May 11th, 2010 / 8:29 am
Random

Variations on Reading

I’m reading some books, sure. We’re always reading books, right? But for some reason, right now, I happen to be reading very big books and very small books. And that’s been the case for the past few weeks. Books are either 800+ or -150 pages. That being the case, I wanted to talk about the different experiences in reading big v. small books.

So I’ll start with big books. I’m reading Josh Cohen’s Witz, which has been subject of much debate (or rather, Josh has been subject of debate, not his book, which is what we ought to be talking about because his book is really great, huge, and not just in size. I don’t want to get too caught up in talking about Witz or its author though. I’ll post a review of the book some time soonish, probably.), and a couple Dostoevsky (The Brother’s K and A Writer’s Life, both volumes). With these big books, my reading speed fluctuates wildly. I’ll read very quickly, almost skimming, for a while because let’s be honest, one page of 800 can’t make that much of a difference, except that it does, so then I’ll slow down, go back and re-read, if necessary. The thing about these thick books is that because of their size, they require a degree of seriousness in the reader, even if the book is funny, as Witz is. They require devotion.

I find in reading big books, I allow myself to get more invested in the characters, I’ll sit longer, read hundreds of pages at a time, because even if I read a few hundred pages, there will be more. I did this with 2666 too, except I got so invested in the narrative I stopped reading entirely. I didn’t want to finish. And I’ve been working at Witz for a while now. Again, I don’t want to finish. There’s something delectable in these big books, maybe the time you’ve put into it, but I never want to finish them. The only reason I finished Ulysses or The Making of Americans or Infinite Jest was because I read them for school. Otherwise, I’d probably stop thirty pages short of the end.

These big books I’m reading, they’re not just big. They’re difficult (not so much A Writer’s Life, but the other two, sure). They’re pleasurable in that way. They require the reader’s attention, demand it. I turn the page, a long page, a page full of ink, knowing there will be another page, more story, more development. I read, knowing there will be more.

Then, there are little books. I’ve recently read or am reading Patrik Ourednik’s Case Closed (140 pages), Roberto Bolano’s Monsieur Pain (120ish pages), a bunch of thin Clarice Lispector’s, and Shya Scanlon’s In this Alone Impulse (70ish pages). These books, in comparison, are carrot sticks, a light snack. Now, I’m not saying anything about the quality of the writing or the books themselves. I just mean the way I approach these little books is radically different from the big books. Their brevity almost necessitates less investment. Particularly in Shya’s book, investment is almost banned. His language, simultaneously foreign and familiar, requires my complete attention. Story and development are absent, rightfully in this case. Ourednik, Lispector, Bolano, however, are storytellers. Their little books brim with story and development, rich characters, plot!, except for me, even when I begin the book, I know it will end and all too soon. I know I can finish books like these in a couple hours, and just like that, it’ll be over. There will be nothing left to savor. So I read these books quickly. I don’t stop thirty pages short of the end (fuck, that’d be like a quarter of the book, if I did). I read to get to the end, and sure, along the way, I enjoy, savor even, all the qualities of the book, but it’s not the same as big books. The delight is simply different.

I should also note that I’ll reread little books almost as soon as I finish them. They’re short. I can do that. Second time is always better. All the big books I mentioned, I’ve only read them once, if I’ve even finished them. I suppose that says something too. (I know, I know. There are plenty of people on this site who’ve probably read IJ a hundred times and will crucify me for saying I’ve read it once and have no real intention of reading it again.)

I’m not making an argument that one type of book is better than another, but the variation in length changes the reading experience. Funny how the bookness of the book alters everything.

[Side-note: I wonder how different an 800 v. 120 page book on Kindle or iPad would be because it’s the physicality of the book, the knowledge of more physical pages, that changes my experience. What if those pages were just flips on a screen?]

Tags: , ,

38 Comments

  1. Glen Binger

      Very true. Longer books make me read in longer sessions of time. And if I don’t have enough time to sit down and read, I usually just don’t read it.

      I can’t imagine reading an 800 page novel on the Kindle/iPad.

      In my opinion, I just like the way that huge book feels in my hands. I dunno.

      Great article!

  2. Schulyer Prinz

      “Leaving aside the fact that ‘A Simple Heart’ and ‘A Christmas Carol’ were stories, not books, there was something revelatory about the taste of this bookish young pharmacist, who in another life might have been Trakl or who in this life might still be writing poems as desperate as those of his distant Austrian counterpart, and who clearly and inarguably preferred minor works to major ones. He chose ‘The Metamorphosis’ over ‘The Trial’, he chose ‘Bartleby’ over ‘Moby Dick’, he chose ‘A Simple Heart’ over ‘Bouvard and Pécuchet’, and ‘A Christmas Carol’ over ‘Tale of Two Cities’. What a sad paradox, thought Amalfitano. Now even bookish pharmacists are afraid to take on the great, imperfect, torrential works, books that blaze paths into the unknown. They choose the perfect exercises of the great masters. Or what amounts to the same thing: they want to watch the great masters spar, but they have no interest in real combat, when the great masters struggle against that something, that something that terrifies us all, that something that cows us and spurs us on, amid blood and mortal wounds and stench.”

