Am I Reading Wrong?

[IceM]

I've always viewed literature of any sort as a compendium of knowledge, revealing ideals, philosophies, even complaints of the world/life through the author's eyes. Of course, some literature is better than others. The best of this literature is capable of taking it's knowledge (themes) and transcending the book, adding some sort of wisdom or knowledge to the reader, augmenting the mind and dispelling human prejudices among many other ideas. For this reason, once again among others, I've wanted to become more well read; who wouldn't want to indulge in the knowledge of literary icons?

Am I reading wrong?

I just recently finished both A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and As I Lay Dying by Joyce and Faulkner respectively. I found A Portrait to be more applicable to my life, as both the protagonist and myself share similar struggles. As such, I've found the themes more relevant, the knowledge and wisdom more significant. This isn't the case for As I Lay Dying, however. It doesn't feel like the knowledge, the wisdom, the perspectives are as useful, relevant, even necessary. While I rejoiced in wisdom from Joyce, Faulkner was bittersweet. I didn't even feel an accomplishment after finishing the latter. I just felt...mundane.

My English teachers and some of us Litnet posters discuss how the revel in the accomplishment of finishing a book; how they feel themselves wiser; less biased; more refined. I'm just the opposite. I delve into novels in the search of knowledge that will augment the self and my being, and sometimes it backfires. Sometimes I'm left with a bittersweet feeling; I finished a classic novel but found nothing of importance; I became more well-read at the expense of no gain. While I enjoy reading, the feeling afterwards leaves me mundane.

Am I reading wrong? And, if so, how do I fix it?

[johnw1]

I've always viewed literature of any sort as a compendium of knowledge, revealing ideals, philosophies, even complaints of the world/life through the author's eyes. Of course, some literature is better than others. The best of this literature is capable of taking it's knowledge (themes) and transcending the book, adding some sort of wisdom or knowledge to the reader, augmenting the mind and dispelling human prejudices among many other ideas. For this reason, once again among others, I've wanted to become more well read; who wouldn't want to indulge in the knowledge of literary icons?

Am I reading wrong?

I just recently finished both A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and As I Lay Dying by Joyce and Faulkner respectively. I found A Portrait to be more applicable to my life, as both the protagonist and myself share similar struggles. As such, I've found the themes more relevant, the knowledge and wisdom more significant. This isn't the case for As I Lay Dying, however. It doesn't feel like the knowledge, the wisdom, the perspectives are as useful, relevant, even necessary. While I rejoiced in wisdom from Joyce, Faulkner was bittersweet. I didn't even feel an accomplishment after finishing the latter. I just felt...mundane.

My English teachers and some of us Litnet posters discuss how the revel in the accomplishment of finishing a book; how they feel themselves wiser; less biased; more refined. I'm just the opposite. I delve into novels in the search of knowledge that will augment the self and my being, and sometimes it backfires. Sometimes I'm left with a bittersweet feeling; I finished a classic novel but found nothing of importance; I became more well-read at the expense of no gain. While I enjoy reading, the feeling afterwards leaves me mundane.

Am I reading wrong? And, if so, how do I fix it?

Personally I read first and foremost for pleasure.

If you found Joyce moving may I suggest you read more Joyce? You're not going to connect with every author you come across. I don't enjoy Faulkner either.

But really I think you may be over analysing this a bit! Not all classic novels are going to somehow make you into a better person... My advice is just relax, stop expecting so much of yourself and literature and read what you think you're likely to enjoy/find moving.

[mal4mac]

If you read Harold Bloom, or Walter Pater, you will see the view that I take expounded in great detail. This is that literature is about 'aesthetic value'. Bloom doesn't unpack that term sufficiently for a groundling like me, but I think he's suggesting that books with 'aesthetic value' allow us to experience a higher pleasure, and the purpose of literature is to give us a great deal of pleasure.

