Lovely article. I’d also recommend the joys of re-reading. It feels like a guilty pleasure - so many worthy books sitting there unread! - but it can be one of life’s greatest joys, a rekindled friendship mixing the familiar with a new perspective.
"But if I’m reading, say, The Brothers Karamazov (a book I finished recently and found hard-going for long stretches) I tend to assume the problem is me not Dostoevsky and try to keep going. A level of humility is a good attribute in a reader." The problem might have been the translation. There's a lot of bad ones out there. If you read a different one, I'd recommend Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation. Like reading a different book.
And on the topic of late antiquity, Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword is terrific. I'd also suggest Grave's novel Count Belisarius which traces the rise and fall of the Byzantine Empire’s greatest general
Yes very good point about translations. I love the Holland book and the Graves novel (though ages since I read it). Also Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox is fantastic
Some great advice in here. I'm not sure about the Roth bit, though — I think Ted Gioia mentioned in a recent post that he plugged through In Search of Lost Time at the rate of 7 pages a day (while reading other stuff in parallel) to really luxuriate over the writing. I did something a bit similar with Middlemarch (though more like 20-30 pages), to the extent that it felt like checking in on my pals every day.
Yes I think its a bit stringent. Reading Proust 7 pages a day I think you would get a bit lost. There are so many characters keep track of by the end...
Thanks for this! I've just had a phase where I'm not reading too much - getting it back but this was a useful push.
Someone I keep coming back to is Tony Judt, who I suppose is a 'brilliant popularising specialist' of European history after the Second World War - which I didn't know I was interested in until stumbling across Judt's 'Postwar'. I've read him on countless subjects by now, in short form and long, and he's never anything less than clear and is particularly impressive when the subject itself is confusing. As well as for the facts, he's someone I read when I need to remember how to slow down, look directly at something and think about it clearly - none of which are as easy as they sound.
Yes I love Tony Judt. Contrary to my advice about the importance of humility as a reader I put his book Postwar aside earlier this year and forgot to pick it back up for some reason. I really must get back to it
I bought Tony Judt's 'Postwar' as a graduation present for my eldest son a decade ago. A lovely hardback edition that I hope he treasures (he is a history graduate). However it seems I'm the only one who's read it! One other book Judt wrote has particular resonance for me and the times we live in: 'Ill Fares the Land' which I purchased years ago. He dissected the sickness in our western societies and the chronic failure of liberalism/the 'centre' long before the populists across Europe were successful at the ballot box. Judt's other book, personal and poignant but exemplifying his courage, is 'The Memory Chalet'. A book we should all read for inspiration as we approach the inevitable end to life.
An especially interesting read today, James. Thank you. I now see podcasts as a catalyst, or a gateway to a topic. As a fellow fan of The Rest is History you'll know what I mean when I say that I don't listen to learn (especially), but to be enthused by a topic I'd never have expected to find interesting. This then opens the floodgates to a world of reading I'd not otherwise have explored. I find short-form Substack posts deliver the same effect.
As per @Joel Snape in his comment below, I haven’t been sure about the Roth shtick either since I first read it in the original Ganesh FT piece: I get it and then I don’t…too didactic for me, too Roth (I am ambivalent at best re Roth). But I do get the shtick about putting the time in, about not skipping attention.
And as per @David Didau below re translation, I think that’s a whole different ballgame. I recently had to discard Buddenbrooks because I couldn’t get past the thudding original Lowe-Porter translation. I know some dig it, but I couldn’t.
I’m also quite into the different stages of reading: the groundwork, the flow of the reading once the landscape of the book has settled, and then the working towards the end presaged by an ever decreasing number of pages. I think this is particularly true of novels and their imaginary/real worlds.
Translation differences were something I'd never really thought about until reading Buddenbrooks. I like to do a mix of audible/kindle for really big classics to make sure I keep momentum (which I know is sacrilege for a number of reasons for some people), and mostly they are synced versions.
