Imagine my surprise last night when I am reading an article for class about mental models and not only is Mikhail Bakhtin invoked but so is Michel Foucault! These are the last people I expected to run into in library school especially in a class on human-computer interaction. But the article had an interesting section discussing sense-making and cognitive frameworks. We form mental models of all kinds of things based on what sense we can make of the world (this dovetails so wonderfully with Litlove’s recent posts on stories that I briefly felt faint from hyperventilating from so much excitement). These two gents making an appearance therefore wasn’t such a left field event after all.
There were a few folk who were curious about Nabokov’s quiz on what makes a good reader after I posted about it last week. The quiz is not online and if I had been clever I would have created a little quiz that you could take online but that idea came much too late. Here is what Nabokov gave his students:
Select four answers to the question what should a reader be to be a good reader.
- The reader should belong to a book club
- The reader should identify himself or herself with the hero or heroine
- The reader should concentrate on the social-economic angle
- The reader should prefer a story with action and dialogue to one with none
- The reader should have seen the book in a movie
- The reader should be a budding author
- The reader should have imagination
- The reader should have memory
- The reader should have a dictionary
- The reader should have some artistic sense
Obviously something designed to provoke discussion and thought.
As I continue to read the essays in Reading in Bed I am continually struck by how much the importance of rereading is invoked by the various essayists. I am beginning to suspect that there is a cult involved. It does seem that those who extol the glories and importance of rereading are also the ones who would be likely to claim their contemporaries were not producing great writing worth reading even once. This, I think, is an unfortunate viewpoint to have because while there may be lots of fluff and very poorly written books published in any era, there is also plenty of wheat among the chaff. Sometimes you mistake chaff for wheat but you don’t condemn a whole era based on the mistake.
Besides, as I have been mulling over this whole rereading thing, I am beginning to wonder if those who claim rereading supreme aren’t really cowards when it comes to reading. Because you know the books they are advocating for reading and rereading are the classics that have already been vetted by previous generations which makes them safe because they are as close to a sure thing as you can get. There is no doubt, for instance, that Madame Bovary is a great book. Even if you end up not really liking it or feeling passionately about it you still have to appreciate it. For Madame Bovary to become a classic in the first place a whole bunch of people had to read it and talk about it and champion it and exclaim what a great book it is and the first to do so were likely to be contemporaries of Flaubert.
I’m not knocking the classics or rereading. I very much enjoy both. I’m just thinking that before a person gets to rereading there has to be the initial act of reading and isn’t that a courageous act? It is particularly courageous if the reader has chosen a book off the beaten path, a first novel by a contemporary or an older novel not much known. For what adventurous reader would not love to be the discoverer of the next great author or classic?
Does this moment call for a little Tennyson?
Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knewTho’ much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Okay, that was both sappy and silly. I think I’ll stop before it gets worse.
Maybe it’s worth pointing out that Hazlitt’s essay was, in part, rueful. He regretted only reading old books, something that happened more and more as he aged. He was justifying, but also lamenting, the narrowing of his intellectual curiosity.
Nabokov, with his famous quote about rereading, was himself a voracious reader of contemporary books, almost all of which he read no more than once.
As for Nabokov’s list, I’m not so sure that he was trying to provoke discussion – suppress it, maybe! After reading the list to his class, he immediately provided the answers, clear guidance, for anyone paying attention, as to what would and would not be rewarded, or allowed, in his class.
The Tennyson lines, in this context, are quite funny.
Thanks for posting the Nabokov quiz – can you imagine having been one of his students? Amazing.
As for your conspiracy theory about a cult of essayists promoting rereading, I am a.) vastly amused and b.) intrigued. I would definitely consider myself to be a huge supporter of rereading, believing that you learn more about the a book’s plot and construction as well as about yourself if you read it many times, but, as yet, I have not been asked to join a cult. Very disappointing. Clearly, my membership has been withheld since I also support reading new books, remaining hopeful that “some work of noble note, may yet be done.”
After reading Amateur Reader’s comment, I am not sure now if I am supposed to take Nabokov’s quiz seriously, but if I did [and I do -- and... did], I would choose the last four, # 7, 8, 9, 10 as the most important responses, designating a “good” reader.
As for re-reading, you raise such a relevant issue.