  3. Timmo

      I’m trying to get through some shorter books right now — Flann O’Brien, Pynchon — and the rate of progress is agonizing. I think in some cases the brevity of a work might indicate a high density of information/word choice/literary intention, whereas the length of some stretching long stories might indicate less compact writing and a looser grain cluster of sand to fall through as you sink into the story. I just blitzed through the Kindly Ones and am having a rough go of the Log of the SS the Mrs. Unguentine although I’d say I like the latter a little more. It’s like reading a long plot-driven story and then switching to a very compact and powerful short poem; there might be more to trip over, and even if there’s not, you’re looking for it anyway because there’s less ground to scour.

  4. zusya

      there’s something to be said about narrative efficiency (smaller, quicker reads), but there’s just something so undeniably sexy about tome-ic, Big Idea books… as if the ideas contained within are so massive, so forceful, that it’s only barely ironic that the brick-like physical means of carrying them around (hardcovers) are capable of bludgeoning to death even the most thick-headed of philistines. oh long books. i ♥ you so.

      @Lily re: your required readings of Ulysses, The Making of Americans and Infinite Jest … were these all read for, like, a course titled: “Baby Got Book — Phat, Fat Novels”? because i would totally take that class. though i guess it’d have to be like a year-long course to read through a handful of the really good long ones.

  5. magick mike

      I think I have similar habits– when it comes to long books I have one of two reactions when I get to the end: either I am depressed that it is over or else I race through the last 30-50 pages just so it’s fucking done with and I can move on with my life. The thing is, my reaction isn’t necessarily dependent upon how much I enjoyed the book. The reaction has more to do with the fact that I have serious anxiety about how much there is I want to read. This reaction often prohibits me from starting books longer than 200 pages (fiction, at least). Mainly because I don’t like reading more than one book of fiction simultaneously (but I do, in a way, because when I’m reading longer books I will generally at least three times take a “break” to read a shorter work). I think maybe because of this it’s harder for me to get invest, unless I end up reading like a hundred pages in a single sitting, in which case I ended up reading fast in the future, or something. The large book is overwhelming, but I like it’s presence, I like how I can set it on the table in front of me while I’m eating lunch and (if I’m in the middle) the book will stay open to the page I’m on without me having to hold it. Yes.

  6. Lily Hoang

      ha. I love that course title, but no, it was for an recommended readings course I took over a summer in grad school. Those books (plus Gravity’s Rainbow and about 10 other books), all before I even started officially taking classes.

  7. demi-puppet

      I love long books. I love the way you can get lost in them. I’m reading the Grossman translation of Don Quixote right now. Fucking fantastic.

  8. Glen Binger

      Very true. Longer books make me read in longer sessions of time. And if I don’t have enough time to sit down and read, I usually just don’t read it.

      I can’t imagine reading an 800 page novel on the Kindle/iPad.

      In my opinion, I just like the way that huge book feels in my hands. I dunno.

      Great article!

  9. Job

      WOW! I want books that are negative 150 pages long. That’s incredible. Are you reading this book in another dimension?

  10. J. A. Tyler

      Great post Lily. Obviously, as editor of a novel(la) series, I am all about slim volumes, but I know what you are saying about how we go about reading the thick books too, and Cohen’s WITZ is no doubt a shining example.

  11. Roxane Gay

      I’m waiting to dive into Witz which is a behemoth of a book. I keep wishing it were available as an ebook because it is quite heavy but I really love long books and wish more writers would just give in to the long long form (easier, of course, said than done). I love getting completely immersed in a neverending story. When I was a kid, I loved the books of James Michener and James Clavell for that reason… they were so epic.

  12. zusya

      re:GR … try Mason & Dixon. next big one on my shelf to be read: The Wizard of the Crow

  13. Tom Elias

      Yes! That is one of my favorite passages in the whole book. Well done.

  14. Tim Jones-Yelvington

      I thought I’d be able to read “Age of Wire and String” in a few hours and it’s taking me a week.

  15. Neil

      Your Face Tomorrow by Javier Marias is the long book that I never want to stop reading. It’s split into three parts, sort of similar to 2666 in that regard, and it is something I’m not hurrying to finish. It’s my weekend book where I can leisurely sit outside with some coffee/wine and let the prose wash over me. During the week, when I can’t be as relaxed, I’ll try to put down a short one…..

  16. Ryan Call

      yeah tim that book is a slow read. one entry at a time, etc

  17. jereme

      i have been putting off reading “the tunnel” simply because of its size. i have been reading too many enjoyable small books to want to stop and devote my attention to one large world.

      i have found the smaller books leave more of an imprint in me, but I have not read many large books to date.

      nothing compares to motorman for me. the simple line “moldenke would remain.” is the strongest thing i have ever read.

      how is that ourednik book?

  18. Schulyer Prinz

      It took me five months to read the tunnel. Be careful. Gass will devour everything you love.

  19. jereme

      hahaha, i think you just talked me into reading it my friend.

  20. Peter Markus

      Tim,

      A single sentence from Ben Marcus should take the reader a week to read it. It’s a book to spend a lifetime with.