It wasn't until Buddenbrooks (which isn't synced) that I realised I was massively enjoying listening to it, far more than I was enjoying reading. Obviously some of that is because David Rintoul is a fantastic performer but, shamefully, it only clicked right towards the end that he was actually reading a different translation than the one I was reading on kindle. Turns out when presented that way you really can tell the difference between the Woods translation and the Lowe-Porter. The latter, I completely agree, is an absolute dog to get through.
It’s interesting that the Lowe-Porter Buddenbrooks is contemporaneous with the Scott Moncrieff Proust which works so much better (I know it has its detractors, and later translations perhaps read better to our eyes and ears). It’s as if the translation vibe hadn’t taken off the way it seems to have done much later in the century and there wasn’t a broad range of translations to cross-fertilise the form..
Perhaps Scott Moncrieff was just the better writer and the Proust scene somehow (!) an easier one to inhabit than Mann for a translator.
Or, of course, the translators could have had very different levels of skill and/or ideas about how the author’s voice should sound in English? People have been translating novels for several centuries, after all. Look at the 20 or so translations into English of Don Quijote.
Yes indeed. Surely, a translator’s imagination and the ideas that imagjnation gives rise to has to be as crucial as their level of skill in the languages they’re working with. And, yes again, that centuries point is so true.
I wonder whether later translators of the same work really have an easier time of it? And equally, whether some works prove far more problematic to translate?
Great article. (Came here thanks to Ed West.) I like the phone recommendation, which was not expected. And I may try the Maurice Cranston bio of Rousseau as the Leo Damrosch one isn't on Kindle for some reason. I'll treasure the John Carey quote which I don't think I've heard before. (Nice to come across someone who admits to forgetting large parts of books; sometimes I wonder if it's me, and wondering why I bother when I retain so little.)
I don't know about your "sweet spot" theory. Boswell's Life of Johnson is one of the great biographies. And there's Rousseau himself, and Darwin. But yes there was a period of better editing possibly, when the waffle was cut (not necessarily by the author). Maybe there are fewer good editors. Too busy checking their phones, perhaps.
Thanks! I guess I mean sweet spot for popular non-fiction not classics of philosophy and memoir etc...
The Cranston bio is great but comprehensive (in three vols). I would say worth getting hold of Damrosch in hard copy if you can. Or there is a great book on Rousseau and Hume called Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds and John Eidinow But as I say depends how deep you want to go...
A lot of the great editors have been sacked. There used to be elderly publishers employed on huge salaries who would virtually re-write some of the books they commissioned. But they don't exist any more sadly
Thanks. I agree with the sweet spot point in the main; I certainly think twentieth century books were less verbose and got to the point more than earlier works. I've been trying to read Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" on my Kindle, but part of the problem is that it feels like revision, and another is the feeling that a good textbook would make all the points at a much shorter length.
The sweet spot theory has really intrigued me, though, and I'm going to keep looking out for books that fit it, and ones that don't. But I think the economics of publishing and rise and fall of the editors on huge salaries who could rewrite books may explain a lot.
Such an absorbing read itself. I do agree on many of your thoughts, and one in particular has immediate relevance to my current reading habits where you mention the overlooked value of history books written between 1960-2005. I've just finished reading Barbara Tuchmann's 'The Proud Tower' (1964) it having been on my bookshelf for 30 years! It is deep scholarship without being overly 'academic' written in an engaging style for general readers (like me, I guess). I use the online Internet Archive to access a rich source of out-of-print pre-digital history books (and other genres), a free service (though they welcome donations). Usually the bibliography of those pre-second millennial history books contain bibliographies of other out-of-print publications - and they too can usually be found on Internet Archive or Project Gutenberg!
Just loved Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds and John Eidinow. The best biography I read last year (and one of the best biographies I've ever read) was Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore - completely gripping
I love the picture of you as a child! I was also an early bookworm and always had a book or several on the go . I was lucky in one sense to grow up in a country without television so there were few distractions on that score.
