Some morning thoughts on writing and readability
Well, it's been a quiet week here in Lake Woebegon...oh, wait a minute, that's not my line.
It has been a quiet weekend here in Wilsonville. And I must say that I like Garrison Keillor, liberal though he may be. Eric and I once went to a live show of the Prairie Home Companion, when it was taping in Bend. That was cool. And I also like The Writer's Almanac a lot. I get the e-mail version of it sent to me each day, and I like knowing little things like the fact that yesterday was Shakespeare's birthday.
Today, I found this great quote in TWA:
Anthony Trollope said, "Of the needs a book has, the chief need is that it be readable."
I completely agree. I guess maybe my conception of what makes a good book has never gotten past childhood, because when I pick up a book, my reason for doing so is simple: I want to hear a story. Something like James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake seems like a waste of time and paper to me. If the work is so obscure that you need more footnotes than text just to even make a guess at what the author was trying to say, then what's the point in reading it?
This point of view, I admit, has probably led to me not challenging myself very often in my personal reading. There are some books--Mrs. Dalloway, or Shakespeare, or even the Bible, that do take some work to truly comprehend, and yet are very rewarding once I've disciplined myself to read them. But for the most part, I'm turned off by writing that elevates form or literary style over readability.
I'm the same way about music. My husband and I have had many debates over this and he considers me a simpleton who doesn't truly appreciate good music because of it, but I like music that has a melody and is pleasant to listen to. Radiohead (his favorite band) doesn't do it for me.
There you have my rambling thoughts for the day. Thank you, Garrison Keillor and Anthony Trollope.
It has been a quiet weekend here in Wilsonville. And I must say that I like Garrison Keillor, liberal though he may be. Eric and I once went to a live show of the Prairie Home Companion, when it was taping in Bend. That was cool. And I also like The Writer's Almanac a lot. I get the e-mail version of it sent to me each day, and I like knowing little things like the fact that yesterday was Shakespeare's birthday.
Today, I found this great quote in TWA:
Anthony Trollope said, "Of the needs a book has, the chief need is that it be readable."
I completely agree. I guess maybe my conception of what makes a good book has never gotten past childhood, because when I pick up a book, my reason for doing so is simple: I want to hear a story. Something like James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake seems like a waste of time and paper to me. If the work is so obscure that you need more footnotes than text just to even make a guess at what the author was trying to say, then what's the point in reading it?
This point of view, I admit, has probably led to me not challenging myself very often in my personal reading. There are some books--Mrs. Dalloway, or Shakespeare, or even the Bible, that do take some work to truly comprehend, and yet are very rewarding once I've disciplined myself to read them. But for the most part, I'm turned off by writing that elevates form or literary style over readability.
I'm the same way about music. My husband and I have had many debates over this and he considers me a simpleton who doesn't truly appreciate good music because of it, but I like music that has a melody and is pleasant to listen to. Radiohead (his favorite band) doesn't do it for me.
There you have my rambling thoughts for the day. Thank you, Garrison Keillor and Anthony Trollope.
1 comments:
Hi Jen,
I'm a readability fan, too. There are so many great books out there that I want to read that if I start one, and find that it closes itself off to me, I put it aside. For me, I'm all about story over any kind of fancy format.
Post a Comment