re:considering

For a while the family has been looking at other places to live. We’re reasonably comfortable in the flat we’re in but feel the neighbourhood – the county – is not our preferred social context. Rather the opposite, in fact – we have nothing in common with people who think that being moneyed equals a free card on behaviour and that laws are for the poor.

Anyway, in the course of this search for some other place to live I have looked at a gazillion of photos depicting the homes of other people. And you know what? Most of these homes are totally devoid of books!

I am not so deluded as to thinking everyone has thousands of books in their homes. But perhaps fifty wouldn’t be too bold?

Apparently it is. Because a huge lot of people doesn’t seem to own any books. And I mean ANY books. At all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Walls full of empty white space!!!

Here’s some ideas why this is so -

People who read and discard
Yes,  they exist. I know people who is like that. People who read and read and read but once a book is read it is given to charity or sent to the dustbin or passed on to someone else. So they don’t accumulate any books.
They do have books laying around, though, so aren’t truly bookless.

People who have moved to ebooks
ebooks are convenient. They doesn’t use up space, and they are extremely portable. So this could be why the visual absence of books. But as ebooks haven’t had much impact on the Swedish market – yet – I find it unbelievable that so many people should had discarded all their paper books in favour of ebooks.
But it IS an option.

People who doesn’t read
So, I do know they exist. But so MANY?! Perhaps they are cold rationalists, denying the “false” joys of the fictional novel? But then they ought to have non fictional works. Alas, they don’t. Perhaps they find reading hard? But many of these flats seems to be lived in by people who have incomes in the higher regions or they should not be able to afford either them or the designer furniture they display.
Do they get their mental challenges from the tabloid press and the teen-blog squad that writes about the woes of the designer handbag life?
I simply don’t know.

A mystery.

And a scary one.

A teacher I once had said “an empty desk is an empty brain” – she was about as keen on tidying up her workspace as I was. In other words – not at all. And I think that sentiment apply across a wast dimension of media and storage spaces, books and walls included.

Of course this is very judgemental of me. But I can’t help it. I just can’t.

With only 32 pages left of the formal story in this my latest read I just cannot get myself rid of the very definite feeling that the main characters will die, whatever my personal preferences. As a consequence, because I cannot just put the book away, not after reading 418 pages filled with trials and gore, I now read in 2-page spurts.

This is not the first time this happens, and I wonder – am I such a sucker for happy endings? Am I better suited for bubblegum reads, were everyone ends up living happily ever after? I am determined that the answer is NO, so I slog on, reading in micro-instalments. Because the book, this far, has been very much worth the effort even if I still have no idea what to say when I’m asked what’s it all about, and I’m determined that there will be a good reason for the protagonist and his sidekick(s) to die, for the story to actually have some kind of meaning. In The End.

Whatever that may be.

But – isn’t it ironic that me, who definitely don’t believe in there being any meaning with life except the survival of the species (so better make the time worth it!), can’t stand a book without a message or idea?

As a rule I have small patience for works in the fantasy genre. I have not stopped to analyse why; I just tend not to choose to read a work of fantasy, except if it has gotten raving good reviews by people who I trust.

Reading Eco‘s The Search for the Perfect Language has inadvertently provided me with some tools for analysing, though. While telling the story of the search for the perfect language the book also works as a rough catalogue listing different beliefs and concepts ruling the statesmen, intellectuals and the church of Europe, starting with the late Greeks and proceeding through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and into our own time.

This exposé of the evolution of ideas is extraordinary (and quite fun, Eco has a wry sense of humour and I do not agree with those deeming this a “dry” book). He connects the need for different ideological constructs with the economic history of Europe, the development of the nation states, etcetera, all the while telling the reader about one bizarre idea after another – ideas genuinely held as true, at least by the originator, some hundreds of years ago.

And as I said – it also helped me analyse my aversion against a lot of fantasy. Because there, in the clear open, lies a smorgasbord of ‘magical’ concepts commonly used in fantasy novels. Everyone of them justified, historically, by a lack of knowledge and a wealth of imagination, and a basketful of faith, in one god or another (but mainly one in number, lol, whatever the creed of the originator).

Today superstition can’t be justified, at all – it’s just ignorance, or wishful thinking. Of course, most fantasy isn’t about today, or about ‘here’. This means that if the concept is well executed and the characters are nicely done the book can be a highly enjoyable experience. If not it just becomes a hotchpotch with deus ex machina on deus ex machina – it’s just poor writing, nothing more. However famous the author.

