I worked for the library in my home area for a year and two months and encountered people who checked out 10 full novels in one visit and would bring them back within two weeks finished and read. I encountered people who would look at dense Robert Jordan novels that another patron was checking out and say "I read those in about three days." Yet I am an individual who barely gets a book done in two weeks...even if said book is 200 pages. I still remember a classmate of mine, K---, asking me why it takes so long to read. To her I said something pretentious like I usually did which is that I read literature and not fluff. Indeed I was reading "The Tin Drum" by Gunter Grass and "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. Still, now that I embrace fully my love of scifi and read (or read past tense) "Consider Phlebas" by Iain M. Banks (which by the way was meh) in 3 weeks at best I have to wonder if I'm a reader.
Yes I am a reader; just not of the Robert Jordan or George R.R. Martin variety. Or even Leo Tolstoy (Tolstoi if you want to be old school). As I discussed in mentioned previous post, however, I prefer brevity. I prefer works of literature that can stand on their own in one reading. This was elucidated by Poe in his essay "On Poesy" and I absolutely agree with him. "The Black Cat" by Poe, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" by Vonnegut, "A Good Man is Hard to Find," "Revelation," well anything by Flannery O'Connor are better than most novels. To me, the best contemporary writer of science fiction aside from Neal Stephenson is Ted Chiang, a technical writer who has won a lot of Hugos for his novelettes and short stories; his stories are more breathtaking than anything by China Mieville or Martin. Hell, last year's Hugo for short story "The Paper Menagerie" by Ken Liu was better than most novels I've read (and here it is: http://io9.com/5958919/read-ken-lius-amazing-story-that-swept-the-hugo-nebula-and-world-fantasy-awards).
The point is I like literature that can pack a punch within a brief read. I prefer novels to be no more than 300 pages and to read like they're only 100 (a la Douglas Adams). Maria Semple's "Where'd You Go Bernadette" was like this. The reason is because...well I don't know. I worry it might be because my attention wonders, but when I read "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson in its 900 page glory I didn't have this because it was so full of awesome stuff. I think it is because I can read into information quickly. I think this not because of ego (ooh look me I can take it in quickly) but because of my drama experience. I'm used to scripts, I'm used to a character's psychology being revealed in dialogue and dramatic action. I can read into a character through action to where I don't need the prose to dwell so damn much into anything else.
Now, let's get to poetry.
I love poetry. The way those patrons at my library would devour Robert Jordan is how I devour poetry. "Native Guard" by Natasha Trethewey is to me one of the top 5 greatest works of literature in the past 20 years and I read it all in one day...actually 2 hours. I have the same regard for contemporary poets like Philip Levine, Fred Chappell, Lucille Clifton (who passed away in 2010), and Sharon Olds. I love poetry because I can read into action and images; I can read into brevity and I prefer to read into brevity because brevity can lend itself into arresting moments. My favorite poet of all time is Pablo Neruda and within a line would come a revelation that just knocks you down. One of his lines is better than a 1400 page novel.
A lot of people don't prefer poetry because they prefer the story format, which is fair enough. To me, though, a poem is a story. It is the story of a moment. There is character (the voice) and action (the revelation, the moment); it is a story of something akin to a goosebump. To me life isn't just a story but a poetry anthology or collection, a collection of moments.
I prefer poetry because I can get a story's worth of revelation, or transcendence in a line or in a page. The poet ee cummings could do that. In fact I prefer minimal poems because of how breathtaking they can be.
People should read more poetry or poetry should be more available to more people. I'd like for people to know more than one non dead poet. To me poetry is so much better than the novel.
Now, let's get to poetry.
I love poetry. The way those patrons at my library would devour Robert Jordan is how I devour poetry. "Native Guard" by Natasha Trethewey is to me one of the top 5 greatest works of literature in the past 20 years and I read it all in one day...actually 2 hours. I have the same regard for contemporary poets like Philip Levine, Fred Chappell, Lucille Clifton (who passed away in 2010), and Sharon Olds. I love poetry because I can read into action and images; I can read into brevity and I prefer to read into brevity because brevity can lend itself into arresting moments. My favorite poet of all time is Pablo Neruda and within a line would come a revelation that just knocks you down. One of his lines is better than a 1400 page novel.
A lot of people don't prefer poetry because they prefer the story format, which is fair enough. To me, though, a poem is a story. It is the story of a moment. There is character (the voice) and action (the revelation, the moment); it is a story of something akin to a goosebump. To me life isn't just a story but a poetry anthology or collection, a collection of moments.
I prefer poetry because I can get a story's worth of revelation, or transcendence in a line or in a page. The poet ee cummings could do that. In fact I prefer minimal poems because of how breathtaking they can be.
People should read more poetry or poetry should be more available to more people. I'd like for people to know more than one non dead poet. To me poetry is so much better than the novel.
