Some notes on Calvino and why we read
Calvino says in "Why read the classics" (the essayhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/oct/09/why-read-the-classics/?pagination=false) that reading in maturity is different than in youth because we get a greater appreciate as adults. And a classic is that which is read again as an adult and is still enjoyed (Calvino uses the word "enjoy" which is interesting--do you have to enjoy a book for it to be good? What does "enjoy" mean?).
He says that in our youth, reading can be formative even if we don't remember the books. They give a "form to future experiences, providing models, terms of comparison, schemes for classification, scales of value, exemplars of beauty". If this is true or even partially true, perhaps it is important WHAT we read in our youth.
A classic, he states, is a book that never finished saying what it has to say. Would I apply that to A Good Soldier? I do find myself spending much more time thinking about the book this time than I did 15 years ago. It seemed more simple back then. . .
A classic does not need to teach us something new but may just help us to discover something we already knew. In some ways, it seems like certain books when we read them are describing the exact world that we currently live in (regardless of time period). It's as if the people are the same across the centuries. I do have this feeling in A Good Soldier, but it is a matter of degree. The exaggerated silliness and stupidity of Ford's characters are perhaps not so much the same today, but the silliness and stupidity still reigns.
We do not need to agree with the authors who make up our classics library, we just need to engage with them with passion and intensity. They need to make us feel strongly.
He says that in our youth, reading can be formative even if we don't remember the books. They give a "form to future experiences, providing models, terms of comparison, schemes for classification, scales of value, exemplars of beauty". If this is true or even partially true, perhaps it is important WHAT we read in our youth.
A classic, he states, is a book that never finished saying what it has to say. Would I apply that to A Good Soldier? I do find myself spending much more time thinking about the book this time than I did 15 years ago. It seemed more simple back then. . .
A classic does not need to teach us something new but may just help us to discover something we already knew. In some ways, it seems like certain books when we read them are describing the exact world that we currently live in (regardless of time period). It's as if the people are the same across the centuries. I do have this feeling in A Good Soldier, but it is a matter of degree. The exaggerated silliness and stupidity of Ford's characters are perhaps not so much the same today, but the silliness and stupidity still reigns.
We do not need to agree with the authors who make up our classics library, we just need to engage with them with passion and intensity. They need to make us feel strongly.
Comments
Post a Comment