Whispering Gums discusses nonfiction, and asks why we read it. A passage from Thoreau's journals, dated March 18, 1861, offers a partial answer:
You can't read any genuine history--as that of Herodotus or the Venerable Bede--without perceiving that our interest depends not on the subject but on the man,--and on the manner in which he treats his subject and on the importance he gives it. A feeble writer and without genius must have what he thinks a great theme, which we are already interested in through the accounts of others, but a genius--a Shakespeare for instance--would make the history of his parish more interesting than another's history of the world.
This is fair--I would hesitate to ready anyone else's four hundred pages about week of canoeing, but am happy to have read Thoreau's.
On the other hand, there is no end to the making of books, yet the supply of genius is limited. Of the nonfiction--history, biography, memoir, other--that I have read in the past year, one book was a biography of a genius, Erasmus, none were by geniuses. But some offered history I didn't know, or thoughtful reflections on a life, or amusing accounts of some topic.
Ah, it looks like Blogger might have fixed the commenting with the Name/URL option. It broke a few years ago, and turned me off commenting on Blogger blogs. Let's see if this works.
ReplyDeleteYes, good point. I think this explains too why creative nonfiction has become popular - not so much for "the man" (or woman) but for "the manner in which [she or] he treats [her or] his subject." For me, the topic is important, but the writing and the thinking (and usually good writing has good thinking, though maybe I'm pushing that too far?) are the important things. There's nothing like turgid prose to put you off what was, otherwise, an interesting topic!
I have become a reader who reads only history and biographies. Today I’ve begun a biography of Theodore Roosevelt. My peculiar fascination with presidents does not mean I like many of them. All have been flawed. Some have been dangerously flawed. And all have outsized egos. TR’s might be the most outsized. Still, he fascinates me. Best wishes from RT
ReplyDelete