  21. Schulyer Prinz

      “Leaving aside the fact that ‘A Simple Heart’ and ‘A Christmas Carol’ were stories, not books, there was something revelatory about the taste of this bookish young pharmacist, who in another life might have been Trakl or who in this life might still be writing poems as desperate as those of his distant Austrian counterpart, and who clearly and inarguably preferred minor works to major ones. He chose ‘The Metamorphosis’ over ‘The Trial’, he chose ‘Bartleby’ over ‘Moby Dick’, he chose ‘A Simple Heart’ over ‘Bouvard and Pécuchet’, and ‘A Christmas Carol’ over ‘Tale of Two Cities’. What a sad paradox, thought Amalfitano. Now even bookish pharmacists are afraid to take on the great, imperfect, torrential works, books that blaze paths into the unknown. They choose the perfect exercises of the great masters. Or what amounts to the same thing: they want to watch the great masters spar, but they have no interest in real combat, when the great masters struggle against that something, that something that terrifies us all, that something that cows us and spurs us on, amid blood and mortal wounds and stench.”

  22. Lily Hoang

      That’s the truth.

  23. Timmo

      I’m trying to get through some shorter books right now — Flann O’Brien, Pynchon — and the rate of progress is agonizing. I think in some cases the brevity of a work might indicate a high density of information/word choice/literary intention, whereas the length of some stretching long stories might indicate less compact writing and a looser grain cluster of sand to fall through as you sink into the story. I just blitzed through the Kindly Ones and am having a rough go of the Log of the SS the Mrs. Unguentine although I’d say I like the latter a little more. It’s like reading a long plot-driven story and then switching to a very compact and powerful short poem; there might be more to trip over, and even if there’s not, you’re looking for it anyway because there’s less ground to scour.

  24. magick mike

      I think I have similar habits– when it comes to long books I have one of two reactions when I get to the end: either I am depressed that it is over or else I race through the last 30-50 pages just so it’s fucking done with and I can move on with my life. The thing is, my reaction isn’t necessarily dependent upon how much I enjoyed the book. The reaction has more to do with the fact that I have serious anxiety about how much there is I want to read. This reaction often prohibits me from starting books longer than 200 pages (fiction, at least). Mainly because I don’t like reading more than one book of fiction simultaneously (but I do, in a way, because when I’m reading longer books I will generally at least three times take a “break” to read a shorter work). I think maybe because of this it’s harder for me to get invest, unless I end up reading like a hundred pages in a single sitting, in which case I ended up reading fast in the future, or something. The large book is overwhelming, but I like it’s presence, I like how I can set it on the table in front of me while I’m eating lunch and (if I’m in the middle) the book will stay open to the page I’m on without me having to hold it. Yes.

  25. lily hoang

      ha. I love that course title, but no, it was for an recommended readings course I took over a summer in grad school. Those books (plus Gravity’s Rainbow and about 10 other books), all before I even started officially taking classes.

  26. demi-puppet

      I love long books. I love the way you can get lost in them. I’m reading the Grossman translation of Don Quixote right now. Fucking fantastic.

  27. Job

      WOW! I want books that are negative 150 pages long. That’s incredible. Are you reading this book in another dimension?

  28. mudlove

      Great post Lily. Obviously, as editor of a novel(la) series, I am all about slim volumes, but I know what you are saying about how we go about reading the thick books too, and Cohen’s WITZ is no doubt a shining example.

  29. Roxane Gay

      I’m waiting to dive into Witz which is a behemoth of a book. I keep wishing it were available as an ebook because it is quite heavy but I really love long books and wish more writers would just give in to the long long form (easier, of course, said than done). I love getting completely immersed in a neverending story. When I was a kid, I loved the books of James Michener and James Clavell for that reason… they were so epic.

  30. Tom Elias

      Yes! That is one of my favorite passages in the whole book. Well done.

  31. Tim Jones-Yelvington

      I thought I’d be able to read “Age of Wire and String” in a few hours and it’s taking me a week.

  32. Neil

      Your Face Tomorrow by Javier Marias is the long book that I never want to stop reading. It’s split into three parts, sort of similar to 2666 in that regard, and it is something I’m not hurrying to finish. It’s my weekend book where I can leisurely sit outside with some coffee/wine and let the prose wash over me. During the week, when I can’t be as relaxed, I’ll try to put down a short one…..

  33. Ryan Call

      yeah tim that book is a slow read. one entry at a time, etc

  34. jereme

      i have been putting off reading “the tunnel” simply because of its size. i have been reading too many enjoyable small books to want to stop and devote my attention to one large world.

      i have found the smaller books leave more of an imprint in me, but I have not read many large books to date.

      nothing compares to motorman for me. the simple line “moldenke would remain.” is the strongest thing i have ever read.

      how is that ourednik book?

  35. Schulyer Prinz

      It took me five months to read the tunnel. Be careful. Gass will devour everything you love.

  36. jereme

      hahaha, i think you just talked me into reading it my friend.

  37. Peter Markus

      Tim,

      A single sentence from Ben Marcus should take the reader a week to read it. It’s a book to spend a lifetime with.

  38. lily hoang

      That’s the truth.