Heart and Mind
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:58PM 
Kuniyoshi Utagawa, Woman Reading
I subscribe to David Farland’s Daily Kick in the Pants, which means that I get regular, pants-kicking advice from Dave via email on all things writerly. Lately, Dave’s been talking a lot about why people read and why writers need to know why people read. His analyses have gotten me thinking about both why I read and why I write. Muse with me, won’t you?
For me, a book needs to engage both heart and mind. All fiction ranges on a continuum between these two oppositional yet complementary parts of the soul, and I don’t embrace either extreme to the exclusion of the other. If I want purely intellectual exercise, I won’t read a book; I’ll do some sudoku or contemplate the periodic table of elements. If I want purely emotional exercise, I’ll snuggle my baby or ride a rollercoaster. When I read, I want both intellect and emotion engaged to one degree or another. I want to be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
I love gorgeous, powerful language. But as a reader and as a writer, I am acquainted with the dangers of self-indulgent, distracting verbiage as well. I want to fall through the words into the story, but sometimes the words get in my way.
One of the things I dislike about a lot of what makes up the genre called “literary fiction” is this lack of transparency. Many otherwise skillful writers get caught up chasing the mirage of pretty language at the expense of the narrative. The result for the reader is like listening to The Allman Brothers play a live gig: you know the band is having a grand time showing off during the twenty-minute solo, but the (non-stoned part of the) audience starts yawning and looking around after awhile.
Another thing I don’t like about literary fiction is the snob factor. Lit fic usually takes more patience to read; that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better, or that its readers are smarter. My opinion is not widely shared, I fear. Put any David Foster Wallace fan next to any Diana Gabaldon fan on a subway train and see which one gets a smug look on her face first. (Hint: it won’t be the Gabaldon fan; she is too busy cavorting with Jamie Fraser in eighteenth-century Scotland to notice anything that is going on around her.)
On the other hand, emotional, purely plot-driven novels (I call them “airport books”) tend not only to leave me cold, they tend to leave me entirely once I’ve finished them. I’m a Bear of Very Little Brain, and what little I have is sieve-like: only the rich stuff stays with me.
I remember going on a Robert Ludlum kick the summer I lived in BYU’s French House; I read about seventeen of his novels back-to-back. Even a month later, I doubt that I could have distinguished the plot of The Parsifal Mosaic from that of The Matarese Circle. Ludlum’s stories gave my adrenals a stiff kick, but left my brain right out of the narrative equation.
I am not disrespecting the plot-driven novel. It is an art form that serves a valuable purpose. I admire the craft that goes into them on every level and I think their creators are very good at what they do. I treasure many of them (see Gabaldon, above). They are a form of transport that is cheaper than a jaunt to Bermuda and (usually) less dangerous than recreational drug use.
And I love evoking emotion when I write. I like it when people praise my form and style, but I love it when readers tell me that I made them cry or laugh or shudder. If I've touched their hearts, I know I've done something right.
One of the reasons I love speculative fiction is that I find within the genre a higher-than-average ratio of successful marriages between story and idea. And it’s no secret that I give science fiction and fantasy preferential treatment; often a really cool premise can help me overlook underdeveloped characters or middling style.
But the best books have it all, don’t they? Round, ripe characters, suspenseful conflicts, and fascinating premises or thoughtful explorations of humanity’s great questions, all portrayed through graceful and clear prose—they coexist frequently enough to keep even the most voracious reader busy. Classic literature abounds with such blissful combinations of heart- and mind-appeal; you don’t need a list of those from me. The last century has produced many more, however. My tip-top favorites are among those listed here; other strong contenders for my hypothetical desert island library are:
Sharon Kay Penman’s Here Be Dragons
Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon
Stephen King and Peter Straub’s The Talisman
Frank Herbert’s Dune
Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter
Marisha Pessl’s Special Topics in Calamity Physics
Charles Palliser’s The Quincunx
China Mieville’s Perdido Street Station
John Crowley’s Little, Big
Toni Morrison’s Beloved
(Just for fun, here are my ten least favorite books.)
What about you? What is your personal recipe for a great read? What books have stayed with you or have demanded re-reading from time to time? Where are you on the heart-mind continuum? If you are a writer, what is your goal in this regard?
Caveat: some of the books listed here are not for those of delicate sensibility. Please do not assume that just because I'm the bishop's wife, I read only rated 'G' material.
Reader Comments (25)
I think I am probably an emotional reader more than an intellectual one. That isn't to say that I like dumbed down books, but I tend to read more for escape than for anything else.
