Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Life & Arts myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
The reading lists that newspapers patch together each summer are a win-win-win. You, impressionable audience, get a sense of which of the year’s books to be seen with on the beach. Our downgraded profession gets a brief veneer of cultural leadership. Publishers, ever-alert to the sound of bailiffs, cherish the fractional sales boost. There is no loser.
Except, that is, common sense. Given our finite lives, and the centuries-deep canon of literature, what logic is there in reading something current? More than 120mn unique titles have been published since the dawn of the printing press. What are the odds that one written in 2024 deserves our limited time?
Setting aside “You just pretend to like Dubai, don’t you?”, the question I most often field now concerns the books I read. Well, instead of a list, here is a rule: avoid the contemporary. If a novel has worth, it will still have it in a decade or two. If not, the filtering effect of time — which is imperfect in its judgment, but still the best thing we have — will remove the book from consideration by then. (If you didn’t read Vernon God Little in 2003, how tempted are you now?). In either case, there is something rash, something of the royal food taster, in going first. Let others take the hit.
This is just as true of nonfiction. If the content is topical — quantum computing, US-China relations — it will age at speed. The proper vessel for those subjects is journalism or a ChatGPT gut of the academic literature. If the book is grander in scope and register, all very well, but the question isn’t whether there is some worthwhile new stuff out there. Of course there is. The question is whether it should edge out Chateaubriand’s memoirs or Abraham Pais on Einstein in the war for your time.
If pragmatic exceptions are made here and there, Schopenhauer’s reading advice (avoid whatever is “making a great commotion”) is right. To read well is to ignore the now. This is true of no other art form, because no other art form is so time-intensive. Looking at a painting made last week does not preclude looking at a Poussin. The opportunity cost is a minute or so. If a new book turns out to be a piece of zeitgeist-y ephemera, that is seven-to-10 hours you can’t spend with Barbara Tuchman.
I have argued as a dry utilitarian so far, but there is a more human case for sticking to the past. Reading is hailed as a mental health salve: it slows a racing mind, it puts distance between one and the world. But this is only true, or at least much truer, of a book with some decades behind it. “This thing pre-dates my troubles,” is the sentiment the reader ultimately craves, “and will see them out too.” You needn’t go full Montaigne, who communed with Ovid as the religious wars burned, but don’t count on much solace from another up-to-the-minute treatise on autocracy from someone who uses “dynamic” as a noun.
There are other rules. Don’t read fewer than 50 pages in a sitting. The cost of pecking at a book here and there is a lost sense of its narrative wholeness. (“If you read a novel in more than two weeks, you don’t read the novel” — Philip Roth.) And avoid general histories. The last way to learn about China is a book called something like China. As with fiction, the universal is in the particular.
But the highest rule is to privilege the old. When he doubted Shakespeare’s greatness on probabilistic grounds — how could someone born in 1564 trump all the billions of literate people who have lived since? — Sam Bankman-Fried got things exactly wrong. The question is how something as untested as recent writing can rival work that has survived the sieve of time.
The newspapers are half-right. Looking back from life’s midpoint, I do associate each sunshine break with a book. Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff in Lisbon. John Updike’s Memories of the Ford Administration in Amalfi, whose sexual detail had even this broad-minded reader mumbling, at intervals, “Mate.” The Leopard in Southeast Asia. Each is more evocative of the trip than a photo. Not one was published in this century.
Email Janan at [email protected]
Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life & Art wherever you listen
Read the full article here
