In a book of essays, Siri Hustvedt (a writer I absolutely adore) says something pertinent about the current discussion around anti-intellectualism. She says:
"If one takes fiction seriously, and I do, what one reads is important. We are not only what we eat; we are what we read. Reading becomes part of memory and imagination. Reading cereal boxes maybe a good exercise for the child who is becoming literate, but later in life that list of ingredients will not develop his mind. The idea currently fashionable in the United States is that reading is a good in itself, that because children read too little reading anything is a cultural victory, but this strikes me as dubious. (…) When literature is merely easy entertainment, it cannot change you for the future. It cannot pull you out of the conceptual framework and learned patterns of your life as you live it. There is nothing wrong with easy entertainment. I have a weakness for Hollywood movies from the 1930s, and they don't have to be excellent to satisfy my craving. Nor do I think that literature is cod liver oil to be swallowed every morning for your health." (in Mothers, Fathers, and Others)
This resonates with me. While I enjoy "easy" fiction and thrillers every once in a while, I read mainly litfic, classics and nonfiction that I think will enrich me as a human being.
I'm curious to know if you agree with her point – why or why not? And, if you do agree, what are some books that you think can change us for the future? Books that defy our conceptual frameworks? Or maybe books that are classics for good reason (i.e because we can still learn a lot from them)?
For example, in my opinion, some books that fit the bill are Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky
and Drive your plow over the bones of the dead by Olga Tokarczuk.
by IntelligentBeingxx