Which Do You Prefer...

This is a meme that, I would think, normally show up on Facebook or make the rounds as an email, but I saw it on the Boston Bibliophile’s blog and thought it would be fun to reproduce here. It’s called “Which Do You Prefer” (as you no doubt figured out from this post’s title) and with that, allons-y

WHICH DO YOU PREFER…

…Reading Something Frivolous, or Something Serious? I guess it would depend on the definitions of these two words, but I usually end up reading a book that is more serious than frivolous, just because of my taste in books, but again, define frivolous. For example, are Stephen King’s books The Shining or Bag of Bones frivolous or serious? They certainly cover serious subject matter, and I have been able to tease some very intriguing and thought-provoking themes out of them for papers but they are considered by many to be “popular fiction” and are therefore not serious. So, where do I fall? I know this sounds like a cop-out, but it’s probably somewhere in the middle (a seriously frivolous book or a frivolously serious book). I do have Bachelors in Literary Studies and have begun making a research career out of studying Contemporary American Literature (i.e. Don DeLillo, Sherman Alexie, Toni Morrison, Peter Bacho, Cormac McCarthy, etc.) and American Gothic/Horror Literature (i.e. Stephen King, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, Edgar Allan Poe, etc.) so where do these stand on the whole frivolous-serious spectrum? Again, I would lump most if not all of these authors on the serious side of things, so by these terms, I guess I prefer reading something serious.

…Paperbacks, or Hardcovers? Hands down the answer is paperbacks. Hardcovers are just too heavy, too unwieldy and too ungainly to be convenient. A paperback—whether it is a trade paperback (the larger 5.32” x 8.51” size) or a mass market paperback (the typical 4.33” x 7.01” kind)—is easier to carry, easier to read, and easier to take with you anywhere due to a usually more manageable size and weight. Also, I prefer paperbacks (especially mass market paperbacks) because I have a waterproof book cover (that also zips shut, has a built-in bookmark and a sleeve for a writing utensil (pen, pencil or highlighter)) that only fits mass market paperback books. I use it a lot and carry it around with me like most people carry a planner or purse. It’s really handy, especially if you have kids like me. Keeps them out of the book I’m currently reading and if they happen to spill something on it (or if I happen to spill something on it) the book stays safe.

…Fiction, or Nonfiction? Without a doubt fiction. Part of that comes from being a Literary Studies major … fiction is in for English majors unless you’re a Creative or Technical Writing geek, but another big part of it is that I love a well-crafted story. The idea that someone could have written The Shining (Stephen King), or The Road (Cormac McCarthy), or Flight (Sherman Alexie), or Slaughterhouse-Five (Kurt Vonnegut) without only an idea in their head and an inner vision of what that particular world looked like is simply astounding to me, and then to add to that the fact that all of those books have some kind of deeper message about the world around the author (be it (at the risk of being too reductive) gender roles (The Shining), father-son relationships (The Road and Flight), our connection to the past (Flight) or peace and war (Slaughterhouse-Five) is simply amazing and a source of endless fascination to me. Don’t get me wrong, not that I don’t love a good nonfiction book … summers are usually when I cram as much nonfiction into my brain as possible, but the limitlessness and sheer beauty that a well-crafted fiction piece (be it novel, novella, short story or flash fiction) has is to me a treasure beyond words … and speaking of “words” the power of words and ideas and thought in fiction is nothing short of astonishing. Read Sherman Alexie, and you’ll see what I mean.

…Poetry, or Prose? Prose, there is no contest. Not that a good piece of poetry can’t be enjoyable, but there is something a little too ephemeral about poetry that just doesn’t click with me. Having been trained in both prose and poetry, I’ll take prose any day. There is a concreteness about prose that appeals to the literary critic within me. When Stephen King writes about gender roles in The Shining it is something I can get my hands in and wrap my brain around more so than when Sylvia Plath writes about the same concept in her poetry, for example. Most of that has to do with the fact that I took more prose-based classes than poetry-based classes in my studies, but even outside of that fact, there is something about the power of a well-crafted piece of prose that draws me to it more than to poetry.

…Biographies, or Autobiographies? I’d have to say biographies because there is something about an autobiography that seems sketchy to me. An objective view of a person’s life cannot be made if that person is writing about their own life, or so I believe. There is also something to be said about the “completeness” of a biography over and autobiography. To tell the story of a person’s life, the whole life must be taken into account. I don’t think that that can be accomplished by an autobiography. By definition, there is a portion of a person’s life missing from an autobiography that is not from a biography. Now, granted biographies can be just as fawning and selective as autobiographies (depending on who is writing them, and how much of a “fan” they are of their subject), but the biography is at least, by sheer virtue of it being a biography, a little more objective and complete than an autobiography would (by it’s nature) be.

