O how I love thee, literature snobs

I can't contain the venom any longer--I feel a need to abuse readers everywhere. Every reader? Perhaps not--while I do not wish to detract from my message, I have to admit there are plenty of catches. I love people reading and writing--proving their literacy--at every opportunity. I started a literary magazine at my school to encourage this, and the results have been spectacular. I joined the newspaper staff and became editor to encourage literacy on two levels--for reading proficiency, and for news awareness. I want to become a teacher so that I can inspire students to enjoy reading and learning as much as I do. (It's not as lofty as it sounds.) Unfortunately, bibliophiles like myself are in despair because the adult literacy rate is steadily declining, and raising a love of academia in students is extremely difficult.

However, for those who partake in the pleasure of reading, it would seem that students reject classical literature. I have heard the magnum opuses of literary masters deemed boring, too long, difficult to comprehend, and "bad." I have extreme difficulty connecting to this vein of criticism. My experiences are based on the reactions of my classmates to books we've covered in high school. (This includes Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, A Tale of Two Cities, The Great Gatsby, The Scarlet Letter, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Beowulf, and The Poisonwood Bible, plus many of Shakespeare's plays, and several short stories.)

Realizing that not every book is easily read, or that every reader will enjoy it, how can such a broad spectrum be rejected? These are works from all walks of life, all time periods, by both genders. The core curriculum for English classes is designed to either broaden students' perspectives, and educate. The books are meant to be analyzed for literary elements, but this should not detract from enjoyment. Look at it as decoding a difficult puzzle. Once you can understand how it was created, your enjoyment for the beautiful end result increases tenfold. Plus, with practice, you can see things more easily with other books, make inferences as to the purpose of including such details, and connect to others who have read the book. Thomas C. Foster, author of How to Read Literature Like A Professor, states that books should be read twice through. Once is for enjoyment and to understand the plot; the second is to analyze it for literary elements. Logical, yes? It's learning with little work. Literally, all that has to be done is to read and think.

But how does that pardon "boring" literature? This is easily solved. It takes a little more effort than reading itself, but in the end, being literate will pay off when you recognizing your preferred writing style is similar to that of Virginia Woolf or James Joyce. (Yes, indeed, being a prolific reader will improve your vocabulary and help you think AND write better.) The "boring" mystery is easily solved--read a variety of literature. Chances are, you already know your taste and preferences. On a broad scale, people enjoy books that they can easily connect to. Deciding whether or not you enjoy fiction or nonfiction is something that can be left to you. Read books in every genre. I've done it, and it has yet to kill me. The discovery of loving fantasy, or young adult fiction, or classical literature, or books on philosophy is like finding love at every turn--experiment. Like every good blind, you won't enjoy every book that gets tried out. That's okay. You don't have to read the book unless you believe it's worth it or you're enjoying it; that it will contribute to improved literacy and thought. At the end, you may find you enjoyed it despite a rough beginning. Not every author is a master--or indeed, not every book is written to be catered to the reader. The writer-reader relationship is complex and far from how it is usually portrayed, with the writer attempting to please the reader at every turn.

I can't convey how wonderful it is to find an author who broadens the thought spectrum. I read constantly--an average of 13 books per month, depending on length and the amount of free time I have. Learning to think through literature is a love I will always have to cherish, and it has helped carry me through some of the rougher times of my life. I want to convey that to others. I'm convinced reading will make people happy; you just have to find the right book. Even those who hate reading have a book they've enjoyed. (Case in point: I dated a guy once who only owned five books. Three of these were graphic novels, but the other two were genuine books and he loved them to pieces.)

As for finding books to try--your local library holds a wealth of them. Your local bookstore is eyecandy for the bibliophile-to-be. Indeed, I encourage people to judge books by their cover at bookstores. There's no need to purchase them if you don't have the spare cash. The library holds the jewels. I've had my library card since I was nine years old, and the librarians know my name and face. (I'll never forget running into a librarian at Borders.) The library is also where you'll find the biggest variety for finding what you like. Unlike major bookstores, the library carries what isn't popular, but what may be better fodder for thought. Libraries are always worthy of a gander, and they're usually comfortable for chilling out. (Recently in The USA Today, an author listed what her favorite libraries were. Surprisingly, she liked one of the branches from my hometown the most, but the others she listed had fireplaces [insert irony here], elaborate fountains, and an aviary.)

But now that I have said my spiel about encouraging literacy, taste does matter. For those who are rooted in young adult fiction (hello, the devoted followers of Stephenie Meyers or the Gossip Girls series), give classics a try. Give plenty of classics a try. Don't give up because Dickens didn't agree with you. It's alright--there are plenty of classics about. Some people would say Dickens is a lofty goal for people who don't read often. I would say, no, Dickens is just not for people who don't understand esoteric Victorian satires. Judging from plots and a well-written synopsis, most readers can assess if they can handle a book. Trust your senses and cater to your tastes.

Learning to love other books that you wouldn't normally enjoy will come with time as tastes mature. And don't be afraid to indulge in a Gossip Girls book occasionally--having a fix is acceptable. But for most of the material of your literary thought to be based on fluff (that is the term--literature that does not yield itself to higher thought) pains me almost as much as not reading it at all. It's like watching a sport where you can see players performing. Some players need more time to develop talent (those who don't read). Others have glimmers of talent--but small things hold them back from performing better. To be more specific, these readers are like baseball players who can bat but can't catch. To improve, they work on catching. There's no need to rush improvement, and the readers can possess their exceptional talent of batting--but now they can catch as well. Reading is the same way, but vastly easier.

I may have to write another post similar to this one for another diatribe, but I hope have successfully improved the image of being literate. Perhaps next time I'll hit on news literacy. As for those who do tackle the classics and love them--let's be best friends, haha, because I hear we're in the minority.