Well, I have to admit that I’ve been slacking a little bit lately. So when I unintentionally brought myself back over to the old watering…err, I mean posting spot, I guess I figured that it’s time to get back into gear.
Recently (well, maybe not too recently) I’ve been accepted as a graduate student at James Madison University for English. Yay, right? One of the courses I’ve signed up for has since required a total of about 20 books to read and I’ve been getting a jump start. Now, for most of my undergraduate career, I’ve been a bit of an oddball. I specialized in writing courses since those are my main preference when it comes to studying English. Don’t get me wrong, I love to read, but there’s something about old prose that somewhat stifles me.
I mean, I’m a fantasy and science fiction reader by preference. A few books from outside those genres have gone on to become personal favorites, but they’ve been few and far between. Namely, To Kill a Mockingbird has been for a long time one of the few classic books that I can say left me reading it and wanting to know more. After four years of undergraduate classwork, I can appreciate the fine craftsmanship of some of these pieces, but they’ve felt somewhat alien. Until now, that is.
What is it about a great piece of literature that makes it great? The books that stick out most in my mind are the ones that have left me somewhat uplifted. The stuff I read can be loosely categorized as escapist, in that it typically involves other worlds or times than the present. But even the best of these have all dealt with a similar theme: the growth of a person. The great struggles of man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. machine, etc. The ones I favor deal with the progression of a protagonist and the growth associated with facing various challenges.
So I found myself wondering what was so different about works of “literature” than works of genre fiction. I had the chance to re-read Light in August, by William Faulkner. By all means it is one of his more clearly written novels (I still shudder at thoughts of The Sound and the Fury), but for the first time I found myself appreciating it to a greater degree. Suddenly I found that I was interested in the plight of Joe Christmas and the tragic events surrounding his life that would eventually lead to his fall.
But I guess this leads in a different direction as well, because characters such as Christmas don’t necessarily change for the better. I guess it’s that the reader is forced to see through their perspective and try to understand the motivations they hold. This personally astounds me on several levels. I consider myself to be a writer, but as stated before I’ve always stuck to the path of my genre fiction and to be honest, most of those books follow a tried and true pattern (think the path of the hero, such as Luke Skywalker in Star Wars).
Before embarking upon this reading, I asked a friend (also of the graduate program) what he found in literature that made him love it. He gave me the standard, but too true answers of the meanings behind the works and the believable characterizations. The masters of the craft are those who can peer into the soul of humanity and dredge up the darkest of souls and bring us to have compassion for them. An example of another work I’ve since read is Larry Brown’s Father and Son.
It’s a good book by its own right, but the main character is a thoroughly despicable man. A murderer, rapist, alcoholic, and more. There were points in the story where I wished for nothing more than this character to be killed for his acts, but even in the depths of his dark acts, the author tried to show what triggered these actions and he shed some light on the traces of humanity left in this character’s soul.
The exploration of the human condition is hailed as one of the most beneficial products of the arts. Even so, like most things in life (and philosophy) there are few clear answers. There are those who feel that such expressions of the lowest of human actions are not fit to be deemed art. Plato argued that art should support its society and that debasements of morality would merely corrupt those who were witness to it. Aristotle viewed art’s darker shades as a way of releasing those dark ambitions from our own souls. By seeing the vile actions of a character who eventually falls due to his flaws, we know ourselves that such a course in life should be avoided.
But is that what we draw from the literature we read? Forgive my jumbled rant. There is a certain quality to a well phrased passage of prose that can speak volumes beyond the words on the page. I’ve had troubled myself at times finding these specific lines, but one that was pointed out to me comes from Faulkner. “Memory believes before knowing remembers.” It’s such a simple sentence, if a bit cryptic. Although it’s meaning can also seem fairly clear. In terms of childhood, you can believe something to be true before you’re old enough to know for certain that its occurred. The blurry lines of recollection can deceive us all. But the statement itself is almost poetic. It contains so much within the space of five words.
So I find myself trying to grasp a greater appreciation for pieces of art which I’ve in the past thought “aren’t for me.” Words are a powerful medium, and they can hide such significance that it’s no wonder scholars have been debating what works of literature have meant for ages.
For those of you that like to read regularly, what draws you into the page?