Books about Books Week: Beowulf on the Beach

When I worked in a used bookstore we had a tiny little bookshelf by the front door that held dictionaries, some reference books, and a shelf that was labeled "Books on Books." That was one of my favorite shelves in the whole store. When the store closed (the owners moved; my lack of sales skills didn't do them in, although sales have never been my strong suit) the owners were going to get rid of that little bookcase, but I asked if I could take it. It's still in my house, still bearing its shelf label "Books on Books," and that shelf actually holds some books on books.

No point to that anecdote really, except that, like a lot of readers, I am drawn to books that are written about books. A case in point is Jack Murngihan's Beowulf on the Beach: What to Love and What to Skip in Literature's 50 Greatest Hits. I've been reading a few chapters here and there and really enjoying this one. For one thing, if you haven't read a lot of "literature's greatest hits"--and I'm guilty of that, as I've never been able to handle the idea of actually reading Herman Melville, William Faulkner, Henry James, James Joyce, and a ton of others--it gives you a great idea of what these authors' classics are all about. I also like this guy because he pulls no punches. Take his advice about Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita:

"Lolita, Nabokov's ultrascandalous tale of a twelve-yearold nymphet and her degenerate adult admirer, needs next to no introduction. It's rightfully famous and beloved and has one of the greatest first thirds of any novel in any language, so the fact that the second two-thirds are repetitive and lackluster shouldn't bother us all that much, right? Though I fear the gods of literature might be training lightning bolts on my mortal skull as I type this, I can't not say it: I think Nabokov is overrated, and I think people forget how much Lolita falls off after the breathtaking beginning." (p. 327.)

Now that's a literature review! In addition to his brief summaries of the works, Murnaghan includes information about a book's "buzz," what readers don't know about the books in question, the best line, what's sexy about the book (his previous work of nonfiction, after all, was called The Naughty Bits), quirky facts, and what to skip. It's an informative little title,* and about a million times more fun than Pierre Bayard's "buzz" book from a few years back, How To Talk about Books You Haven't Read.

*And funny; I laughed out loud when I read this in the Jane Austen chapter: "If you are a woman, you're probably only reading this chapter to find out how it is that I like Jane Austen...," which is exactly what I was doing.

Comments

[Sarah L..]

Thank you for this post! It's done my literary conscience good. I've always felt like a rube because I just could not appreciate the last 1/3 of Lolita. I really liked most of it, but toward the end, I was screaming, "Stop being Nabakov! Just tell me the story!" Now I know it isn't just me. Thanks.

As for James and Faulkner, I found their less famous works (The Turn of the Screw and Sanctuary, respectively)to be much more enjoyable than their more famous titles.

[Valerie]

I'll have to look out for this book, and the "Naughty Bits" one too--both sound right up my alley.

I feel the same way the author did about "Lolita". I skimmed through the last third of the book and even now am not really sure how it all ended.

[Citizen Reader]

Sarah L.,
Yes, I think we all need to cut ourselves some slack on the classics once in a while. I particularly enjoyed this guy's take on the books because, even when he wasn't crazy about them, he didn't totally dismiss them, just suggested ways to read the parts of them that were good. Seemed a very positive way to recognize that even the "classics" are still just books. (And I forgot about "Turn of the Screw"--I loved that! So mark me down on one book for Henry James, yay!)

Valerie,
Yes, I think I might look into "Naughty Bits" as well. Talk about a timesaver when you're looking for all of literature's juicy moments, huh?

Yeah, Lolita, I remember finding it interesting but I read it so long ago I honestly can't remember anything about it! Sad. Maybe I'll just re-read the first third, as this guy suggests.

[Jessica]

...Skip? Vhat ees zis... skip? I am not sure I know zees verd.

[Citizen Reader]

Ah, "skip," the most beautiful word in any college student's vocabulary. Skip lecture, skip chapters, skip cleaning the dorm room...how I miss those days! I love zees verd skip.

[Sarah]

Sigh. I'm having enough trouble just reading books. Reading books about books . . . that registration page is not up yet.

[Citizen Reader]

Sarah,
Sometimes I get sidetracked. The biggest problem with "books about books" is how they make my TBR list grow out of control. This one actually put me in the mood to try Dante's Inferno. So yes, I'm running out of time too! (I think the author of this book realizes that too, hence his suggestion to skip parts of these classics.)

