What should I read?

First post. Long due.

I thought I'd post titles and opinions on books I'm reading from time to time.
Because books are awesome.
Because, no one has the memory to remember everything they hear just once.
So there are books.
Which, as mentioned above, are awesome.

With me so far?

So inspite of having that worthy thought I didnt act on it. I'm not sure why.
Procrastination has trillions of faces.
However something is prodding me to post now. The same something has
left a half done unblogged post on my other blog and now wants to print its thumb on
this one. If you know this something well, then you know better than to ignore it.
I call it inspiration.

What do you call it?

Well so, I write now. Which means I must not only read but read more and read better.
And I love sharing the intangibles! Such as knowledge.

Where I am (Dundee), our University (a pretty good one) organises salons.
What are salons? Intellectual gatherings with the aim of teaching and delight.

So we had this last one by Janice Galloway. Honestly, from the moment I landed here I've been hearing it's the big one and no one should miss it. So there I was, knackered from essay pressures, but there.

And she went on, like any decent writer would, about books she loves:
Essays by Montaigne, Candide, Locke's works.

Have you heard people rave about intellectual pleasures?
(If not, what are you doing here?)
It's like if you were single and resentfully listening to a lovely couple rave about each other; the only difference here being you can get just the same pleasure for yourself!
Just by hearing that person rave!

Yes, I know, rather cool.

Well, I haven't read any of these books. I only know of them in a second or third telling fashion.
But I would like to!Janice Galloway urged us, (us being literature lovers), to read these books! Without them we were incomplete.

And so it made me think, "Really?"

Now, I would love to read Montaigne. I might some day wound around to Candide and Locke also. But none of them are high priority.
Because there are SO many books! I do intend to read widely, yes. And then learn to read what helps me onward not only to write, but to live.

And more important than reading widely is to read deeply. I used to disagree but not so anymore. I remember reading an anecdote about Winston Churchill and a young man. The latter boasted about how many books he had read etc etc. Churchill listened quietly and then asked, "Very well, of that, how much do you remember?" And the young man replied that he couldn't possibly remember when he had read as much as he had. And Churchill ( I imagine he tut-tutted) said, "What a waste of reading!" He possibly delivered a mini homily on that later. Now this is from memory but you get the gist.

I have realised that I have to read Shakespeare if only to hate him. (I do not though, I love Shakespeare, finally, after all these years!) Atleast I know that much. In the foggy seas of self-knowledge which is ALL our project on earth, hating Shakespeare gives me definition.
I am a little less blurred around the edges, and my world is clearer.

Shakespeare is an example.

I shall say this: I think we should start from the canon.
Whichever country one comes from. Whichever religion one is called to. Whatever language one may speak.
We can start there.
A mother's and a grandmother's bedtime stories are canon.
So is folklore.
So are the stories one tells oneself. One's friends and siblings.

But if we start from the grand trunk road of any literature, we will be safe. It makes one a fascinating travelling companion.
One such as I would love to have.

Toodle-pip!