The act of reading

Reading experiences differ between people, just as anything else in this world is perceived in different ways by people of differing opinions and tastes. For those of us who are more visually oriented, we tend to be more interested in texts that contain pictures. We get a bit more out of them on some perceptive level seemingly unattainable by others. I've been in classes where instructors have absolutely no artistic sense at all. Some of these instructors have books published, spanning the vast worlds of economics and agriculture, rambling on and on over hundreds of pages of facts and theories completely devoid of pictures. Reading like this is extremely difficult if we are not interested in the subject matter. We're starving for something to look at and relate to. Something that connects our separated reality to it.

Novels are a different story. By nature they tend to paint clearer images in our heads than those other things. If based on facts they at least try to reach out and connect with us by giving us new concepts in ways that relate to everyone. It's fun to let the stories carry our imaginations where they will and allow the people and places to take form from our own perceptions. When we consider comics, however, something completely different is going on. The eloquent flow of text is blatantly interrupted by a barrage of pictures saying, "this is what it looks like." Now we have a complete reversal where the ommited text is replaced by a sort of polished storyboard sequence. In this form it is important for the visuals to speak for themselves. They are the main attraction and the text is only meant to supplement.

As a completely visual person, I find myself actually more interested in the drawings than anything the characters have to say. As a matter of fact, I find the simplified narrative dry and uninteresting. Without the visuals, the text wouldn't be able to support itself. I'm one of those people who would rather visualize a story how I want to see it. I'm not saying I don't like comics, but I do prefer to be challenged by a good read than have visuals spoon fed and spoil my often grander view of the scene. Often when going to see movies I have to remind myself that I'm watching someone else's interpretation and I usually base my level of satisfaction on how close the director's vision is to my own. That's me being human and having opinions about things. In that regard I'm no different than anyone else.

Now, I love silent films. The Lost World and The General are two of my all-time favorites. Speaking of The General, Buster Keaton's films were always prominent in my life growing up around my grandparents. My grandfather especially loved watching Keaton's movies. I grew up with an interest and appreciation for them along with classical music and, of course, visual art. My point here is that silent films need to carry most, if not all, of the narrative. Text is only interjected when some element of the story cannot be conveyed visually. 

The act of reading, then, if based on a person's perception, changes dramatically when images are introduced. The premise of reading changes because comics demand a different mindset. You don't sit down to read a comic strip expecting to be wined and dined with poetic passages of artfully chosen and well arranged words. Instead, you can let your sophisticated side relax a bit and be entertained on a more straightforward and controlled level. I hate to think what Gatsby would have been like if it were a comic. Actually, I'd rather not think about it.

Literary works?

Until this week I hadn't really given much thought to whether any given book or text was considered a "literary work." Call it what you will. Perhaps it's just me being naive. Aren't all books literary works? Does a literary work have to be a book? A magazine? A blog post? Maybe high school left something out. Perhaps it is a subject slightly beyond my common thinking where books are concerned. At first I didn't even understand the topic.

Why might The Great Gatsby be considered a literary work?

My initial reaction was that an adjective had been left out. I found myself trying to insert one that sounded appropriate. Why might The Great Gatsby be considered a "great" literary work? Important, classic, and timeless are a few other typical descriptors that came to mind. Despite these attempts it seems to be more a matter of misunderstanding than anything else. I wasn't thinking in terms of simply classifying Gatsby as a Literary work or something else. Initially I thought it was.

Now, having gained more insight and understanding in this matter, I feel like I can still say yes to all of the above. I've always approached reading with an open mind. I can't think of a single time in the past when I have ever set out to read a book (and this goes for movies, music, etc... as well) with the intent or even the slightest inclination to analyze and classify it as a work of art, or in this case, literature. Now, as I sit here, I find myself saying, "this is why you're in college, David. To expand your mind and broaden your horizons." A cliche' yes but nevertheless a fact that I now acknowledge and address with this blog post.

So what can I say about Gatsby? I enjoyed it. It did what it set out to do. It was read and it entertained it's reader. I found the passages and dialog flowing enough and satisfying to read. Poetic at times, which I like. This brings me to another point, which is that I enjoyed it as much as I did watching the film. Not the recent version, but the older one starring Robert Redford. I found it equally sincere in it's attempt to entertain me. It was just a different way to experience the same story. I'm certainly no authority on literary works. I've already established that. To me, anything can be a literary work.

In this case, I suppose one could instigate quite a lengthy discussion about the story being iconic and full of meaning and symbolism or how it may transcend generations with it's human drama. Take The Last Days of Disco, for example. Frequenting nightly festivities in one form or another to uphold your stature in the ranks of society, mixed up relationships, deception, etc... these are things that don't change. They haven't changed since Gatsby's days. Many things do change, but not those things. They will always be prevalent. It's our nature and we generally just can't help ourselves.

Anyway, a lot of things in life are about perception and point of view. Opinions and subjectivity. While a literary work as such may indeed meet a predefined list of points or other criteria, it certainly doesn't change what the words on the pages of novels say to us as they are presented in their raw form. They are stories, meant to entertain and enrich our lives in whatever ways they do. Maybe that is what being a literary work is all about after all. Identifying a human condition and relating it to those of us who don't know any better but are entertained and enriched by it all the same, each in our own way. It's a classification, as all things tend to be classified in one form or another. Like I said before, we can't help ourselves. It's some kind of strange need we have to classify things. Do we need to? We certainly want to. I hereby classify this post as a literary work. There, now this has been entertaining.