Urban fantasy is even worse. It’s supposed to be here and now, with werewolves and demons and whathaveyou (zombies, now, are the worst – don’t get me started…). It’s just so unbelievable and… downright INANE.
I get very sad when authors I otherwise think highly of do this kind of book. Like Guy G Kay did with Ysabel…

Most of these books are written as pure ‘entertainment’, many of them utilising the horror trope. I have no problems with that. Entertainment is good, I read a lot of books for entertainment, not to mention watching TV or films. Now, to me, of course, entertainment is not having to wince inwardly twice on every page, like I do when I read a Harry Dresden book. So it’s poor entertainment.

I accept that some people like these things. Everyone to his or her own. As far as I’m concerned, though, it’s NOT my cup of tea. At all. And now I know why.
Thank you, Umberto Eco, for that.

I’m of the firm belief that all human beings are born being creative and innovative. It’s a survival trait, we have to be able to solve hitherto unencountered problems to grow up and we often have to make do without the help of others. As time and socialisation works on us we learn to shed or hide that creativity. We learn to conform, to do as expected. We learn that some solutions are NOT valid in this particular society. IF we are lucky we can see that this is not the case universally but we’re still encouraged to do it the way we do it here. So to speak.
This is of course also a kind of survival trait. It works to unify a certain community, to make that community walk in step. This is what the community needs, and often it benefits the citizens of that community.

Sometimes it gets too strict, though. In our present time we get told that being creative is childish and irresponsible.

I think this is one of the reasons the mainstream despise the science fiction genre. Only the other day I had a conversation were the other part said he had enjoyed SF when he was a kid but then grew out of it, then going on to tell that what had been so great with it was how it showed other perspectives, other ideas, other ways to organise society. And believe it or not but he was talking of Flash Gordon! Science fiction is, at it’s root, creative, and demands a mentality that wants to make that journey, to explore the unknown.

Contrast this with the kind of mainstream books out on the market who works to explore certain relationships or characters (mother-daughter, father-son). Those books work to establish which step to walk in, and to assure the reader that other people have felt that way and it’s only normal.

Society needs balance. Society needs both a solid ground to stand on and creativity. Society needs both kinds of literature/fiction.

But it would be so much easier if those reading confirmation lit could acknowledge that while the explorative stuff is not their cup of tea at least it’s not unworthy of a grown up mind.

Personally I enjoy books because they offer the possibility to explore hypothesises. I also enjoy stories that poses questions or that casts light on situations we no longer reflect over because we are so used to them. Too used to them, sometimes. Like the concept of humanity, or the role of religion in conflicts, or whose subjective ideas are viewed as objective truths. Like the concept of power, or history.
The best authors are those who manages to ask all these ‘what ifs’ while at the same time conjure believable characters and a page-turning story.
I’m not hardcore on the characterisation stuff, though. I really really want believable characters BUT sometimes the author makes such a good job with story and ideas that I can accept the thin personalities. Books by Neal Stephenson (this link goes to his Wiki page – this one is for his website) usually fits this last category, this latest book Anathem a point in case.

I also enjoy books for the comfort they bring. Some books are like old friends. Other books are made for reading while you’re sick or generally low. Some of them are the same as those above, but not necessarily so. I used to reread Good Omens whenever I felt down but nowadays when I am sick I mostly reread the Foreigner series.

Some books are stuffed with fast carbohydrates. Pleasurable while they last but leaving you feeling empty afterwards. I think the Dresden Files a typical specimen. It’s like fast food, fluff. Fun, and don’t bear scrutiny.

Others are elaborate, yes, byzantine!, mysteries that challenges the mind’s puzzle solving faculties.

Of course books can also be a source of knowledge. When you use them as such I think it important to look at them and ask when were they written and what are the objectives of the author. Because in some cases even textbooks and encyclopaedias can be prejudiced. Just pick any 100 year old encyclopaedia and check the word ‘Africa’ if you don’t believe me. Racial bias didn’t get non-PC until after wwII.

So many uses for books, and all statistics (from Statistics Sweden, in Swedish) show people read less and less.

Makes me sad.

I prefer books that requires the brain do some work.

Of course I read a lot of light stuff as well. It’s just that (some of) those books are like candy – nice while eating them but leaving the stomach emptier than it started.

But that’s just MY preference. I’d never want to force it on someone else. Reading should be fun.

That makes it tricky to talk about books, though, because it’s inevitable that I voice my opinion and by doing that risk others taking it in a personal way.

“This books that you really liked is trash, and so are you”. Kind of.

So. It’s important to understand that preferences differ, just like we as human beings are different. But this also means that, yes, YOU liked that book but that don’t automatically suggests I will like it. At all.

Sometimes I think a reminder is in place. This IS the reminder.

Preference is personal.
Respect should be universal.

And don’t forget to ask who benefits from you thinking it shouldn’t be that way.