I meant it to be a play--not only was I a "literacy chick"--a female scholar concerned with representations of literacy in fiction, I was interested in seeing literacy become chic, en vogue, specifically with reference to literary criticism, which doesn't consider "the reader" in quite the way I was doing. And I still see myself as "Literacy-chic," though I'm not currently writing formal literary criticism. Instead, I'm writing informal literary criticism on whatever strikes me. But I am still on the lookout for "literacy moments," or "scenes of literate activity." Because looking at how writers conceptualize the act of reading, writing, or otherwise engaging with written texts can tell us a lot about what we think literacy does, and what we see as the place of literacy in society and in our own lives.
So any time you're reading a book, and some character is reading, the novel is drawing attention to the fact that the character is reading--"Look! You're reading a book about someone reading!" Frequently, there is an implied question: "So why is this person reading?" and "Is this person reading for a good reason? Are they getting anything out of it?" and "Okay, so what are they getting out of it?"
A reader might then be prompted to ask, "So why am I reading?" and "Why do I read?" That's a question I wish all of those people who pushed those shady gray books to the top of the charts would ask themselves (I really should have written the title out to get hits, but I decided not to)--for cheap thrills? (Were they worth it?) For escapism? I read for escapism, too--absolutely! And an essential part of my escapism is to be found in the ideas I get when I read. About things like why we read. Things I can think about instead of the things I'd rather not think about. So reading about the fictional reader reading should make us ask, "Why do we (people in general, certain types of people, people in society) read?"
In Dragonfly in Amber, when Jenny Fraser becomes ecstatic over the prospect of new reading material, the text very specifically asks exactly that kind of question:
"Ooh, three French novels and a book of poetry from Paris!" Jenny said in excitement, opening the paper-wrapped package. "C'est un embarras de richesse, hm? Which shall we read tonight?" She lifted the small stack of books from their wrappings, stroking the soft leather cover of the top one with a forefinger that trembled with delight. Jenny loved books with the same passion her brother reserved for horses. (580)The level of delight is conspicuous, particularly in the last line. The comparison--books to horses--is appropriate because of the relationship between Jamie and Jenny as siblings. It is an obvious comparison, since Claire's narrative voice seeks to understand how the two, who grew up in the same household, measure up to one another and to Claire's understanding of Jamie. Such comparison of siblings is a frequent narrative gesture in the chapters with Jenny.
However, the comparison is interesting for another reason. Thinking about the comparison of books and horses, what exactly does it say about books? Horses are living creatures. Books are inanimate objects. Horses belong outside. Books are kept indoors. Something might be said about exterior and interior spaces, and women being comfortable or belonging in interior spaces, but given all of Jenny's various activities, that's not really a relevant statement, and would reveal more about the critic's biases and sensitivities than about the novel itself.
Horses are active. We might assume that books are passive, but the novel doesn't tell us that. In fact, Friday's post will show that reading books is not, in fact, a passive activity for Jenny.
Perhaps the love of books runs deep in Jenny, and the love of horses deep in Jamie, because both brother and sister have strength of spirit that requires transport and freedom. Both books and horses provide transport and freedom according to what each of them needs--or can use. Admittedly, Jenny cannot run from the responsibility of the home--unlike Claire, who has no home, or Jamie, whose role as laird is largely forfeit throughout Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber. An 18th Century novel might not have been self-conscious enough to declare reading a path to a kind of freedom, but Dragonfly in Amber (1992), as a 20th Century novel, comfortable with literacy and with all of the demands and expectations we have for reading, is free to make that claim. Certainly, Jenny has a good reason to read. She would have to have a good reason in order to make time, considering all of her other obligations.
But think about it--why do people read? Why does Jenny Fraser read? And what do authors and the characters and books they write tell us about why we should read? Why do you read?
More on this next time...
2 comments:
Well, now...what is the chief function of a horse? To carry one away, right?
And a book...?
--Diana Gabaldon
That's the next post! :) Thanks for visiting!!
Post a Comment