Why we read

EA Younker recently had a new addition to her house, a young man named Tech, who struggles with reading. EA makes some pretty valid points - you need to be able to read to get a driver's licence and a job, but why is literature pushed so heavily in school? I clearly understand the need for people to communicate well in writing. However, is there validity to people questioning why they are required to read Shakespeare, Dickens, or any of the other "classics" out there? Just as people in the arts question the need for them to study algebra is there a reverse argument? EA's husband, Moose, did his training in technical fields and had very little patience or preference for reading. He's done well for himself and his career and his life without analyzing or even reading the classics. So - like math - what is defending the study of literature?

Unlike math, students can graduate from most colleges and universities without taking a literature course. I never took one. Writing classes, however, tend to be required as much as math is. With that said, I will say it's unlikely that a student will not be exposed to at least one instance of literary analysis in college. So, to get some kind of perspective literature requirements, I went back to high school. The Common Core has a nice website for what the standards are for the different levels from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Once you hit sixth grade and up the standards look very similar, but just require more extensive supporting of your ideas. From this, I get that the goal of studying literature is to help students see narrative structure, engage in critical reasoning based on evidence and inference, comparing and contrasting mediums in both artistic and practical uses of conveying ideas, examining how the characters respond to their environment, and being able to succinctly convey complex ideas. I guess I can understand those goals.

However, couldn't those skills be developed via other means? In fact, I demonstrated how algebra develops reasoning and critical thinking when defending why we study math. Scientific experimentation could be used to examine different mediums. Speaking and writing classes would be perfect for examining how to convey ideas. And psychology and sociology would let us examine real people interacting with their environment more accurately than a fictional character in a fictional environment. So, is literature just being redundant? Books take time to read - especially for someone with dyslexia, vision difficulties, and attention limitations. And many of the books that are required are books that the generation reading them don't feel they can relate to.

So, why do we require students to study literature? Because, the human mind works by building connections between both internalized, personal experiences and external examples. And literature can help provide us with both personal experiences and external examples in ways that other forms of entertainment can. Take film - often seen as the opposite of books. Lets take the Twilight series as an example. The bulk of the books is taken up by Belle's internal struggles, thoughts, insights, and musings. How do you translate that to visual - Stares! Mary Robinette Kowal mentioned this in talking about puppetry (4:05 in the podcast). The puppet is thinking about what it's looking at. Unfortunately the audience is watching the watcher and has to infer what they are thinking. While it is possible for an actor (or a puppeteer) to convey exactly what is being felt, it may still not be clear why they are feeling that way because we have no insight into the character's mind short of a blatant (and often criticized) voice-over. Not to say that books can't be ham-fisted in their approach to their topic, just that there are more options open to a writer than a film maker.

I threw this question out on Facebook and had a number of people contribute. One linked to an article on Scientific America that discussed results of reading literary fiction (the genre that "classics" often fit into). The study found that people that read literary fiction had a higher capacity for empathy. The same was not true for genre fiction, according to the study. The reason for this was that, "literary fiction... focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships." Which I find clashes slightly with the next statement, "Often those characters' minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we're forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations." If they focus so much on the characters' psychology and why are their minds often depicted vaguely. Anyway, I will agree that literary fiction tends to focus on unsympathetic characters and situations, requiring the reader to develop forms of empathy to understand the character better. I do think that thoughtful reading of genre fiction can also increase empathy, but the work will need opportunities for the reader to empathize.

A part of literature building our ability to empathize is that through literature we have the ability to witness the world through other peoples' eyes. George R.R. Martin said, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." My initial thought was that Julius Ceasar (in the Shakespeare play of the same name) says, "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." There are very important distinctions between these quotes. They just sound the same. Unlike the coward a reader has the luxury of experiencing others' lives and points of view in whether those people be fictional of real. One of the best books I ever read was It Doesn't Take a Hero, the autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Another was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Both were non-fiction and enabled me to experience, in a small way, events and wars that helped shape my culture and generation. People looking to experience censorship and government controls have but to look to Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, and Anthem by Rand. There are so many topics that may be explored and experienced in literature. It doesn't just have to be non-fiction.