Of COURSE we want to re-read something by Tolstoy, or Flaubert, or Shakespeare. How can anyone be satisfied with one reading of Anna Karenina. But it’s not just this — you are raising the idea… I think you are really significantly raising the important issue of WHY a person re-reads anything. For instance, my comment above, about re-reading Anna Karenina… well it’s because I love the book, and [in fact] have re-read it. But what if another reader read it the first time, and did not like it. Are they SUPPOSED to re-read it?
I am currently in such a situation regarding The Great Gatsby.
First time through, I did not like it at all. I don’t even know why.
Quite frankly, I’ve read other Fitzgerald things I like better.
At the same time, I have read a particular book by Emma Donoghue [an author who 99% of people reading this comment have never heard of] and I KNOW I want to re-read the book, because it spoke to me so powerfully the first time. [The book is called Slammerkin.]
Anyhoo…… very insightful blog posting.
This comment of yours: I’m just thinking that before a person gets to rereading there has to be the initial act of reading and isn’t that a courageous act? — is a good one, and I agree with you.
It is a courageous act.
I don’t really know about the motivations for rereading, but I agree completely that trying something new and unknown takes courage. I know I don’t have much of that courage, because I pick up books that I’ve heard about and know something about, for the most part. I don’t like reading something entirely new because I worry I won’t like it and that I’ll feel I’ve wasted some time. But I do miss the fun of discovery that way.
N. meant the quiz seriously. “Of course, as you have guessed, the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense – which sense I propose to develop in myself and in others whenever I have the chance.” Lectures on Literature, p. 3.
Other readers are not good readers. “Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use.” p. 4
I like rereading from time to time well enough, Stefanie, but I had no idea that there was a cult of “rereaders”! How totally funny. I did see a very high percentage of last week’s Mrs. Dalloway posters saying that they thought that they should reread the novel to see what they missed the first time, but I’m not sure how many people would want to do that just for fun vs. how many people would want to do that because they were somewhat confused about the text. Would this distinction matter to the rereading evangelists?
It certainly is adventurous to read a contemporary novel that is a complete unknown, but it is not exactly cowardly to read a large tome written in an obsolete idiom or translated from a foreign language and originating in an entirely different culture and historical period. Most people avoid classics precisely because those factors make them difficult to read. It takes a different kind of courage to tackle a book that you know is going to take work and skill to appreciate and enjoy. The risk isn’t that the book won’t be any good, but that you won’t be able to understand it, and that’s a much higher personal risk.
I always used to think that my students were very courageous, as I sent them trotting off to the library for the likes of Georges Perec and Michel Tournier and Marguerite Duras. These were all hard, challenging books, books that would insist they did some serious thought. They’d never have read anything like them before and yet here we all were, expecting them to write essays and produce deep thoughts and coherent interpretations (well, I didn’t exactly expect that, but…). We do risk ourselves with art – all the stable meanings we have in place, the comfort zone of our beliefs, all those are repeatedly challenged by new reading. When we reread, we know what we’ve got – no more surprises.
ps – I am hyperventilating to be in the same paragraph as Bahktin and Foucault! Lol!
I personally love rereading but I do think you’re right: it’s safe. And it would be great to find the next new wonderful book. Points to ponder since I’ve been reading lots of old stuff lately.
I love the “what makes a reader” options. Definitely not the book club one, though, as some of the book clubs I’ve been to people hadn’t read the book but came to eat treats and socialize anyway.
Such an interesting post and such interesting comments as well. I’ve been mulling over my own rereading practices recently with a view to a blog post on the subject, and you’ve got me thinking about it in a broader context. Also, clearly I must get my hands on Nabokov’s “Lectures in Literature”! I’ve dipped into his lectures on Russian literature but not the more general volume. Another thought-provoking take on what makes a good reader can be found in C.S. Lewis’s “An Experiment in Criticism.” I argued in my head with Lewis all the way through it, but it certainly made me think.
Sometimes I feel guilty with my reading–I’m more than happy to try new things though often I end up with more chaff than wheat I suspect. I do like rereading, though it’s not necessarily of the edifying sort. And although not required in my reading I don’t mind it if I can identify with a character. So all in all I think Nabokov would be shaking his head at me and writing me off. Interesting post and comments–as always lots to think about!
You’re funny. I love the quiz, I have book club tomorrow night and might bring it with me to quiz my fellow clubbers. I enjoy rereading certain favorites but I tend to limit rereadings to one or two a year, mostly because I really like to read new things and seem to have a personal ideal of reading as many books as I can in this lifetime.
