understanding literature

[ucdawg12]

I just finished a book that was recommended to me by someone on these forums, Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I really enjoyed this book but I am really struggling to understand the meaning behind it! The thing is, I don't want to look up criticisms of this book so that I can understand its depth (that wouldnt be much fun would it? ;) ), I would like to be able to understand it on my own and so I am wondering if people ever become capable of understanding literature themselves. I am not very well read, but I am going to start reading a lot more as I really enjoyed GGG.

Do you guys have to read a book more than once to get what it is saying or do you generally have an idea of what its about (I mean, I understood the plot, just some of the meaning there and in particular some of the characters mindsets I can't understand)? Is this ability able to be learned?

[Elinor Dashwood]

There are times when I read books and just dont get what point the author is making, (The Edible Bride) and there are books that I just do not understand the plot such as Tess of the D'Urbervilles, which I have read once and will probably never touch again.

I understand your point about not reading criticism, but just because you read someone's point of view doesnt mean you have to agree with it. You may find that some of their ideas help you to create new ideas and opinions of your own. If you really dont like literary criticism you could try something like York Notes which go over the key themes of books. But its good that you want to learn by yourself. I think its entirely possible to gain more understanding from books, and you should find that as you read more you will be more sesitive to things like hidden meanings and such.

[stlukesguild]

I would like to be able to understand it on my own and so I am wondering if people ever become capable of understanding literature themselves. I am not very well read...

You have seemingly answered your own question here. You would like to be able to understand literature to a greater extent... but you are not (by your own admission) extremely well read. The ability to read literature easily (or shall I say fluently because great literature can certainly remain a pleasant challenge to even the most experienced reader) is something that develops over time and with experience. I would certainly recommend reading literary criticism as well as works of literature (although I'd avoid the more esoteric critics for the time being). A good critic can shine a spotlight upon certain aspects of a book which you may never have considered, and also convey his or her own enthusiasm for reading good books. Nothing, however, is more essential than your own experience of reading. With time and experience certain difficulties fade away... or rather become pleasures in themselves (archaic vocabulary, poetic structure, rhythm, non-linear narrative, shifting points of view, irony, non-trustworthy narrators, etc...). Many writers write with the assumption that their audience will be as well read as they. John Barth writes with his own love of various predecessors (J.L. Borges, James Joyce, Kafka, the frame stories of the Arabian Nights, the Decameron, Don Quixote and the Canterbury Tales clearly in his veins. Certainly he can be read and understood (with some effort) without having read all of his favorite predecessors... but certainly the well-read audience will have a rather different experience. Indeed, I would suggest that one of the greatest reasons to re-read great books is not because they have changed... but because over time we do.:)