6 Reasons Why You Should Read More Often (One For The Cool Kids)
Just 6 reasons why reading will guarantee to make you a more awesome person.
Just 6 reasons why reading will guarantee to make you a more awesome person.
Several times throughout my life, I have found myself deliberating over what makes a decent book-to-film adaptation and the answer I’ve come to discover is disheartening to say the least. For decades now, the Hollywood industry has thrived on translating novels on screen, as a means of resurrecting them, meanwhile quite frankly achieving the complete opposite. I’ll never forget the disappointment I felt after having witnessed the detrimental effects of World War II through a naive eight year-old’s eyes on paper, only to have it completely ridiculed and understated on screen. ‘The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas,’ written by Irish novelist John Boyne, tastefully conveys what the Holocaust appeared like to the naïve son of a German concentration camp General. It is in the little boy’s uncomprehending shoes that we walk through the streets of “Out-With,” mentally correcting his fairy tale view on things throughout. Throughout the novel, we as Holocaust-conscious readers are able to recognize the eight-year-old’s surroundings, even when he isn’t; we know that the ‘farm’ that he so often refers to in the novel is not in fact a farm at all (which is in itself poetic in a way, given concentration camps were places in which Jews were unquestionably treated like animals.) But the point is the reader is constantly challenged. Presenting the story from that angle is something that can undoubtedly only be achieved so vividly through words and words alone. I was devastated to discover that not even my favourite actress, the incredible, witty national treasure that is Emily Blunt, could save ‘The Girl on the Train.’ The sense of trepidation the novel is consistently able to sustain with every page-turn, is definitely something that loses its way in the movie. I mean, speaking from a logical point of view, you would think having a novel visually presented to you on screen would quite literally paint a clearer picture of the story and ultimately create happier readers. However, in taking it to the big screen, you are also taking away the reader’s most powerful weapon, which is, their ability to make it their own. One of, if not the most, beautiful thing about reading is our ability to do this. Using our own dispositions and the information we are given through the text, we sculpt the characters, settings and essentially the plot into our own interpretation of the story. So, in a sense, we’re all reading a different version of the same book. As readers, we individually construct ideas of the character’s appearance, their mannerisms, and even their likes and dislikes, regardless of whether these things have actually been pointed out. Witnessing the war from an angle which would otherwise be extremely hard to capture, was definitely one of the most captivating things about the novel for me. However, studying about psychotherapy made me realize that people also often rely on novels that illustrate an angle they can relate to in times of need. Oftentimes we associate characters in the novel with significant persons in our lives growing up; it’s definitely something I did as a kid, reading Jacqueline Wilson novels. We often make sense of the significant persons in our lives through the characters they resemble in the novels we read. When the movie adaption contradicts these beliefs/associations, you no longer find yourself identifying with the characters and the plot as you previously did (which is when the pettiness as a reader begins to manifest). So, if you’re ever sat at the cinema wondering why your bookworm of a friend is looking more irritated than ever, then it’s probably because they’re planning out how they would have done things differently. I know I do. Perhaps if I hadn’t read the novel first, the movie’s impressive 7.8 rating on IMDb wouldn’t appear somewhat nonsensical. But exactly how many movies do I ruin for myself by reading the novel first? I’m certain most readers ask themselves this exact question at one point or another. And whilst I don’t have a definitive numerical figure, I can tell you this. In the past, I’ve discovered the adapted movie to a novel before reading it, which of course made reading the novel less enjoyable. And I can tell you that if I had to prioritise either enjoying the movie or enjoying the novel, I’d happily pass Vue to get to Waterstones every single time. (Or pop online to Amazon and get it for one fifth of the original amount. Let’s be real.)