And lastly, a reason to study literature. To help people come to enjoy reading. Books are a basis for entertainment and culture all over the world. Many movies start life between covers. Even those that don't are first written down. The same goes for theater, broadcasts, speeches, and comedy. Someone first committed it to paper and it sounded good enough there to expand and build on it. I don't begrudge film makers their adaptations of books. I don't prefer audio books over paper copy or digital. I'm just glad that I gained an appreciate for a good story early in life so I could enjoy it for the rest of my life.

"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."

The title of this post is a quote from my paternal grandmother who was a vivacious reader of just about everything. She was the one that introduced Harry Potter to my mother before my mother read it to us. Her collection of books was a great legacy and her ability to talk about books was always a delight. I was looking forward to such a discussion when I called her to tell her that I had finished Bram Stoker's Dracula.

"Grandma! I finished reading Dracula!"
"Oh."
(pause) "Aren't you proud. I read a classic."
"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."
(pause followed by me chuckling) "So, Grandma. I take it you didn't like it."
"Nope."

That's a pretty accurate account of how the "discussion" went. Personally, I loved Dracula. I found it interesting and intriguing and more than a little suspenseful - particularly since I knew what Dracula was and could see the writing on the wall. I remember wanting to scream at Johnathan Harker, "He doesn't have a reflection!! This man is not normal! Get out of there!!!" but of course he wouldn't have heard me.

Dracula is considered a classic, and it's one of the few books that I've read that have that distinction. 11th grade English was not a good class for me. The only book I actually finished was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Didn't read Huckleberry Finn (Twain), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne), or anything else that year. So, you could say that my experience with "great American Classics" is..... unfinished. I've read and seen more Shakespeare than many, but a deficiency of Dickens. I feel quite familiar with Austin but have only read Jane Eyre from the Bronte sisters' works. And my Classical (Greek and Roman) literature is even more lacking than my Dickens. I would say of my classic (and classical) literature education that I know what I should have read, but haven't actually done so.

Which launches me into my musing of what constitutes a "classic" and what should we be reading. "Classic book" even has its own Wikipedia page. For many, it's what we should be reading. Books that young people should be exposed to in order to "learn literature." However, there is some pretty heated debate about that. If you're looking for entertaining discussions on this, click the links to read and listen by authors I enjoy over at Monster Hunter Nation and Do I Dare to Eat a Peach who have something to about it.

For myself, a classic book is one that has longevity. Something that has stood the test of time, for one reason or another. They may be message fiction (have a particular agenda or moral lesson in mind - Scarlet Letter, 1984, and Lord of the Flies I'm looking at you.) It might be genre altering (The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings come to mind, not to mention Asimov's work). It might be well written and compelling (King Lear, Macbeth, and Julies Caesar are just three of the many works - three that I'm more familiar with than others). These works have been through a lot and are still read and meaning and enjoyment is found within them.

What I find difficult to fathom is when someone will say "That isn't a classic because it's (a genre fiction)" or "(book title) is an instant classic." The definition of "classic" used in these statements must differ from might significantly. Standing the test of time, gaining a kind literary immortality, happens to many different kinds of books. J.R.R. Tolkien practically invented modern fantasy - one of the key staples to genre fiction. For the second, can anyone project what the next "classic" will be? In 1952 the movie "Singin' in the Rain" was released. Looking at the Academy Awards for 1953 the movie was involved with only two categories: Best Actress in Supporting Role (Jean Hagen in the role of Lina Lemont) and Best Music, Scoring of Musical Picture and it didn't win either of them. Based on that, one might think that "Singin' in the Rain" might fade from time. But when was the last time you talked to someone who saw "American In Paris" the show that won Best picture the year before? "Hans Christian Anderson" with Danny Kaye was nominated for more awards and is a wonderful movie, but is virtually unknown in popular circles. Yet, "Singin' in the Rain" has drawn audiences of many ages for years since. I only want to show that you can't say what will become a classic and what won't. Not until the time has passed and we look at what people are still reading.

And what should we be reading? Why are classics considered so important to read? With how long this post has gone, that is a question for another time. But in the meantime - What do you think people should read?

Suspense

My wife will tell you that I am not a fan of scary movies. She enjoys a good scary movie every once in a while, but she can't watch them with me. I attribute it to my active imagination. We watched The Others our first Halloween at 10:00 am with the sun shining nice and bright through the window. That's how much I'm not a fan of scary movies. Perhaps it was from seeing a big chunk of the movie It when I was about eight. Not a happy memory. No, I'm not afraid of clowns.

