I am not particularly interested in language. Or rather, I am interested in what language can do for me, and I spend many hours each day trying to ensure that my prose is as simple as it can possibly be. But I do not wish to produce prose that draws attention to itself, rather than the world it describes, and I certainly don't have the patience to read it.
cf The Reader's Bill of Rights by Daniel Pennac. (via dm)
Comments
A tempting philosophy, but sometimes great ideas are poorly expressed.
Posted by: Chris G | August 22, 2006 6:15 PM
I can agree with Hornby on this: that I would never want to become the reader who ploughs through a book just because I feel I ought to (in order to purify/edify/educate/qualify me).
That being said, there's a little too much "reading for fun" in his philosophy for my tastes. I want to enjoy what I'm reading, or I won't finish it.
But for my time and money, there are too many books with too much wisdom to simply read only to get a fun and entertaining little story that's breezy and lighthearted. I know he doesn't come right out and say this, but I picked up on this nonetheless. Maybe I'm misreading him.
I will always go for the piece of non-fiction loaded with challenging ideas before I will for the nice story about the isolated farmer tucked away in the Irish countryside just longing for love.
It's a nice story, and you can read it if you want. I just endeavor to get something a little different out of my reading, and Hornby doesn't seem to account for my goals very well.
There's more to reading than a pretty story.
Posted by: Bumbershoot | August 23, 2006 9:20 PM
Re: non-fiction loaded with challenging ideas.
I think that comes down to personal taste. The whole point is not to read something because everyone else is reading or seems cool to read. Read to enrich yourself.
Posted by: Aderemi | August 24, 2006 1:53 PM