“Most commonly we come to books with blurred and divided minds, asking of fiction that it shall be true, of poetry that it shall be false, of biography that it shall be flattering, of history that it shall enforce our own prejudices. If we could banish all such preconceptions when we read, that would be an admirable beginning” (Woolf, 2).
This quote illustrates one of the main points in Woolf’s essay. Once we are able to overcome our biases, we can begin to understand what we read by raising questions and drawing our own conclusions. This is a liberty that is granted to us as readers. However, when we allow authorities to dictate what to read and how to read, Woolf writes that we “destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of [our libraries]” (Woolf, 1). These views stood out to me because I am of the belief that we should not be directed by “credited” experts on the proper way to enjoy a book.
It would seem that Anne Fadiman also shares this view. In her essay Never Do That to a Book, she explores the differences between those who consider physical damage on a book to be sacrilegious and those who think nothing of reading books in the sauna or tearing out whole chapters after they had been read. Throughout the essay, Fadiman draws comparisons to physical love. At one point she outright states, “Just as there is more than one way to love a person, so is there more than one way to love a book” (Fadiman, 35). No one can tell us how to read a book or how to treat a book, for these are expressions of our individuality. Whether we read a book for the sake of reading a book or choose to treat a book as the Holy Grail, what matters is that we are still enjoying our duty as readers.
Bradyn, good post! I want for us to continue to think about these questions this semester as we do read books and plays and poems together. Are there any things we can agree on together? How far should we take our autonomy as readers?
ReplyDelete