The funny thing is, my fear is primarily in events that have a super-natural element. I enjoy watching many of Hitchcock's films including To Catch a Thief, The Man who Knew to Much, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window, and (my personal favorite) Rebecca. I also like Charade by Stanley Donen, and Wait until Dark by Terence Young. Despite my enjoyment of many of Hitchcock's films as well as others, I have no interest in seeing The Birds, or Psycho. Those movies frankly scare me. Perhaps it is the idea of the ordinary becoming malicious. A normal shower becomes a scene of a murder. Crows and ravens descend as killers. For whatever reason, there are plenty of films that I have no desire to see.

Interestingly enough, the same is true of books. In fifth grade I would asked to be excused when the teacher started reading "scary stories" as part of a Halloween ramp-up. However, one day she pulled out a collection of Edgar Allen Poe short stories and I fell in love with his dark style. "The Masque of the Red Death" and "Cask of Amontillado" are two of my favorites along with "Hop-Frog" and "the Pit and the Pendulum." As I mentioned previously, Dracula by Bram Stoker is a personal favorite of mine after reading it in college. I will say, however, that when I first read it, I would not read it after 3:00 pm - just to be sure.

What many of these stories, whether printed or filmed, have in common is suspense. I attended a lecture one Halloween in college where a professor of English and film talked about what made Hitchcock so good at suspense. He explained that suspense is not the unknown, but rather when you know what is going to happen and you are watching someone who doesn't know what is happening. This image - of a person standing behind the shower curtain, out of sight and consequently unknown to the lady - is more suspenseful than this one of the woman seeing Mr. Norman Bates.

Hitchcock was also good at turning that model on it's head. Rear Window has you watching a man who is witnessing this catalyst for suspense himself. He can the danger that his friend is in even when she can't. And our suspense it watching him in suspense. Rear Window may very well be one of the most suspenseful films done simply because of this strange twist on the usual formula.

The Birds is not to be left out. Here Hitchcock plays our own knowledge against us. In the iconic schoolyard scene we see a flock of crows gathering. We know that the woman cannot see them and that the crows having nothing good planned. But lets see what Hitchcock does with our expectations. Watch the scene here.

I'd have posted the clip in text, but it gives away Hitchcock's device. We know what to expect and instead of meeting them, Hitchcock gives us an overdose - a shock that turns the suspense we feel for the women to share in her terror as she realizes what is in store for her. Rebecca does a similar thing where we expect to hear one thing and then find out another. We think we have him figured out, only to find out it's much worse.

This Halloween I won't be watching anything worse than The Mummy staring Brendan Fraser or even Abbot and Costello meet the Mummy. This is in part because we will have smallish children with us, and also because I don't really like scary movies. I hope you enjoy your Halloween.

Once more into the breach!

I just finished listening to Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs on Audible.com. It reminded me of King Soloman's Mines by Sir. H. Rider Haggard which my mother had recommended to me a could years ago, which is also on my list to read. These stories fit under what is commonly referred to as adventure fiction. Written in 1885 King Soloman's Mines is considered the first English adventure novel, but it was by far the last. Even today, our cinema has a rich tradition from The Thief of Baghdad (1924) to Indiana Jones(1981-2008), Prince of Persia (2010), and The Adventure of Tintin (2011). Most of these are based on works of literature, notably the first and last. The Thief of Baghdad was based on One Thousand and One Nights also known as the Arabian Nights Tales (published in English in 1706) while Tintin was originally published in French in 1929. So adventure stories have been going on for well over 100 years.

It occurs to me that there may be confusion about what constitutes an adventure story as opposed to a thriller, action, or other broad genre. While doing a search for "Adventure novels" I came across this list from  The Art of Manliness blog of "essential adventure novels." I've read 11 and am familiar with 19 others. I was grateful to see Kipling, Tolkien, Verne, Cussler, and Crichton which again shows the century long span of the genre. But does it answer our question about what constitutes adventure over other genres? Not really as Jurassic Park is considered a great work of science fiction and The Lord of the Rings is used as a common definition of fantasy. I googled "Adventure genre definition" and liked this particular one from Writer's Digest University:

Adventure Story: A genre of fiction in which action is the key element, overshadowing characters, theme and setting. ... The conflict in an adventure story is often man against nature. A secondary Plot that reinforces this kind of conflict is sometimes included. In Allistair MacLean's Night Without End, for example, the hero, while investigating a mysterious Arctic air crash, also finds himself dealing with espionage, sabotage and murder.