Agree with you re reading more books by a writer you’ve really enjoyed and I’m also a Claire Tomalin fan. Her biography of Hardy made a big impression…
I tried an audiobook once but the narrator’s voice sounded completely different to the one I had imagined in my mind! So that was that!!!
Thanks for a lovely start to the weekend as always…
Really interesting- I do think, however, that it is important to remember why we read in the first place. The modern world has damaged this so badly, and makes people have to work harder to commit to reading , but ultimately we do so because it is enjoyable. There is nothing else like reading a book you enjoy, it is a feeling like no other. To search too hard at the how or why we read is to lose sight of true function of a great book: to bring happiness and fulfilment, and broaden our knowledge. Yet, gaining knowledge at the expense of enjoying what we read is a futile activity.
A most enjoyable substack. Thankyou. Quick question: can you offer any practical advice on how to "Go for the best-written book every time"? E.g. select via goodreads ratings etc?
Books do expand our imagination in a way the smartphone I'm using doesn't, but I found space to cater to both, so to speak. I don't listen to many podcasts, but I prefer the traditional format, the ones with an interviewee.
After expensive mistakes, I came to agree with you: no book presenting a view of 4578754 years can tell us much!
I find that audiobooks work better when it's fiction or memoir. Non-fiction is going to contain more numbers, dates and statistics, which can easily escape you if you are listening to the text while boarding a bus or something. Then you're like "What was that number again?" and end up taking your phone out of your pocket to do the 30-second rewind thing ...
Lovely article. I’d also recommend the joys of re-reading. It feels like a guilty pleasure - so many worthy books sitting there unread! - but it can be one of life’s greatest joys, a rekindled friendship mixing the familiar with a new perspective.
Agree - I should re-read more than I do
"But if I’m reading, say, The Brothers Karamazov (a book I finished recently and found hard-going for long stretches) I tend to assume the problem is me not Dostoevsky and try to keep going. A level of humility is a good attribute in a reader." The problem might have been the translation. There's a lot of bad ones out there. If you read a different one, I'd recommend Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation. Like reading a different book.
And on the topic of late antiquity, Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword is terrific. I'd also suggest Grave's novel Count Belisarius which traces the rise and fall of the Byzantine Empire’s greatest general
Yes very good point about translations. I love the Holland book and the Graves novel (though ages since I read it). Also Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox is fantastic
Thanks for steer. The Lane-Fox looks good. Have ordered.
I have a post on translation brewing...in the meantime, you might find this reading guide interesting https://daviddidau.substack.com/p/deep-reading-noticing-and-analogising?r=18455
Is this a hack?
Some great advice in here. I'm not sure about the Roth bit, though — I think Ted Gioia mentioned in a recent post that he plugged through In Search of Lost Time at the rate of 7 pages a day (while reading other stuff in parallel) to really luxuriate over the writing. I did something a bit similar with Middlemarch (though more like 20-30 pages), to the extent that it felt like checking in on my pals every day.
Yes I think its a bit stringent. Reading Proust 7 pages a day I think you would get a bit lost. There are so many characters keep track of by the end...
Thanks for this! I've just had a phase where I'm not reading too much - getting it back but this was a useful push.
Someone I keep coming back to is Tony Judt, who I suppose is a 'brilliant popularising specialist' of European history after the Second World War - which I didn't know I was interested in until stumbling across Judt's 'Postwar'. I've read him on countless subjects by now, in short form and long, and he's never anything less than clear and is particularly impressive when the subject itself is confusing. As well as for the facts, he's someone I read when I need to remember how to slow down, look directly at something and think about it clearly - none of which are as easy as they sound.
