Punk.

So, speaking of "speed reading,"  I just got finished with "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" by Thornton Wilder. At a whopping 130-odd pages, it was a bit of a barn burner itself. It won the Pulitzer in 1928, and was the subject of a couple of movies. Good read all in all, but (and I'm just learning this, so give me a break here) It's considered a novella rather than a novel. What's the difference you ask? Well, as if you haven't figured out, I'm gonna tell you. A novella is intended to be read in more or less one sitting. It's not divided into specific numbered chapters because you're not really supposed to stop when you start reading it. It's sort of like an expanded short story.

That being said, it would have been an easier read had I actually had the time to swallow it in one big gulp. The narrative would have felt more cohesive, and I wouldn't have had to think back as often once beginning to read again to figure out what was going on. Huh. Whaddaya know, right?

It got me thinking that maybe some of these "pop" fiction novels are simply extensions of this somewhat Victorian-era ideal of being able to digest a book in just one day. Sure, Charles Dickens isn't exactly novella material, but by the same time, most of the folks who could and did read regularly probably didn't have a whole lot else to do with their time (the idle rich)

Like "Hunger Games" for example...

Now, I'm not going to knock my lovely wife for reading "Hunger Games" at all. Ok, maybe a little. This IS a competition, after all, and whereas my diversion was into "The Great Gatsby" last week, (which I'll go into later on...) hers was into the kind of teenie lit that publishers are churning out left and right with no sense of whether they'll carry or not. It just seemed like the sort of book that could be easily made into a movie for people too lazy to actually pick up such an immensely readable book.

I'm delving into imagery here, so bear with me... You know how when you read a really good book, and you're into it, and the story is carrying you along, when suddenly you realize that you've been "seeing" what's happening in the book in your mind's eye? That's imagery. Your brain turns the words into pictures, and it's one of the strengths of the written word - why books are so often more powerful than the movies. It's because our own imaginations supply the setting and the characters, and even the characters' voices. Cool, huh? (except I'm not sure what that's called...) Anyway, It's what makes "Hunger Games" so good. You're there with Katniss (sp?) as she goes through her trials.

The thing is, that sort of imagery is also available in a book written nearly a hundred years ago. Or two hundred years ago, but there's a backlash against literature in our society - sort of an "anti-renaissance." As high schoolers, we're taught to dread the assignment of novels like "David Copperfield" or "The Bridge of San Luis Rey," when really they provide a glimpse into life that history books can't provide on such a personal level. Our attention has to be grabbed at the outset, or we're not interested. Well, "Bridge" can still grab your attention, but are you afraid of it because it was written in 1927 and is called "literature?" think it won't grab you?

How about five people falling a thousand feet to their death? Does that grab you? Then "Bridge" might just do the same.  But, hey, at least you won't be reading Kiddie-lit, right?