Tuesday, October 15, 2013

John Henry Newman Critiques "Love of Reading"

Novels are a relatively new form of writing, even though to many readers, such fiction has become the definition of "classic literature." There was a time when novels were the low-brow entertainment of the educated class; merely a recent innovation that did not belong in the same category as history, biography, science, essays, and especially the (Greek and Roman) Classics. Voracious novel-readers were as little admired then as are consumers of reality T.V. today. Civil War general Robert E. Lee felt that novels "weakened the mind." Even the characters in novels expressed concern over excessive novel-reading (in Louisa May Alcott's Eight Cousins, a diet of unrealistic adventure stories is compared to the habit of smoking and drinking as an unhealthy way to pass the time).

Yet since the genre's appearance, great and worthy novels have been written. Such books do not "weaken the mind" (check out THIS COOL STUDY: reading literary fiction was observed to make participants more empathetic and better at interpreting nuances in people). However, I wonder if novels have contributed to the way we often treat literature as something to consume.  Unlike essays on morality or love, novels provide a format that is utilized by pop fiction (popular novels did not improve social skills in the study mentioned above). Pop fiction is meant to be enjoyed once, quickly, and tossed aside. Perhaps it has made us forget how we ought to read. In Of Other WorldsC.S. Lewis remarks, "There is hope for a man who has never read Malory or Boswell or Tristram Shandy or Shakespeare's Son­nets: but what can you do with a man who says he 'has read’ them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks that this settles the matter?"

Now that even more consumable forms of entertainment compete with pop writing, I wonder if our culture has swung too far in our encouragement of any reading at all and our eagerness to praise whatsoever printed pages can hold the attention of an electronic generation. In our eagerness to encourage reading, perhaps we forget the differences between engaging with texts and consuming them. Perhaps we romanticize the consumption of books. John Henry Newman's critique of reading in his own, nineteenth-century context is food for thought (Newman was an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, was made a cardinal, and wrote The Idea of the University): 

Nothing is more common in an age like this, when books abound, than to fancy that the gratification of a love of reading is real study….Such minds cannot fix their gaze on one object for two seconds together; the very impulse which leads them to read at all, leads them to read on, and never stay or hang over any one idea. The pleasurable excitement of reading what is new is their motive principle; and the imagination that they are doing something, and the boyish vanity which accompanies it, are their reward….they will have no consistency, steadiness, or perseverance; they will not be able to make a telling speech, or to write a good letter, or to fling in debate a smart antagonist….They cannot state an argument or a question, or take a clear survey of a whole transaction, or give sensible and appropriate advice under difficulties, or do any of those things which inspire confidence and gain influence, which raise a man in life, and make him useful to his religion or his country.” John Henry Newman, 1852. 


Newman objected to young men who read books instead of studying them (it's a bit ironic that many of us would be impressed by anyone who read the materials that his students were reading "too quickly"). His words remind me of Francis Bacon's comment: “Some books should be tasted, some devoured, but only a few should be chewed and digested thoroughly.” Nowadays, especially in the field of education, we praise young readers who "devour." Public libraries hold contests in which children compete to read the most books. Home school parents are proud of their little bookworms who can be found in volume 22 of the Redwall series or who breeze through a novel each evening. We forget to encourage proper chewing and digestion. 

As a teacher, I heard many parents tell their children, "You've already read that! Come on, pick out something new." Perhaps we should encourage more rereading of good books. It builds the habit of getting to truly know a story. It teaches us to read for reasons beyond pure suspense. It makes friends of books. C.S. Lewis points out, "If you find that the reader of popular romance— however uneducated a reader, however bad the romances—goes back to his old favourites again and again, then you have pretty good evidence that they are to him a sort of poetry."

Perhaps we read too many books. As Mortimer J Adler said, “In the case of good books, the point is not to see how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.”

***

... And because Calvin and Hobbes is always appropriate...


