............

..

I certainly agree that the novel is the least emotionally immediate form of art, at least for me. I just rewatched Ford's HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY yesterday, and that film brings a tear to my eye about three times in two hours. I don't think I've ever had a book make me cry once. Passages in certain novels have moved me (THE SCARLET LETTER, for example), but they don't elicit my emotion like a good film or a beautiful piece of music. The strength of a novel is, for me, its ability to articulate certain things in a way that more emotionally immediate forms of art cannot; I can't imagine understanding the pervert D.H. Lawrence's anger at modernity as thoroughly had it been expressed in a film or a piece of music, for example.

I am an English Lit major, so you're not going to find much companionship with me, Sharky. I have been deeply, deeply moved by literature. Admittedly, the books that moved me haven't always been the tried-and-true classics, which often require a bit of appreciation for context to really enter into the work. But I can think of many books that cut into me so deeply that I couldn't shake the emotional experience of the work for weeks, from Bradbury's THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES to West's MISS LONELYHEARTS.

Sharky wrote:

Before I begin, I want to tell you it's not the books. It's me.

Since I first began reading I've never once found a book I couldn't put down. Supposedly everybody and their bleeding dog has been engaged by some work of fiction, but not Sharky. I've read most of the greats or at least partially, but it's a chore rather than a passion. Films, paintings, sculpture, and music capture my imagination and then some, but never text, unless we're talking musical scores, where I hear the notes in my head.

I read to enlighten and because I'm supposed to, but I never feel much. It's like having sex with a condom.

Can anyone relate?

Nope...remember I own over 6000 comic books...I'm a sci-fi whore to the core.

But then there are other literary works that don't tickle my fancy, not that anything is wrong with it, just not my cup of tea...

I can relate to different cups of tea I guess...

I guess I haven't found the right book yet.

I get engaged by fictional novels the same way as I do with films. Some books can make me laugh out loud, some can make me downright depressed, and others can be suspenseful or unnerving.

The lack of sound and image might be a problem. Words are just words.

Sharky wrote:

The lack of sound and image might be a problem. Words are just words.

Words can be incredibly stimulating...I began reading Penthouse Forum when I was 13 and had certain awakenings....sometimes this is better than a contrived photoset....

But images and sounds seep right into you. They're pure, and they don't require you to process them. Reading is a more active endeavour - for that reason it can be richly rewarding, but it also has a harder time sweeping me off my feet.

Sharky wrote:

The lack of sound and image might be a problem. Words are just words.

"Just" words? My dear sir, words are the most divine gift that humanity has at its disposal. In them lie the foundation of consciousness, the ability to understand and process experience, to give voice to the self and to understand the others around us. I won't suggest that you are wrong in loving the immediacy of pure image and sound, but words are not to be dismissed. Words can evoke all facets of human sensory experience in complex chains of association and meaning that far excel beyond what unmediated sensory experience might accomplish on its own.

Harms is right. Books are the best.

x

An odd comment but maybe if you tried to read aloud?

When I first started reading Frankenstein for example I initially struggled to get into it but as I needed to read it for Literature decided to read it out aloud which would force me to concentrate. It helped for the first part or so and then I got into it enough to read it silently and now Frankenstein is one of my faves. I've done this with other books since and for me it really helps me engage and pay attention - and I'm someone who has never in the past struggled with that.

It does take longer but hey it may help :)

x

HJackson wrote:

But images and sounds seep right into you. They're pure, and they don't require you to process them. Reading is a more active endeavour - for that reason it can be richly rewarding, but it also has a harder time sweeping me off my feet.

But images and sounds are someone else's imaginings. You're borrowing their imagination. Reading allows you to draw your own images and sounds.

Words have their own pattern and music. Some things simply beg to be read aloud.

I really like to sit down with a book in a comfortable chair with a glass of good booze or a coffee, whichever suits the mood. The trick with books though is if they don't spark interest within 20 pages or so, toss them.

Its one thing to endure a bad movie. One can just focus on the sensory experience and tune out the badness, but with a book, it's got to engage or its not worth the time. It can become a torturous experience.

I prefer good fiction to non-fiction, as its more relaxing although good fiction is harder to find (contemporary fiction that is). Once I find a good author I tend to latch on. Thriller writers Preston and Child and Greg Iles are my two current devoted reads and not much else. Ludlum is long gone but his books I could not put down. They would keep me up all night and I'd be half asleep the next day. Iles has the same effect and I'm sure there are others but I can't read everything.

