I recently filled out a survey about the literature/journal/modern languages dept. at Point Loma. They wanted to know how PLNC (now PLNU, of course) helped prepare me for grad school, employment, and teaching. Truth time: not very well. I went to Point Loma for the atmosphere, stayed for the people, but was never under any illusions about the academic rigor. I found most of my classes--save two: linguists and literary theory--to be quite easy. Not to say I didn't have some great classes and engaging professors; I just don't think people pick Point Loma because of the academics. I didn't. If I were picking now, I would totally pick differently. But it was the perfect fit for me at the time.
Anyway, the survey asked what book I was reading. If I were telling the truth, I would have said
Away, by Amy Bloom, which I picked up off the clearance rack at Half Price Books. But I didn't feel that book had enough gravitas. So I reached back into the recent past for a book I thought would be lit-major worthy.
World's End, by T.C. Boyle, sounded the better choice. I almost put
Lolita, but I didn't want anyone to think that I was just now getting around to reading it; this was a second read. I felt as though I had a rep to protect.
Chris and I talk often about how book lovers often put on airs about the books they read, and how dumb that is. He can't believe that anyone would find Dickens wordy or archaic; I can't believe anyone would read any Victorian literature at all these days. I think he dislikes the amount of contemporary literature on our shelves, and I'm no fan of all the Stephen King books we have. Yet the first thing I would tell someone about reading is to read what you like and not worry about what's hip or popular.
I am a riddle wrapped in a enigma wrapped in puzzle, or whatever that expression is. Or I'm just a lousy hypocrite. Either way, at least it's over something that doesn't matter very much.