12 comments:

  1. There were certainly quite a few books I re-read growing up that I think of fondly today (Eight Cousins was, interestingly enough, one of those!). I don't know what it would be like to be a child and retain my current reading habits--perhaps it's something that would not be preferable to a growing mind--but I know that these days I consume (yes, I think of it as consumption!) with my conscious brain and allow my unconscious brain to sift through the words. Often something will catch my attention immediately, but usually it will be days or weeks later that I will piece together two, three, or four different sources to display a cohesive argument, concept or train of thought. It's a sifting of ideas that occurs in my subconscious, and I don't know if it's possible at that level without the voracious consumption of media. But I also don't know if it's possible for a young brain not trained to observe and contemplate from the beginning, either. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up the important point that both breadth and depth are helpful in any field of study. In my learning, they have alternated in emphases-- I gather an overview, then zoom in. Gather overview, zoom in. Gather overview...etc. Sometimes this process occurs over many years. I think that the natural tendency of humanity, especially modern humanity, is to feel content with only an overview+trivia. The internet has trained us well in the art of skimming. The dual art of true study is harder and less "natural," which is why I think we need to practice it. I'm not saying that we must always study, but that it is important to develop that skill (just as physical exercise is most helpful when it includes both cardio and strength-training).

      Certainly not all books require (or deserve) rereading and study. Yet some do. I think part of the definition of a classic is "a book that gives something new each time you read it," especially if you return to it at different stages of your own life. I'm definitely planning on returning to Jane Austen when I'm fifty! :-)

      Delete
    2. This article was just posted online and it relates, just slightly, to yours. :-) http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman-future-libraries-reading-daydreaming
      A lot of it is about the importance of libraries, but he starts out talking about cultivating a love of reading in children. I like his way of looking at the world as if it's the very best of what it could be. I hope I be as optimistic when I start raising children of my own!

      I like what you have to say about overviews and zooming in. I think you're entirely right about it being an acquired skill that the internet tends not to foster. :-)

      Delete
    3. Interesting article! I like a lot of what he says. Don't you think that there's a bit of tension, though, between his statements that there are "no bad books" and that "authors have an obligation to write truth?" If the author doesn't write truth, is the book bad?

      Yes, up with optimism! I think that's huge.

      Delete
  2. This was really interesting. Certain of my children seem to be re-readers and I think that is a good thing now that I think about it although I am tempted to push them to the next thing too.

    I am also convicted by this as I tend to put a lot of trust in reading in general. I do make myself read things that are a stretch for me and I had a long conversation with one son this week about the value of reading things that weren't just pleasurable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all a balance, isn't it? Reading for reading's sake does have very real and tangible benefits (speed and fluency) and is a whole lot safer than hijacking cars or something (OK, not a very good joke).

      Delete
  3. I'm guilty of consuming books as fast as I possibly can - there are just SO many good ones out there and I feel like there's not time to read them all! But I'm at a stage in life where I just don't have the mental capacity to truly *study* the nuances of a book, since I'm constantly being interrupted by various children... In the past I was definitely a frequent re-reader, but in purging many of our bookshelves in an attempt to declutter, I've turned more to library books than reading what I already have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's understandable. Perhaps someday you will go back and reread the best of the books that you are consuming now.

      I wonder what Newman would say today, when we do seem to have more books available than his students did.

      Delete
  4. Thought provoking!

    My son wasn't much of a reader and for a while all her read was Tin-Tin and Chronicles of Narnia. I felt frustrated, but I finally just let him be and let him re-read them to his heart's content since he was reading.

    Since using the Charlotte Mason method of slow reading with my kids I have learned myself to take more time through reading a book. Many times when I read a book I find that I am telling myself that I need to go back and re-read that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting! Maybe I should read more of Charlotte Mason's materials.

      I have a weakness for Tin Tin myself.

      Delete
  5. I just read a review of a C.S. Lewis biography (here: http://www.semicolonblog.com/?p=21387 )
    that quoted the bio as saying, “Nobody who has worked through Lewis’s heavily annotated personal library can doubt the intensity or quality of his engagement with the texts he studied. . . . Lewis increasingly seems to witness to a lost age of scholarly methods, above all the mental inhabitation of primary sources, which does not appear to have survived his generation.” Interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  6. True. Depth trumps breadth. Many Christians read the Bible every day of our lives to get deep into it. Not that any other books rank with the Bible, but surely there are several that deserve multiple, deep readings.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...