Yes I love Tony Judt. Contrary to my advice about the importance of humility as a reader I put his book Postwar aside earlier this year and forgot to pick it back up for some reason. I really must get back to it
I bought Tony Judt's 'Postwar' as a graduation present for my eldest son a decade ago. A lovely hardback edition that I hope he treasures (he is a history graduate). However it seems I'm the only one who's read it! One other book Judt wrote has particular resonance for me and the times we live in: 'Ill Fares the Land' which I purchased years ago. He dissected the sickness in our western societies and the chronic failure of liberalism/the 'centre' long before the populists across Europe were successful at the ballot box. Judt's other book, personal and poignant but exemplifying his courage, is 'The Memory Chalet'. A book we should all read for inspiration as we approach the inevitable end to life.
An especially interesting read today, James. Thank you. I now see podcasts as a catalyst, or a gateway to a topic. As a fellow fan of The Rest is History you'll know what I mean when I say that I don't listen to learn (especially), but to be enthused by a topic I'd never have expected to find interesting. This then opens the floodgates to a world of reading I'd not otherwise have explored. I find short-form Substack posts deliver the same effect.
really agree - that's very well put
(in Tom Holland voice) 'The Rest is History fans love a Rest is History book reference during the pod.'
Thank for this. It’s cool. And helpful.
As per @Joel Snape in his comment below, I haven’t been sure about the Roth shtick either since I first read it in the original Ganesh FT piece: I get it and then I don’t…too didactic for me, too Roth (I am ambivalent at best re Roth). But I do get the shtick about putting the time in, about not skipping attention.
And as per @David Didau below re translation, I think that’s a whole different ballgame. I recently had to discard Buddenbrooks because I couldn’t get past the thudding original Lowe-Porter translation. I know some dig it, but I couldn’t.
I’m also quite into the different stages of reading: the groundwork, the flow of the reading once the landscape of the book has settled, and then the working towards the end presaged by an ever decreasing number of pages. I think this is particularly true of novels and their imaginary/real worlds.
Translation differences were something I'd never really thought about until reading Buddenbrooks. I like to do a mix of audible/kindle for really big classics to make sure I keep momentum (which I know is sacrilege for a number of reasons for some people), and mostly they are synced versions.
It wasn't until Buddenbrooks (which isn't synced) that I realised I was massively enjoying listening to it, far more than I was enjoying reading. Obviously some of that is because David Rintoul is a fantastic performer but, shamefully, it only clicked right towards the end that he was actually reading a different translation than the one I was reading on kindle. Turns out when presented that way you really can tell the difference between the Woods translation and the Lowe-Porter. The latter, I completely agree, is an absolute dog to get through.
It’s interesting that the Lowe-Porter Buddenbrooks is contemporaneous with the Scott Moncrieff Proust which works so much better (I know it has its detractors, and later translations perhaps read better to our eyes and ears). It’s as if the translation vibe hadn’t taken off the way it seems to have done much later in the century and there wasn’t a broad range of translations to cross-fertilise the form..
Perhaps Scott Moncrieff was just the better writer and the Proust scene somehow (!) an easier one to inhabit than Mann for a translator.
Or, of course, the translators could have had very different levels of skill and/or ideas about how the author’s voice should sound in English? People have been translating novels for several centuries, after all. Look at the 20 or so translations into English of Don Quijote.
Yes indeed. Surely, a translator’s imagination and the ideas that imagjnation gives rise to has to be as crucial as their level of skill in the languages they’re working with. And, yes again, that centuries point is so true.
I wonder whether later translators of the same work really have an easier time of it? And equally, whether some works prove far more problematic to translate?
Great article. (Came here thanks to Ed West.) I like the phone recommendation, which was not expected. And I may try the Maurice Cranston bio of Rousseau as the Leo Damrosch one isn't on Kindle for some reason. I'll treasure the John Carey quote which I don't think I've heard before. (Nice to come across someone who admits to forgetting large parts of books; sometimes I wonder if it's me, and wondering why I bother when I retain so little.)