Some people, like us, find ideas incredibly interesting, making them some of the greatest pleasures one can have. So many great works of literature are likely to be full of ideas. This is more so with Joyce, and less so with Faulkner (at least in the two works you site, which I also read recently.)

I think I enjoyed As I Lay Dying more than you, perhaps because I didn't expect the book to add to my stock of well-polished ideas. I found Faulkner's skipping between the different viewpoints, and the way he got really inside the minds of his (mostly) simple characters fascinating, and highly pleasurable.

Of course, Joyce got inside the mind of his *main* character in at least as an effective manner, and (as that mind was his own) his character was far more complex and interesting. But Faulkner did something almost as amazing & original. He got inside several other minds, minds of people who were in no way intellectuals or artists, just simple country folk.

You seem to be looking for books that will reflect you, and help you. Books with precise ideas that you can immediately apply to your life, maybe books that will train you to be a great artist. If so, I can see why you might dismiss Faulkner and take Joyce to heart. Myself, I'm just looking for books with the greatest 'aesthetic value', that is books that will give me the greatest all round pleasure. Part of that pleasure is variety. So I'll be reading more Joyce *and* Faulkner.

I used to have this "where are the ideas" attitude. Fortunately I lost it and I now enjoy writers like Wordsworth much more, he's famous for not having many ideas. But sometimes you just want to look at the daffodils...

[prendrelemick]

An interesting post IceM.
You cannot read wrong, what you discover in a book is yours. If it doesn't connect with you, then that is a valuable learning experience too. I believe there are millions of versions of books like Portrait of an Artist and As I Lay Dying , one for each of their readers, each unique and personal to each reader. To say that one person's experience with a book is more valuable than another's is a conceit perpetuared by literary acedemics

[Il Dante]

The way I see it, creative literature is art. And art can have many purposes. One purpose of literary art is to give us wisdom for living our lives (e.g. The Illiad, The Divine Comedy, Prometheus Bound, etc.). Another purpose is to make a case for a cause (e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front against war, Oliver Twist against mistreatment of the poor, 1984 against totalitarianism, Brave New World against applying science and rationalization too far, etc.). Still another purpose is to celebrate, exemplify, and embody the values of a civilization (e.g. Beowulf, the Aeneid). Still another purpose is simply to embody a beauty and sublimity that brings pleasure to the soul.

Since art is not science—it is a flexible category—it can be any of these things, and more that I did not list. And it can be a mixture of any of the above.

Different works of literature have different artistic goals; thus different works of literature require different approaches and different expectations. There's burgers and there's cheesecake; there's caviar and there's sushi. All are legitimate, but each is a different experience.

[One Gallant]

I don't think your reading wrong or even that there is such a thing as reading wrong.

I think the primary reason for a novel is to entertain. The sign of a great novel is one where some or, indeed, all the scenes stay with you. When this happens this is where you get how good the writer's ideas are and you know you related to them. The two best examples of this for me are Waiting for Godot by Beckett and Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky but,as you've found out yourself, it'll be different for different people.

If I had to recommend a "way of reading" I'd say read it, firstly and foremostly, as entertainment and then afterwards let it sink in then analyze it if you so wish.

I will say don't get weighed down too much by looking for what the "writer really means" or world changing ideas sometimes a good story is just that and nothing else.

Lastly,if you like Joyce I can't recommened Dubliners enough.

I hope this was helpful.

[mal4mac]

An interesting post IceM.
You cannot read wrong, what you discover in a book is yours. If it doesn't connect with you, then that is a valuable learning experience too. I believe there are millions of versions of books like Portrait of an Artist and As I Lay Dying , one for each of their readers, each unique and personal to each reader. To say that one person's experience with a book is more valuable than another's is a conceit perpetuared by literary acedemics

Or course you can read wrong. If an average three year old starts reading Ulysses then they are reading wrong.

