Our Mutual Friend and the Death of Culture
For Christmas over a year ago I asked for and received a DVD collection of BBC productions of Dickens novels. I started Martin Chuzzlewit around that time, but for whatever reason never finished. I guess I wasn't engrossed by the story, or maybe I was too tired when I started it, so it never gripped me. Anyway, this last week I watched Hard Times, and was interested in it, though I wasn't greatly impressed. Last night I started Our Mutual Friend, and was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED by it! It's almost 6 hours long, so I had to pull myself away from it last night and go to bed. But I finished it today, and was greatly pleased by it! The story is very moving and engaging, and the acting is decent enough. Though it's not quite as good as the BBC, Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice, or another BBC production, Wives and Daugthers, it is definitely close. But for a 20 second segment that most readers would probably want to skip, I would give my unqualified recommendation for it! So if anyone has 6 hours to spend sometime, give it a shot (and if you live close enough to me, I'll even lend it! And if you want to know what you might want to skip, e-mail me and I'll fill you in...)
I know I have "cheated" by not reading the book first, but unfortunately I'm at a point in my life where the 10 hours or so, maybe more (I'm a slow reader) that it would take to read it is not going to happen anytime soon. So I figure it's better to be somewhat cultured by getting a taste of the story (and it's long enough that it has to be somewhat close to the book!) than to be totally ignorant of this Dickens classic.
Relating to the theme of total ignorance over classics, a very sad thought recently occurred to me. If I were to survey my students, I can almost guarantee that less than 5 percent of them have ever read Pride and Prejudice, or any Dickens novel, or any of a number of classics. How SAD is that? I am so grateful for the background I have in reading some of the literary greats when I was a young un. Or at least younger. I have to credit my Dad for much of this. The summer between 9th and 10th grade, or thereabouts, he initiated a competition among us siblings. He gave us a list of great classics, American and others, and said the person who reads the most pages from them wins some prize. I think it might have been something as lucrative as 50 dollars, but I can't remember now. Anyway, what I do remember is really getting into that competition, and devouring books like Pride and Prejudice, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Sherlock Holmes, and many others. I also did a lot of literature reading for English as a homeschooled youth, so which books were read for what all blur together. However, I credit much of my eventual success in the intricacies of mastering the English language, at least as a writer, to this reading I did. And I believe I am much more attuned to many allusions as another result.
In short, this reading was a GREAT investment in my education! But how many young people, especially in public schools, have the same background? I think very few read for pleasure. And when they do, it is certainly not Twain, Dickens, Austen, Tolstoy or Hugo. This is surely a sign of the impending death of traditional culture. Maybe there will be a revival sometime soon. But for now, blank stares are the common result of a mention of many great books.
I also know that most students would think me weird for having read most everything Austen or A. Conan Doyle has written, or that I have waded through an unabridged version of Les Miserables . Why is this? I think it's because current mainstream culture does not promote reading. And it stifles diversity in literary tastes. I find this second fact very ironic. In an age where everyone is supposed to be tolerant of everyone else, few guys are reading great works of literature. I think it's because many of them are perceived as too "girly." And because guys as teenagers are developing their identities, and are very afraid to be seen as "girly," they shy away from being stereotyped as "girly" or, worse yet, "gay," because of their tastes. Of course, this shying away from certain books only happens if a guy is reading much for pleasure in the first place, which is rarely the case.
In contrast to the mainstream, because I grew up sheltered from it, I was able to branch out into reading whatever works were interesting, unlimited by the fear of being called "gay" by my ignorant and uncultured peers. So I read. And read. And read some more. Oh, and I played plenty of Nintendo too, but that didn't seem to hurt me too much. Except, of course, I didn't read as much Dickens back then as I might have, so maybe it did! And the result is that I don't mind reading some classic works, even if their "girly," and I don't mind and even enjoy watching some "girly" movies! And I believe I am a better person for it.
Maybe this is all to say that I hope parents will be encouraged to push the reading of great classic literature among their kids. Some sort of lucrative reward might help (at least it did for me!) The long term benefit is worth it. And now I really want to poll my students to confirm my theory about their cultural ignorance...
I know I have "cheated" by not reading the book first, but unfortunately I'm at a point in my life where the 10 hours or so, maybe more (I'm a slow reader) that it would take to read it is not going to happen anytime soon. So I figure it's better to be somewhat cultured by getting a taste of the story (and it's long enough that it has to be somewhat close to the book!) than to be totally ignorant of this Dickens classic.
Relating to the theme of total ignorance over classics, a very sad thought recently occurred to me. If I were to survey my students, I can almost guarantee that less than 5 percent of them have ever read Pride and Prejudice, or any Dickens novel, or any of a number of classics. How SAD is that? I am so grateful for the background I have in reading some of the literary greats when I was a young un. Or at least younger. I have to credit my Dad for much of this. The summer between 9th and 10th grade, or thereabouts, he initiated a competition among us siblings. He gave us a list of great classics, American and others, and said the person who reads the most pages from them wins some prize. I think it might have been something as lucrative as 50 dollars, but I can't remember now. Anyway, what I do remember is really getting into that competition, and devouring books like Pride and Prejudice, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Sherlock Holmes, and many others. I also did a lot of literature reading for English as a homeschooled youth, so which books were read for what all blur together. However, I credit much of my eventual success in the intricacies of mastering the English language, at least as a writer, to this reading I did. And I believe I am much more attuned to many allusions as another result.