Thanks to my 4th grade teacher, who read The Book of Three by Lloyd Alexander out loud to our class, I developed an early love for fantasy fiction. In fact, I read fantasy almost exclusively for most of my life. Just in the last couple of years I decided I needed to read more classics. I started out with Little Women, and just this year I finally read the Anne of Green Gables series.
I have somewhat limited myself in reading because I mostly read children's fiction. I have read some other fiction, but I never know if a book will be suitable or not, so I am pretty careful. If you have books to recommend that are clean, I will put them on my list! (Is it bad that I have never read a Jane Austen book?)
.
My general recipe is like yours. I like beauty but not at the expense of story and vice versa.
Of your two tens, I have read the following:
The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien (Read it the summer before the first movie came out. Liked the Two Towers best. Will have to read again sometime.)
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee (Good, but I'm kind of tired of it. I sinned against humanity and didn't teach it to my freshmen this year.)
Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke (Loved it. Don't usually read books this long and don't usually reread books of any length. I will reread this one.)
His Dark Materials (trilogy), by Philip Pullman (Golden Compass only) (Didn't really like or dislike it. Probably will finish the trilogy someday.)
The What to Expect series, by Murkoff, Eisenberg, and Hathaway (while expecting only and only in bits)
Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck (Steinbeck.....don't even get me started.)
.
I love Jane Austen. I've only read three books but all three were great. Persuasion is both the best and the shortest. It's a gem.
Although it's the least funny, too, so there is that.
My favorite kind of books to read evoke, inspire, ensnare, and delight. What sort of combination makes this possible? For me, it's usually in the Speculative category because (again, for me) I find the greatest delving into humanity and the concept of choice. Of course, I love when a book makes me think--and possibly cry. (I admit nothing!)
So well put! YES! One book I just finished that I still can't figure out how the author managed it was Michener's The Source. He covers something like 10,000 years, several civilizations, and yet he gets you so involved in individuals' lives and hearts and minds as well as the archeology and history that I couldn't put it down. When I closed the cover, it was a Keanu Reeves, "Whoa," moment.
Oh... these posts always... hurt. Choosing? How? But as you know, I agree with you on this debate. I think we've discussed how we both feel about literary fiction. So here are a few books that come to mind:
Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
The Eyre Affaire - Jasper Fforde
Dune - Frank Herbert
The Prisoner of Azkhaban - J. K. Rowling
The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency - Alexander McCall Smith
Dead of the Day - Karen E. Olson
Bury Me Standing - Isabel Fonseca
Dead Until Dark - Charlaine Harris
Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut
Dandelion Wine - Ray Bradbury
These are just a few...
Hm. I like literary fiction. But I read it at about a one-to-five ratio against genre fiction. My main beef with literary fiction is that it seems to operate on the assumption that humanity is ultimately awful/corrupt/selfish, whatever. It has a hopeless thread winding through it too often and I can only get lost in the art for so long before I need to come up for healthy doses of good storytelling and the triumph of good over evil and heroism. An example of literary fiction that hits exactly the right note for me is The Book Thief. It doesn't back away from the hard stuff but it doesn't assume people suck. (Articulate, I know). I just made my husband read Elantris for the same reason but on the genre side. Another recent favorite of mine is The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society. On the genre side again, I've been reading quite a bit of Shannon Hale. I just started The Book of a Thousand....something. I forget the exact title. I found the Garth Nix Abhorsen trilogy pretty absorbing. And I sprinkle a lot of non-fiction in. I fisnished In The Middle Place last night and I really liked that. Or maybe it's just The Middle Place. Whatever, The author is Mary Corrigan. Um, well, I'm sure about the Corrigan part. I'm not normally so lazy about being accurate with titles/authors but I feel like super crud and don't want to crawl upstairs to double check all this.
Anyway, I loaded up my Sony Reader for vacation (starting tomorrow) with lots of light summer reading so I guess my literary fiction ratio is actually going to be closer to 1 to 10 by week's end.
Interesting post.
I absolutely love this post, Luisa. I've never struggled to define my own tastes, and yet I found myself nodding along emphatically as I read of yours.
I think for me the most poignant works of fiction I've read were written by Guy Gavriel Kay. Many of which do not fall under the G rating, of course, yet they combine many of the elements you speak of here. That he does so while incorporating beautiful language make his work all the more impressive to me. Indeed, I feel myself to only able to fall through the words, but in some ways cradled by them as well.
Whenever I read one of his books though, I'm unable to work on my own for quite some time. They have an almost paralyzing effect on me.
