Isn't it strange how little training we get as schoolchildren in finding stuff that's worth reading? I can't help but think about this enigma now that the euphoria has worn off from my project of breaking the internet blog habit and going back to reading real books.
In olden times idealistic school teachers might have thought it impertinent to guide students towards what they should read; after all, that should be a matter of personal choice for the reader; and they were paid to educate, not to brainwash. But if individual teachers still practice that today, when the teacher's union is an integral part of a political party and teachers are state-paid priests of political correctness, well then, they are indeed idealistic.
In theory teachers and librarians should be just as qualified to aim readers towards certain books as they are to choose academic courses for youngsters. Of course there was a time, circa 1970, when it became an educational fad to "like, let the kids do their own thing, man" when it came to choosing courses. But as one famous educator pointed out: if a middle-aged educator has no more idea of what should be taught than an 18-year-old does, then the middle-aged educator has wasted his life.
Perhaps you are thinking that schools do steer students in a certain direction in English/literature class. But I remember them choosing English novels of the 19th Century, probably because they were the personal choice of school marms.
Some people might get ideas for books from best-seller lists. But I am repulsed by the idea of letting the marketplace choose what kind of mental nourishment should go into my brain. Why should popularity in the arena of books produce any better choices than popularity with fast food outlets? Or music. Should I lose interest in Mozart because raunchy country/western, raucous rock, or vile rap music is more popular?
Without care I will miss an opportunity to take off in a fresh direction; after all, what better time is there than after a long rest? Perhaps I should try science-fiction. But what constitutes a "classic?"
I'm deliberately avoiding my old rut of reading history books. How believable are they, actually? Trying to read fiction isn't so easy. Fiction is dominated by romance, that is, youthful lust and infatuation. That topic might be all-important to a young-blood; but I'm a grown-up now. Actually Fiction's obsession is even more specific than that: most of fiction is just formulaic love triangle after love triangle.
So I'm stuck, reader. I really don't know how to proceed any better than in the past, so the plan will be to stick to classics and rereading books that have worked well in the past.
In olden times idealistic school teachers might have thought it impertinent to guide students towards what they should read; after all, that should be a matter of personal choice for the reader; and they were paid to educate, not to brainwash. But if individual teachers still practice that today, when the teacher's union is an integral part of a political party and teachers are state-paid priests of political correctness, well then, they are indeed idealistic.
In theory teachers and librarians should be just as qualified to aim readers towards certain books as they are to choose academic courses for youngsters. Of course there was a time, circa 1970, when it became an educational fad to "like, let the kids do their own thing, man" when it came to choosing courses. But as one famous educator pointed out: if a middle-aged educator has no more idea of what should be taught than an 18-year-old does, then the middle-aged educator has wasted his life.
Perhaps you are thinking that schools do steer students in a certain direction in English/literature class. But I remember them choosing English novels of the 19th Century, probably because they were the personal choice of school marms.
Some people might get ideas for books from best-seller lists. But I am repulsed by the idea of letting the marketplace choose what kind of mental nourishment should go into my brain. Why should popularity in the arena of books produce any better choices than popularity with fast food outlets? Or music. Should I lose interest in Mozart because raunchy country/western, raucous rock, or vile rap music is more popular?
Without care I will miss an opportunity to take off in a fresh direction; after all, what better time is there than after a long rest? Perhaps I should try science-fiction. But what constitutes a "classic?"
I'm deliberately avoiding my old rut of reading history books. How believable are they, actually? Trying to read fiction isn't so easy. Fiction is dominated by romance, that is, youthful lust and infatuation. That topic might be all-important to a young-blood; but I'm a grown-up now. Actually Fiction's obsession is even more specific than that: most of fiction is just formulaic love triangle after love triangle.
So I'm stuck, reader. I really don't know how to proceed any better than in the past, so the plan will be to stick to classics and rereading books that have worked well in the past.
Comments
The Good Father by Noah Hawley (about how a father copes when his son is accused of murdering a presidential candidate)
Leon on Pete by Willy Vlautin (about a 17 year old boy, suddenly orphaned, and trying to find his way in the world)
Lyn
Several universities publish summer reading lists recommended by the faculty. These can be a good way to find hidden jewels that weren't on the NYT best sellers list.
Two examples 1) Norman Mailer won with "The Executioner's Song" ( Fiction 1979) and "Armies of the Night" (Non-fiction 1968). The non-fiction win ranks right up there with President Obama's Peace Prize. I also found that Mailer wrote some terrible books but "Of a Fire on the Moon" (1971) which I thought was one of his best gets little mention. 2) Larry McMurtry won for "Lonesome Dove" (1985) which I do not consider his best work; his first three novels ALL were adapted to film and were ALL as good or better than "Dove" in my not so humble opinion.
Probably won't write any more, he is 97 next year.