Don't tell me you read that book ages ago...

One reason I hate discussing with other people the books or authors I love is because they will either tell me they hate that book or author or that they read that book ages ago. That second answer, that's what I really hate. It doesn't matter at all, but the way they stress on the 'ages ago' makes it seem like they are showing off. It's as if you can only enjoy or truly understand a book if you read it ages ago.

I'm just beginning to really understand books. There are still so many stories and poems I don't understand but I feel like present-me understands books more than, say, fifteen-year-old-me. I know that if I read Haruki Murakami when I was fifteen, I wouldn't have really understood the story or the stories wouldn't have had such an impact on me.

Thus while I'm just beginning to really understand stories, it's only now that I buy books that I want or have heard of. When schooling, I did manage to collect my pocket money but I could rarely afford to buy any new books. When you don't have much money, you tend to choose five used books you don't really need over one new book you want. So while I did read specific authors, for instance, John Grisham, I mostly bought random books. I managed to read books that are usually widely read by borrowing them from the school library but I mostly read random books or Grisham.



I read books that I hear of or read about and books that I feel like buying. I usually don't buy widely read books and I didn't enjoy The Hobbit and I couldn't even read the Harry Potter or Game of Thrones series. While at the book fair this year, I decided to buy The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger. Now I'd heard of the book a lot and had, for some reason, put it in the 'too widely read so won't enjoy' list. I generally avoid widely read books because telling people I read that book would lead to that 'Oh I read that ages ago' comment.

I won't deny it; it bothers me when someone makes me feel like less of a reader simply because I haven't read certain books. This happens with Sinhala novels a lot. I didn't read Sinhala novels until a year or two ago. It's not that I can't read or understand Sinhala but I don't like the various writing styles. I find most Sinhala novels to not have uniformity with regard to punctuation and I generally find it difficult to read books that don't use the words and phrases I'm familiar with. But even now there are moments when people, not because they are cruel or vicious but because they don't even realize it, make me feel like I'm less of a reader because I don't read pr haven't read particular books or authors.

Anyway, with The Catcher in the Rye, I'm glad I waited until right now to read it. I know that if I read it a few years ago, I wouldn't have appreciated it as much as I do now. It's not about the language or metaphors or symbolism or any such thing. They do matter but the feeling a book leaves you with; it changes each time you read a book. For instance, I read Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami in 2012, when I was 18 and still in school. I remember I loved the book and the author but the book didn't really affect me or shake me. Reading Norwegian Wood now leaves me with a completely different experience. I feel like the incidents in the story and the characters are more clear to me. They will get clearer in the future, but for now, they are much more complex than they were three years ago.

Something people, even I, sometimes forget is that it's not only about reading a book. I've read books that I haven't even thought of after putting it back in some unvisited corner of my book cupboard. There are books I can't even remember reading. Reading isn't difficult and merely reading a story isn't enough. You need to feel something.

When I read Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami I felt so many emotions at once. I was puzzled and confused, I was happy, I was sad and I was even angry. Right after reading The Catcher in the Rye I felt empty. Not in a bad way but in a 'there's something huge missing in my life and there's so much more I need to know about Caulfield' way. After reading Looking for Alaska I feel like the world needs to be straightened out and people need to be given the answers they look for. After reading Malak Katha Karayi I felt like running around, telling people to please read the book. Once I read Funny Boy, I wanted to shout at the world, plead with the world to please be fair and kind.

So reading words isn't all you get out of a book or story. It's what you understand and what you feel. And what you understand and feel, at least to me, depends on your maturity, experiences and what you can related to. A year ago, death was a distant thing in my life and so when I read Looking for Alaska or The Book Thief or On Sal Mal Lane or any book with death in it, I sort of got through that part of the story. Now it's more difficult because, say, while reading The Lovely Bones, I kept remembering my grandmother. Sure, she wasn't murdered or anything and there is no mystery surrounding her death but the way Susie sees her family sort of moving on, it made me realize how we too are moving on and shaping our lives to accommodate Athamma's absence.

And so it pisses me off when people say things like 'oh I read that years ago' or 'You actually like that author? I can't stand him.' See, what you got out of a book isn't what I get out of it. You may find the characters depth-less but I may find the characters interesting and human. So don't expect people to dislike an author or book just because you do.

And this is why you shouldn't only depend on reviews. The Hobbit has 4.7 out of 5 stars on Amazon. I didn't enjoy it. I would give it a two, maybe. So just because I give it a two, doesn't mean that other people won't enjoy it. But people fail to understand this. I remember how I tweeted something about John Green sometime back and people I don't even follow started telling me how his writing isn't good and how I should read some other author's books instead. While reading this person's tweets, I kept wondering when I asked for her opinion. Sure, I did tweet and sure she can reply in any way she liked but why were these 'the author you like sucks' tweets necessary?

This is why I rarely tell people about the books I read. This is why I rarely discuss books with people. I never go for book-related events and never join any groups where books are discussed. While we all have the right to have an opinion, I'd rather stay away from places where you can be insulted and ridiculed just because you like a book or author no one else likes.

Readers, I've realized, can be quite arrogant. And I sometimes feel that by being arrogant, we sometimes disappoint authors, even though they don't even know we exist. For instance, if I'm passionately defending John Green or Haruki Murakami, I would suddenly realize that the authors, if they are as amazing as I think they are, wouldn't want me to argue with someone else. They wouldn't want me to join in the mud-slinging just to protect their name or words.

But it's so easy to forget this and just sling mud. It's so easy to insult people and ridicule the books or authors they like. I still make jokes about people who like Nicholas Sparks and other sappy romance novels. It's something I do without even giving it much thought. But would I want someone making fun of my favorite books and authors? Of course not!

We are all hypocrites at times. We are all messed up. And we continue to forget to treat people the way we want to be treated.

In Norwegian Wood, Murakami writes, "If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking." But as much as we don't want to be ordinary and as much as we want to be different, we also want people to read the books we read and like the books we like.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Availability, dating, love, etc.

Alone time

Learning to Let Go