The following is my approach to reading. So why I'm writing about it? Not sure, but its results from a bit of self-analysis during conversation. It's always fun to learn more about yourself.
I tend to select books based on their sociological response and philosophical pursuit rather than on content, genre, or immediate enjoyability of reading.
For example, classic Russian literature such as that of Dostoevsky or Tolstoy generally escapes me (Why are there thirteen different names of each character, none of which sound similar?) as my meager attention span gets loss in the dense text. But for some reason these works have survived through time and popularity, so my curiosity piques. Only then did I begin to recognize and appreciate the author's subtle ability to break down simple situation into its minute details -- stuff I would have never realized. These works make concrete the thoughts that generally pass fancifully through one's head, without ever realizing they were there. It's cool stuff.
(Although I'll admit I've yet to finish a single Dostoevsky or Tolstoy from cover to cover... I always get bored shortly before the end)
Back to the premise of this post, it is for this reason that I am a big fan of science fiction, but not fantasy. Science fiction such as Asimov (arguably the father of science fiction) and Card (arguably the father of modern science fiction) forces me to think and re-think about my own everyday life and sometimes, reality itself. Heavy, right? The Foundation Trilogy (for example) was written in a time that atomic power dominated the energy scene. Thus, the future is written based upon the technological acceleration of atomic power. The whole idea of
psychohistory is an idea I think any mathematician or engineer has toyed with. What if I could calculate the behavior of human beings? It would have been the middle school years much easier to predict and handle, eh?
Fantasy, however, often offers little intellectual tinkering. Occasionally there are analog situations or lessons that can be applicable to life, but not enough to capture my interests. I want books that will really stir up my thinking.
Then what of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? LOTR is an iconic work in its own right, that's enough of a reason for me to read it. And Harry Potter is an exception, as I grew up reading those books long before I ever realize my own strategy at choosing them.
Part of me still dislikes getting sucked into a book series. One reads the first book and a whole new world is opened up. Your own brain struggles to categorize and illustrate the new realm created by the book (think reading Harry Potter for the first time). You can feel your own brain working to fit room for new concepts and new ideas -- a truly fun process. But then with books 2, 3, and onward, there is often less to be gained. Instead, you continue to read out of a mental procrastination. It's easier to read books that already fit within an understood universe without having to exert much more mental processing. It goes from reading for intellectual pleasure to fanboy fanaticism (in some cases). But perhaps I am being too critical.
I read the Foundation Trilogy last summer and it revolutionized my opinion of science fiction. Asimov is an incredibly philosophical author, especially about questions that our world undoubtedly will face in the future.
This summer, I continued in the next book in the series "Foundation's Edge." Immediately, however, I could feel a difference. I almost felt guilty at reading this book. There was little new mental fodder; I only continued to read in order to learn more of the story... although at some points it became a bit of a stretch. One of the only redeeming points was that it tied the Foundation novels to his other series (Nemesis, Robot).
After reading, I found out why. Foundation's Edge was written thirty years after the original trilogy because the fan-boys wanted more to the story and the publishers offered him a large amount of money. Asimov even admits that those were the only reasons he continued the story. There's even a final book "Foundation and Earth," which I may finish simply out of a desire for completeness -- I might as well finish the story after coming this far, right? But that won't be until later.
I also recently began reading other works in the Ender series. After reading Ender's Game last summer, I thought that it was a solid, well-written book with many philosophical points and social commentaries written in. Recently, I found out that the whole purpose of Ender's Game was to write the story of Speaker for the Dead, which was also fantastic (although some of the plot points were a bit of a stretch). The more I read, the more I realized how similarly Orson Scott Card and I thought. Or perhaps in the midst of reading, I had begun to understand his thinking a bit better. Subsequently, I finished Xenocide, the third word in the Ender series. This series, however, is unique. In each of the three books, Card plays with different cultures/languages thrown in (American, Portuguese, Chinese) -- he heavily researches them. The locations and characters within each book change greatly (aside from Ender, of course), and the ethical dilemmas dealt with in each novel are very different. I have found less 'series'-ness of a quality to these works than I do with others. With each page turn, he makes me think. And think hard.
Granted, I could easily have read the Ender series without abstracting into practical application, but if not, then what do we learn from reading?
Next post, I want to point out a few of those passage that make me love Card's novels.
