It was a pleasure to burn.

I wanted a book. Any old book. One I hadn't read before. One that was a classic but not ancient. American. 20th Century. Less than $8.

And I found Fahrenheit 451. I had heard of it. I had heard for Bradbury. I had, in my snobbish way, dismissed it, having no interest in sci-fi. Now, please know that I have only encountered Sci-fi as a genre through really bad writers I have met who want to write about unicorns and princesses. While I realize they are not representative, I had suspicions those hacks were mimicking a standard sort of prose, a way of conscructing a story.

Well, I can't make any grand, sweeping statement decrying my stupidity and claiming that I was wrong about Sci-fi and will change my ways but I can say that I loved this book. I fell madly in love with it-- it's a good story, first and moreover, it's a statement about books and ideas that I can relate to in a profound sort of way.

A world were books are illegal...the thought terrifies me. Yet, the book is about more than that. I won't give spoilers or ruin the book for anyone (I don't think I could, Bradbury writes so well.) so I will simply say that the problem is deeper than burning books. In fact, since book burning, was instituted and desired by the majority of citizens, it isn't even a book that deals with a corrupt government. Rather, politics take a back seat to the death of culture at the hands of tv and movies and the constant bombardment of advertising.

In Bradbury's dystopia, people can't live without the tv (or the wall), the headphones (the seashell) or idle chatter. There is nothing, we quickly see, that matters much anymore. People go fast, talk fast and think very little. If it sounded like the time it was written (1953) then more is the pity on all of us for letting our world become so fast, so consumed with the material nature of the world. We humans are a stupid lot.

Bradbury is admirable as well for having a gorgeous writing style. He loves writers and writing and it shows in this book.

If you love books, this a must read.

Browsing the shelves

I've had blogs before. I've had (and have) journals. I largely started this blog out of a sense that since everyone else had one so I might as well have one, too. However, after reading last night and pondering some things, I decided that I wanted to use this space to talk about and think about books and writers.

While it's true I am a writer and am in a MFA program, I don't necessarily fit in with the other writers in the program. First, because I am also working on a PhD in history. Second, because I see an immense value in Literary Criticism. Not all of it, mind you, but some of it. I think as a writer, it's a most important skill to possess. I don't think writers are always the best readers of their own work but I do think it's valuable to understand that while the story takes precedence, structural matters are important. Metaphors and technique are valuable tools. Writers insert themselves into the text-- not always knowingly, either-- but don't always have the grand interpretations that critics impose upon the texts.

That being said, we must ask, does that make the critical interpretation any less valid? It does not. I think that there are a great deal of wrong sides in debate on literary criticism.

1. Literary criticism has no value because it imposes meanings that the author did not intend.

2. Every single word in piece of literature (or any book) is there for a reason and all are clues as to the hidden meaning.

Both are complete tommyrot. In a novel of 50,000 words, can the author be expected to know and remember every word? I think not. I wrote a short story once and had 3 or 4 mentions of hair. Not intentional. However, were I a "literary figure" those 3 or 4 mentions of hair would become symbolic of something. Now, that not being my intention, does that make it a less valid interpretation? No, actually, it doesn't. It means, simply, that the reader noticed "hair" mentioned over and over and constructed meaning in the text with it.

As for me, I tend to take away historical markers away from literature. I have that sort of mind-- a bent for the historical. However, I've read some very convincing criticism about all sorts of books that I don't think were really what the author intended and yet I was convinced that the critics were right. But, you have to ask yourself, "Can Faulkner have intended that Absalom, Absalom! be both about the nature of history as well as a metaphor for movie making?" The answer is-- no. I'm pretty sure he didn't intend either of those. But, both arguments were well constructed and well supported and I believed both. Now, who's wrong?

This is why so many of my MFA cohorts hate literature classes. I truly believe this. They think it makes it harder to write. They don't know how to make all those meanings in their text. But, it's more than that, too. It's that they think because it doesn't fall under authorial intent, then it isn't valid. That only what the writer intended to be the meaning can be the meaning. Utter rubbish, isn't it? Of course it is. They are (as a general lot) too busy being clever to be very intellent. So, they can't deal with paradox and that while authorial intent is all well and good, it is not the be all end all of interpretation. If it were, then wouldn't the Bible be a breeze to figure out? Would there be any need at all in a philosopher of any sort? No.

So, that's the sort of thing-- ruminations about books, about literary criticism and about writing you can come to expect here. I don't know that it will be riveting per say, but it will be, well, it'll be here, taking up virtual space.

Like I implied-- I'm smart, but not clever.