 Because adventure stories are based on action and adventure they are highly susceptible to genre blending. I think many people would not actually think of their being an adventure genre as much as they think of adventure stories within a genre. However, there are some stories out there that are best described by Adventure - Indiana Jones being at the top of the list. It's not a war story, it's not horror or even rally paranormal/supernatural. Mystery doesn't cover it either. There may be elements of those troupes but really it is all about the adventure with everything else being secondary. For instance, does the character of Indiana Jones ever really develop over the course of the movies? At the end of The Last Crusade is he really any different then at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Not really. Yes, he has accomplished some things, reconciling himself with his father being one, but has he reached a higher level of self. Nope! He's still the same kick-butt, wicked smart, super awesome guy from when he ran away from the boulder and shot the guy with the big sword. It's all about the adventure!

This idea that the adventure reigns supreme and that character development is not as critical gives us our classic, iconic, heroes. These are the people who are good at what they do. If they fail it is because the circumstances, perhaps even the Gods, are against them. But despite failure, their competency and consistency helps them rise again and overcome whatever it was that denied them victory the first time. They may overcome flaws and weaknesses along the way, but their inherent nature is unchanged. They are heroic because that is who they are. I recently finished listening to Dodger by Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite authors. As I listened to the story (slight spoiler), I started to become surprised that everything Dodger did worked. Everything he put his mind to he was able to accomplish. He did develop in other ways and I believe that you could say there was some character arch, but everything worked out. It didn't make me care about his character any less, nor did it significantly diminish the tension, it simply made the story about the adventure and less about the character. I believe this is what is often called a plot-driven story. Many think that plot driven stories are not as good as character-driven stories, but I believe that's a matter of taste. The classic and popular  adventure stories seem to have done a good job of it though. So kick-back, get comfortable, and enjoy the ride.

The Serial Story

I will gladly say that I do not have television. Not that I don't have A television set, but I do not have an antenna or cable signal. And I really don't care. This is because of a number of factors: my family's love of reading, habit - I grew up with little to no television viewing, and also because of technology - the internet provides a lot of substitutes to television. I'm really don't have anything against television itself as a medium or even against many of the programs. Although there are some that portray things I think are better left alone.

The reason I bring this up is to accent that I enjoy stories in long form, like a lot of what television is doing, but I do not have that source for myself. Consequently I read a lot of books with sequels and series. Just thinking off the top of my head, there are at least 5 series that I have started that I'm currently waiting on books. This is also visible in my selection of web comics.

For this post, I wanted to return to some musing about serials and their origins. A serial of course is when a story is published / produced in segments or parts. This is the definition of television dramas. Often once the story is complete they are complied into one volume for future consumers (think DVD box set). The same is true of books. I understand that Charles Dickens wrote many of his stories in serial format, and the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was produced as a weekly radio drama. Even Larry Correia, one of my favorite authors, wrote a serial story online before selling his first bound novel. So even going beyond a series of books, many books were produced a little at a time.

There are many reasons to do a serial. It might be the form of your medium. Television and radio have always had to work with limited time. If you notice, production requires lots of time and money. So if a TV studio is going to poor millions of dollars into a story, they like to release it a bit at a time so if it's going to go south they can stop it before they become too invested. Serial also supports how we consume media. I don't know anybody who has the time to sit and read a book over a 45 hour and 37 min period in one go. Even if you are like me who will dedicate a couple of hours to reading a book (usually between 10:00 pm and 2:00 am) there are few books I have read in one sitting. (I can only think of three, and they were all less then 300 pages).

I think one result of writing (or at least releasing) material in a serial is that it builds suspense. It leaves the audience thinking and dwelling on it. I understand the show Lost had a huge online following while it was on. I know that when I watched the first season of 24 back in college I would talk about and research it between episodes. The same is true with books. Lemony Snicket used online games and puzzles to allow readers of his Series of Unfortunate Events to see extra content and as precursors to the books coming out. Granted, many of the things done "between installments" is for the purpose of reminding consumers to keep with the story. But when the story is good, consumers need very little encouraging to keep consuming.