…History, or Historical Fiction? While this is, essentially, the same question as “Fiction, or Nonfiction” I have a different answer to this question than that one. I would say History, in this case, because while there is some excellent historical fiction out there (see especially Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels about the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War) historical fiction is just that: fiction. There are, in my mind, too many exceptional stories out there about historical people caught up in historical events (like, for example, The Diary of Anne Frank) that to fictionalize these events and, as is often done in historical fiction, insert fictional characters into these events seems unnecessary. I have a prime example of what I am talking about. As some of my readers (the three of you out there) may or may not know, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or, Mormon). In the mid-1990s, an LDS author, Gerald N. Lund, began releasing what eventually became a nine-volume series about the birth and early growth of Mormonism called The Work and the Glory. The nine novels followed the fictional Steed family as they came to know LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, Jr. and converted to Mormonism and joined the Church and became players in some of the key moments of the early history of the Church in the mid- to late-1800s. It was very popular within LDS circles and they even made three movie adaptations out of the series. I read about half of them before putting them down declining to finish the series. Not because they weren’t well-written, but because I couldn’t understand why Lund had written them in the first place. My major beef with the series was the fact that Lund inserted a fictional family into the middle of these historical events and then proceeded to have various members of the family conveniently be party to various historical events in the early days of Mormonism in New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. I found this to vaguely distasteful because there were so many true stories of these early members of the Church (my own ancestors among them) who went through these events and Lund, instead of chronicling the true stories of these early members of the Church, conveniently has members of the Steed family present at (and often playing key parts in) such varied historical events like the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the Dedication of the Kirtland Temple, and taking passage west on the ship Brooklyn. So, the bottom line is I will almost always prefer history over historical fiction.

…Series, or Stand-Alones? This is a difficult question. I would say I lean more towards stand-alones just because I like to sample a variety of authors, writing styles and story lines. There are some exceptions to this rule, though, most notably are Stephen King’s Dark Tower saga (with not only the main seven books, but all the other stories that take place in that world and are a part of that particular mythos) and the Dragonlance series of which I own 99% of the books, and are ones that I have been reading and collection for nearly twenty years now. But, for the most part, I prefer stand-alones simply for the variety which they represent.

…Classics, or Best-Sellers? Classics, easily. Whether it is classic literature (American, French or British), classic horror, or classic drama, or even “new” classics, I love classic books. Best-sellers usually are not as deep or wonderfully written as classic books (for example, compare The Da Vinci Code with The Name of the Rose, and I think you’ll see what I mean. Not to say that classics cannot be best-sellers or that best-sellers cannot be classic, but generally speaking, I much prefer classics over best-sellers.

…Lurid, Fruity Prose, or Straight-Forward, Basic Prose? I don’t know what to say to this. This is like the frivolous-serious question, it’s a little of Column A and a little of Column B. So-called “Lurid, Fruity Prose” can be beautiful, if done right (see anything by William Shakespeare or Geoffrey Chaucer) and I love it. But, sometimes “Straight-Forward, Basic Prose” can be a breath of fresh air, like in Sherman Alexie or Don DeLillo, or even Stephen King who is a master of “straight-forward, basic prose.” So, I guess it depends on my mood whether or not I prefer lurid, fruity prose over straight-forward, basic prose, or vice versa.

…Plots, or Stream-of-Consciousness? As much as I love a good stream-of-consciousness novel, most of them are not done right. They are mostly done by pretentious authors who have no idea how to handle stream-of-consciousness. James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs … they can do it, most of the stream-of-consciousness novels that are out there today don’t do it well. I prefer a plot any day of the week to stream-of-consciousness because even when a plot is bad it can still be enjoyable, whereas when stream-of-consciousness is done badly it is a distraction to the enjoyment of reading.

…Long Books, or Short? Long books, because who wants a good book to end … though a book that I can sit down and finish in only one or two sittings also has its own appeal, which is why I love short stories so much. So, to recap: long books and short stories.

…Illustrated, or Non-Illustrated? (1) This question is inane, and (2) It doesn’t matter, unless it’s a children’s book, an illustration does not add all that much to a good book. A great example of this is Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies; P&P&Z is a novel that has illustrations and while they are fun, they add nothing to the enjoyment of the book and it would be just as enjoyable without them as it is with them.

…Borrowed, or Owned? Is this even an issue? Owned is better than borrowed any day of the week, though I do see the virtues of a borrowed book, especially as I am getting ready to move my collection to grad school at the end of the month.

…New, or Used? Used, again this isn’t an issue. Used books trump new books every time. There is nothing like the smell and feel of a good used book. The smell of a used book is one of my most favorite aromas in the world. Plus, for someone like me who has an out-of-control bibliobido used books are a must cheaper option than new.

Now, you may or may not agree with me, and I’d love to hear from you on any one of these preferences, especially those where you think I am wrong on some account.