On reading in relation to literatureHearn, Lafcadio
General
On reading in relation to literature
Hearn, Lafcadio
Books and reading; Literature
Of course this is an extreme case; but it is the ultimate outcome of
reading for amusement whenever such amusement becomes a habit, and
when there are means close at hand to gratify the habit. At present in
Japan there is little danger of this state of things; but I use the
illustration for the sake of its ethical warning.
This does not mean that there is any sort of good literature which
should be shunned. A good novel is just as good reading as even the
greatest philosopher can possibly wish for. The whole matter depends
upon the way of reading, even more than upon the nature of what is
read. Perhaps it is too much to say, as has often been said, that
there is no book which has nothing good in it; it is better simply
to state that the good of a book depends incomparably more for its
influence upon the habits of the reader than upon the art of the
writer, no matter how great that writer may be. In a previous lecture I
tried to call your attention to the superiority of the child’s methods
of observation to those of the man; and the same fact may be noticed
in regard to the child’s method of reading. Certainly the child can
read only very simple things; but he reads most thoroughly; and he
thinks and thinks untiringly about what he reads; one little fairy
tale will give him mental occupation for a month after he has read it.
All the energies of his little fancy are exhausted upon the tale; and
if his parents be wise, they do not allow him to read a second tale,
until the pleasure of the first, and its imaginative effect, has begun
to die away. Later habits, habits which I shall venture to call bad,
soon destroy the child’s power of really attentive reading. But let us
now take the case of a professional reader, a scientific reader; and
we shall observe the same power, developed of course to an enormous
degree. In the office of a great publishing house which I used to
visit, there are received every year sixteen thousand manuscripts. All
these must be looked at and judged; and such work in all publishing
houses is performed by what are called professional readers. The
professional reader must be a scholar, and a man of very uncommon
capacity. Out of a thousand manuscripts he will read perhaps not more
than one; out of two thousand he may possibly read three. The others
he simply looks at for a few seconds--one glance is enough for him to
decide whether the manuscript is worth reading or not. The shape of a
single sentence will tell him that, from the literary point of view. As
regards subject, even the title is enough for him to judge, in a large
number of cases. Some manuscripts may receive a minute or even five
minutes of his attention; very few receive a longer consideration. Out
of sixteen thousand, we may suppose that sixteen are finally selected
for judgment. He reads these from beginning to end. Having read them,
he decides that only eight can be further considered. The eight are
read a second time, much more carefully.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account