Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Dickens’
birth. To commemorate this momentous occasion, we’re to have a wreath laying
ceremony by royalty and other events going on all over the country.
I’ve expressed the opinion before, and it’s worth repeating,
that if there are to be ceremonies, they should be celebrating the books, not
the author. But let’s leave that one aside, since it’s a debatable subject.
What I want to pick up on is what that luvvy among luvvies, Simon Callow, had
to say on the matter:
‘Today will be dangerously moving.’
This is the point at which, to me, the arts become so
laughably pretentious that they have to go out of the window and stay away
until I’ve picked myself up.
--------------------------------------
And on a related subject, the government is to sponsor a
competition in schools with prizes awarded to the kids who can read the
greatest number of books.
Books have three functions: they can entertain, they can inform,
and they can encourage free thought. When they entertain, they’re no different
from a film or a fairground ride. When they inform, they become a useful tool.
Neither of those functions makes them culturally iconic; they only aspire to that rarefied
height when they encourage imagination and original thought. As such, they
should be read according to the needs of the developing individual, not debased
to the level of some crass competitive principle dreamed up by idiot
politicians obsessed with their usual, futile numbers game. That makes me a bit
bloody angry.
Might I be allowed to quote Albert Einstein again?
Reading, after a
certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who
reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of
thinking.
2 comments:
Nice quote.
I think there is a difference in how we're entertained by books. For example, i read the Twilight books by Stephanie Myer and was entertained enough to want to read them all, but i also don't think she's a good writer. She has a decent story and a way to make readers want to know what is going to happen. I'm much more entertained by books with a good story line, characters that have depth, and a wonderful use of language and words.
Even though i read all Meyer's books and was entertained while doing so i knew that i'd never want to read them again so i gave them away. I rarely ever part with my books. Two books that i re-read every year are Jane Eyre and The Mists of Avalon. I think those books perform the functions you've listed and every time i read them i finish with new thoughts, feelings, and more of an understanding of and new perspectives on what i've read.
Why don't you think authors should be honored or celebrated?
I agree. My point is that just because something is a number of sheets of paper between two binders doesn't make it inherently valuable, hence my point about politicians and their numbers game.
As for honouring authors, the way I see it is this.
A dead author was a human being who was born, created a body of work, and then died. He/she no longer exists, and so I think there's a line to be drawn between being interested in an author - as I'm interested in Emily Bronte, for example - and lionising them for their own sake. Venerate the work, by all means, because it still exists, but it seems irrational to venerate something that DOESN'T exist. I think it all comes down to the human tendency to pander to the cult of the individual, which I see as one of our weaknesses.
Post a Comment