Many Books or Few Books?

I have a book buying problem. They arrive, four or five at a time, like clockwork several times a month. Books upon books upon books. There is nothing else, save transport or food, that I really spend money on. The main thing, anyway, is that the books keep coming. At home, the bookshelves of my “library” are overflowing, even with a good part of my collection still at Cambridge, and the floors of both that room and my bedroom are covered with books which only occasionally have consented to let me place them in boxes.

There is nothing wrong with buying books, especially when you read them, of course. I do not read all of the books that arrive, but I would say with cautious optimism that I read about a quarter of those that do. After all, in every case I ordered the books for a reason, so that even those books which I have passed over may continue to hope that I will yet turn to them and say: “well why don’t we finally get to know each other?” I am sure that Hume understands me when I ignore him to pick out a fiction writer, and that George Eliot approves when I turn to the Germans I write essays on instead of to Middlemarch. Their time will come. Well, maybe not Hume’s.

It is difficult to imagine how amazing my collection would be to someone even from just a hundred years ago. The sheer quantity of books is perhaps less impressive than their variety. I have books from hundreds and hundreds of authors, from all around the world, on topics ranging from poetry to history to oil extraction to the finer points of Eastern Orthodoxy. In the days before paperbacks, people had fewer books, and they also tended to have collected editions. When they read, it meant that they read deeply but not widely. They came to know authors, rather than books. These days, we invariably do the opposite.

Nostalgia, especially for what one hasn’t experienced, is a rather dangerous state of mind. But still I often find myself wishing I had fewer books. Even if we subscribe to the various dicta stating that the vast majority of books are rubbish, still there are far too many books to read in this life that common consensus could call amazing. Even if we dedicated our every waking moment to reading we would not even scratch the surface of all there is to read because to really understand the best books we often have to return to them several times, each time excavating a new layer of meaning.

What bothers me in this is that the thought that because there are so many good books, we have forgotten how to read them well. I understand how to read a book. The essays I write at university seem proof of this. But I generally feel like searching for themes when I read is a rather idiotic enterprise. I may find the themes, and I may even have interesting thoughts on them, but that doesn’t mean I understand the book in a deep sense and it definitely doesn’t mean I enjoyed reading it. Books that we come back to, again and again, inhabit us like a kind of spirit. Books that we read, however intensely, on Friday for an essay due in on Monday, do not.

When I was hiking in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan I had only my Kindle with me, and though I had plenty of books on it too, I decided to focus on one – Henry James’s Portrait of a Lady. Perhaps it was the sheer contrast – of reading one of the world’s most urbane and “civilized” authors so far from anything that he would have recognised as civilization – but I really enjoyed the book. But more strangely, I also understood the book too, even though I was sleep-deprived and stressed. The limitations of the world around me allowed me to read the book as though it was the only book I had – to really care about what was written in it and to give the characters life within my head.

At home or at Cambridge, I am surrounded by books. And whether I want it or not, that fact influences how I read them. Even a book like Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead, which I am reading now, and which is designed to be read slowly, in fits and starts, I seem to be racing through, even though I am reading only a few pages each day. When it comes to a work of philosophy, like Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation, which I ought be reading this month and in the next, then I know in advance that I am not going to understand a thing. I always have another book on my mind, distracting me from what’s at hand. Only non-fiction I can get something out of, since with such books one is often looking for facts more than anything deeper. 

One of my favourite times is when I am forced to pack up my books, such as before I go on holiday or back to university. I enjoy packing my books up at such times precisely because I am forced to choose between them. I always have a secret hope that I will select few enough books as to be forced to really spend quality time with them. Each time I am disappointed. I end up ordering books, or else the remaining space on my Kindle starts rapidly diminishing. Try as I might, the desire to read many books outweighs my intention simply to read a few.

It has even started affecting my studies. To answer any of the questions on an exam paper I only need two or three texts – long or short, it does not matter. The questions are so predictable that one really can get by with only having read two texts for each question. I, however, have read far more than that, as my own posts on this blog in these past two years have perhaps indicated. It is now a question of forcing myself to cut down, to focus. If not on two or three texts, then at least on five or six, rather than fifteen.

Forcing myself to reread for the purposes of exams is not the route to a deep understanding or affection for a book either, but perhaps it will help me start on that path. However, I rather doubt that. In my experience, reading for any reason except to enjoy the book for itself makes it impossible to form a real connection with it. It’s a bit like loving a person. As soon as we’re using them for any purpose, however benign, we cannot love them anymore.

There is nothing wrong with reading so many books and ordering so many books except that it does perhaps betray a certain attitude towards life that is unhealthy if left unchecked. Wendell Berry likes to write about the need for limits and a life that has “form”. What he means is a life where we have lived well within certain bounds – mostly those of the community – without letting ambitions or our desires get the better of us, for in those cases our fates will inevitably be disappointment. A life that is focused on quantity, rather than quality, as so many of ours are these days, is a dangerous life because it leaves us no chance to be pleased with what we have. In trying to read everything we end up reading everything badly and nothing well. Books themselves become tools for sounding clever, rather than wise and lifelong companions.

I don’t know what the solution is to my problem. Perhaps I just need to stop buying books. Obviously, I do! I have tried, without much success, such solutions as only buying a new book after I have read an old one. And in recent months I have been reading more, so that the ratio of “read” to “unread” books is improving. But that still does not mean that I am reading well. Alas, time and time again I am reminded that reading is not just about dragging your eye from one side of a page to the other, but instead is an ability that can be made better and more effective with the correct frame of mind and environment.

In the end, I am left only with a kind of hope that once my studies finish and I am no longer obliged to read books, I may be able to read those books that I choose to read with a more honest eye. I imagine doing a master’s degree unrelated to literature somewhere far from my little library and taking only two or three books with me. Perhaps then I will finally read Middlemarch. Not for bragging rights, because I have read it once already, but for my soul, because back then I read it badly and can’t remember a thing. One can only hope.

Readers, what’s the solution?