They never told me that growing up to be an introvert in the middle of the hustle and bustle of London would be as difficult as it has been. Having been surrounded by secure, opinionated extroverts my whole life, I’ve always been the sore thumb. I always despised feeling lost as a kid and yet ironically never minded losing myself in a novel. In fact, as cliché as it may sound, it really was my escape; my escape from certainty and inevitability. I felt that reading novels almost gave me the power to decide my own ending to any piece of text I would read. Coming from a black-and-white culture and a family who’d already decided my life would be academically oriented, reading compensated for the lack of control I possessed in many aspects of my life. Watching J.K. Rowling’s ‘A Year In One Life’ documentary, I realized that when an individual discovers a book of which resembles so many concepts and perhaps absent relationships in their life, they need answers. It is perhaps the reason why Hazel travelled half way across the world to find out what happens to the characters after the Imperial Affliction had finished (or should I say, not finished.) She found herself relating to the protagonist so dearly that she needed to seek validation from the only person in control of the character’s (and essentially her own) fate: the author. It is also possibly the reason why Rowling felt the need to plan out the destiny of each Harry Potter character despite her reluctance to continuing the Hogwarts series. It leaves us craving this unrealistic, impossible need for immortality, continuity and ironically closure; despite their never wanting it to come to a close. It is the reason we as readers are never satisfied with the termination of a novel – maybe it is not the ending to the plot itself that was disappointing but the mere fact that it ended in the first place. Nevertheless, I’ve always sought after comfort in the unknown. I think, despite our evolutionary need for security, I’ve always liked the idea of limbo and endless possibilities; a novel which is open to different interpretations. ‘The Perks of being a Wallflower’ is the one novel that taught me that it’s okay to be different whilst Susan Cain’s ‘Quiet’ taught me to also love myself for it. Whenever my journey venturing with Anna Karenina on a sad, lonely train, or Holden Caulfield’s ‘phony’ ways would come to an end, I told myself this: if I were ever able to write a novel and make someone feel the upset I do when reluctantly flipping the last few pages of any literary excursion then that would be it. And so that is what I decided to do. P.S. I do hope that someone does decide to bring the made-up novel Imperial Affliction to life (not only because I think it would make for an awesome novel) but mainly because there are many Hazels out there who depend on endings of novels such as these to get them by.
If you grew up in West London then you will most definitely have come across these scenarios. If not, then you were probably the kid whose name the invigilator could never pronounce.
A state of being forgotten and destroyed; an evolutionary fear we all possess as human beings. But to unwillingly be confined to self-destruction on a daily basis due to your own thoughts is what it truly means to be driven to complete and utter oblivion. To fear the presence of a situation which has not yet happened whilst, at the same time, mourning the absence of a positive thought you’ve never had the privilege of being accustomed to. It is both to feel absolutely everything and yet virtual nothingness all at once. To claim, however, that this sufficiently summarises what it is like to experience mental health issues such as depression and social anxiety would be an incredibly fitting representation of the society we live in today and the unfortunate oversimplification of mental health issues that exists as a whole. To many of you, my what may be perceived as ‘extreme’ description of depression may have seemed somewhat pretentious but what is often forgotten is that the very nature of the illness itself lies in its relentless extremity and longevity. Now, I enjoy exaggerating just as much as the next person (believe me, ask my boyfriend) but depression is not a ‘phase.’ It is not a rainy day in an otherwise clear-skied month. It is Katrina. It is the void you want to fill and yet, all the same, the feeling of reluctance to fill it. It is a growing, serious matter not to be trivialised. Waking up to find the newsfeed of practically all of my social networking sites flooded with the unfortunate Jolie-Pitt split was incredibly disappointing; the fact that nowhere near as much light was shed on these celebrities whilst they were battling depression, respectively, is a significant problem; we as a society relish scandal. Don’t get me wrong, I too am grateful for the countless number of Jennifer Aniston memes which have rendered my Mondays at work bearable. But it is crucial that we remember to address and generate the demand for real issues such as mental/neurological disorders which affect 1 in 4 people around the world, at some point in their lives. The World Health Organisation has predicted that by the year 2020, depression will be the second leading cause of disability worldwide – and yet what I find to be most depressing about that notion is the stigma that still exists with mental health issues to this day. The leisurely use of labels such as ‘psycho’ and ‘nut-job’ are the perpetuators of the stigmatisation of these very severe mental health issues, when numerous studies have in fact linked mental health to creativity. Many of the greatest minds to have ever existed (such as Nash and Einstein) have undergone a mental health issue of some sort. To have merely defined these individuals by their disorders would have meant to rid society of several technological advancements, awe-inspiring novels and life-altering scientific discoveries. To have eliminated their mental disorders completely would have essentially meant depriving them as well as ourselves of their brilliant accomplishments. Admittedly, we have all occasionally fallen victim to Frankie Boyle’s brilliant but dark sense of humour but even he crosses the line with mental health issues. By exceeding that line he is only fuelling the social stigma that already exists. We unfortunately live in a world with an individual like Donald Trump running as a candidate for president; one whom has ignorantly claimed a ‘troubled-teen’ like Lindsay Lohan would be ‘the best time in bed’ due to her ‘rocky mental health.’ I realise that to start discussing the many wrongdoings and sayings of our beloved Donald, would require an individual article altogether but if this doesn’t cement the need for a change to the stigmatisation of mental health, then I don’t know what will. Perhaps it is easy for those who are not aware of the detrimental effects mental health issues have on individuals everyday, to ridicule it. That’s why we need more people to educate themselves on the matter. As Philip Wylie once said, ‘determined ignorance is the hastiest kind of oblivion.’
Recent Comments