I wanted to blog about this for two reasons. First, the serial format is nothing new to television as it started long before broadcast media and second, my sister, EA Younker, is currently releasing one of her unpublished works on Wattpad a couple of chapters at a time. This is not the first time she has done this with alpha and beta readers. My older sister got one of EA's books chapter by chapter as she edited it and I got another. Bragging point - EA's first published novel is coming out this year by TM publishing. I got to read one draft and I liked it. I'm looking forward to getting it to see the finished product. To return to Game Over, She is doing this so people can see how she writes as well as to get feedback from potential readers of her other stories. Check it out and the next time you sit down to watch (or read) your latest favorite drama, think about how long we as a society have been consuming stories that we have to wait for.

Poetry and why I memorize it

This is a picture of my mother and my daughter headed back to the car after a couple hours of sledding. I was thinking about how lucky I am to have such a wonderful family. It was the first time that my kids have been sledding and while my daughter was running my mother and myself ragged, my son was more than content to sit and watch. And eat snow. He had a little difficulty as his thumbs were crammed in with his finger in his mittens. When I told my mother she immediately replied:

Thumbs in the thumb place,

Fingers all together.

This is the song we sing in mitten weather

When it's cold it doesn't matter whether

Mittens are wool, or made of finest leather.

Thumbs in the thumb place,

Fingers all together.

This is the song we sing in mitten weather.

I had to look this up. According to this website it is a song written by Rachel Buchman. I had never hear it before and knowing my mother she probably learned it from her childhood or just for the heck of it. Yes, this is my same mother that got me to appreciate math. Her professional training was in engineering, but she has always been an avid reader of literature, fiction, non-fiction, and poetry. She could of completed an English lit minor with all the classes she took. She passed that love of reading down to us kids and I hope to pass it along to my children as well.

Returning to the topic I proposed, I was not always an advocate of memorizing poetry. When I was in 8th grade I told my English teacher that we should "Never memorize anything you can look up." She was not impressed. Not even when I mentioned that it was Albert Einstein that said that first. I can remember having to memorize two different poems between 8th and 9th grade. There may have been more but I can't remember them. I only succeed at doing one of them - "Old Ironsides" by Oliver Wendell Holms. The other one I was didn't memorize was "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley.

While I have always appreciated poetry, I didn't always see a need to memorize it. I grew up on Shel Silverstein, and Jack Prelutsky, as well as the large binder of poems that my mother had put together for a poetry class she had in college. My father enjoyed poetry as well, reading to us from Robert Service and Rudyard Kipling when we were camping. I enjoy the flow of language and the way poets will engage in "word smiting" to create images. I even wrote poetry while in high school and little in college. However, I never set out to actively memorize a poem.

I think the turning point for me in actually wanting to memorize poetry came with my children. My daughter used to suffer from acid re-flux and I would sing to her as she would try to fall asleep. I looked up the complete lyrics to "Scarborough Fair," I pulled out children and church song books, and even sang her songs that I had learned in Russian. I like to think that my singing helped her fall asleep, but I think it just helped me bond with her. What are songs but poems to music. The flame was lit.

Then my daughter came to the age of questions and wonder. She is still very much in this stage, but a couple of years ago, I remembered my mother reciting poems to us as we learned about the world around us. Whenever my wife made meatloaf I cursed that I didn't know the words to "My mother made a Meatloaf." or "The Turkey shot out of the Oven" when we had one in the oven ourselves. I wasn't completely hopeless when it came to poetry. Often, when she helped me with the dishes (I was the dishwasher for the most part), I would recite "If you have to Dry the Dishes" by Shel Silverstein. But I wanted more.

The last reason for wanting to memorize poems was my own personal enjoyment. I wanted to have words close to me. There is a rhyme and reason (pun very intended) to poetry that tends to resonate with me. When I see the sunrise I think of "The Morning Song in the Jungle" by Kipling. When I walk outside into the cold winter air I hear "The Ballad of Blasphemous Bill McKie" by Service. When my daughter is filled with insatiable curiosities I remember "I Keep Six Honest Serving Men" (Kipling again). When I watch my son grow and learn new things I ponder upon "If" (Kipling once more). And when I find myself in trial and tribulation, "Invictus" bears me up. Yes, I went back and did what I couldn't do in 8th grade.

And I am very glad I did.