The "I Should" books vs. "I Want To" Books

[theWallflower]

I was thinking the other day about how, as an (unpublished) author, there's a ton of books out there that everyone has listed as classics and must-reads, that I have never gotten to. I've never read Starship Troopers or Dune or The Last Unicorn or Chronicles of Narnia or all of LOTR, just to name a few.

Two reasons for this: one is I can never get around to it. There's too many books coming out now that I barely have time for. The ones that everyone's talking about, like Little Brother by Cory Doctorow and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. When can I fit in anything else before the next big thing comes along?

The other reason is that I have no real interest in reading these books. I'm not a fan of military SF or hard SF like Arthur C. Clarke. I already know the story of Dune and I didn't like reading 2001.  My experience with the classics is that they're struggles to read, either because they're boring or I already know the story.  It seems I'm just reading them to say I read them.  Life is too short to read books I don't really want to read. But I'm not sure if I should be reading these to be a writer with a capital 'W' - if I'm missing out.

So my question is, should I be reading the books I want to read or the books I should read?  Or should I just do both?

[stePH]

Read what you want and damn the "shoulds".  Lots of people bounce hard off of Dune and Lord of the Rings no matter how many times they attempt to read them.  The Narnia series is unquestionably geared toward very young children, so skip them if you want something challenging.  I'm also underwhelmed by Arthur C. Clarke.  I don't believe there's any book that's "essential" for SF fans.

Except that everybody, everybody, should read Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh because it's simply the greatest book ever written, and you suck if you disagree 

[jrderego]

I was thinking the other day about how, as an (unpublished) author, there's a ton of books out there that everyone has listed as classics and must-reads, that I have never gotten to. I've never read Starship Troopers or Dune or The Last Unicorn or Chronicles of Narnia or all of LOTR, just to name a few.

Two reasons for this: one is I can never get around to it. There's too many books coming out now that I barely have time for. The ones that everyone's talking about, like Little Brother by Cory Doctorow and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. When can I fit in anything else before the next big thing comes along?

The other reason is that I have no real interest in reading these books. I'm not a fan of military SF or hard SF like Arthur C. Clarke. I already know the story of Dune and I didn't like reading 2001.  My experience with the classics is that they're struggles to read, either because they're boring or I already know the story.  It seems I'm just reading them to say I read them.  Life is too short to read books I don't really want to read. But I'm not sure if I should be reading these to be a writer with a capital 'W' - if I'm missing out.

So my question is, should I be reading the books I want to read or the books I should read?  Or should I just do both?

Read whatever you like. You'll get more from what you LIKE versus what someone says you should read any day of the week.

I'll take one of the 100 or so Destroyer novels over Finnegan's Wake any day of the week.

[wintermute]

Except that everybody, everybody, should read Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh because it's simply the greatest book ever written, and you suck if you disagree 

The only Cherryh I've read was 40,000 in Gehenna, and I've been meaning to look up more stuff in the same universe. I think that includes Cyteen?

Anyway, it's on my far-to-long list of books to get.

[stePH]

Except that everybody, everybody, should read Cyteen by C.J. Cherryh because it's simply the greatest book ever written, and you suck if you disagree 

The only Cherryh I've read was 40,000 in Gehenna, and I've been meaning to look up more stuff in the same universe. I think that includes Cyteen?

Yes.  And Gehenna is referred to in Cyteen so you've got a leg up on it already.

A sequel to Cyteen is forthcoming later this year I think; I can hardly wait.

[DKT]

I feel woefully under-read sometimes in the SF/F "essentials."  I've read little Herbert, Clarke, and Asimov.  There's still a ton of classic SF and fantasy books that I haven't read that I feel like I should.  And I don't mind having some of those books sitting on my shelves, waiting for a lull in my TBR pile (yeah, right).  But honestly, read what you want to read.  Life's too short to read stuff you really don't have interest in.  And if you're writing, I think the best thing is to read stuff you really want to, maybe figure out what buttons it's hitting and why it's geeking you out so much.  Then read more of it. 

I do think it's important to read a lot of different kinds of books, but even then, read the 'Oh, HELL, yeah" stuff that appeals to you (for me, there's lots of that stuff in other genres as well as SF/F/Horror).  Because I think that's the kind of stuff you want to write.

[Alasdair5000]

I was thinking the other day about how, as an (unpublished) author, there's a ton of books out there that everyone has listed as classics and must-reads, that I have never gotten to. I've never read Starship Troopers or Dune or The Last Unicorn or Chronicles of Narnia or all of LOTR, just to name a few.

Two reasons for this: one is I can never get around to it. There's too many books coming out now that I barely have time for. The ones that everyone's talking about, like Little Brother by Cory Doctorow and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman. When can I fit in anything else before the next big thing comes along?

The other reason is that I have no real interest in reading these books. I'm not a fan of military SF or hard SF like Arthur C. Clarke. I already know the story of Dune and I didn't like reading 2001.  My experience with the classics is that they're struggles to read, either because they're boring or I already know the story.  It seems I'm just reading them to say I read them.  Life is too short to read books I don't really want to read. But I'm not sure if I should be reading these to be a writer with a capital 'W' - if I'm missing out.

So my question is, should I be reading the books I want to read or the books I should read?  Or should I just do both?

You absolutely read the books you want to read, with a light seasoning of books you'd never for a second think about reading.  Because ultimately, you write what you enjoy, and that's the best way to learn how to do that.

