Rereads and Read-alouds

I am a firm believer in the re-reading of old favorites. I am also a firm believer in read-alouds. This combination has been the beginning of a summer time read-aloud of Swallows and Amazons to my siblings. Yesterday we spread out a quilt and then sat (some of us on the quilt and some of us on the lawn) and read for hours.

First of all, on reading books again that you have already read. You gain something new every time. It doesn't matter if you've read that particular book a dozen times already, there will always be something new to take away from it. Sometimes they surprise you with how good they are, and sometimes they aren't quite as good as you remember them being, but it's still worth a reread. I think the book I've changed my opinion most about over the years is Rose in Bloom. I was so upset the first time I read that book I gave away the brand new copy I had just bought. Then I read it again and my opinion of the characters and their actions had completely changed. Instead of demanding the happy ending for a certain character, like I had done the first time, I was left feeling disappointed in him. Disappointed and disillusioned. I suppose that's why I love that book now. It's that one character. He's real and he breaks my heart. The first time I read that book there was a girlish desire to help him, to try and get him to live up to the potential I knew he was capable of. Of course you can't do that, and it's dangerous to try. You should never approach someone hoping to "fix them." (Even if the word "fix" is used with the context of a loving, caring figure trying to bring about good.) You can be represent good. You can teach in your choices and actions in your own life. You can be there to show love and support for the other person, but that's it. I didn't understand that idea the first time I read Rose in Bloom so I missed the whole point of the story.

On the other end, a book that I've read at least as many times (and probably more) but still haven't changed my opinion about is Jane Eyre. I keep rereading it hoping that it was my childish immaturity that made me hate it before, but no, I still hate it. More rightly I still hate Mr. Rochester, and I probably always will. It's too ingrained in my being now. Every time his name is mentioned I start mumbling and grumbling and things like "that manipulative, no good, lying..." come out of my mouth. Don't get me started. It's not pretty. I can appreciate Jane Eyre for other things, but my hatred of Mr. Rochester burns strong.

Swallows and Amazons as the current reread deserves to be mentioned again in this post. Now that is a book that brings back memories. We're currently still wading our way through the first six chapters (which to be honest are a bit excruciating. I mentioned it to my brother and he said "Oh my gosh. There was that one point where the boy is pretending to be a boat and he keeps tacking back and forth up and down the field. He just keeps going back and forth, back and forth. That field must have gone on for miles. I thought it would never end." and that's exactly how it is. Those excruciating paragraphs as Roger goes left, and then right, left and then right.) The thing is, after those chapters are over it gets good. It gets good because Nancy Blackett shows up and she's one of my favorite fictional characters ever. I loved her to death as a child and I still love her now. She brought all the humor to that series. She brought all the life. I can't wait to get to her because I know she's going to make my brothers laugh, and it will be so much fun. I love listening to them laugh when it gets to a funny bit. You can just see how much they enjoy it.

Which brings me to read-alouds. Read-alouds are wonderful. Not only do you get to enjoy the book yourself, but you get to share that enjoyment with those listening to you. You know that moment when you've lent someone one of your favorite books and you want to ask a hundred questions? WHERE ARE YOU AT? HAS THIS HAPPENED? DID THIS SENTENCE MAKE YOU LAUGH. DID YOU CRY. WHAT WERE YOUR EMOTIONS. TELL ME. It's never quite satisfying enough. You want to hear everything. It's not enough that you shared the book and they read it, you want to make sure that they understood. That's the great thing about reading books aloud. You have your listenings trapped in your greedy clutches, and you get to glory in every laugh, every word, every smile.

It's also awesome because you get to be the voice of all the characters. All I know is if there was ever a character I liked especially well I needed to read their dialogue out loud. It was so much more enjoyable hearing the words spoken. Getting to savor them. So I would read aloud. Even if I were alone. Yes, that's just another of the crazy things I did. I would be sitting alone in my room reading and suddenly I'd be pacing around the room, book in hand, reading the dialogue animatedly. The wonderful thing is, when you read aloud books to your siblings you can do that with the dialogue, but get this! Nobody thinks you're crazy. Novel, am I right? (I just inwardly died at my own sad pun. I think I might hate myself a tiny bit.)

Anyway, enough from me. So get to it! Hunt up an old favorite. Find someone to read aloud to. You won't regret it. In fact, you'll probably thank me. So in advance, you're welcome.

Philosophy and Jane Austen

Beware, the following post may get a bit involved and lengthy, but it's a post I've been meaning to write up since mid-semester last year. Dedicated to my darling Dr. Cuddeback companion: the lovely Alexandra.

In Philosophy class Alex and I like to make connections to Jane Austen. That's just what Austenites do. If something is worth mentioning, it is worth mentioning with reference to our noble patroness. So naturally, when we got to the part of the class where we talked about Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we looked at it in the eyes of dedicated Austenites and drew a most brilliant connection. For the purpose of this post I must first make some explanation of what the Allegory of the Cave is all about, however, and as I don't feel up to the task myself I have found a brief (yes, this is the briefest one I could find) explanation of it. (You'll thank me later, if I put this into my own words you would find yourself in the greatest muddle.)

The Allegory of the Cave

1. Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.
2. The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.
3. In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire.  Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato’s Cave:
4. Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.
5. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about?He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to?
   
6. Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:

   “And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”

7. Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato’s view) to the real things that cast the shadows.If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around. (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm)

So basically, there are several levels of knowledge. There is the looking at shadows and believing them to be reality, there is the turning your head and seeing the shadows for what they are, there is the emerging from the cave and seeing reality (but after being in the cave so long your eyes are going to be blinded by the light and you aren't going to grasp it all) and then there is the moment where your eyes have adjusted and you finally take it all in. 

Now comes the moment where I get to explain our Jane Austen comparison. 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that there are many different kinds of Jane Austen fans, and there are many different levels of comprehension for her work. These levels of comprehension correspond with the levels of knowledge. So first we have, what I will call the

LOST IN AUSTEN FANGIRL

She professes to be Jane Austen's biggest fan. She proclaims she has read Jane Austen's books so many times she has lost track (please note, she only ever mentions Pride and Prejudice.) She talks about how she dreams of living in the regency era (and yet, she has practically speaking no knowledge of how to survive in that time period) The fact of the matter is that the Lost in Austen fangirl talks about being obsessed with Jane Austen but what she's really obsessed with is Colin Firth in a wet shirt. Example A.

If you've seen Lost in Austen you will know what I'm talking about..

By this time you can probably guess what level of knowledge I'm drawing this comparison to. The Lost in Austen fangirl is like the person absorbed with the shadows on the wall. They see, but they do not see. They cannot get past Mr. Darcy in the wet shirt, and they cannot get past the shadows of what is there to be seen. It is a superficial knowledge, a knowledge that does not get past the very cover of things.

We then proceed to the second level.

THE BBC PRIDE AND PREJUDICE FANGIRL

This fangirl watches the BBC adaption of Pride and Prejudice on repeat. She adores everything about it. Now, don't get me wrong, the BBC adaption is the best of all adaptions. It is the one that comes closest to capturing the essence of the story, but in this fangirl there's still a lot of obsession with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy.

Then we have:

THE FIRST TIME READER

Now, I don't know about you, but the first time I read Pride and Prejudice I just thought of it as a ripping good story. I wasn't looking for deeper meanings, themes, or motifs, I was just enjoying it for the storyline. It amused me and I laughed with the characters but it didn't lead me to deep arduous contemplation on humanity or human nature. You see the reality, but it's too bright to take everything in.

last but not least we have:

THE DEVOTED AUSTENITE

The one who read Jane Austen and see all that is there. They who look beyond the portrayal of the characters from movie adaptions, beyond the story itself, and look for the world as seen through Jane Austen's eyes. This is the reader who is trying to learn from what is written, finding depth and finding meaning. 

In short, this has been a comparison between the different levels of comprehension in the Jane Austen reader, and Plato's Allegory of the cave.

To be a Librarian

If you know me, you probably know that my dream job is to be a Children's Librarian. I have frequent rants about it. Well, rants implies being irritated and launching into a lengthy monologue because of it, what I mean instead would be launching into a lengthy monologue simply because I'm passionate about the subject and enjoy talking about it. I know being a Librarian isn't the best paid job, I know that it might be hard to find a job, I know that there's a lot of school involved, but I also know that it's the thing that I get most excited about, the thing that I want to work towards. I've always loved books and because of that I've always loved libraries. I have been a frequent visitor to my hometown library since before I can remember, and I have been working at libraries since my sixteenth birthday when I was finally old enough to apply for my first job. I'm eighteen now and working part time at the library at my college, as I have mentioned before. I think I officially decided I wanted to be a Librarian the second year of working at my Library. (When I say my library that would be this one: http://www.jclibrary.info/)

I specifically want to be a Children's Librarian because I love kids. That sounds a bit obvious, I know, but I want to be there for them. Education is such a beautiful wonderful thing, and I feel like part of the problem with our education system as it is, is that the love of it is sadly not emphasized. The emphasis is on grades, it's on getting through, and there's something so sad about that. The child who loves to read, who loves to learn, is far more likely to succeed with their education, because they are the ones who are going to go above and beyond. They are the ones who are going to want to pick up books that they read about in other books because they are interested. Instead of just filling the requirements they are going to want to do more, find out more, discover more. Part of the beauty of being a Children's Librarian is that it's part of their job to work out introducing this love of learning. As a Librarian you are outside of the school system, and yet you are someone that students come to for help and advice. Whether it is for school or for free-time, you get to introduce books, all the books that you have loved and that have changed your life.

Also, crafts. Arts and crafts are the best, and guess what a Children's Librarian gets to do? Design fun programs! Summer programs, and programs for drawing, reading, etc, etc. Does that sound like fun or what?

The other reason I want to be a Children's Librarian is something I learned while working at the library over the years. There are so many kids who come to the library who need someone. You see so many kids who so obviously don't have anyone, their home lives are less that ideal. There are kids who come to the library after school because there isn't anyone at home. Or come to the library with their parents and behave terribly, but really what they're doing is seeking attention. Their parent is sitting at the computers and the kid is doing anything that they can think of just to get their parent to pay attention to them, and it's heartbreaking. There are kids who are dressed in mismatch clothes, who haven't had their hair brushed, and there's nothing sadder than that. Those kids need someone. They need someone who's going to care, who wants to listen to them, who wants to hear what they have to say. Everyone needs someone like that in there life, and that person can be all the difference in a child's life. Over the course of working at the library I had kids who would just follow me around while I was shelving books because I was someone to talk to, someone who didn't tell them to go away and be quiet. I want to be that person in those children's lives.

That's why I want to be a Children's Librarian. Why I think working at the library is wonderful. Why I think more people should visit the library. Why I think the library's so very important.