Comfort Reading
Link: http://www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/apo/apo_ed16/Pearson_ed16.pdf
Whenever I feel as if I am falling into a depression, one of the things that I feel helps to bring me out of it (beyond, of course, the great care of my friends, family, and colleagues; good food; exercise; and most importantly, sunshine) is to read really, really depressing early 20th century European literature and also post-WWII era stuff(excluding Sartre, which I find is more depressing, but I haven't yet figured out exactly why). My usual roster of comfort reading includes items such as Camus' The Plague, the essays of Natalia Ginzburg, Orwell but especially Homage to Catalonia, and other books of that ilk. (Do those make up an 'ilk' to anyone else? They do to me, but I don't know what I'd call it. There must be a name. Maybe 'Against Nazis and Totalitarians?)
Other kinds of literature can help to stave off a depression with magical realism, parallel universes, sex, celebrity, sharp humor, or whatever, but there is something about the bleakness of war and struggles with morality, responsibility, and death (always death) that somehow manages to ultimately break me out of a funk in a different way than say, a bag of Dove dark chocolate eggs, could possibly hope to. Why is this?
Is it because there's nothing so easy, in some ways, as being against the Nazi's?
Follow up:
I suspect it has to do with the fact that these are the books I most strongly associate with perhaps my most recent and the sharpest memories of the pleasure of reading.
It's a little depressing. It's not that I don't have other happy or earlier reading memories. I distinctly remember devouring armfuls of books about sharks in the second grade. There was a whole series at our library about sharks, with each book devoted to a different kind of shark.
When I was old enough to babysit and it seemed that those EyeWitness books for kids were everywhere, I remember thinking it was such a shame that kids would spend so much time just looking so much, just looking at the sharks, when they could be READING about them.
I also remember practically memorizing these books with much pleasure as a kid: Anne of Green Gables (the first one only); the Little Princess, and Kipling's Plain Tales from the Hills. (It was because I went on a long, really boring vacation once and those were the only three books I had with me for three months.)
And reading that early war stuff during high school encompassed a series of intellectual 'aha' moments when I just felt like something I had read changed the way I thought.
But since graduating, I will admit that I've read very, very little. My new library card is helping things out a bit. I feel out of practice, in many ways, like engaging with a book now is about as arduous as trying to relearn how to play the piano after so many years of disuse. I can hear in my head what I'm going for, but I just don't have the chops to do it anymore. And, I'm lazy.
But! I've decided to retrain myself, and to try to find a new place for literature in my life. And I don't feel a need to go all the way back to the shark books, or to Anne of Green Gables.
I'm still reading Orwell. I just finished the most heartbreaking but also good novella by Elena Poniatowska, Dear Diego, and will now start it in Spanish. I haven't yet decided if I really like it or not. And next on my list is a set of personal journals by Camus, which I glanced through briefly and already love for its ordinariness.
What do other people read for comfort here, and do we want to resurrect our not very good attempt at a book club? Maybe something we've probably all either read and forgotten or wanted to read and haven't yet gotten around to?
14 comments
I'm the least qualified person to discuss literature here, but when we re-read Moby Dick (and yes, I did re-read it, even though I don't think I commented), I was disappointed. I remember several chapters made a powerful impression on me the first time I read them back in high school, but this time hardly grabbed my attention at all. And *by God* it was a hard slog to get all the way through - it took me longer than I'd like to admit.
I'd be up for reading another book, but shall we opt for something a bit shorter than Moby Dick?
I think the guilt Tasha's pointing to is one of the main reasons people don't read more; books seem to take so much commitment. One thinks, "I don't have time to read whole novels; I'll just check out Unfogged really quickly..."
Three hours later, one realizes that one has just spent three hours reading comment threads on Unfogged and that one has lost brain cells in the process.
Current media (print as well as internet and others) tend toward the short, the clippable, the quotable, the low-commitment, and the modular. Because it's modular, it's infinitely customizable (with RSS feeds and things like Google News), and because it's low-commitment, you always feel fine reading just one more post, one more comment (kind of like watching just one more episode of Buffy).
We still take in just as much media as we ever did; it's just in these tiny pre-digested chunks that permeate our other activities (five minutes of blog-reading stolen in between work tasks, for instance). We rarely let ourselves take a couple solid hours for pleasure; instead we sprinkle our work hours with tiny fragments of the leisure we otherwise wouldn't get. This results in a change in the kind of media we are willing or able to take in; Moby Dick does not lend itself to being read in tiny fragments spread over a work day, but YouTube videos of otters holding paws or pandas sneezing are perfect for that. So is a column from Harper's.
I think Tasha's also pointed out another important aspect of the guilt: we feel that we should be "more informed" because most of our time is absorbed in inane work details, so when we do get some time off that we have the energy to invest in real reading, we tend toward nonfiction in an effort to be Responsible Citizens.
I recently read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food in exactly such a spirit. Since I do a lot of other reading for my work, and recently have been slogging through some French Romantic memoirs (I read French very slowly), I was shocked by how quickly I could read the Pollan, how frothy it was, how easily it lent itself to skimming, how little attention span it required. But I could also see how it was satisfying in that You Have Now Learned Some FactsTM And Are A Better Person kind of way.
I think maybe some of the nostalgia for early reading experiences may come from a nostalgia for not feeling guilty for devoting your attention to reading for sustained periods.
Oddly, I felt the same way about Virginia Woolf until college. I just thought it was kind of boring all through high school and then when I started rereading it again in college it blew my mind. Those sentences!
You know what it kind of reminds me of: this review of indie 'observational' films in slate that I can no longer find because I can't find ANYTHING I think I have read anymore. What the hell, Internet?
I think other Virginia Woolf books have more engaging plotting in them.

03/21/08 03:17:13 pm, 