Reading Literature
Thoughts on reading literature.
End and Means?
In 1995, in his book I Have Read Books Like These, Takashi Tachibana distinguishes between reading as an end and reading as a means.
Reading as an end is reading in which reading books itself is the purpose and the pleasure, and a representative example would be reading literary works. And reading as a means refers to reading books with a specific purpose. In other words, it means reading books for the purpose of obtaining the knowledge, information, or whatever one wants that is contained in the book through reading. —p41
In my youth, reading as an end was my sole focus, so during my university years I even skipped classes and read only the books I wanted from morning to night, all day long. … So that kind of reading was limited to my school years, and afterward I hardly read novels at all. … As I devoured nonfiction books, I came to realize how impoverished the imagination of literary writers is when compared with living reality, and I instead began to wonder why, in my school days, I had been so absorbed in reading such useless books. —p42-44
When I was young, I tended to sympathize with this way of thinking too, but my thoughts gradually changed, and now I am critical of the above position.
A False Dichotomy
According to Tachibana’s distinction, reading literary works is reading as an end, and is itself both the purpose and the pleasure. By contrast, reading nonfiction such as technical books is reading as a means, and is not itself pleasurable but is something one does in order to achieve some other purpose. But I think this is a false dichotomy.
So-called ‘reading as a means’ also often gives pleasure in itself. Sometimes I even feel intellectual exhilaration while reading dry technical specifications like RFCs. That is because knowing is in itself a pleasurable (sometimes painful) thing.
Conversely, even while doing ‘reading as an end,’ there is much to be gained ‘incidentally.’ It lets one understand human beings more deeply, become emotionally enriched, and train oneself to see the world in a more multifaceted way. But is this kind of training really an ‘incidental’ effect, or is it also the very purpose of literature itself? It is hard to distinguish. More recently (2024-10), while reading The Vegetarian, I came to realize this aspect more deeply.
This is not to say that every writer must write with the intention of giving a lesson, or that every reader must read a work as a ‘means’ of learning a lesson.
Reading Delicate Writing
There are foods with strong seasoning and aroma, and foods that are mild, and both have their own pleasures. If someone who has enjoyed only strongly flavored foods eats something bland, at first they may not really taste it, but once they become somewhat accustomed to it, they can gradually begin to sense the subtle aroma and texture.
It is hard to draw a sharp line, but I think literature has a similar distinction, and in the meantime I seem mostly to have read so-called commercial literature with very strong seasoning and aroma. Even then, I have hardly read much at all.
To properly savor writing that is subtle, nuanced, and delicate, I think training is necessary. Even starting now(November 2024), I plan to try reading widely.