I don't know about your "sweet spot" theory. Boswell's Life of Johnson is one of the great biographies. And there's Rousseau himself, and Darwin. But yes there was a period of better editing possibly, when the waffle was cut (not necessarily by the author). Maybe there are fewer good editors. Too busy checking their phones, perhaps.
Thanks! I guess I mean sweet spot for popular non-fiction not classics of philosophy and memoir etc...
The Cranston bio is great but comprehensive (in three vols). I would say worth getting hold of Damrosch in hard copy if you can. Or there is a great book on Rousseau and Hume called Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds and John Eidinow But as I say depends how deep you want to go...
A lot of the great editors have been sacked. There used to be elderly publishers employed on huge salaries who would virtually re-write some of the books they commissioned. But they don't exist any more sadly
Thanks. I agree with the sweet spot point in the main; I certainly think twentieth century books were less verbose and got to the point more than earlier works. I've been trying to read Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" on my Kindle, but part of the problem is that it feels like revision, and another is the feeling that a good textbook would make all the points at a much shorter length.
The sweet spot theory has really intrigued me, though, and I'm going to keep looking out for books that fit it, and ones that don't. But I think the economics of publishing and rise and fall of the editors on huge salaries who could rewrite books may explain a lot.
Thanks, lots of good advice here. But I definitely do not agree with Philip Roth.
Such an absorbing read itself. I do agree on many of your thoughts, and one in particular has immediate relevance to my current reading habits where you mention the overlooked value of history books written between 1960-2005. I've just finished reading Barbara Tuchmann's 'The Proud Tower' (1964) it having been on my bookshelf for 30 years! It is deep scholarship without being overly 'academic' written in an engaging style for general readers (like me, I guess). I use the online Internet Archive to access a rich source of out-of-print pre-digital history books (and other genres), a free service (though they welcome donations). Usually the bibliography of those pre-second millennial history books contain bibliographies of other out-of-print publications - and they too can usually be found on Internet Archive or Project Gutenberg!
Love Barbara Tuchman - she's on "I'll my read anything she writes" list I think
Oh I just wanted to ask you if you’ve read any good biographies lately, any you could recommend?
Just loved Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds and John Eidinow. The best biography I read last year (and one of the best biographies I've ever read) was Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore - completely gripping
Thanks will check it out
I love the picture of you as a child! I was also an early bookworm and always had a book or several on the go . I was lucky in one sense to grow up in a country without television so there were few distractions on that score.
Agree with you re reading more books by a writer you’ve really enjoyed and I’m also a Claire Tomalin fan. Her biography of Hardy made a big impression…
I tried an audiobook once but the narrator’s voice sounded completely different to the one I had imagined in my mind! So that was that!!!
Thanks for a lovely start to the weekend as always…
Making time for reading. That’s the best start. And the great feeling that is anticipating returning to a book to keep reading.
Really interesting- I do think, however, that it is important to remember why we read in the first place. The modern world has damaged this so badly, and makes people have to work harder to commit to reading , but ultimately we do so because it is enjoyable. There is nothing else like reading a book you enjoy, it is a feeling like no other. To search too hard at the how or why we read is to lose sight of true function of a great book: to bring happiness and fulfilment, and broaden our knowledge. Yet, gaining knowledge at the expense of enjoying what we read is a futile activity.
A most enjoyable substack. Thankyou. Quick question: can you offer any practical advice on how to "Go for the best-written book every time"? E.g. select via goodreads ratings etc?
Books do expand our imagination in a way the smartphone I'm using doesn't, but I found space to cater to both, so to speak. I don't listen to many podcasts, but I prefer the traditional format, the ones with an interviewee.
After expensive mistakes, I came to agree with you: no book presenting a view of 4578754 years can tell us much!
I find that audiobooks work better when it's fiction or memoir. Non-fiction is going to contain more numbers, dates and statistics, which can easily escape you if you are listening to the text while boarding a bus or something. Then you're like "What was that number again?" and end up taking your phone out of your pocket to do the 30-second rewind thing ...