Thanks, Melanie. I believe lit fic *is* a genre, but I suppose it's all semantics.
I didn't list classics because my list would be wayyyy too long for even one of *my* lengthy posts.
Heff, no guilt about not having read any Austen yet. But if you are looking for lovely, witty, insightful, and "clean" writing, Jane Austen is your woman. Like Th., I find that Persuasion is my favorite, but I love them all, even Northanger Abbey.
I find I just cannot safely recommend books based on how much or how little sex and/or language they contain. That sort of thing slips right by me most of the time.
For example, I chose Helprin's Soldier of the Great War as the first book for our quasi-RS book group. I remembered it as one of the most uplifting and inspiring books I had ever read, yet as I re-read it in preparation for our discussion, I realized with shock that the author had dropped the F-bomb on about page seven (I think he did it only once). Some in our group didn't get any farther than that, much to my chagrin.
Standards of what is appropriate and what is not are so very personal. What I find appropriate will often offend others, and vice versa.
I have read books that are not G rated...I just don't like to read descriptive sex scenes and I like there to be not too much swearing. I will check out some Austen.
I am okay with you reading whatever you want. I hope I don't come across as judgemental about that.
Not at all, dear Heffalump; I hope I don't, either. As I said, it's a very personal thing.
I used to read much more than I do now. Non-fiction is preferable over any other genre. I've read all but one of Michael Pollan's "food" books. You'd probably call it literary non-fiction.
I almost became a man hater after reading "Lucky: A Memoir" by Alice Sebold and Maureen Dowd's "Are Men Necessary?" After those two, Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" brought me back to the realization that women control their own perceptions.
Maybe I need to read more fiction; Toni Morrison's "Beloved" held me spellbound. And Gabriel Garcia Marquez took me on a fantastic journey with his "100 Years of Solitude." I almost became a chef after reading Laura Esquivel's magically wonderful "Like Water for Chocolate."
I've skimmed over enough gardening reference books that I should have encyclopedic knowledge of that most loved of hobbies. But I don't, and probably never will because I'm always learning more about flowers and plants. For instance, did you know that a certain annual, Cakile edentula, has the ability to recognize others of its kind via root interaction? I talk to my plants. It would seem logical that they can communicate with each other. As Spock would say, "Fascinating."
One of my requirements for "Best" in both reading and writing categories: the language of the work has to be at once sharp and beautiful, such that I can bask in the words themselves even as they cut me to the marrow, even if I don't fully understand why. This, to me, implies the melding of mind and heart that carefully wrought language can be and can require (of writer and reader) when the words are also married to powerful ideas---because in my mind, you can't really separate the two (words and ideas).
This lofty approach to writing and reading notwithstanding, I don't think I've read much that I don't like to some degree, though there isn't much that I absolutely love. I've recently read some poetry by Ronald Wilcox that scores pretty high on my literary love meter---I'm stoked to return to the poems when I get the chance---and there are some books that stick with me: Bound on Earth (Angela Hallstrom), Snow Falling On Cedars (David Guterson), The Bone People (Keri Hulme), and Curses For Your Sake (Javen Tanner) come to mind right now. I also quite enjoyed Wicked (Gregory Maguire)---I'd like to read it again sometime---and I like the poetry of Sharon Olds. And both of these might tell you something about my tolerance for literary flesh and such. (Not that I've tried to hide such sensibilities.)
I used to be a pretty non-discriminating reader. With the exception of romance novels, put anything in front of my face and I'd give it a try. That didn't mean I'd enjoy it all, but I'd plow through it. Now I have so much less time than I'd like for reading that if the first few chapters don't grab me, I put it aside and move on or back to books I love--Miss Austen, Mr. Pollen, David Sedaris, Anne Lamott (non-fiction), PD James.
When I took a writing class a few years ago, I was enthralled with one woman's writing. She wrote a two page description of a back yard that awed me so much I brought a copy home for my husband to read. He read through it, then turned the final page over and said, "But nothing happens." I realized that, along with the pretty words, something better go down in that back yard. But it doesn't have to be an alien invasion or a bomb; I'm fine with conversation.
As a writer, I'm terrified of being "earnest." And not, I'm afraid, very skilled at recognizing it when I do it.
I am loving YA fiction that I can read with or to my 8 year-old, especially fiction in which the girls have an identity. Narrative tends to be more important, though, as you say -- why not have both? Recently read P.G. Wodehouse's Uncle Fred in Springtime -- not generally what I read -- but enjoyed the departure -- and am also enjoying Elizabeth Gaskell, a contemporary of Charles Dickens.