What I do enjoy very much is rereading childhood favorites — enough time as passed that I can enjoy then again anew, and it’s fun to look back on them with so many years inbetween. Also they go quickly and that’s always good.
What an interesting post. I quietly classify myself as a rereader – quietly because everytime I mention it to ‘reader’ and non-readers alike, I get the hairy eyeball (as my father would say). They invariably ask how I have time to reread when there are so many books out there.
Definitely the final four. I love my iPhone if only for the (free!) dictionary app.
Rereading is something that I do less and less of lately for some reason but it was a pastime I used to thoroughly enjoy. There’s something satisfying about a leisurely rereading when the plot has been revealed and the nuances can now be enjoyed or discovered.
That and I hate suspense so I’m far less likely to tear through the book just to find out “what happens”.
At the risk of lowering the level of the very interesting discussion, in response to Nabokov I would say that the reader should read. Period.
Aren’t there some times, though, when the reader should read: Semi-colon?
Great post and something I have been mulling over myself. I have recently started a little New Year’s project (and blog..shameless plug) to read the entire contents of my bookshelf before I buy another book.
I have always been a re reader and I think Nabakov was definitely
on to something. As a fairly speedy reader I am always amazed that the second, or even third visit to a favourite book can produce new details and sometimes a completely different interpretation.
I am really looking forward to my year of re reading and although it will be a challenge to avoid the lure of shiny new books I think my battered old favourites will more than make up for it!
http://thebookshelf-project.blogspot.com/
Hmmm…I like that maybe I’m courageous for devouring the many ARCs I’ve acquired during my tenure in the publishing industry rather than reading and rereading Ulysses.
Amateur Reader, thanks for the additional information about both Hazlitt and Nabokov, it puts a little different spin on them. And yeah, his quiz was not meant to be questioned by his students but I felt like being generous because it has provoked a good blog discussion
Claire, being one of his students would have no doubt been an amazing experience. Maybe the rereading cult is trying to figure out how best to brainwash you before they ask you to a meeting
Cipriano, I think Nabokov was definitely serious with his quiz but he also allowed only those four correct answers. A very insightful comment on your part. I am sort of wondering why a person rereads and how does s/he make the decision to do so. In a way I am much more selective about my rereading than I am about the books I read for the first time.
Dorothy, I tend to read only books I know a little something about too but every now and then I go out on a limb. Sometimes it pays off nicely, sometimes not.
Richard, I don’t think the distinction you make would matter to rereading evangelists though I think most people when they have a choice reread only for fun otherwise it’s too much like school.
Sylvia, you make a good point about other courageous forms of reading and I agree with you. None of us find the idea that a book might be too hard for us and make us not feel smart very appealing.
Litlove, LOL, I think you fit nicely in the same paragraph with Bahktin and Foucault and bet you could hold your own against them any day! It’s both exciting and terrifying to risk ourselves with art, isn’t it? Just think what an interesting world this would be if more people were will to take such a risk.
Rebecca, while rereading is safe I think there is still plenty of benefits to be had whether it’s getting to know a book or author in a deeper way or re-experiencing a childhood favorite.
Kate, because of your comment I have requested the C.S. Lewis book from the library and should have it in a day or two!
Danielle, I think as long as you are satisfied with your reading that’s all that matters. And I don’t mind if I can identify with a character either, it certainly makes the reading experience more enjoyable in many respects.
Daphne, I only reread one or two books a year in general as well. As for lifetime reading I try to tell myself that it is quality and not quantity that matters but I can’t help but want to read as many as I can!
Heather, you need to find your local branch of the rereading cult
I sometimes wish I could spend more time rereading but I get distracted by all those books I haven’t read yet.
Carrie, long time! It’s nice to “see” you. Easy to access dictionaries are one of the best things about mobile devices and computers. I know what you mean about leisurely rereading, it is a great pleasure yet I find it difficult to allow myself that pleasure except once or twice a year.
Thomas, I agree, you cannot say you are a reader unless you read. I am inclined to ask though, what comes next? Is being a reader enough or should there be/ is there more to it than that?
The Book Shelf, an admirable goal! I’m going to have to keep track of your progress because I was wondering a week or so ago what it would be like to spend an entire year doing nothing but rereading!
Emily B, you are very courageous
Pingback: Reading in Bed « So Many Books