You may not be bringing the right attitude or sufficient knowledge to a book. To think that everyone is equal as a reader is a conceit put forward by inadequate readers in an attempt to diminish better readers. Would you rather have Homer Simpson running a nuclear power plant or Richard Feynman?

Why should you think that all readers are equal when people are certainly not equally able at nuclear physics? I admire the humility of IceM in recognising that he might be reading wrong, it means there is a chance he can fix things. I questioned myself about the adequacy of my reading ability, and of what I was reading. It was a very useful exercise...


The way I see it, creative literature is art. And art can have many purposes. One purpose of literary art is to give us wisdom for living our lives (e.g. The Illiad, The Divine Comedy, Prometheus Bound, etc.). Another purpose is to make a case for a cause (e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front against war, Oliver Twist against mistreatment of the poor...

Different works of literature have different artistic goals; thus different works of literature require different approaches and different expectations. There's burgers and there's cheesecake; there's caviar and there's sushi. All are legitimate, but each is a different experience.

You are diminishing literature by trying to force it to be something it isn't, at least not primarily. The main purpose of literature is to bring aesthetic value into our lives. The main purpose of the Iliad is not "self help".

The main aim of the foodstuffs you mention is to provide pleasure to the diner. But it would be rather strange to say you eat caviar to get a good balance of proteins and fish oils! True. But totally missing the main point. All the foodstuffs provide pleasure, different pleasures, but still pleasures.

The same is true about different literary works. For self help you are likely to get more benefit from reading a handbook of CBT rather than the Iliad, but don't expect to get much pleasure from it. In the same way, you might build protein better my downing protein powder rather than caviar, but don't expect to get much pleasure from it.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Or course you can read wrong. If an average three year old starts reading Ulysses then they are reading wrong.

You may not be bringing the right attitude or sufficient knowledge to a book. To think that everyone is equal as a reader is a conceit put forward by inadequate readers in an attempt to diminish better readers. Would you rather have Homer Simpson running a nuclear power plant or Richard Feynman?

Why should you think that all readers are equal when people are certainly not equally able at nuclear physics? I admire the humility of IceM in recognising that he might be reading wrong, it means there is a chance he can fix things. I questioned myself about the adequacy of my reading ability, and of what I was reading. It was a very useful exercise...

What do you mean by the right attitude or sufficient knowledge? What attitude and knowledge should I be bringing? Once you're proficient at reading the words on the page then you are qualified to read whatever you choose.



The main aim of the foodstuffs you mention is to provide pleasure to the diner. But it would be rather strange to say you eat caviar to get a good balance of proteins and fish oils! True. But totally missing the main point. All the foodstuffs provide pleasure, different pleasures, but still pleasures.


Or it could be completely and totally normal. Lots of people eat certain foods for their nutrient content and no other reason. And a large percentage of those people gain more by doing this as far as they are concerned. The food may not bring aesthetic value (as you've put it) in terms of taste, but in other areas (eg. beach body).

http://www.tmuscle.com/ I doubt many people on this site would agree with you.

Who are you to dictate experience? If my interpretation of food is that it is a conduit for nutrients rather than a medium for taste then who are you to tell me that the reverse is true?


To the OP: You read one "classic" and didn't like it as much as another. Whats the big deal? I doubt you've missed anything. No work is objectively good, only agreed upon subjectively by a large number of people or a small number of influential people. I really think you're over-thinking it.

[kelby_lake]

I've always viewed literature of any sort as a compendium of knowledge, revealing ideals, philosophies, even complaints of the world/life through the author's eyes. Of course, some literature is better than others. The best of this literature is capable of taking it's knowledge (themes) and transcending the book, adding some sort of wisdom or knowledge to the reader, augmenting the mind and dispelling human prejudices among many other ideas. For this reason, once again among others, I've wanted to become more well read; who wouldn't want to indulge in the knowledge of literary icons?

Am I reading wrong?

