"Good" reading vs. "Bad" reading

[Laura]

This may not be everyone's cup of tea but I've always been fascinated by the need for the reading and writing community to divide reading into "good" and "bad" (i.e: romance novels are "bad", while Ulysses is "good"). While surfing I stumbled across two opinions on the subject, separated by 106 years.

The Vice of Reading by Edith Wharton, 1903

"As grace gives faith, so zeal for self-improvement is supposed to confer brains....To read is not a virtue; but to read well is an art, and an art that only the born reader can acquire. The gift of reading is no exception to the rule that all natural gifts need to be cultivated by practice and discipline; but unless the innate aptitude exist the training will be wasted. It is the delusion of the mechanical reader to think that intentions may take the place of aptitude."

Good Novels Don't Have to Be Hard Work by Lev Grossman, 2009

"It's hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when literary novels were not, generally speaking, all that hard to read. Say what you like about the works of Dickens and Thackeray, you pretty much always know who's talking, and when, and what they're talking about. The Modernists* introduced us to the idea that reading could be work, and not common labor but the work of an intellectual elite, a highly trained coterie of professional aesthetic interpreters."

*Grossman specifically mentions Wharton as a Modernist writer.

My apologies if this isn't the appropriate group/thread for this topic.

[Martha]

See Tom Wolfe's superb The Painted Word for his analysis of how and why what Lev Grossman is referring to in lit also happened in art in the 20th century--why you have to work to understand modern art and why only the "highly trained coterie of professional aesthetic interpreters" really understands it.

[Stephen]

Laura, it is perfect for this thread. The purpose of this group isn't just me posting stories, although that is part of it, it is to keep people informed and let some conversation flow. I like the post.

[Cheryl]

I'm joining this group because this is the kind of stuff I want to discuss with other GR readers. Your post, Laura, resembles the thread I've seen elsewhere (ie, 'what is a classic?') but is smarter....

[♥Xeni♥]

Cheryl wrote: "I'm joining this group because this is the kind of stuff I want to discuss with other GR readers. Your post, Laura, resembles the thread I've seen elsewhere (ie, 'what is a classic?') but is smart..."

What thread are you referring to? I'm interested in reading that one.

[Cheryl]

oh wow - it's been too long for me to remember which specific one - but it's a topic people like to discuss so you could probably open it in just about any group

[♥Xeni♥]

True that. I was actually wondering about this, but I'll take the discussion to another group. :)

Back to the original discussion:

Edith Wharton certainly has some peculiar opinions, but they also make sense, in a strange, perverted way. For instance: Real reading is reflex action; the born reader reads as unconsciously as he breathes.

That, for me at least, is true. I'll read whatever I stumble across: road signs, advertisement while driving, signs or pictures left in rooms. It frustrated me in Thailand, because I couldn't understand what I was reading, and I finally realized HOW MUCH I actually read when just walking through a city.

But I don't believe that this is bad, just interesting. Reading out of volition doesn't mean that it's bad, like what Wharton is saying.

What is reading, in the last analysis, but an interchange of thought between writer and reader? is also an interesting point that I was discussing with my mother the other day.

Wharton makes many key, interesting points, but needless to say, her thoughts are a bit outdated at the moment!

[Cheryl]

I believe a valid argument can be made that 'good' books are the ones that encourage *the* reader (the individual of whom we happen to be speaking at the moment) to learn, grow, feel, and think. Some of the classics are too difficult for those who are not "born readers" because they don't have the prior understandings, nor the interactive reading strategies, to appreciate them. So, let these people read for pleasure. Is not joy of value?

[♥Xeni♥]

I read both articles in full 2 days ago and forgot to post my opinion on the both of them since! Oops!

Although Wharton's article was written over 100 years ago, I feel that she makes a lot of valid points. The fact that a lot of books are written for a specific audience in mind just supports her theories.

You can't really compare the two articles, though. I feel that Grossman has a valid argument in that the whole face of the novel is changing, but I don't agree with him when he says that all the works from "The Modernists" were bad or horrid or are hard to read. I only find a few of them hard to read, and that for different reasons than subject matter or plot design.

Conclusion: Both are interesting articles with valid, yet different, points. They are both well worth reading (and Wharton's will probably get you laughing). :)