Literary Blog Hop: Finding the time

I've got a stack of three books waiting for posts to be written about them; but it's late, I've got a great big chunk of prayers yet to say tonight (short explanation: lent), and I've completely failed at posting anything so far this week -- so let's have another meme.




The question is... How do you find time to read, what's your reading style and where do you think reading literature should rank in society's priorities? 

My primary reading time is on the train. I have a short (ten minute) train ride from home to my primary archives, but I often end up waiting 10-20 minutes for that train, and as long as it's not raining and I'm not in a bad mood or something, that's enough time to be worth getting the book out. Trains into central locations tend to come more frequently, but then it's something like 20-30-40 minutes depending on the destination.

Reading on the train, particularly with a short commute, takes effort. You have to remember to bring a book with you, and the book has to be interesting enough to make you dig for it in your bag. I've posted here before that I know I hate a book when I find myself choosing to stare at the ads! I also sometimes read over coffee/tea in the afternoon or at lunch. 

This all sounds like I'm snatching bits of time here and there but it's actually more like these are the times that I give myself to read. Being "self-directed" means that technically, technically, I could just stay home tomorrow in my pajamas and blaze through a couple of novels. But that's not a helpful thought; so I tell myself that books are for odd bits of time like eating or commuting. (Although the combination of reading, drinking coffee/tea, and eating something is sort of my default weekend plan.) My current challenge isn't so much reading as my new skill of knitting, which I have to find some kind of rational timeslot for so that I don't just stay home in my pajamas all day practicing knitting!

As for reading style, I am definitely plot-driven. Blah blah blah description, whatever, let's get on with it. I don't remember when I realized this, but I was a little embarrassed. It seemed sort of... anti-intellectual or something. But it doesn't bother me (much) anymore; and I've started to correct some things I didn't like about my love-em-and-lose-em reading style -- for example, my aversion to ever re-reading things.

Reading as a hobby is a tricky thing, because reading is so important -- as a foundational skill, and also in terms of being exposed to ideas etc. -- and yet it is (or can be) a very solitary activity. Oh sure, book clubs and book blogs; I'm not saying it's completely isolating. But it does mean spending time alone, which not everyone wants to make a priority on a regular basis. Hobbies/interests can go in cycles; for a few years, maybe the bulk of your time and money goes to books, but then maybe it's concerts or crafts or video games or something. Maybe you get bored with the type of books you've been reading and get stuck for something new, and end up taking a break for a while. At least that's how I see it! The way I read now is nothing like when I was a kid, when I really did just spend all my time outside of school and drama club in my room reading (not an exaggeration) (warning: this is not a good way to develop social skills). I guess what I'm getting at is that I am sympathetic to people who "don't read much these days".

Literary Blog Hop: Dinner with authors

If you could invite any three literary figures from different eras to a Sunday Dinner who would they be?

I have to be perfectly honest up front and say that, generally speaking, I dislike the Fantasy Dinner Party genre of questions. I'm very bad at asking people questions in person. I'm not a quick thinker, I'm a little shy, and in general, I would much prefer to interact with famous people through writing. Which works out well as it happens!

Anyhow, I am reading this question perhaps very literally, but I am intrigued by the idea of authors "from different eras".

My first dinner guest therefore is Mr. Anthony Trollope. I am currently almost halfway through Barchester Towers, and one thing I've noticed is his very interesting relationship with his medium. I have a post planned in which I will (attempt) to expand on this point, but right now I'll say that he often sort of comments on his own role as a story-teller: his limitations, his ability to show or hide things, etc.

So I think maybe my second invitation would go to one Publius Ovidius Naso, known to his friends as Ovid, who can also be rather playful in his relationship with the reader. There's a fascinating passage in Barchester Towers where Trollope basically writes that authors put too much stock in suspense, and if knowing the ending ruins your book, maybe it's not such a great book to begin with (I'm paraphrasing, of course; and like I said: more on this to come). I think Ovid, with his experience (re)writing age-old myths, would substantially agree with that, and I would love to hear them develop this line of thinking.

For my third, I'm really going to go out on a limb, and ring up P.G. Wodehouse. Wodehouse is, for me, the master of employing the most exquisite language in the service of popular entertainment. Wodehouse is a breathtakingly good writer, and he absolutely churned out stories by the bucketload. I feel certain that he and Ovid would get along in their respect for the general reading public and the nobility of humor -- I don't know as much about Trollope, but I think he'd be on board too. And Wodehouse could certainly chime in on the conversation about novelty, suspense, and originality. He certainly knew a thing or two about what sells, and could bring a 20th century multi-media perspective, having written for the stage and magazines as well as stand-alone books. If you look at Wodehouse's works overall, the man only had a handful of plots, so I can imagine him jumping into that conversation. To wit:

A certain critic--for such men, I regret to say, do exist--made the nasty remark about my last novel that it contained 'all the old Wodehouse characters under different names.' He has probably by now been eaten by bears, like the children who made mock of the prophet Elisha: but if he still survives he will not be able to make a similar charge against Summer Lightning. With my superior intelligence, I have outgeneralled the man this time by putting in all the old Wodehouse characters under the same names. Pretty silly it will make him feel, I rather fancy.

So! There you have it: a Victorian, an ancient Roman, and a 20th century author walk into a dining room. At the very least, I think they'd be pretty entertaining.