I just recently finished both A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and As I Lay Dying by Joyce and Faulkner respectively. I found A Portrait to be more applicable to my life, as both the protagonist and myself share similar struggles. As such, I've found the themes more relevant, the knowledge and wisdom more significant. This isn't the case for As I Lay Dying, however. It doesn't feel like the knowledge, the wisdom, the perspectives are as useful, relevant, even necessary. While I rejoiced in wisdom from Joyce, Faulkner was bittersweet. I didn't even feel an accomplishment after finishing the latter. I just felt...mundane.

My English teachers and some of us Litnet posters discuss how the revel in the accomplishment of finishing a book; how they feel themselves wiser; less biased; more refined. I'm just the opposite. I delve into novels in the search of knowledge that will augment the self and my being, and sometimes it backfires. Sometimes I'm left with a bittersweet feeling; I finished a classic novel but found nothing of importance; I became more well-read at the expense of no gain. While I enjoy reading, the feeling afterwards leaves me mundane.

Am I reading wrong? And, if so, how do I fix it?

Do you mean by your post that you are reading in order to back up your own views of the world and you think that might be 'selfish'?
Everybody reads to back up their own views on life to an extent. The way you interpret a book is coloured by your own beliefs and experiences. However not every classic is going to agree with you about things you believe in. On one level, this is very annoying and is going to be less fun to read than one which agrees with your beliefs; on another, it's interesting to see and try to understand views which are different from your own. You have to understand other opinions before you can disgree with them. Otherwise you'll get into a rut of 'read and dispose'.

[IceM]

If you read Harold Bloom, or Walter Pater, you will see the view that I take expounded in great detail. This is that literature is about 'aesthetic value'. Bloom doesn't unpack that term sufficiently for a groundling like me, but I think he's suggesting that books with 'aesthetic value' allow us to experience a higher pleasure, and the purpose of literature is to give us a great deal of pleasure.

Some people, like us, find ideas incredibly interesting, making them some of the greatest pleasures one can have. So many great works of literature are likely to be full of ideas. This is more so with Joyce, and less so with Faulkner (at least in the two works you site, which I also read recently.)

I think I enjoyed As I Lay Dying more than you, perhaps because I didn't expect the book to add to my stock of well-polished ideas. I found Faulkner's skipping between the different viewpoints, and the way he got really inside the minds of his (mostly) simple characters fascinating, and highly pleasurable.

Of course, Joyce got inside the mind of his *main* character in at least as an effective manner, and (as that mind was his own) his character was far more complex and interesting. But Faulkner did something almost as amazing & original. He got inside several other minds, minds of people who were in no way intellectuals or artists, just simple country folk.

You seem to be looking for books that will reflect you, and help you. Books with precise ideas that you can immediately apply to your life, maybe books that will train you to be a great artist. If so, I can see why you might dismiss Faulkner and take Joyce to heart. Myself, I'm just looking for books with the greatest 'aesthetic value', that is books that will give me the greatest all round pleasure. Part of that pleasure is variety. So I'll be reading more Joyce *and* Faulkner.

I used to have this "where are the ideas" attitude. Fortunately I lost it and I now enjoy writers like Wordsworth much more, he's famous for not having many ideas. But sometimes you just want to look at the daffodils...

Your post reminds me of "How to Read and Why" by Harold Bloom and, like his book, I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say. I understand the purpose of aesthetic value in literature; books wouldn't be read if they weren't interesting. I've had a problem with that though. Either I'd read strictly for aesthetic value and risk losing any opportunity to evaluate the literature (because I wouldn't be thinking about symbols, themes) or strictly focus on the interpretation of ideas and lose aesthetic pleasure (As I Lay Dying).

