What to read

"Read books. As often as you can. Mostly classics."

We posted Maura Kelly's slow books manifesto not long ago. She promoted the idea of reading the good stuff, and it makes sense. There is a lot of great literature out there, and an awful lot of it is simply wonderful to read. So, why not read it?

There's another side to this coin, however. Sure, I love Moby-Dick, but I have to admit, I also like James Bond novels. I have Melville and Fleming both on my Kindle. As a proselytizer for books and reading, I have to believe that any reading is a good thing, and that reading for pure entertainment is a perfectly acceptable activity. When I recommend books to teenagers, I always suggest books that I think they will enjoy, not books that I think will be good for them. James W. Hall, author of Hit Lit, makes this point at Speakeasy:

How can anyone who loves books not take heart in seeing so many new readers huddled up with a novel? Whether it’s “Harry Potter,” “The Hunger Games” or “Infinite Jest”—does it really matter? These days, when reading fiction seems like an endangered activity, why should we begrudge the success of any book, especially one that stirs such passion with younger readers?

We can't let an artificial line between so-called good books and books that will capture kids' imagination keep them away from reading in general. And, perhaps, the reading of what they want to read today make them eventual readers of those so-called good books tomorrow.

The weekend is here. Take a gander at Beware Literary Snobbery: Why We Should Read Bestsellers. And then go off and read a good book, however you define it.