Milton's "Paradise Lost"

It seems that there is this widely misunderstood notion about art, that if it is good then you have to like it, and that if you don't like it then you are stupid. The statement can be reversed: if it's bad then you have to hate it, and if you like something bad then you are stupid; or, if you like something that is good then that means that you are smart. The truth, as I see it, is that art isn't only about intelligence; it is on some level but not all. What is unique about art is its ability to touch people, and there are many ways for you to be touched, moved, affected, or influenced. Art is for the heart, and I don't think there is any one thing that can touch every heart. I have read many great works of literature in my life that I do not like. I can see why they are good; I can sit and analyze and agonize over them, but that doesn't mean that, realizing their merits, I would have to like them. That's not what art is about. Meryl Steep is one of the greatest actors of all time, and she is disliked by Catharine Hepburn, another one of the greatest actors of all time. You get the idea.

The other day I had a meeting with one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, my professor. I shared with him my newfound affection for Milton--I recently read and fell completely in love with "Paradise Lost"; the pleasure I took from reading it was very rare, especially when I read epic poems. He told me that for him the experience of reading the text was painful, and he did not enjoy, despite admitting that he did like Milton in the abstract, and that the work was structurally interesting. I was surprised and impressed by his honesty. The truth is that up until that point I had to always convince myself that it was okay for me to dislike something that is supposedly "good" and have been revered by other scholars in my life and in history. I'm learning now to be honest; if I like something I like it; if I don't, it doesn't mean that I am foolish. If anybody thinks I am foolish then I will probably thing the same about them, because no work of art is meant to be like by everyone. I appreciate the "great" works that I have recently read (Proust's "Swann's Way," Nabokov's "Lolita," Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude," to name a few) even though I didn't enjoy reading them.

Back to Milton, I thought "Paradise Lost" was a great work. It held my attention, and I liked the way the words rolled on my tongue. The story was intriguing, the characters well developed, and Milton a great dramatist. He doesn't change the story from the Bible--one of the work's great qualities--but merely dramatizing and enhancing it. I think your feeling about it may have to do with your attachment or detachment to Christianity; as for me, an ex-Catholic, currently somewhat agnostic, completely free from attachment to any organized religion, I fell in love with it completely.

This and That

After reading a lot of old stuff, I'm feeling the need to take a break and read something newer. Over the past couple of months it's been about Shakespeare, Ovid, Balzac, Proust, Forster...I'm tired. So, here is the list of newer novels I'm hoping to read this summer:

Alice Walker's "Color Purple."
Toni Morrison's "Sula."
Nella Larsen's "Quicksand."

They are all written by African-American women, so I think this could make for an interesting study. But, knowing me, I'm probably going to start feeling like reading old, British things again soon after.

Upon writing the above I realized that I just finished E.M. Forster's amazing novel called "A Room with a View." I will write more about it soon.

Proust's "Swann's Way"

Should you read Proust's "Swann's Way," the first book in his epic series, "In Search of Lost Time"? I think in order to answer that question I would need to know what it is you hope to gain from reading, as well as what kind of book you usually enjoy. If it is an easy, fun read, then this is definitely not for you. Proust is one of those authors who are known to be difficult, but how is he difficult? His language is definitely one of the reason; he constructs extensive sentences with limited variation of punctuation; he doesn't take care to arrange his sentences and paragraphs in ways that make the content of his writing more comprehensible; the structure of the novel is very lose--that is to say, he is not the most proficient at the craft of writing. That, however, doesn't mean he is a bad writer; there are reasons why some writers choose to create their works the difficult way. If I met anybody who says that Proust is not difficult I would probably think him or her a genius or a liar. Proust is difficult--that is a universally acknowledged truth--but some may find pleasure in the difficulty, or complexity, of the work.

I enjoyed the work to a certain degree, but mostly I was just bored. I got used to the language very quickly, but it still bored me to death. There is a great story here, but it is hidden under the sea of words. The translation that I read, which is by Lydia Davis, is very modern and meant to make the work more accessible to new generations of readers, but I found it removed from the time in which the novel takes place. Since the original is in French, it is unnecessary to translate it to the 19th century English, but doing so would probably capture the spirit of the period better.

It was with great difficulty that I finished the book, and not much of the time spent reading it was pleasant. Despite this I will probably continue to read the rest of the books in "In Search of Lost time," and hopefully as I get older and become a better reader I will enjoy it more. Proust is one of those authors you are glad to have read, even if you don't enjoy reading him. Next time, however, I will probably pick an older translation.

French Literature (continued)

I'm not going to lie, Proust is taking a long time to read. I was supposed to have finished "Swann's Way" a few days ago but I've been slacking off. I have also been occupied myself with my writing and other reading, as well as French lessons. Hopefully I will get it done by Wednesday, since I plan to return it to the library on Thursday along with the other books.

Meanwhile I've been enjoying E.M. Forster's book about writing called "Aspects of the Novel." It is absolutely delightful. I will write more about it once I'm done. I'm also planning to read one of his novel once I'm done with the whole French literature program that I created for myself.

French Literature

Usually when I have a lot of time, like during school breaks, I like to come up with some sort of a theme focus my studies on. Somehow French literature is my theme for the beginning of this summer break. I'm not sure exactly how it happened, but it happened unintentionally, and is turning out to be a lot of fun. One of my professors loaned me a copy of Baudelaire's "Les Fleurs du Mal" a little while back, which I have been reading ever since. And I just started reading Proust's "Swann's Way," which is the first of his "In Search of Lost Times" series. I went to a friend's going away party two nights ago, and he was giving away some books. One of the books I took was Balzac's "Père Goriot," which is also French. So I decided that I should just spend the next couple of weeks reading these works, as well as some essays by Derrida and Foucault, just to get a solid French experience before I move on.

Also I'm planning to continue studying French this summer. That will start...any day now.

Afterwards I'll be reading a lot of Shakespeare and some 19th century British novels as well as some epic poems. I feel so motivated; hopefully this motivation won't go away too soon.