The Whole Thing?

I'm currently directing a senior thesis on Herman Melville's novel Moby-Dick (1851). Have you read it? The whole thing?

My uncle Steve thinks that anyone who says she's read the whole thing is lying. He doesn’t even believe me, and I've read the it twice: once last summer and once--in a real welcome-to-graduate-school experience--during a two-week span of time that also included my reading of Dickens's 900-page novel Bleak House and most of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy. Needless to say, I skipped a lot during those two weeks. 

In fact, it's during those two weeks that my friend Steve (yes, uncle Steve and now friend Steve) and I had a serious talk, at a place called the Rose and Crown (Omaha, Nebraska’s version of Melville's Spouter Inn) about whether it mattered if one read "the whole thing" or not. I was anxious about the habit I was developing of skipping while reading, a habit I developed as a response to the insane demands of grad school.

Though it's been twelve years since Steve and I had that conversation, I still remember what he said:

(1) "Reading the whole thing is overrated" and

(2) "So let's say you read all of Moby-Dick; hell, let's say you write Moby-Dick. Then what? There’s still Jupiter and it’s still bigger than anything you've got."

Now, Steve was likely three sheets to the wind when he said that second thing. (That’s right. I just used a euphemism for drunkenness that originates in nineteenth-century nautical terminology. That was for you, Melville.) I’ll translate. Here’s what Steve actually said:

(1) “The point of reading is not simply to consume a book. One must interact with it, respond to it. And one can genuinely respond to a book even if he hasn't read the whole thing. Furthermore, reading the whole thing does not automatically entitle one to claim that he has had a meaningful experience with a book.”

This first point prompted me to forward Steve this now classic bit of fake journalism.

(2) "What kind of accomplishment is it to have read (or even written) a great novel, when that accomplishment is placed in a context of creation that includes such unthinkable wonders as the planet Jupiter?" 

Now that question knocked me out. It still does.

In the intervening years, I’ve become an avid read-the-whole-thinger. I kind of always was one, but I also always knew that reading the whole thing is never enough, and that those who think it is enough are either smug or callow. They either think (a) reading is way more like bird watching than it actually is or (b) reading the whole thing is as valuable an activity as having a genuine interaction with the text.

Maybe what we call “literacy” is really just pre-literacy. Maybe reading a book is the least thing that we can do with the book, not the only thing. Maybe literate individuals read because they have to, because reading is the prerequisite to doing the thing that they really want to do, which is create, interact, comingle their ideas with those of the author.

For me, reading has always been means to an end, never an end in itself. Books are the things I go through to get to people.