Polysyllabic
Thursday, 10 January, 2008
So I'm in the middle of reading The Complete Polysyllabic Spree by Nick Hornby. It's one of those books that should be digested slowly, so I'm reading roughly one chapter per sitting and savouring every bit. I'm also making use of the Book Darts Bec gave me to mark the bits I want to remember.
For example, in the introduction, he talks about how reading as a leisure activity is dying out because it's so much easier to watch TV. He talks about how there is this stupid distinction between books which people regard as worth reading and books which people regard as just trash. We think that, unless it's hard work, it's not real reading; it's “a waste of time”. “Please, please put it down!” he says. It's obviously not right for now. Maybe one day you'll have the time and leisure to read it, but now it's obviously killing you (my paraphrase).
Hornby has a knack for saying things you're thinking but haven't put into words yet. It was helpful to hear him say that—not just because, to some extent, it justifies my love of trashy fiction, but also because it explains why I have gotten nowhere with some of the books I've been reading lately. It helps to realise there are different kinds of books, and different books require different kinds of readings (elsewhere Hornby remarks, “We are never allowed to forget that sometimes books are badly written; we should remember that sometimes they're badly read, too.”—p. 51 of my edition). I don't want to imitate Hornby for the sake of imitating Hornby, but I thought it would be nice to talk about what I'm reading on this blog a bit like The Polysyllabic Spree. In any case, it might motivate me to read some more.
So, as I said, I'm currently reading The Polysyllabic Spree one chapter at a time, accompanied by book darts and occasional notes about possible blog posts (like this one). Yesterday on my day off I finished a very trashy novel by Meg Cabot (who I had never read before; she was the one who wrote The Princess Diaries which I've never read). It was called Boy Meets Girl and it was just that: total chick lit and not pretending to be anything else—the stuff of romantic comedies (i.e. pretty but sympathetic heroine with Absolutely Wonderful Best Friend, incredibly hunky leading man who is practically perfect in every way [except in a Mary Poppins way], amusing but helpful minor characters, the “baddies” and a very convoluted plot in which everyone—except the baddies, of course—end up living in some sort of Happily-Ever-After-New-York bliss). I found it interesting that it was written in the form of emails, letters, memos, minutes, answering machine messages, instant messenger conversations, notes, journals, scribbles on menus, and so on—as if the story had trickled down to us through the written artefact. That made it slightly more interesting than your average chick lit romcom, but only marginally so. (Oh, and because I like to keep note of these things, this was a book I picked up for about $3 from Darling Harbour last January. It was worth every penny.)
I picked up Meg Cabot because I was sick of reading non-fiction, and I have been reading a lot of non-fiction recently (wearying non-fiction; I don't think I have Hornby's stamina. Or wealth of free time). So, along with The Complete Polysyllabic Spree, I find myself in the middle of three non-fiction books which is really far too many. I'm one chapter into The Little Red Writing Book (Mark Tredinnick) which I picked up from the UNSW Bookshop the day I met Jorge Cham. I always think I ought to read books about writing because they'll help me grow as a writer, but I think you need to be in a certain mood for them—i.e. a mood for writing. Otherwise they make me feel annoyed, like I'm totally out of context. I know it's good (it's got a Tony, a Bec and a Dave recommendation) but Hornby's right; it's not for just now. (Not with the week I've had!)
Second piece of non-fiction: Divorce by Frank Retief, Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa. This was supposed to be in preparation for the talk I gave at PEC Women's Fellowship but then I realised I was running out of time and I didn't really need it; it was sort of over-preparation, really. I haven't gotten very far into it yet but I find it interesting that Retief says that if the couple are not both committed to the marriage (e.g. if the husband is cheating on his wife yet expecting her to stay with him), they should file for divorce. I can sort of see his logic: marriage is about commitment, and if one of them isn't committing but instead has broken their vows (especially in the case of adultery!) then what's the point? That said, I'd want to tread very carefully with how you apply Retief's reasoning. But I haven't finished the book yet so maybe he talks about it in more depth later.
Third piece of non-fiction, and I understand why I'm finding this one hard: Surviving the Breakup by Judith Wallerstein and Joan B. Kelly. I've read many of Wallerstein's other books. She conducted a 25-year study of children of divorce which began not long after no-fault divorce was introduced in America. Surviving the Breakup was written at around the five-year mark of the study. Second Chances was written around the 10-year mark and The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce was written at the 25-year mark. Second Chances is the one that most resonated with me because most of the kids in it were around the life stage that I'm in. Plus I think it's a more well-rounded picture of divorce as each section focuses around the members of one particular family (with identities heavily disguised). Each family member is dealt with at length, and you start to build up a picture of what divorce is like for girls (as opposed to boys), for seven-year-old boys (as opposed to teenage boys), for women who used to be housewives (as opposed to working women), for men who married in their late teens (as opposed to men who were older when they married and who have high-paying jobs), etc. etc. Second Chances also had extensive sections on things like joint custody, domestic violence and how divorcing couples should handle the divorce to make things easier for the kids.