I guess that's something I'd have to fix myself and not receive advice upon. But this post was very enriching. I thank you for it. :D


The way I see it, creative literature is art. And art can have many purposes. One purpose of literary art is to give us wisdom for living our lives (e.g. The Illiad, The Divine Comedy, Prometheus Bound, etc.). Another purpose is to make a case for a cause (e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front against war, Oliver Twist against mistreatment of the poor, 1984 against totalitarianism, Brave New World against applying science and rationalization too far, etc.). Still another purpose is to celebrate, exemplify, and embody the values of a civilization (e.g. Beowulf, the Aeneid). Still another purpose is simply to embody a beauty and sublimity that brings pleasure to the soul.

Since art is not science—it is a flexible category—it can be any of these things, and more that I did not list. And it can be a mixture of any of the above.

Different works of literature have different artistic goals; thus different works of literature require different approaches and different expectations. There's burgers and there's cheesecake; there's caviar and there's sushi. All are legitimate, but each is a different experience.

I can understand this post as well. I've always known literature has a multitude of purposes. Still though, as said above, I have a trouble with just resigning myself to the literature and experiening this "pleasure" that both of you speak of.

I guess that's a philosophical issue more than a reading one.



Everybody reads to back up their own views on life to an extent.

I actually read for the contrary. I read to dispell my prejudices and widen my perspectives. Surely there will be times when novels will enhance my own perspectives or be more directly applicable to my own life (Portrait of an Artist) while others will be either less useful or more disagreeable (less useful: As I Lay Dying). Because most of the books I read are classics anyways, I'm sure they have great ideas and wisdom packed inside; hence I continue reading.

That's the problem though. If I find a novel that has neither augmented or widened my views, I feel like I've missed something. It feels bittersweet. Hence, I question, am I reading wrong? For the wrong reasons? Wrong pursuit?

That's the premise of my OP.

[kelby_lake]

I actually read for the contrary. I read to dispell my prejudices and widen my perspectives. Surely there will be times when novels will enhance my own perspectives or be more directly applicable to my own life (Portrait of an Artist) while others will be either less useful or more disagreeable (less useful: As I Lay Dying). Because most of the books I read are classics anyways, I'm sure they have great ideas and wisdom packed inside; hence I continue reading.

That's the problem though. If I find a novel that has neither augmented or widened my views, I feel like I've missed something. It feels bittersweet. Hence, I question, am I reading wrong? For the wrong reasons? Wrong pursuit?

That's the premise of my OP.

There's aesthetic pleasure too. You can appreciate the craft, even if you don't necessarily like the concept.

[Il Dante]

You are diminishing literature by trying to force it to be something it isn't, at least not primarily. The main purpose of literature is to bring aesthetic value into our lives. The main purpose of the Iliad is not "self help".

The main aim of the foodstuffs you mention is to provide pleasure to the diner. But it would be rather strange to say you eat caviar to get a good balance of proteins and fish oils! True. But totally missing the main point. All the foodstuffs provide pleasure, different pleasures, but still pleasures.

The same is true about different literary works. For self help you are likely to get more benefit from reading a handbook of CBT rather than the Iliad, but don't expect to get much pleasure from it. In the same way, you might build protein better my downing protein powder rather than caviar, but don't expect to get much pleasure from it.

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with you that the Illiad is not about "self-help." I also agree that literature is not about "self help." I am simply saying that one aspect of the Illiad is providing the reader with wisdom about life. This wisdom could be called lessons or morals (in the Aesopian sense). Greek literature is replete with such substance.

IceM says:
"I have a trouble with just resigning myself to the literature and experiening this "pleasure" that both of you speak of."

Each to his own. The more philosophical types may not enjoy wandering among the daffodils with Wordsworth just as the more romantic types may not enjoy unraveling the infinitely dense singularity that is James Joyce's Ulysses. Blessed is he who can appreciate both.

[IceM]

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with you that the Illiad is not about "self-help." I also agree that literature is not about "self help." I am simply saying that one aspect of the Illiad is providing the reader with wisdom about life. This wisdom could be called lessons or morals (in the Aesopian sense). Greek literature is replete with such substance.

IceM says:
"I have a trouble with just resigning myself to the literature and experiening this "pleasure" that both of you speak of."