I like reading rock-band bios, as well as political commentary, theology and some philosophy, but more along the lines of discussion of philosophy, rather than the source philosophy which can get kinda heavy and begs analysis and discusssion anyway.

Film I like primarily as an escapist sensory experience. A diversion from reality.
What I really like is the cinema experience.

Books are great. I've always got one or two on the go.

Harmsway wrote:

I am an English Lit major, so you're not going to find much companionship with me, Sharky. I have been deeply, deeply moved by literature. Admittedly, the books that moved me haven't always been the tried-and-true classics, which often require a bit of appreciation for context to really enter into the work. But I can think of many books that cut into me so deeply that I couldn't shake the emotional experience of the work for weeks, from Bradbury's THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES to West's MISS LONELYHEARTS.

Agreed with all that.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

The lack of sound and image might be a problem. Words are just words.

"Just" words? My dear sir, words are the most divine gift that humanity has at its disposal. In them lie the foundation of consciousness, the ability to understand and process experience, to give voice to the self and to understand the others around us. I won't suggest that you are wrong in loving the immediacy of pure image and sound, but words are not to be dismissed. Words can evoke all facets of human sensory experience in complex chains of association and meaning that far excel beyond what unmediated sensory experience might accomplish on its own.

Perfectly put. Words are more important than anything. And I fail to see how music or film are somehow purer (or even more immediate) media than literature - to any meaningful degree, anyway

That said, I regret to say that most of my reading is non-fiction. I need to read more fiction. There are certain books that have cut into me deeply (not the tried-and-true classics, though - I'm thinking more of things like Sebastian Faulks' ENGLEBY and James Hilton's GOODBYE, MR CHIPS, a book that, incidentally, reduced me to a blubbering wreck the last time I read it), and I have a tendency to keep re-reading old favourites rather than seek out fresh novels.

x

Loomis wrote:

And I fail to see how music or film are somehow purer (or even more immediate) media than literature - to any meaningful degree, anyway

Neuroscience isn't behind on you that, Loomster. Non-verbal communication is more a primitive system, and generally takes less effort from the brain to process. Verbal communication is a relatively recent development in comparison. Also, images and pure sound is an international language that crosses cultural boundaries and taps into something deep in our collective consciousness. While words can communicate more in terms of abstract ideas and complex chains of meaning (as Harms argues) - it's less pure, universal and definitely less immediate.

Ravenstone wrote:

But images and sounds are someone else's imaginings. You're borrowing their imagination. Reading allows you to draw your own images and sounds.

Perfectly put.

Age could be an issue as well. If I understand Sharky, he's about 20 or 21. I didn't read as much at that age as I do now. I think the late-teens/early 20's is a different time for people. There's more energy, more concentration spent on satisfying yourself. I think as you get older you tend to want to learn more and know more and are more contented with a good book than going out to a pub or being seen in a nightclub. When I was in my late teens, early 20's there was certainly an emphasis on having fun, going to clubs, dancing, going to the beach (in our case Cancun); basically being on the move constantly. Now, at 40 29 years of age I don't think I'll ever set foot in another discotheque; I'm more comfortable reading a book, watching the news, going to a science or history (my favorite subject) museum....

I probably read more non-fiction than fiction, but I do go through phases. It's true I have been bitterly disappointed in quite a bit of fiction, but it's still always worth it when you find that something that resonates.

So I take it when my international best-seller is published, I shouldn't try plugging it on here then? ;) <shameless plug....>

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Ravenstone wrote:

But images and sounds are someone else's imaginings. You're borrowing their imagination. Reading allows you to draw your own images and sounds.

Perfectly put.

Age could be an issue as well. If I understand Sharky, he's about 20 or 21. I didn't read as much at that age as I do now. I think the late-teens/early 20's is a different time for people. There's more energy, more concentration spent on satisfying yourself. I think as you get older you tend to want to learn more and know more and are more contented with a good book than going out to a pub or being seen in a nightclub. When I was in my late teens, early 20's there was certainly an emphasis on having fun, going to clubs, dancing, going to the beach (in our case Cancun); basically being on the move constantly. Now, at 40 29 years of age I don't think I'll ever set foot in another discotheque; I'm more comfortable reading a book, watching the news, going to a science or history (my favorite subject) museum....

You might be right. Harmsway is a middle aged 26 year old.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

[Now, at 40 29 years of age I don't think I'll ever set foot in another discotheque; I'm more comfortable reading a book, watching the news, going to a science or history (my favorite subject) museum....

You have to go to the cougar bars. These places are full of great women and many of them read books too. Some even like to pay for drinks. :)