A case for reading

This post was triggered by the article that I came across in The Hindu this last Sunday morning.  The link to the article is here.  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/sayantani-dasguptas-love-letter-to-banned-books/article8986541.ece

I liked the article for two reasons.  One, I liked Sayantini’s clever device to bring out her students’ fear of the written word.  These students by her admission were “open minded”.  Understandably, they were reluctant to come up with suggestions of books that they might consider banning. 

Yet when they were asked to identify books that they would rather not have a younger sibling read, they overcame their reluctance to suggest books that need to be banned.  In the process she brings out a fundamental point:  Those who ban books may for all you know may not be different from all of us who consider ourselves to be open-minded.

 

While she lists a number of books that have been banned from time to time I could add to that list writers who were considered subversive by the UK during the second world war:  Bertrand Russell and my all-time favourite, PG Wodehouse, among many others.  Paranoia, it would appear, is not the exclusive preserve of a tinpot autocrat lording over a banana republic!

 

Secondly and more importantly I loved the piece for the case she builds up for reading.  It was particularly appealing considering that reading seems to be disappearing from the ever-growing bucket lists of most of contemporary society.  Where people read it seems to be driven by a relatively narrow purpose such as cracking an interview or performing well in an examination.

 

Reading as an intellectually bohemian activity – I use that adjective very deliberately – appears to be yielding ground to various other pastimes, regrettably.  My views in this regard resonate with those of Sayantini’s. I would rather reproduce her words than mess it up with my own clumsy and imprecise style of articulation.

 

“Because that, right there, is the greatest purpose of literature. It is not grades. It is not in the construction of the most grammatically accurate sentence. Its purpose is to create empathy. ….Literature exists so we, flesh and blood readers, can connect with made-up characters in some fundamental, universal way. We go to literature not just for a great story but because good books show us how people think, choose and decide; how there are multiple perspectives and approaches to the same ethical questions; and how what is considered morally true and absolute in one age might not be so in the next.”

 

The other important purpose of reading is to expand one’s mind and thinking.   Much of the extreme views that one hears in the public discourse of today unfortunately is a result of the poor reading habits of modern society.   As Sayantini notes, reading “ would have taught us that one person’s normal is the other person’s provocative. That if we don’t broaden our world, if we only read what’s familiar and comfortable, we hear echoes of ourselves. That complex books teach us how to analyse and argue. That censorship does not sit well in a democracy because it distorts reality.”

 

And the outcome of all of that I would look forward to is what she claims she achieved at the end of the course.  “By the end of the semester, we hadn’t changed the world.  All we had done was merely read, ask questions, disagree, research, and listen.  I want to believe that was a good start.”

 

How I wish more of us would read more.  And make this world a more interesting place for conversations, spoken or otherwise.

 

Nanni….Namaskaaram…