[Brandon]

I stopped reading this when you mentioned Faulkner--one of my favorite authors. What's wrong with Faulkner?

Ah, I get "Beowulf on the Beach." This is like Cliffs Notes, but without all that symbolism/themes/allusions stuff we all hated in English 101.

I'm in a snarky mood.

[Citizen Reader]

Hey, Snarky B,
May I call you Snarky B? No, only my friends may call me Snarky B. (Have you seen Matt Stone's and Trey Parker's totally weird movie Baseketball? You'll get the quote above if you have, otherwise, do rent it.)

Brandon, bring the snark. We can takes it as well as dish it out here at CR. Now, the rather fun thing about Beowulf on the Beach is that Murnighan doesn't so much take a swipe at all of these classics as he make suggestions for reading them a bit more easily. He says very important things about Faulkner--like that The Sound and the Fury may not be the best place to start, because it can be challenging, and it starts slow, but that other novels of his are quite good and might serve as a better entrance point for his works. Now that's important because, as we all know, pretty much the only people who have touched Faulkner in the last five years have done so because they are Oprah club readers. In a way he's taking Faulkner back from those masses, and I have to appreciate that.

I don't know that anything's wrong with Faulkner. I do know that I was stymied by The S and the F, but I may get one of his other works now. And of course Faulkner would be one of your faves, you pomo reader, you. Wouldn't you say he's rather postmodern, even though he was writing much earlier than most postmodern authors?

Oh, Cliffs notes are no fun. Cliffs notes are just like English class. Rip a book apart, but never talk about it honestly. Not that you can't ever learn about symbolism, etc., but learning it just to spit it out on standardized tests is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Hm, you're snarky and I'm angry. How could we make use of all this good negative energy?

[Citizen Reader]

p.s. Now, this author did also say you can skip parts of Jane Austen, which, as an Austen partisan, I disagree with. But I'm willing to overlook it for the greater good. Can you do the same with Faulkner?

[Brandon]

I don't know that I'd classify Faulkner as pomo. That's stretching it. Experimental, yes, but maybe not pomo. (I'd say he's more gothic than anything else. His stuff is really dark.) Pomo is largely materialistic. You could say it's style over substance, but that's the point of it. American Psycho = pomo. Using that as a pointer, F. isn't really pomo.

I agree that TS&TF isn't the best place to start. It's a really weird, disorienting book. I'd start with As I Lay Dying.

[Citizen Reader]

Brandon,
Okay, you might (do) have me there. I admit I am not very fluent with what is and what isn't postmodern lit, and what that term actually means. I really should stop using my homegrown inner labeller of "I don't understand it at all"=pomo.

Did experimental lead to pomo?

Thanks for the suggestion on As I Lay Dying. I still do want to read A Faulkner, I just don't think it can be TS&TF.

[Rebecca Reid]

I'm very curious about this book now. I thought it was about how literature is great, not about what to skip in it. I'd suggest that Lolita (which I haven't yet read) is probably not about plot but about the writing and development. I don't think skipping around in books really helps one become a better reader. Why read a classic in the first place if you're going to skip parts of it? I guess I'm just a "read a book in full" reader myself.

[Citizen Reader]

Rebecca,
I would check this book out, if I were you; I do still think it comes down strongly on the side of "literature is great." (The guy does have a Ph.D., and you just don't study anything you don't love for how long it takes to get one of those.)

I salute your habit of reading in full. We each have our own styles, and these types of "how to read" books will appeal to us each in our own way. Although I love reading books in full and re-reading books that I really love, I am very much a skipper and will always be. (Although my type of skipping would be to read the last third of Lolita much faster--and probably miss a few of the events and a bit of the language--just to get to the end.)

I mainly liked this guy's attitude that the classics should still be engaged with and read like everyday books--that you didn't need to exhaustively study and understand them to get a little something out of them. I think there's lots of ways for each of us to become "better readers," but we don't all have to get there the same way. I, for one, would always say it's better to have a go at a classic and then decide you don't want to continue or finish it than never to start one at all. But that's just me.