So well expressed, Luisa. I agree. I love a book that teaches me something about a culture or a place or period in time, but the story has got to pull me in. I LOVE a book that makes me cry, and I feel like a book has been most successful with me if I close it at the end with sadness and can only sit there in solitude and think. A book that has changed me in some way. I know I keep saying it, but A Thousand Splendid Suns did that for me in the most powerful way out of any book I've read in the last 5 years at least.
Most of the books you've recommended to me over the years have expanded my mind and soul as well. Soldier of the Great War was exceptional, as was Angle of Repose, and of course Jonathan Strange.
Can't even begin to list the classics, because, well, duh.
I do have my go-to authors of "easy reads", like Nicholas Sparks and Rick Evans, but the reason I love them both so much is because their books reach my emotions effortlessly and I always feel that good-cry kind of cleansed afterwards.
I have to agree with you. I need to be engaged emotionally and intellectually, but I also need to be entertained. I hate writers who just write for other writers - they're like the people who attend poetry slam nights for me. Pedantic and insufferable bores.
As for a good book, I''m pretty easy to please. I love anything by Toni Morrison, but my favorite by her was "Song of Solomon." It was the first book of hers that I read. I also love John Irving, because he is so straightforward in his writing. And just about everything in between.
But I'll have to admit that my go-to genre for entertainment reading are Regency romance novels. Amanda Quick, Kathleen Woodiwiss, Johanna LIndsey, Christina Dodd... anything with ripped bodices and dashing Dukes. Yes.. I know. I have an English degree and everything, but sometimes I don't want to have to think about what I'm reading.
I like history more than anything else. All the old "little girl" books - Little Women, Little House, etc. are my favorites, as are anything related to how things developed over time - "Century of the Surgeon" has really stuck with me.
Also: There's a Peck here with an acorn pointed at me!!
*Gasp* What a saucy little minx you are with your non-G-rated-ness. ;-)
I have to confess that speculative fiction just isn't my genre. Fantasy, sci-fi, et al. I could live my entire life joyfully sans Tolkien. I know that such phrases make me an enemy of Bloglandia, but I just gotta be honest.
I kinda see it like this: if you ask me and Brian what we look for in music, we will tell you that we look for great lyrics, original yet melodious sounds, interesting harmonies, and talented musicians. We would BOTH say this, and we'd probably say it the exact same way. But! We listen to absolute OPPOSITE styles of music. Identical approach to music, but with completely opposite results.
Your approach to literature is much like mine, but we come up with different results! One of these days I'll open my mind enough to give some of these a try. One of these days...
In the meantime, I'm currently (strangely) attracted to brainless fiction lately. Well, not utterly brainless, but you know what I mean. Reading needs to be a break for me right now, not deep, moving, life-changing. Just easy-breezy. I'm not sure if this is a sign of my growing immaturity (as a 12-year old I was reading -- and quoting -- Conrad, now I read whatever I pick up in the YA aisle at the library). But I can live with that. At this rate, imagine how simple-minded I'll be in a decade...
HOWEVER! Several of your "least favorites" are also my least favorites. The What To Expects, Of Mice and Men...
I did like Da Vinci Code, though. I could be trendy and pretend like I didn't, but the truth is I did. Brian and I read it together and we had a great time. Don't hate me...
I've never thought about why I read books....because of the story that needs to captivate me, so I need action, a plot. But you are right: best books appeal both emotion and intellect. Well said!
I don't like non-fiction very much for the often lack of emotion, but only emotional books are often shallow. A good passtime but immediately forgotten.
I don't know any of your list of books. Oops! I'm currently writing a post about the books I read on vacation though.
I don't know anything about genres either...I don't know what speculative fiction is.
Your caveat made me laugh. One of my fav books was the poisonwood bible by barbara kingsolver. It stayed with me long after the book closed. I just loved it. My least favorite. . . well, I can't say. I've long since given up dissing books I don't like because of how passionate the book's fans usually are.
Oh!! I thought I was the only person in the world who ever put Kristin Lavransdatter on a top 10 list.
I feel a little bit the way I did once when, sitting in the pediatricians office, I heard a woman call her three children, and they had the same names as my three. And one of them is Louisa, so maybe there's something...
Thanks for the lists.
I read to escape. As soon as I open the cover to a good book, reality fades to a mist at the edge of my vision fantasy comes into focus. My biggest fantasy is for someone to invent a way to hook my brain into a machine that will let me live the life of my favorite character, if only in my head.
I still don't get Dave's kick in the pants. I discovered that it doesn't work with Firefox for some reason. sigh...