   Case in point; In my fiction, I'm very aware that I'm an ideas guy first, and a character guy second.  This troubles me and I've spent some time reading outside my normal comfort zone to get around it.  The fact that my best friend bought me a vast pile of charity shop romance novels, where, like them or loathe them, everything is character focussed, helped a lot too:)

[sayeth]

I've taken up several policies about books considered to be classics.

First, I force myself to start books that I wouldn't normally read, but I don't force myself to continue reading them. If I'm not feeling a book after the first 25-50 pages, I'll set it aside, no hard feelings. I've taken up this policy after I realized how my own mood and where I was in life affect my reading preferences. For example, when I was younger, books in which involve marriage issues would have held no interest for me. Now that I'm married I can read about some of the Big Problems in a fictional character's marriage and identify in them my little problems.

Secondly, I'll give a book that I set aside a second chance after awhile. I started Cryptonomicon several times, but it was just too big to get through. It wasn't until I got the chance to sit on the beach for a half-week and get into the story that I really enjoyed it.

Lastly, I'll never say I hate any classic book. I think if the book is highly considered enough to gain the label "classic", then a number of people see something good about the book that I'm not seeing. I might not understand some aspect that others see in the book; I might be in the wrong mood or setting to enjoy it; the book might not be "the one" for me. Sometimes a book isn't that great on its own, but is important for a historical reason, like being the first of a certain genre. Whatever the case, if a book is a classic, it at least deserves some respect, though not my love. I'll feel free to criticize it or not enjoy it, but I won't claim superiority over all my fellow man by kicking it out of the canon.

[wakela]

I think if you take ten SF fans and list all the books they've read, you will find almost all the classics on that list.  So when you talk to fans it feels like everyone has read these books.  But if you look at the books that any individual has read, you'll see there may not be that many classics on it.  A while back on this forum we posted the books that we are embarrassed that we never read.  It was a real eye-opener for me.  Turns out that I wasn't the only one who never read such and such a book.  And I was one of the few people who had read some other.

Also, I agree with the above sentiment that the classics should at least be tried and revisited.  You never know.  I hated Dickens in high school, liked him in college, and now I will actually read Dickens for fun.

The books you are reading now will be the classics of the future.  Well, some of them.  And as a writer, you want to make sure you are hip with the current scene.  I'm reading some stories from the 50s and 60s now, and those guys were fascinated with world travel.  The reader was supposed to be dazzled with characters popping off to Rome, New York, Istanbul.  It's not really that impressive anymore.

[qwints]

Although I hate the "you've never read x!?!" attitude, I think that s.f. fans do themselves a disservice not to at least try the classics. Asimov, Heinlein and Clark wrote a ton and some of it was crap, but you should read something by them. For modern s.f. I depend on year's best anthologies and podcasts like this one to find new authors.

The choice might be a false dichotomy. The point of reading for fun is fun. You shouldn't read a book you don't enjoy, but expanding your horizons by reading "good" books can increase your enjoyment. That said, never apologize for liking something that others don't. If you really enjoy Star Wars novels, enjoy them and don't feel guilty. (No offense to Star War novels fans meant, I hear some are really good.)

[Roney]

As another would-some-day-like-to-be-published author I'd like to drop in some Devil's Advocacy against the prevailing responses here.  I find that I can learn a lot from reading stories that I like, but that it holds a terrible temptation of mimicry.  The more I like something, the more likely I am to find myself "inspired" to write something that takes on the stylistic appearance of it but misses the spark of inspiration that attracted me to it in the first place.

On the other hand, reading something that others admire can be very instructive.  I can often see what draws them to it but (if it doesn't work on me) I can see the muscles working beneath the skin of the story and can consider why it works for them and (more importantly) why I wouldn't want to write it that way.

Very few of us will ever write something truly original.  If you do, it's much more likely to come from "Well, that's certainly not how I'd tell it!" than from refining someone else's idea.  So you're probably more likely to find inspiration in stories that you don't enjoy but are probably good (because they've survived as "classics") than in stories that push your buttons.

It can be hard work, though.

[Sandikal]

I try to read a "classic" science fiction work once every 5 or 6 books.  Recently, I read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" and was absolutely amazed with what a wonderful piece of literature it was. 

For the record, I think the very best authors read EVERYTHING, not just books in their genre.  They read all kinds of literature and lots of non-fiction.  They are information junkies, reading about anthropology and physics and cybernetics and economics and politics and history and anything else that captures their attention.  The more widely read you are, the more source material you have to draw from and the more likely it is that you'll come up with something unique.

[Listener]

I have a real problem reading the "should" books, especially the classics.  I can't stand classical literature for the most part (if I could, I'd have an English degree instead of MassComm), and while I enjoy classic SF when I get my hands on it, there's too much new stuff I want to read.  I also don't much care for classic fantasy, especially the swords-and-sorcery type, but sometimes I find something I like.

So I say... read what you like, but if you come across a "should" book, give it a try if the cover appeals to you.

[Corydon]

Oddly enough, a lot of classics are actually enjoyable.  Fun, even.  That's even more true when it comes to SF than with other sorts of books.  So I'd say, yeah, read them. 

[Listener]

Oddly enough, a lot of classics are actually enjoyable.  Fun, even.  That's even more true when it comes to SF than with other sorts of books.  So I'd say, yeah, read them. 

I wouldn't call 1984 or Brave New World "fun", but I didn't mind reading them because they were well-written.

[DKT]

You know, I think a book I consider an "I should" could be considered someone else's "I want to."  I really wanted to read 1984 ten years ago because I'd heard such good things about it.  It transcended "should" in my mind and became a "want."  And there's certain "classic" authors I love to read.  There's also other authors I'm not so keen on reading, although I feel like I should.