Me gusta leer

One of the perks of being bilingual is that it opens up new avenues for reading material. I imagine that if you can read English, you are going to be pretty well off in the way of things to read, but it never hurts to expand your options. And reading in a second language has some advantages. 

For starters, it's a great way to pick up vocabulary, especially those idiomatic phrases. Depending on the kind of book you are reading, you can get a lot of slang and conversation. You will definitely come across new words. So, it's going to help your second language skills. (But don't forget to listen, too! You need to hear and speak as much as read and write. I find that hearing and reading--taking in the language--are much easier than producing it, i.e. speaking and writing. You have to work at all areas.)

Second, there are a lot of insights that you get when reading a book in another language. I tend to read books that I have already read in English. The advantage is that I know the plot, I know the characters, so I can focus more on the language. If I were more diligent about it, I could probably improve to the point that I don't need to have the plot already outlined, but could absorb everything. In the meantime, it's good practice to maintain and improve. Anyway, when I focus on the language, things take on new meanings or become clearer than they were in English. There are words that other languages have that express a certain nuance that the English phrasing lacks, or expresses more clumsily perhaps. I love those little nuances.

Reading a book in another language is also a great way to understand the world. Literature is a huge part of any culture, as far as I know; not only in the writing style, but in the topics written about. There is definitely a different feel between literature written in my native language and literature written in my second language by native speakers of that language. The literature of a people really reflects a lot of their identity, the things that matter, their history, their values. And not just non-fiction. Fictional works show a lot about how people think and feel and see the world around them. 

So, there is a lot of value to being a bi- or multilingual reader. It really does broaden your horizons, and I also firmly believe it has added value for society as a whole. And if you can, you should try it sometime. 

The way things should have been

This week I read Little Women and Me by Lauren Baratz-Logsted. Mostly I was intrigued to find out how the author would make the premise work. I think this is a book that has an audience, and it is good as far as that goes, but if you have qualms about people introducing changes to books you love, proceed with caution. Because the whole premise of this book is changing a classic plot.

While it wasn't the most riveting book I've ever read, it did introduce a new way to look at a classic book, Little Women and pointed out things I have never thought about. For example, this author thought that Little Women is very episodic and jumps from plot point to plot point, and it seems like that was weird to her. It's really not that weird, if you think about it--do you want to read a day to day account of the characters in a book? But it did present an interesting perspective.

Baratz-Logsted also felt that the Laurie-Amy romance was all wrong. I disagree with that analysis, but that's not the point. The interesting thing is that it was this that led her to write the book, which basically asks the question, "If you could change a book, what would you change and how?" I don't generally think that way, myself. To me it's like asking what if about life questions, which is pretty unhelpful. Especially since 'what if' is never guaranteed. Even if you could go back and choose b instead of a, it doesn't mean that you would have outcome d instead of c. You could still get c, or you might get f, or mm, or 38. Anyway, it is interesting to consider what you might change about a book. I haven't come up with any specific books or done any major analysis or anything, but my general reflection is that the books that I love the most are the books I wouldn't change anything about. It is the books that I don't like that I want to change. Which seems pretty obvious. But usually the books that I don't like are books that, for me, have holes in the plot or poor writing, or just don't hold up. It's generally that the book doesn't seem well-written, not that I just happen to disagree with an author's plot choice. But still, it is interesting to consider.

So, any books that you would definitely change?

Talking the talk

I am happy to report that I finished The Blue Sword and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. I also finished A Lesson in Secrets. And now I am reading a bunch of other books, and not making much progress because I have been working, applying for jobs, and checking out the American Museum of Magic, where I plan to volunteer in their archive (seriously awesome stuff!). All of which has kept me pretty busy, and I'm going to use that as my excuse for not posting on Friday, as I try to do. No one complained, so I'm assuming you didn't mind (or didn't notice. Or you are a figment of my imagination and don't really exist, and no one reads this blog).

Anyway, on to the book part of the blogging, which is what you are all waiting for I'm sure. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. This was a new experience for me. I have never read spy lit before, really, so I wasn't sure what to expect. I actually read it because my dad asked me to help him find spy novels that weren't rated R, so I was kind of screening John Le Carre for him. (This particular novel passed the test). But it was a totally new genre for me, and I discovered that I have a few things to learn about the spy novel.

I did enjoy the book, and I checked out another book by Le Carre, but I feel like I missed a lot of content because I don't quite understand the lingo yet. I think I had a similar experience when I started reading mysteries. I hadn't quite figured out how they worked, so I missed things. (I can't say I'm a whole lot better at solving mysteries, but I get how to read them and understand what's going on). I think there is a learning curve to understanding a particular type of literature, and I hope that with more exposure, I figure out this genre. It's always good to expand your options. And having read this one, I'm better prepared for the next one. I know that the Circus is the British spy agency, the Centre is the Russian one. Never did figure out what janitors really are, or the mothers. But I got enough to follow the basic plot. But, if you are planning on picking up the genre, (is spy novel a distinct genre? It had a mystery sticker on it...) be warned that there might be some stuff that you aren't familiar with. Don't be afraid of it, just be prepared.

Another thing about this book: don't think James Bond when you read it. There are not explosions and shootouts in every chapter. In that sense, it is a mystery. Smiley pours over files and records, putting pieces together. He interview people, gets stories. It's methodical. It's a lot of brain work. It's cover stories, people acting like normal people. I think in that sense, it is much more realistic, but if you are expecting an action movie in book format, you might be disappointed. I liked it for it, though.

And finally, I just want to say, Bill Roach was a great character. He will always have a spot in my literary heart.

That was in there why?

I just finished reading a book that was, overall, well written. But there were a couple of spots that made me wonder what the author and editors were thinking, because the language chosen was honestly inessential and actually detracted from the story. I couldn't see any need for such language or for some of the content for a couple of pages, either. It didn't build the plot, develop the characters, or contribute in anyway. It was almost as if they put it in there just to be rebellious, which is not the point of a novel. It reminded me of a conference I went to recently, hosted by a student chapter of a professional organization. The first part of the conference was a brainstorming session, where participants generated the topics for the morning's sessions. One group chose to use an offensive profanity in the title of their session idea, and rather than professionally *@% it out, the scribe opted to put the word in print, for no other reason than to be offensive. In a professional setting, it was highly inappropriate. It also defines the event, or in the case of the author, the book, as being for a very specific audience, and it doesn't speak highly of the character of said audience. So, the moral of the story is that, when writing, the language you use will have a great impact on the audience you attract. Just something to think about.