Gentle Reader

I have started reading a biography on Mrs. Beeton, the Victorian era's Martha Stewart (without the jail time, or, well, if there are any felonies, I haven't gotten there yet) by Kathryn Hughes and am enjoying it immensely. It's only the third or fourth book I've read since the babes, or even since my Ph.D., which has gotten me wondering: why don't I read more?

Okay, sure, I read several articles and the headlines of the NYTimes everyday. I subscribe to about a dozen magazines--food mags with essays (Gourmet, Saveur), parenting mags with essays and articles (Mothering, Brain, Child), history mags (Archaeology), our UU World mag from church--and read most of them cover to cover. But books, or specifically, novels? Nope.

Looking back, I read a lot as a child. In fact, it was always the first thing I listed as hobbies when asked. Little Women was my all-time favorite, one of the only ones I re-read, then Judy Blume, the Little House series, several award winners like Island of the Blue Dolphins and Across Five Aprils. I even read all of Gone with the Wind one summer (mind you, it's long and different from the movie in several points). And the novels of Mary Renault probably made me a classical studies major. But perhaps by college, definitely by grad school, I was out of the reading habit. Nothing like higher education to kill the love of books, I guess. I did read some historical mysteries, you know, "twinkie" reading in the bathtub or on the subway, but nothing substantial (especially since I was reading Shakespeare by myself in junior high--I didn't understand it all but I tried). So what happened? DP used to joke while I was finishing my Ph.D. that I read the indices, notes, and bibliographies of books and not the books themselves. And she was right. I read for information, for details, to be transported to another time and/or place, for my mind. I think that is why I prefer historical novels (the good ones by reputable historians, especially those written by novelists with Ph.Ds in their field like Peter Tremayne or Sarah Waters), or literature written in other times (like Elizabeth Gaskell or George Eliot or Jane Austen--DP and I are commencing an Austen-othon, reading her oeuvre again), or non-fiction. Harry Potter, one of my most recent favorites, is an exception, but then it was quite exceptional.

I'll contrast this with how my mom reads, if I understand it correctly. She reads for her spirit, in addition to her mind. She loves a good story, a well-turned phrase in a carefully crafted book, the various overlays of meaning, the emotional experiences she gleans. Her book group just finished All the King's Men and she has spoken glowingly of the story of a man, a politician, a region, a period, all the ways Robert Penn Warren created his multifaceted book. You could tell she had been so touched by so many aspects of this work, both intellectually and emotionally. She reads a vast array of things, is always reading--it's very impressive. If she were a toddler, she'd be the kid who ate everything and whose parents would be so proud.

And I'm just picky. People recommend books to me all the time (Jodi Picoult and Mitch Albom are on the top of that list now) thinking I must be a voracious reader, and I just nod and smile with no intention of trying the book. I'm not interested in the angst and anxieties of the modern era as described by our own novelists. I'm not saying these aren't good books, just not what I like. Which is curious, because I'm not all that interested in contemporary art either. It is the historical art that appeals to me, appeals to the historian in me.

I'm going to have to give it all some more thought: if I don't read for my spirit, what do I do? I am inspired by church, by experiences, by conversations with people, by the knowledge I learn from reading. What is it that I don't like about the modern era, my own time? I don't over-romanticize the past (I know too much to do that) but I do prefer reading about it (or watching it in movies or seeing its buildings/art/fashion). What kind of reader do I want to be? Why do I feel I need to be a different kind of reader?

That one is easy enough: the kids. I want them to love reading as much as I did as a child. We read a lot together, not just at bedtime but off and on through the day (my re-reading of children's books--fresh eyes on Dr Seuss and Goodnight, Moon etc is an entirely different post). We have too many books--yes, there can be too many when you can't find the one you just must read--but DP and I started gathering them before the kids were born. Books we remembered as kids, books that contained a message we liked, books with interesting illustrations (because, of course, story books are the first art children see). I've read that children become readers if there are books in the house (even if people never read them) and if they see their parents reading (regardless of what they read--this was a study on women reading trashy romances). So, I read magazines around them, but not books. Even with my non-fiction books, it's hard to concentrate and keep up a sense of continuity when you're interrupted regularly. It's something we should work on. Maybe we need quiet reading time? Perhaps instead of the tv at rest time, because that sure doesn't work. DS actually told me last week that he won't nap with the tv on: "I'm tired but I can't see when I close my eyes." Of course not.

And I know just what I'll read during rest time: The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs. Beeton.