Oh, I should also add I read The Good Marriage which was about a study Wallerstein did of couples who had been married for a long time (she was trying to figure out what makes marriage work, and it's interesting to compare her conclusions with the work she's done with children of divorce). I should blog about that book another day.
Anyway, Surviving the Breakup wasn't co-written with Sandra Blakeslee who wrote for The New York Times so it's not as readable as the other books. It's more like an academic book, with the subjects of the study being identified by letters (e.g. “Mrs M did this ...”). It's also organised more thematically so you skip all over the place instead of spending a bit of time looking at one particular family. But the material is still heart-wrenching in places (well, maybe that's only true for me) and I find that if I read it too much, it makes me sad, which is why I keep putting it down.
Other things currently on the go: I started Living with the Underworld by Peter Bolt the other day at work because I was bored while waiting for a computer to finish doing its thing (sometimes I feel like I spend half my life waiting for computers). I read a couple of chapters of it when it was in very early manuscript stage so it's really cool to see how far it's come. Plus the subject matter—ghosts, demons, the occult, the supernatural, etc.—is hugely interesting.
There's also Making Comics by Scott McCloud which is quite dense for a non-fiction comic book, and it's really aimed more at illustrators than writers, so I can see why I'm struggling and have put it down for now.
And, as always, I am crawling through For the Love of God (Volume 2) by DA Carson which follows the Robert Murray M'Cheyne Bible reading plan (during which you read the whole of the Bible—Psalms and New Testament twice—by doing four readings a day for one year). I think I said elsewhere on this blog how much I enjoyed Volume 1 (I've even quoted from it on various occasions). I like that it's not too heavy like some of those commentaries Ben had (I once tried to read Amos with the aid of The New Bible Commentary and found it very hard) but it's not fluffy and unsubstantial like those Our Daily Bread devotions. I particularly like the way Carson links together the readings so you can see the progression in thought as you move through Ecclesiastes or Isaiah, and the way he ties the passage for the day (he usually only comments on one of the four passages) to other parts of the Bible—even the other passages in the day's reading. (I probably should reiterate that the M'Cheyne Bible Reading plan is near-impossible to stick to [unless you're Dave]; with four chapters to read per day, it's easy to fall behind. That's why I never stick to the days. So I'm in the middle of June at the moment and I think I've just passed the halfway mark because I'm back to Matthew.)
I think I need a bit more fiction in my diet ...
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
I’m hoping to read a bit more fiction this year; I was mostly doing extended reading for college in 07, and reading Harry Potter was a welcome break.
I read the Divorce book in my second year of marriage - a couple in my bible study group were thinking about getting divorced, and I realised that I didn’t know enough about the issues involved. Leaving it on the dashboard of the car certainly prompted some interesting questions in the “why are you reading that? is everything okay” vein.
And that bible reading plan is seriously hard work to stick to… I’m not sure how much benefit I’ve derived from being that strict about it - very easy to just be a “tick the boxes” affair: I’ve never tried to do it two years in a row!
The problem with fiction is that you can get so sucked in, you risk neglecting everything else. Most fiction is geared towards trying to make you keep reading, and that’s why you get through them quicker. Well, that’s my theory, anyway!
I have the first 6(?) Princess Diaries books. They are fun and very very light - I particularly like the top 10 lists in them. I’ve been trying to decide whether to keep or cull them - I can package them up and send them down to you if you’re interested.
I felt that way when I read the Polysyllabic Spree - if only I’d had bookdarts! - and I was going to blog about all sorts of things Hornby said and forgot.
And with the Little Red Writing Book, I haven’t read it cover to cover. I dip into it at times and sometimes I read on a bit more, but I don’t think writing books are always meant to be read from beginning to end.
Although maybe they are and I’ve just been subverting the authors’ intentions all these years…
Natalie Goldberg gives you the option of doing either in Writing Down the Bones. I think that was why it was a bit easier for me to get through.
Kathleen, I’d like to take you up on that offer, but are you sure???
I read “red writing book” all the way through (seems like the only way I can process books), but told myself I’d go back someday and do the writing exercises… it hasn’t happened yet.
Yepyep. I’m keeping All American Girl, though