A presidential debate in the 1980s had the candidates asked about the last good book they'd read. I sometimes reflect on this. I reflect as I wonder why we should be expected to read books. A preposterous or stupid question?
Actually I think a lot of us think highly of books as a pretense. So many books appear interesting in theory or on paper. It's laudable that we are so interested. But are literal "books" the only way to get proper enrichment? Or, even the most desirable way? No! There's my unequivocal answer.
Even in pre-Internet times I would have exuded such sentiment, as I would have argued that magazine and newspaper articles were advantageous. Why? Brevity, i.e. "getting to the point" about something. Condense, man, condense!
So why are books still weighed as being such a valued medium, an indispensable one even. C'mon, man, it's a business. My more cynical side would suggest it's a racket. The material in books must be "padded" to get this final product we call "books."
Books are not inherently ideal for dispensing information - they are a product. They must be designed with marketing in mind. Does that not cross your mind?
I can elaborate further. You no doubt come across radio and TV interviews of book authors. Jon Stewart is the total outlier who at least claims to read these authors' material in their entirety. That's a huge lift, obviously. If he really does this, congratulations. 99 percent of media interviewers are provided with a "synopsis." Amen and hallelujah. The synopsis is probably a 100 percent acceptable substitute for the book itself. The synopsis "tells you what you need to know." Well thank you very much.
So I'm thinking back to the presidential debate of the 1980s. Each candidate was able to cite a particular book. Maybe they knew about the question in advance. They observed protocol so appropriately. Donald Trump would have been so ahead of his time. I'd guess Trump does not read "books." Neither do I.
On very rare occasions in my life I have actually gotten into a book to where I finish it. Here's two examples: "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara - a book I have recommended to friends as often as I can - and "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer.
My old college friend Brad from the Iron Range joked about how we sometimes buy books that just end up "lying around." A faddish author for us at the time was B.F. Skinner. So Skinner came out with a new book, "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." Sounds like a deep and thought-provoking book, i.e. a book that seemed appealing in theory. And Brad said "that's the kind of book you buy and then a few months later you see it with the receipt still in it."
I think that little anecdote capsulizes what I'm trying to say here. Not that I can't expound further just like a book author would. Sigh. So let me quote another old friend, the now-deceased Mike Miller of UMM. The Native American, remember? A sage and frank person, RIP. I often saw him at McDonald's in the morning. He said that a problem with UMM was "too many classes that assign too many books."
This was a number of years ago. I am going to guess that this problem has faded away. Colleges everywhere need students so badly, they can't risk getting carried away assigning "books." Oh, but the idea of reading books is so virtuous, right? That's the stereotype, shall we say the stereotype in academia.
Remember "speed-reading?" Kind of a fad when I was young. I gathered that a key part of the technique was to identify the most germane parts of a book without reading slavishly all the way through. Ugh, word by word. Only a fool would do that, right?
So why have "books" been forced on young people through time? The publishers and their marketing? And then think of the silly inflation that developed with books assigned in college. Man, I could walk away from that so easily.
Had I been on the debate stage in the 1980s, I'd be unflappable: I'd say "I don't read books," probably to a smattering of laughter from the audience. Such shallow people to laugh, because I am in fact a quite devoted reader. I read from media. I read from my laptop screen. And of course I can discern things of value. I might call up Dana Milbank's current column. Or an in-depth piece in "The Daily Beast" or from "The Atlantic."
I can get drained reading such material, really, so imagine if I put myself in position to read a whole friggin' book. Like I said, only on rare occasions and only with a book that was totally compelling.
So, I am anything but an ignorant person even though I eschew "books." But would the debate audience take me seriously, find my statement credible? In the present day I think they might. I don't even want to speculate how Donald Trump would answer the question because I'm simply tired of writing about him, of giving attention to him. He is now an existential threat to this nation. I digress.
Thinking about books reminds me of a famous episode of TV's "Twilight Zone." The one with Burgess Meredith, perhaps you recall. His life is saved because he's in a bank vault when Armageddon happens. He relishes being free and alone to read a stack of books he has assembled from a library. He's in heaven, you might say. Then he drops his glasses and breaks them.
I am also reminded of a Mag Magazine feature from when I was young: the "Thick and Thin" books. Need I describe? "Robert Redford, Sex Symbol." And then the thin book: "Merv Griffin, Sex Symbol." Quite a hoot. And on that note I'll close out these thoughts, because I do not wish to get too long-winded as a book author would.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment