Skip to main content

On Favorite Books

People have been making a great deal of Republican VP nominee, Paul Ryan's favorite book choice, Atlas Shrugged. Which is understandable, given that it's a political book with such a wide influence that no one bothers to actually read it (myself included). A few moments ago, I read a brief article/post asserting that Ryan now claims his favorite author is Thomas Aquinas, as though trying to cover up the highly controversial Ayn Rand business.

I understand that a politician claiming a political book as a favorite is a certain statement about his own political persuasions. I get that. But I'd like to point out that if someone asked me who my favorite author was, I'd likely say "Dostoevsky," and I'd mean it. But if you asked me what book I have read more often than any other, it would probably be Cynthia Voigt's On Fortune's Wheel. Which, considering what that whole series has to say about magic, fantasy, and cultural narratives of belief, would be very deceptive as an indicator of my personal feelings about such things. Or if you asked which author's canon I was most familiar with, I suppose that would be C. S. Lewis. Who is lovely, but not quite the same as Dostoevsky. Or perhaps it would be Madeleine L'Engle. Both would say very flattering things about my discernment, I'm sure, but when you consider the wide array of readers who could make the same claim of authorial familiarity with these folks, it becomes harder and harder to see a real connection between the books I most love and the sort of person that I am.

This is very different than the influence of a mentor or a pastor or a teacher. Books are our teachers, certainly. But we have more agency with them than we do individuals. The same article mentioned above likened Ryan's Ayn Rand to another major political figure's erstwhile pastor. I like comparisons. I often find them to be helpful. But this one seems more than a little misguided.

That's all I have to say about the politics of things, though I'll continue to mull over my reading choices and what they have to say about me. Because I'm sure they say something, but I'm less sure that what they say is particularly relevant . . . or honest.

Comments

  1. I just finished watching 2 episodes of Jeeves and Wooster, and then read this. Honestly, you and Jeeves would be fun to listen to in conversation. Anyway, you have me thinking (as always) about my favorite authors and books. Right now all that comes to mind is Frog and Toad. I'm sure there's depth in there somewhere...I bought Atlas Shrugged last summer, but may read Fountainhead first--it's shorter.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can someone please explain why my Quicktime isn't working? Anyone with prophetic awareness of my little Atlas, none so old but recently behaving so?
because you were all wondering what I'm writing my dissertation on, here's a brief synopsis of my 'research context': When James Macpherson published his Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760, he went to great lengths to make the Fragments appear to be authentic remains of an ancient, heroic oral tradition. His reasons for this were largely political, and as such, influenced the content of the epics themselves. As an attempt to establish a particularly Scottish identity, the poems were quite effective. However, to do so required both a simplification and a manipulation of traditional mythology. Stripped of anagogical significance, the Ossian epics more or less represented an Enlightenment version of history, tradition, and mythic heritage. The stories themselves were changed by their very purpose and in turn changed the manner of representing myth in future narratives. Moreover, the emphasis on the Ossian epics as authentic tales from the past, as ‘fragments,’ served...
Kathryn, do NOT be jealous of me going to the opera. It was weird. They were wearing these bulky animal costumes and clonking boots which might have been okay except that their footsteps drowned out the sound of the orchestra (Oh look! A band!). The plot was supposed to be about the circle of life or something deep, but it really seemed to be more about animals getting it on. It was an opera, though, so plot really shouldn't matter as long as the music is good. It wasn't. I mean, it wasn't BAD - but most of the singing was monotonous, the orchestration was unremarkable, and I hope to heaven no one from the production reads this. It would be so disheartening! They were all skillful - I just wasn't interested in the piece itself. But then, I have only ever seen very classical sorts of pieces. The Marriage of Figaro. Samson and Delilah. And I was listening to Puccini before leaving the house! What do you do? But then again, I was distracted by my seating companion. Five so...