Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Valentin Razumov's avatar

In the introduction to the Lectures on Literature, Vladimir Nabokov argues about the nature of fiction. He wrote, "The truth is that great novels are great fairy tales," expanding on the idea of a novel as an independent body of work, a distinct world created solely within the author's mind. Nabokov resumes the idea, asking the reader whether Dickens's London can be a study of London. "Certainly not," he wrote, and I cannot agree less.

Studying literature from a historical angle is scholarly masturbation, a shiny generalisation some readers plunge into, chasing the illusion of comprehension, fitting the pre-made pieces of a puzzle that scholars enjoy in their sandboxes. Literature should, in my opinion, be enjoyed as unreal, fantastic, and magical, regardless of the genre and context. I like the time-machine effect a historical text can bring, but fictional work is the time-and-space-machine or more like space-and-time-machine.

As for Hitz, I agree that a book should rely entirely on itself, providing everything the reader needs to create the impression of the author's universe. The reader should fondle details, observe patterns, and see for himself what connects. A novel's historical setting is just an outer shell, the tangible form the author experienced at their time, but what lies beyond that is exactly what the reader should long for when enjoying literature - the flight of imagination, the thrill of sensibility, the disruptive drama, the [what are you looking for].

Thus, is Dickens's London just London? No, it is Dickens's London.

Expand full comment
Joemer's avatar

I agree with you on the value and usefulness of secondary sources. I read a lot, but I know that there are a lot of things about the book I'm reading that would have escaped my attention, if they had not been pointed out by the critics and scholars who have read that same book closely and shared their ideas and insights with readers like me through the secondary sources they have written. These professionals may have devoted years reading and teaching and thinking about that book, which may give them an advantage over a common reader like me who has another day job and reads the great books as a hobby. They guide me to notice things that I simply would not have noticed myself, and why would I deprive myself of that gift? No person is so smart and insightful that he can find no value in the insights that others may have, especially when it comes to the great books whose value is precisely that they are an inexhaustible fount of ideas and insights.

As to the risk that students might be misled to think that the view offered by secondary sources is the only "right" or "proper" reading of a particular book, I think the solution is to expose them to multiple secondary sources. They will soon realize that a given book, especially the classics, can yield different readings from different critics and scholars, and they can all be equally legitimate or valid, as long as they are well supported and soundly argued and have basis in the text.

Finally, I think another value for students is to just realize, by reading secondary sources, that there are many other people who take the classics seriously and cherish and enjoy them enough to read them closely and deeply and share their thoughts with other readers. Hopefully, such appreciation is contagious and will inspire them to appreciate and enjoy the great works of literature themselves.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts