I resolved to read one book per week sometime around four years ago. I don’t know exactly why. But I guess the decision was inspired when I heard Oprah confess that her dad strictly imposed the one book per week rule . Not that I aspire to be like Oprah (though money and power doesn’t sound bad at all. Wait, hold that thought.Why ever not?), but the rule must be good, having turned out the way she did.
But I was only able to act on the resolution this year. I also read a lot in the past years but now I strictly monitor the titles that I have read, and force myself to pick up a book, focus and stay on track. My undergraduate thesis is also about recreational reading, so I learned a lot about the art of reading. I can finish a maximum of three books in a week, but only when I’m not neck-deep in chores and pressure.
Those who can read at least a book per week are called ludic readers (Nell, 1998). They also go by a variety of terms: recreational readers, voluntary readers, extensive readers, informal readers, independent readers, avid readers, aesthetic readers, etc. A ludic reader has to read at read at least 52 books a year; lest, the reader falls into another category: seldom reader (<5 book/yr), moderate reader (6-20 books/yr), constant reader (20-51 books/yr).
BTW, here’s a favorite picture of mine. Painted by Karl Spitzweg, “DerBeucherwurm”(The Bookworm).
Anyway, much has been studied and written about the benefits of reading so am not gonna add them here. I guess, I’m writing about the experience because I have surpassed the quota this year (yey!). The titles I have previously enjoyed were a mixed bunch, there are classics, YA, romance. Most of them are on ebooks, some were borrowed, or stolen. Kidding! HAHAHA! Am currently on my 53rd book, it’s Arturo Perez-Reverte’s The Painter of Battles.
I heard Stephen King’s wife can read more than 16 novels per week, so she advises her husband on what works (yay). That means she can consume at least 832 books per year (double yay!). Well, wish me luck, hope to get to u hundred by 31st December!
I became more desperate as Micah’s condition worsened. She mustn’t die, that’s the mantra I repeated in my mind.
I paced the floor half-mad, unwilling to entertain the possibility that my wonderful friend, an almost seven-year-old mixed breed, can expire any minute. But each passing day that she refuses to eat, hope slips through my fingers like a fine sand.
The problem is you can’t let go. She’s not even yours.
Damn if she’s not! I protested. I love her and I’m not letting her go!
Then a vista came to me. I was sitting in a hut, students passing by, sun outpouring his blinding rays over the clear blue sky. What’s in your world that you can’t let anyone in? My teacher asks.
What’s in my world? I echoed. The question rang in my head.
Dead People. Dead Animals. Dead Aspirations. Things that I refuse to let go.
Like my dead father. He died waiting for me, but I never came around. Like this godfather who took care of me and my mother when family life becomes too complex. Like this man who cared for me during my childhood, I still regret walking away the last time I saw him alive.
We have unfinished businesses, they can’t leave yet.
It’s a fucking catacomb, reeking of fetid rotting flesh. I can continue the tour, if you like, Welcome to my World.
I can’t let anyone in because it’s dark in there, and smells worse than bog. It has been filled with dead things that there’s no space left for the living.
After a study of Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism or PCIJ concluded that the Filipinos are a nation of non-readers, I subsequently came across Jessica Zafra (in Twisted 9) and Arlene Babst-Vokey (an article, Manila Chronicles circa 1987) ranting about the Filipino’s lack of book reading habits.
In fairness to the Filipinos, this decline in literary reading is actually a global phenomenon. A few examples: National Endowment for the Arts showed that there’s a decline in book reading among all age groups in America- the greatest decrease in the range of 18-24, 25-34, and 35-44; in a newspaper, a Hindu intellectual lamented on his countrymen’s waning reading habit; the National Centre for Research on Public Opinion study on “Cultural attitudes and consumption of cultural products in Bulgaria” showed that the national leisure is watching television, 57% against 8% of book reading; in Netherlands, the decline of leisure reading trends was documented by Wim Knulst and Gerbert Kraaykamp.
Therefore, we are one with the rest of the world? Uh-huh, in a manner worthy of a dirge. Then what is amiss?
It’s too easy to blame technology, and there’s nothing we can do about it because whether we like it or not, technology is here to stay. And lately, we’ve been employing the “if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them” attitude by utilizing technology to promote reading, i.e. film showing. This panacea seem to be convenient, as classic literature such as Jane Eyre, Les Miserables, and Wuthering Heights are now available in motion pictures. But then again, the film must act as a stimulant to read, not a substitute for it.
It’s easy to blame everything else- the parents, for not providing reading materials; the government, for depriving us of “good” libraries; it’s even easy to blame the student, for not wanting to read at all.
John McRae, however, a Special Professor of Language in Literature, says that this behavior implies more. Students don’t read because they don’t know HOW to read, WHY they need to read at all, and WHAT reading can contribute to their lives. Furthermore, students refuse to learn how to read properly, which is by the way, an ability not easily acquired, for their conventional perception of reading is equal to studying. This examination-oriented attitude towards reading takes the students no further than- yes you guessed right-the examinations day.
Now the most obvious and easiest scapegoat of all, the subject itself, literature-and the way it’s been taught.
The crisis of literature as a subject boils down to its tedium. That’s easy to understand. In school, the greatest literary figures of the past are being “studied” rather than “read”- analyze, deconstruct, write, and prepare the students for examination. It’s also a sin I’m guilty of, without the teacher having to prod me into “studying” them. As an avid reader, I’m not contented with just reading a book; I deconstruct it with every possible criticism available in my arsenal, identify its literary period, and examine it as if it’s a specimen in a Petri dish. My only difference is I bask in the process- text and all the tedium of study. Now I realize that my manner and style of reading may not be applicable to others- a very important learning indeed.
Now that is not to say that the academic study of literature spoils the pleasure of reading. But it’s totally unnecessary for a reading material to be pressed with study. So if we go back to the question, “What is amiss?”
The key, as I see it, was once succinctly uttered by the great intellectual B.F. Skinner. “We shouldn’t teach great books; we should teach a love of reading.”
In the school context, teachers shouldn’t be obsessed with reading the text in its entirety; instead the text must be cautiously chosen, careful study of what the text is for, reason for its existence and its significance in present times, and most importantly, communication with the teacher. This communication is comprised of communication between teacher and text, text and student, and teacher and student. This relationship will inevitably show a text’s (or a book’s) artistic, social, philosophical, etc. values that are meant to help us become better individuals, and ultimately become better citizens of the world.
With all those increments, who cannot risk to love reading?
Out of boredom, a friend once challenged me to come up with a popular word that starts from F- and ends with –K. As an English major, I enumerated at least twelve while avoiding the commonest of obscenities: fork, freak, flick, flak, flask, folk, frisk, frock, frank, flank, flunk, funk. Add Facebook to that, now that it has officially become a noun. Take the –K and more words come to mind. In this month, and as the 17th draws nigh, one F- word stands out, father. And in the strictest sense of the word, we find that nobody can claim the right to be called a “father” without an offspring. But children without fathers? Plenty.
Let’s take a moment and single out a group whose label again begins in F- fatherless. Much has been said about them, a few examples: a study made by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1993, found that fatherless children are at greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, poor educational performance, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy and criminality; a longitudinal study of urban elementary school students in the U.S. in 1995 found that there is a greater level of aggression among boys in mother-only households; and in Virginia a study found that children from one-parent households are more prone to depression and are less successful in relationships. In a nutshell, the fatherless youngsters have a greater tendency to be another F- word: failure.
Failure. A government liability. Underachiever. Shunned. Now doesn’t that make any of us wonder how many of those who are cramped in prison cells grew up without a father? How many of the drop-outs, the expelled, the flunked outs came from fatherless homes?
Before despair gets the better of us, let us remember we have an F-word to hang our hopes on: Freewill. All the researches and investigations have ever shown us about the fatherless children are tendencies. Just because you are a fatherless child does not automatically mean you will inevitably become a societal pariah. Tendencies are mere inclinations, possibilities, trends; not destiny, which is incidentally, a synonym of another F-word, fate: a little something that has a lot to do with our choices.
I am reminded of a 2011 documentary on the hardcore punk rock musicians of the 80s and 90s and their experiences on an F-word, fatherhood. The movers of this subculture were children in the Cold War Era, and their first images of the government authority were Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal. With anarchism and nihilism as ruling ideologies, the punk rock subculture started out as a form of subversion against the system; subscribers were often mohawked and leather-clad, and the scene was always characterized by considerable violence.
The documentary reported on the changes of these punksters in the face of fatherhood. Some altered from “living fast and dying young” to “living fast and dying a little older”; they also dealt with the conflict of screaming profanities during their live shows, singing the anthem Fuck Authorities while being a role model and an authority figure at home; some reminisced on how their own fathers were- some good, while others walked out on their responsibilities. One in particular noted the society’s low expectations on them as parents because of a rockstar’s stereotypical lifestyle. But it was quite astonishing, honestly, to see them vulnerable, relating (tearfully for some) their experiences of fatherhood such as spending quality time with their kids, or dealing with a son’s death, or taking their kids to school, knowing the sexual perversions, drug, and alcohol history of these artists.
So you see?
An F-word may be ten thousand different things: from the obscenity to the patriarch. This 17th, think about your father. If he has raised you properly, congratulate him for a job well done. Otherwise, learn from his mistakes, and remember an F-word that’s good for your soul, forgiveness.