Excellent article (as usual). Categorising writing as worthy or not prevented women from being published (and taught to read) not so very long ago, which I imagine Prior would not advocate.
But her point that most sticks with me is an insistence on effortful reading. I’m reading a novel by Karl Ove Knausgaard, and wondering why I adore his writing. At least in part it’s because he’s so easy to read. No showing off, no unnecessary adjectives and descriptions. If I re-read a sentence it’s to enjoy it once more, not to puzzle it out. Some literature won’t be as accessible as this-due to language and time differences-but surely no writer sets out to be hard to understand.
Somewhere in Swann's Way, Proust depicts a domestic servant who weeps when she reads the newspaper, but is nonetheless terribly cruel to a fellow servant of lower status. Reading is useful, empathy is nice, but both have limitations and drawbacks.
I really appreciate the way you delve into these topics, and your allergy to facile explanations.
I understand the arguments you're making here about reading not making people better than others, the examples you give are very persuasive. And I don't believe in the spiritual or moral superiority assigned by the author either. Yet there is a growing body of work that does suggest that reading fiction closely does help develop empathy. There is also a depressingly large amount of information about who reads fiction, and by which authors. Men read less fiction than women and when they do read it they typically read male authors. Women read books written by men and women and are less likely to decide not to read a book simply because it might have been written by a man. I think all of these things can be true. I know that you, Noah, read voraciously obviously. I think you can agree with me that this puts you in the minority of men your age in the U.S. though? Though you besmirch her prolific and august name JCO wasn't trying to imply she's unaware of film or music as important forms of art. I think she's trying to point out what's different about the act of reading fiction that separates it from other types of narrative. Because there IS something fundamentally different in the process. I don't think it's something spiritual or superior and that it happens to a greater degree to people who read fiction. It can happen when one is exposed to any great art, to a lesser extent. I'd imagine people that only read novels that reflect their own experiences probably wouldn't show the level of empathy seen in people who read novels where they see the world from a wide variety of times and perspectives. Obviously I didn't consider my daughter to be less than human before she was able to read. However if I didn't believe there was something necessary and very important to be found in books, then I wouldn't have spent so many hours reading books to her when she was too you to read for herself. She was definitely always human but the joy and pride I felt when she started reading her first middle grade chapter book was unique.
I think reading is a very useful skill that allows people to find out things they wouldn’t otherwise and which can give people a lot of pleasure.
Men definitely read a lot less; I think this is probably because there’s a belief that reading (or most kinds of aesthetic experience) is unmanly or not worthwhile or productive….
Empathy is tricky. I think books can cultivate empathy as part of what’s pleasurable about them, but I don’t know that empathy always makes you a better person exactly.
The research on empathy finds that we mostly learn empathy by observing it and receiving it.
I remember one man who gained empathy from sad experience. I was interviewing cancer patients for a large medical study. He was a well off construction magnate who volunteered after his cancer diagnosis.
“I never would have done this before. But then it happened to me. So if this can help somebody else, I’ll do it. “
Thanks for your point below— made my day, no matter who the quote was from:
— “Reading is the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin, another’s voice, another’s soul,” insists Joyce Carol Oates, who has apparently never seen a movie or had a conversation.
Tee hee.
Assuming she was referring to everyday intersubjective connection among humans, your snarky point is a good one.
Thanks for reposting this, it’s definitely applicable at any time.
It’s very human to categorize, compare, and create hierarchies, and ugh, soooo teeeedious. Oh congratulations on being human whoopidy doo.
Everyone I interact with is human, and increasingly for me, all that means is that each and every one of us is an asshole with great potential.
Excellent article (as usual). Categorising writing as worthy or not prevented women from being published (and taught to read) not so very long ago, which I imagine Prior would not advocate.
But her point that most sticks with me is an insistence on effortful reading. I’m reading a novel by Karl Ove Knausgaard, and wondering why I adore his writing. At least in part it’s because he’s so easy to read. No showing off, no unnecessary adjectives and descriptions. If I re-read a sentence it’s to enjoy it once more, not to puzzle it out. Some literature won’t be as accessible as this-due to language and time differences-but surely no writer sets out to be hard to understand.
Some writers do want to be hard to understand! People like Kant I think explicitly said they were trying to weed out the rabble..
Joyce said something similar to critics of Finnegan’s Wake, a book more abandoned than read. Good point.
Somewhere in Swann's Way, Proust depicts a domestic servant who weeps when she reads the newspaper, but is nonetheless terribly cruel to a fellow servant of lower status. Reading is useful, empathy is nice, but both have limitations and drawbacks.
I really appreciate the way you delve into these topics, and your allergy to facile explanations.
I understand the arguments you're making here about reading not making people better than others, the examples you give are very persuasive. And I don't believe in the spiritual or moral superiority assigned by the author either. Yet there is a growing body of work that does suggest that reading fiction closely does help develop empathy. There is also a depressingly large amount of information about who reads fiction, and by which authors. Men read less fiction than women and when they do read it they typically read male authors. Women read books written by men and women and are less likely to decide not to read a book simply because it might have been written by a man. I think all of these things can be true. I know that you, Noah, read voraciously obviously. I think you can agree with me that this puts you in the minority of men your age in the U.S. though? Though you besmirch her prolific and august name JCO wasn't trying to imply she's unaware of film or music as important forms of art. I think she's trying to point out what's different about the act of reading fiction that separates it from other types of narrative. Because there IS something fundamentally different in the process. I don't think it's something spiritual or superior and that it happens to a greater degree to people who read fiction. It can happen when one is exposed to any great art, to a lesser extent. I'd imagine people that only read novels that reflect their own experiences probably wouldn't show the level of empathy seen in people who read novels where they see the world from a wide variety of times and perspectives. Obviously I didn't consider my daughter to be less than human before she was able to read. However if I didn't believe there was something necessary and very important to be found in books, then I wouldn't have spent so many hours reading books to her when she was too you to read for herself. She was definitely always human but the joy and pride I felt when she started reading her first middle grade chapter book was unique.
I think reading is a very useful skill that allows people to find out things they wouldn’t otherwise and which can give people a lot of pleasure.
Men definitely read a lot less; I think this is probably because there’s a belief that reading (or most kinds of aesthetic experience) is unmanly or not worthwhile or productive….
Empathy is tricky. I think books can cultivate empathy as part of what’s pleasurable about them, but I don’t know that empathy always makes you a better person exactly.
The research on empathy finds that we mostly learn empathy by observing it and receiving it.
I remember one man who gained empathy from sad experience. I was interviewing cancer patients for a large medical study. He was a well off construction magnate who volunteered after his cancer diagnosis.
“I never would have done this before. But then it happened to me. So if this can help somebody else, I’ll do it. “
Thanks for your point below— made my day, no matter who the quote was from:
— “Reading is the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin, another’s voice, another’s soul,” insists Joyce Carol Oates, who has apparently never seen a movie or had a conversation.
Tee hee.
Assuming she was referring to everyday intersubjective connection among humans, your snarky point is a good one.
Huh
I talk about some problems with empathy here, fwiw. https://therevealer.org/what-we-can-learn-from-the-rights-attack-on-toxic-empathy/