books which had influenced it significantly, or which are for other reasons deemed to be of great cultural importance. A part of it one is most likely going to be forced to go through by one's formal education (as schools in each country usually teach - at least on high school level - precisely those pieces of literature), a part one can make up on one's own. What I wanted to say was that I think it is important to go through certain books, not because they are on Harold Bloom's or X Y's list, but because your society, your surrounding, sees them as elements of those "common knowledges" you are simply expected to have. Needless to mention, the exact 'list' differs from one society to another, but I believe one can pretty much guess what one is expected to have read, and those are the works I think one should read, in addition to whatever they please to read for their interests.