Each to his own. The more philosophical types may not enjoy wandering among the daffodils with Wordsworth just as the more romantic types may not enjoy unraveling the infinitely dense singularity that is James Joyce's Ulysses. Blessed is he who can appreciate both.

I didn't intend it as an insult. I meant to say that I can't just resign myself to the aesthetic pleasure of a novel without feeling an urge to read into the ideas and themes, then subsequently over-thinking the ideas. And vice-versa; I can't solely analyze a book, or else reading would feel more like a task and less like a pleasure. I tarnish my own experiences...

[Il Dante]

I didn't intend it as an insult. I meant to say that I can't just resign myself to the aesthetic pleasure of a novel without feeling an urge to read into the ideas and themes, then subsequently over-thinking the ideas. And vice-versa; I can't solely analyze a book, or else reading would feel more like a task and less like a pleasure. I tarnish my own experiences...

No insult taken. Neither were my remarks sarcastic. Having read the above post I perceive that I misunderstood you, which is my fault.

Now I understand the value of emoticons.:)

[Vautrin]

I finished a classic novel but found nothing of importance; I became more well-read at the expense of no gain. While I enjoy reading, the feeling afterwards leaves me mundane.

Am I reading wrong? And, if so, how do I fix it?

Isn't the point of As I lay Dying just that? It follows the lives of a typical family (typical for that time and part of the world, at least) and their experience of losing a loved one. Sure, traveling long distances with the coffin is rather unusual; however, aside from that the premise is something profoundly sad and also very mundane. It's a simple story.

Also, like A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, the aim of As I lay Dying is more about making you "feel" the characters and less about understanding them or the events taking place. These two books remind me of poetry that is grammatically incorrect in order to evoke emotion instead of making actual sense. Let's be honest, both of these books contain whole pages and parts that do not make sense, and intentionally I think.

[IceM]

When I ponder if I'm reading incorrectly I don't intend to focus on these two novels in particular. I feel like I've been reading wrong for quite some time, although I felt as though I were a better reader in prior years (Freshman, Sophomore year) compared to how I am now. I only use these two novels because I recently read these, and after completing these I felt my crimes had grown the most.

[Drkshadow03]

Mal4mac is funny with his "you're all reading wrong" nonsense when he is merely describing one aspect of reading, and missing all the others. In general I think reading literature can be broken down into three categories:

1) Historical/anthropological

2) philosophy/politics

3) aesthetics

Literature like any text written in a particular historical period functions as a primary source (historical document) and can teach you a lot about the values and ideas of an historical era, about the concerns and cultural institutions and practices of a particular culture. At the same time many of these themes still apply to our lives today, our current history, and our individual place in history (this is a very personal issue). However, this is more complicated. For example, many character types are still with us. For example, in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales we have the story of the alchemist who screws an old priest out of his savings. Today, we don't have alchemists, so this has a particular historical meaning that can tell you what Chaucer thought about a dubious occupation during his time. However, how can this situation not remind a person of Bernard Madoff taking people's investments/savings for his ponzi scheme? The best literature is always both historically-culturally particular, while also be universal. THen there is also aesthetics. Beautiful writing is a pleasure to read, but aesthetics is so much more than that; it also includes the floorplan of a work. Faulkner's experimentation with viewpoint is fascinating and makes his work so different than everyone else's.

I think even with these "guidelines" it's important to remember that every writer is different and you need to understand them on their own terms. No one can teach you to have a reaction to literature, outside of an intellectual one, but a personal emotional reaction is just that . . . personal.

The first work I ever had an emotional reaction to was Philip Roth's Goodbye, Columbus. The ending has the main character (Neal?), told in first-person (meaning it's a closer viewpoint), wonder how his feelings for Brenda went from lust to love to feeling nothing for her. This hit me hard because I had just gotten out of my first real "serious" relationship in my life (one year) and I really connected emotionally with the character's experience and wondering how his feelings disappeared and his relationship just dissolved in a flash. I also don't think it's a coincidence, although I didn't realize it at the time, that the first book I really connected with is about a teenage Jewish American, and I'm a Jewish American. This was the first time I read stories about people with a similar identity as myself.