In short, this reading was a GREAT investment in my education! But how many young people, especially in public schools, have the same background? I think very few read for pleasure. And when they do, it is certainly not Twain, Dickens, Austen, Tolstoy or Hugo. This is surely a sign of the impending death of traditional culture. Maybe there will be a revival sometime soon. But for now, blank stares are the common result of a mention of many great books.
I also know that most students would think me weird for having read most everything Austen or A. Conan Doyle has written, or that I have waded through an unabridged version of Les Miserables . Why is this? I think it's because current mainstream culture does not promote reading. And it stifles diversity in literary tastes. I find this second fact very ironic. In an age where everyone is supposed to be tolerant of everyone else, few guys are reading great works of literature. I think it's because many of them are perceived as too "girly." And because guys as teenagers are developing their identities, and are very afraid to be seen as "girly," they shy away from being stereotyped as "girly" or, worse yet, "gay," because of their tastes. Of course, this shying away from certain books only happens if a guy is reading much for pleasure in the first place, which is rarely the case.
In contrast to the mainstream, because I grew up sheltered from it, I was able to branch out into reading whatever works were interesting, unlimited by the fear of being called "gay" by my ignorant and uncultured peers. So I read. And read. And read some more. Oh, and I played plenty of Nintendo too, but that didn't seem to hurt me too much. Except, of course, I didn't read as much Dickens back then as I might have, so maybe it did! And the result is that I don't mind reading some classic works, even if their "girly," and I don't mind and even enjoy watching some "girly" movies! And I believe I am a better person for it.
Maybe this is all to say that I hope parents will be encouraged to push the reading of great classic literature among their kids. Some sort of lucrative reward might help (at least it did for me!) The long term benefit is worth it. And now I really want to poll my students to confirm my theory about their cultural ignorance...
posted by redsoxwinthisyear at 9:42 PM
8 Comments:
Great observations.
Two things: 1. I started READING Martin Chuzzlewit and couldn't get in to it either, and I read that it was one of Dicken's darkest books, or least liked or something, so maybe that has something to do with our lack of getting into the tale.
2. I'm taking a Children's Literature class and boy howdy do we stress reading, including traditional and classic books, to children and to get them started on the right foot of a love for books, so don't give up hope yet. There are some new teaching being bred at Florida College who will inspire some children someday to delight in reading good books :)
Yes- very interesting and challenging. I feel inspired to go make a big ol' "To-Read" list... but I almost don't know where to begin. I used to read a whole lot of good old classics too but in recent years have petered out of that habit...and gotten sucked into the non-reading culture of visual Cliff-notes - otherwise known as watching the movie version of things - Mansfield Park, The Count of Monte Cristo, and Wives & Daughters for example- which, even if they're good are less brain-stimulating than actually turning real live pages. You finish a book like those books, and you feel like you've really ACCOMPLISHED something. Sooo- you've inspired me. I'd like to get recommendations from you and others on what should go at the top of a "Must Read" list...
And, strangely enough, I'm glad to hear you defend Nintendo. I was reading something recently about how Nintendo stunts boys development into men ( my half-remembered synopsis of the article, so don't quote me on this)...and of course, if that's all you do is play video games, then yes- it's probably unhealthy...but everything in moderation. Not that I'm going to run out and buy Aiden a Playstation this minute...
What I omitted in that last paragraph - and what I thought was obvious
( but I am realizing recently that there are sometimes great gaps in my feminine communication )( jumping from one thing to the next and expecting people to read my mind) was that I thought that whole anti-Nintendo thing was a little off-base. They made Nintendo sound like it was the root of all evil. Maybe it is for some individuals because they get addicted, but it's not evil PER SE across the board...
KJ, I am relieved and heartened to hear of the replacement troops to fill the ranks sometime--in teaching of course, since it is pretty much a war zone--who are being so trained to stress the classics. Hooray!
claire--where you're at is pretty much where I'm at right now. My reading of classics was pretty much limited to my younger days. Most of the books I take time to read these days are nonfiction, history stuff. But I'm glad I inspired you anyway, maybe by holding out the ideal? And thanks for sticking up for my defense of Nintendo! Then again, one could say that given my obviously stunted development that Nintendo may have been to blame...
And claire, you need to get with the times. It's not a Playstation Aiden needs, it's a Playstation 3! Or maybe an XBox 360... You could get him Guitar Hero 3 (the latest rage, in case you didn't know) and train him thereby to follow in his parents' footsteps... :-)
Chuzzlewit- this is probably Dicken's most verbose book ever. I've read pages of it and not had a clue what the character was saying [Dickens was trying to do this, but still].
Les Mis- I couldn't in good faith recommend the unabridged version to ANYONE. Hugo was a windbag, and as great as the story is, he manages to talk over it :-)
Part of the problem is that most classics were written in a time when people couldn't travel, so the author spent a good bit of time describing everything, so that the readers could "see" what was going on. In today's world of "instant" everything, that just doesn't fly, sadly...
derrick--i would suggest to you that some of Hugo's wordiness is a bit like lists of names in Chronicles; perhaps not as relevant to the reader now as they were originally, nevertheless they are not big enough obstacles to merit not recommending the story in its entirety. Of course I mean no heresy in comparing Hugo to the Bible. There are also big differences between the two! Yet I think it could be said that there is an inherent beauty in the verbosity that gives the novel a unique flavor, worth experiencing in its entirety. Though I do agree that it requires much more patience than the modern reader is apt to possess. :-)
Agree with your assessment that reading is not culturally cool these days. I disagree that it's fear of being seen as "girly" or "gay." It's actually a fear of being seen as "interested in reading." There are very few intellectual role models for kids, and reading is nerdy. Of course, it always has been, but I don't think it's been so far down on the list...
Post a Comment
<< Home