Why Read At All?

I'm still recovering from the shock of the City victory on Sunday, and had intended to write something to lighten the darkness for any Man U fans reading in this Far Place. But this lies beyond words, and the hierophant suggests in a recent comment that I muse upon why humans read, and why we should read. I like the sound of that, so here goes:

Reading, for me, is a form of useful escapism. I retreat into books, I lose myself in them, as a way of getting through life (like dealing with lousy weekends for Man U.) I think this is their primary value - they are wonderful entertainment: fairly cheap, easy to move around with and, generally user-friendly. I suppose teachers, especially of literature (whatever that is), are not supposed to draw attention to the escapism involved in reading, but I think anything that helps us deal with the difficulties of life is to be commended. In the process of getting lost sometimes odd things happen and we find ourselves being better informed about the world around us, occasionally even learning things. That seems to me to be a kind of unexpected gift of which we might as well take advantage. The fact that I can quite easily spend several hours of quality time in the company of say, Plato (and, by extension, Socrates) simply by picking a cheap paperback off my shelves strikes me as being astonishing and wonderful.

As to why we should read, I'm not at all sure. The usual argument for reading that I generally hear from teachers (in both Singapore and the UK) is that it will benefit us educationally. I guess it does, but I'm sure you don't need to read all that much (other than textbooks which I'm assuming we all agree don't count) to get a good job (and excellent salary!) as a doctor or lawyer. (I know a number of doctors well and wouldn't consider a single one of them a dedicated reader. At least two never read anything other than the newspaper and professional magazines.) This utilitarian view of reading seems to me much overrated. The only real case I can make for reading is that it makes your life better, in itself, as it were (for the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph.) That certainly has been the case for me so I assume it would work for others. But I don't assume it works for everyone. Some people, and I'm talking about the highly intelligent as well as those who struggle with the printed word, just don't seem made to read, and that seems to me to be perfectly okay. I feel a bit sorry for them as I feel they are missing out on something, but I recognise that they have compensatory talents, or interests, that give their lives meaning. For example, there are those who are so gregarious, whose lives are filled with dealing with others, that they have no time for books. I can see the value in that.

Books are not better than life. Not even close. And it's important for even the most avid reader to be able to close them and get on with the mess of things. Blake: Think in the morning, Act in the noon, Eat in the evening, Sleep in the night.

Thanks, by the way, for recent reading recommendations from autolycus and the hierophant. The Loeb/Sale Batman I'd heard of, but the Superman was new to me. I'll be searching at the library this Saturday. I've had both the Gaimans in view for quite some time and I'm ready to part with the moolah thereon. He never disappoints. (By the way, it was a bit uncanny that you guys mentioned a couple of his I've not read since I've got a fair amount of the other stuff.) Pamuk has been in my sights since the Nobel and I'm a bit (okay, a lot) embarrassed not to have read any yet.