[mal4mac]

What do you mean by the right attitude or sufficient knowledge? What attitude and knowledge should I be bringing? Once you're proficient at reading the words on the page then you are qualified to read whatever you choose.

I didn't have the right attitude to Dante or Joyce until I adopted the attitude that I needed to do quite a bit of background reading. Only then did I really enjoy them ... previously I could read the words on the page and get something out of them, but (unfortunately) perplexity far outweighed enjoyment and I gave up. I was wrong to give up. Fortunately Harold Bloom persuaded me try again, after pointing out they were "difficult pleasures", and much spade work was required.

Note - I'm not suggesting you need to read a library of books, there are versions with good notes that may be enough - (The Mandelbaum/Everyman Dante & the "Wordsworth Classics" Portrait had 'just enough' notes for me...)

[mal4mac]

I can understand this post as well. I've always known literature has a multitude of purposes. Still though, as said above, I have a trouble with just resigning myself to the literature and experiening this "pleasure" that both of you speak of.

If you are seeking health, you might be better seeking healthy food rather than tasty food, for a while. If you want to get your head straight, you might be better focusing on "philosophical" works, for a while. If you want healthy & tasty try Montaigne :)

[mal4mac]

Mal4mac is funny with his "you're all reading wrong" nonsense when he is merely describing one aspect of reading, and missing all the others.

I don't think I'm missing them. I'm certainly not missing the historical, philosophical or political. The historical, philosophical and political aspects may help create aesthetic value. They may, indeed, help to create a truly great work of literature. But, if not, we may have Foucault, Kant, and Heidegger. They may have produced works of historical, philosophical and political value, but not works of literature, through their lack of aesthetic value.

[Evaril]

You are diminishing literature by trying to force it to be something it isn't, at least not primarily. The main purpose of literature is to bring aesthetic value into our lives. The main purpose of the Iliad is not "self help".

And why can't the main purpose be "self help"? It's not hard to imagine someone in an existential crisis turning to the Iliad for advice and enrichment first and aesthetic value second, if at all. And that person may prefer some other poem, one that is worth less in aesthetic value but speaks more resonantly to him in that stage of life he is going through, to the Iliad. Putting "self help" in quotation marks does not limit the term to that one so lowly and unaesthetic genre of books; come, we all know that "self help" really is much wider than that, to include even the highest spiritual guidance one gains from reading, say, the Bible, even if one reads it as literature.

[Rores28]

I actually read for the contrary. I read to dispell my prejudices and widen my perspectives.

It is ironic that you felt unfulfilled by "As I Lay Dying" as I thought one of the primary aims of the book was to illustrate how seemingly objective experiences can be perceived in so many subjective fashions.
Think about Darl in the river and the various ways his actions are interpreted by different characters. When reading this, whether or not it was Faulkner's intention, I felt the tacit suggestion that I shouldn't be too quick to judge any situation or any persons actions no matter how ostensibly black and white.


That being said I, to some degree, struggle with the same problem you suggest. I feel like I can't fully interpret or fully get lost in a piece and that the two infringe on one another. I generally try more to tear into the aesthetic value of the book and interpret later and/or read interpretations later

[Quark]

In general I think reading literature can be broken down into three categories:

That's pretty bold Drkshadow. It's not often that anyone will define what it is they get out of literature--especially not in neat categories. Although, I can't say I completely understand why you divide this into categories. It seems like you're arguing that literature is just a grab bag of the humanities and social sciences. So why divide it into groups? Why are history and anthropology on one side and politics and philosophy in another? What about sociology, psychology, linguistics, and economics? Are these not included for some reason?