Novels Don't Have to be Hard to Read
Submitted by Lee Hadden on August 29, 2009 - 10:31am
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574377163804387216.html">Wall Street Journal. </a>AUGUST 29, 2009, "Storytelling: Good Books Don't Have to Be Hard; A novelist on the pleasure of reading stories that don't bore; rising up from the supermarket racks." By LEV GROSSMAN This brought with it another, related development: difficulty. It's hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when literary novels were not, generally speaking, all that hard to read. Say what you like about the works of Dickens and Thackeray, you pretty much always know who's talking, and when, and what they're talking about. The Modernists introduced us to the idea that reading could be work, and not common labor but the work of an intellectual elite, a highly trained coterie of professional aesthetic interpreters. The motto of Ezra Pound's "Little Review," which published the first chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses," was "Making no compromise with the public taste." Imagine what it felt like the first time somebody opened up "The Waste Land" and saw that it came with footnotes. Amateur hour was over.