No two persons ever read the same book!

K - What's your say on this quote by Edmund Wilson - No two persons ever read the same book. is it always true about all the books or only with readable books?

A  - Readability of a book in itself is such a subjective experience. To paraphrase Tolstoy: Bad books are all alike; every great book is great in its own way.

You perhaps "like" Ayn Rand. I just bought my first Rand - The Fountainhead. And I can't stop hating it altogether. Its just a very badly written book - she is starting with types of men rather than characters, making caricatures that just slither on the page than rise above, hardly any subtlety - every thing has to be explained to the dumb reader ... I found it so excruciating that I have stopped after Book 1 - more than 200 pages and can barely dare a look at the beast by my bedside.

There is a supposedly popular book by Jeffrey Eugenides - a new one - "The Marriage Plot". Overall a fast paced, perhaps very readable book. But that does not mean I can recommend it to you. Like the characters in this book (note I say characters not types) you feel a certain dissatisfaction while reading and ultimately finishing this book. Is the author just cheating us with his glibness, now pretending to be literary now pretending to be simple and reasonable... I could barely see through this pretense and the novel ended. Not sure if I will read it again.

As Martin Amis in his The War Against Cliche says " you can only re-read a great book." And for me, that is a good test of readable material lying all around. I have the Salman Rushdie "masterpiece" Midnight's Children, and I have not completed it yet. And as happens with every so called popular or a cult novel, you have a legion of its fans telling you to read it why have you not read it when would you read it you dolt and when you finally read it you just find that Rushdie's story has to be one of the most pretentious you have read, with a style that says look at me I am so smart and again and again and again.Perhaps Rushdie forgot there was such a thing as a simple sentence. This is when I just have to look at my small collection of books by Calvino and Roth and Nabokov and Borges and Bolano that I feel some sense of sanity and order returning.

So yes, the reader brings a lot of himself to the book, his own expectations of the author, looks for some semblance of connection to the characters or situations in the book that is always his own - can not be dictated by the author or by another reader; or as in my minority opinion, reads just for the pleasure of it - savors the language, the unexpected turns a phrase takes, not to learn anything from the book, just to see if the "alternate reality" is consistent in itself, lives and breathes on its own.

I am reading some books on science by Barrow and Gleick - and I think again what you bring to those on your own - your curiosities, prior interest and education - make all the difference - just plowing through these books or enjoying them.

K - Interesting indeed that you mentioned about Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’, I always ask people about their experience of reading this book and have found something new in each of their interpretations. But your say on this book is very different, in fact strongly opinionated (one may dislike a book but hating a book is strong word).

To begin with ‘types of men rather character’, it stands so correct, not just for ‘The Fountainhead’ but also for the characters in every single written book (if I can take the freedom to say so). Perhaps that’s the reason why a reader finds some semblance of himself in the character of a book written by someone who might be a generation, skin color or whole paradigm of life apart.

Of course it would be silliest of anyone to assume that by mentioning ‘type of men’ Ayn Rand meant a certain gender.

If you will read this book further (which I am sure you will as you are not someone who forms an opinion about a book by reading just first few pages of it) you will realize that every character of this book symbolizes itself with ‘type of men’. Whether it’s protagonist first hander ‘Howard Roark’, second hander ‘Peter Keating’ or Roark’s antithesis ‘Ellsworth Toohey’ who embodies everything evil about mankind.

Now exploring about style of writing in this book (every thing has to be explained to the dumb reader), you will perhaps agree with me that subtlety in itself is very subjective. And particularly for a book it depends a lot on plot and theme of the writing.

 A book should never be written or for that matter judged based on the level of it’s subtlety. It would be analogues to saying Munch’s ‘The Scream’ is not masterpiece because it will not bring you to tears, make you laugh, or remind you of something you’d almost forgotten like other masterpieces does. Point is, not every art is made in same or identical fashion. Therefore starting a book with presumption that since its ‘LIKED’ by people therefore, there should be deep subtlety involve in this, is flawed.

I do agree to a large extent with your view about Rushdie’s way of writing but once again I would not fall into the danger of generalizing his way of writing as always arrogant and ‘see-I’m-smart-writer’ way.

While I am drafting this response, I re-read your lines many times and struck by an observation that the most of the writers of you best small collections are not originally writers of English language. A lot due credit goes to the fantastic translators of these books. But at the same time it makes me ponder whether how sure we are that their books in it’s original language were in simple sentences? (just a thought). Perhaps what we need to do as a reader is, reading those books in it’s original languages and then taking a stand on it. (Once again it’s a hypothetical (but to my rational ability valid) point of view).

In sum, glad that we both agree that ‘No two persons ever read the same book’ specially on ‘My most liked’ author cost J  outlay

******