I'm unprepared to do a lot of writing today, but I have already done a good bit of talking this morning. I don't want to mention names of books or names of authors, so I'll designate one author A, and the other author B.
I was reading a book this morning, one that I have been wrestling with, and I was just beginning to settle in, thinking that the author's analysis was incomplete, but tolerable, when author A hit me with something that really set me off. I repressed the urge to fling the book across the room, and instead took the problem to my kind and brilliant husband. I'm not being sarcastic here; He really is both kind and brilliant.
I read it to him, we discussed it, and I was able to calm down just a bit.
Here's something we noticed: your response to a particular book is often a result of the expectation you bring to your reading of it.
My husband posited that if I reacted so strongly to author A, shouldn't I have responded with equal vehemence to author B.
"No, and here's the difference...." I realized it as I explained.
When I read the book by author B, I went in knowing that I was unlikely to agree with his position. I expected some insight, which he did in fact display, but my trust was never violated by author B because I hadn't invested a significant amount of trust in him in the first place.
Not so with author A. I went into author A's book expecting an agreeable reading experience. I didn't expect to agree with everything she said, but I did expect to find arguments and ideas that I could appreciate. Almost immediately my trust was violated.
Was it violated violently? No. It's just that there seemed to be a certain element missing from her assertions beginning on page one. I'm still not entirely sure what it is that is missing, I just know that I don't trust this person. I still expect her to somehow be able turn it around on me, to redeem this reading experience, but as I said, every time I start to think, hey, this is getting better, she implies something that blows up the entire thing.
Ursula LeGuin in fact first alerted me to this idea of an author violating the reader's trust. It makes sense to me. When you know what to expect from an author and you get that very thing, even if it is a problematic thing, it is acceptable. In fact there are some authors who I find to be a lot of fun to argue with. Though it is perhaps a one-sided exchange, it is a rewarding one. There are others who I don't enjoy arguing with at all. Neither do I enjoy reading them, and author A, it seems, is falling into that category.
I haven't made up my mind about author A. I'm still willing to wait and see if things will change. Maybe I'll find her analysis better on some issues than on others. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. We all have our peculiar emphases and blind spots.
But now I've gotten to a part of author A's book I don't even understand. When Michael becomes available again, we'll talk through it and he'll be able to help me understand.
Unfortunately, based on my analysis above, I may be setting myself up for more frustration, that is, by continuing to hope for an improved reading experience, but it's a chance I'll have to take.
There isn't a lot you can learn by refusing to engage ideas that challenge your thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment