“…who wants to lug a thousand pages around on the subway?

More than anything, reading big books, or not, is a matter of convenience. As much as I want to read Annals of the Former World, do I really want to lug a thousand pages around on the subway?

Cancer Ward (536 pg.) is about as big as I can comfortably get on the bus, or at a bar in between periods of a hockey game or bands at a rock show. And to add another element of technological determinism: as I increasingly carry books with me not in my little shapeless green bag but tucked beside my laptop in my bigger but fitted black bag. I could get away with Nixonland in the green bag, but the black bag is less forgiving.

But it’s also a matter of commitment and the lens of memory. I don’t like to read books together, I like to go right through, alone, so to read a big book is to consign my imagination to one book alone for weeks. And as such, that book is my memory lens for those several weeks, the key to walking back through where I was then.

My summer of 2009 is framed by three books. I remember the shorter books too, but not in context, and they aren’t my association, for the simple fact that while I may sink in just as deeply, I may only spend a day or two inside. If I had spent two weeks with Divisadero or The Only Snow in Havana they might be just as determining as the big books I did read but no, I raced right through and have kept just impressions in memory. What I do have, from my summer of 2009: Keith Maillard, Difficulty at the Beginning (1007 pg, over 4 volumes); Don DeLillo, Underworld (827 pg); and Rick Perlstein, Nixonland: the Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. (748 pg.) These books are the frame due to the time I spent with them and their scope. And neither the scope or the time could have occurred without the page count.

So I agree about big books and the categorical distinction. (Which is, of course, relative itself. 280pg is my Platonic form, but a formal Big Book needs ‘heft,’ not mere page count. ‘Heft,’ wonderfully, is a variable term. VS Naipaul, The Enigma of Arrival is a ‘big book’ with ‘heft’ because that’s how I read it, even though it has just 354 pages) What I don’t like is the ‘belt-notch’ factor. I didn’t listen to a Bob Dylan record until I could find a context for listening to a Bob Dylan record (that context, in a cute but unplanned segue, was reading Nixonland in July 2009) that extended beyond the ‘belt-notch’: the need to listen to a Bob Dylan record because I should have listened to a Bob Dylan record by now. The Everest analogy is apt: this is the because-it’s-there theory of reading. Even worse, imagine working from a list, the eat-your-vegetables theory of reading; the reason many people don’t.

I don’t like the belt-notch/Everest question, tallying books for some absurd future swordfight, but I do like the guiding Stockholm-syndrome analogy – as Elizabeth Minkel rephrases, the idea of a book having ownership of its reader. And I have to admit to some sympathy for the Everest question on consideration: read a big book because it’s there, sure – it’s all arbitrary, including the four months in 2010 during which I only read books with black-white-red spines. But there’s no intrinsic virtue in a big book – only the virtue you manage to glean.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to ““…who wants to lug a thousand pages around on the subway?

  1. One of the things that I think the publishing industry really needs to get back into is publishing things in volumes when the book is 1,000 pages long. I really like books that I can carry around, and a 500 page book isn’t really ridiculous in a bag. One that’s twice that size, however, is — both in terms of weight and comfort. I can never find a comfortable grip and it annoys the hell out of me. I remember when I first wanted to read War & Peace, several years ago — I kept looking for it and all I’d ever find was it in one big volume. I knew there had to be a two or three volume set since it was first published when books were frequently published in volumes. So I persisted, and earlier this year I found a lovely little leather-bound three volume set. Guess what? I am actually going to read War & Peace now. It wasn’t that the length intimidated me, it was that it was just bloody annoying!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s