High Dudgeon

What is it now that has raised my hackles so? This! Melusina has a nice little rant about this over at Mel's Diner, but I feel the need to chime in as well.

Some enterprising sort is condensing literary classics down to text messages as a way "to help students revise for exams." Yeah, right. It's CliffsNotes (the company's spelling) on steroids! Mind you, I'm not surprised that someone has hatched this scheme. What I am surprised by, though, is that they found a university professor to endorse the scheme and apparently write the condensed text versions of the works.

Professor John Sutherland, of University College London, believes the new service, "amply demonstrates text's ability to fillet out the important elements in a plot," and offers immense educational opportunities. I've never tried to fillet a book, but color me skeptical. Students are NOT going to use this primarily as a quick review just before the test. No, they're going to try to skip reading the book (as with CliffsNotes), but this will be even worse. I expect they'll attempt to use the new service to cheat on exams as it's a lot easier to hide a text messaging device than a big yellow and black copy of CliffsNotes.

Now for my own rant ... First the disclaimers:

I don't think CliffsNotes and similar devices should be outlawed or sold by prescription only -- I'm way too libertarian for that. In fact, I will admit I have used CliffsNotes in the past. I really would not have gotten as much as I did from The Sound and the Fury if not for Mr. Cliff and his notes. Honestly, though, I used them as a supplement, not a substitute.

Nor do I think every word Faulkner or Dickens or ... wrote is holy and sacred. As Vol Abroad points out in the comments at Mel's Diner, "Dickens could probably use with some slimming down - given that all his stuff was originally serialised and he was paid by the word."

So, it's not that I'm against the existence of things that can be used as substitutes for the real experience of a work of art. Do not, though, claim that you've seen, read, or understood some work if you've only experienced the substitute. That's why I'm (generally) against CliffsNotes, books on tape, music videos, etc. Each may have it's place, but don't tell me you've READ a certain book if you've really only listened to it on tape (okay, ang, CD). Even if it's the unabridged version read by the author, that's not reading. Reading a book is a sensory experience that can't be replicated through a sound system. Now if you like books on tape to kill time on long drives (I've done that) or you just want to listen to John Grisham rather than read him, I've got no beef with you. Again, though, do not say you've READ the book.

Wait, though, why did I include music videos in my list of hates? Same reason. I get really annoyed when someone tries to tell me about a great song he's heard, but when he begins to tell me about the song all he does is describe the video! The video is an (I suppose) art form independent of the song. They are not the same. Enjoy videos for what they are, but do not confuse the video with the song. Personally I refuse to watch videos precisely because I'm afraid that I won't be able to maintain that separation. I'm afraid I won't be able to listen to a song without the images from the video overriding any alternative impression the song might have made on me.

It's not exactly the same thing, but Rosie Thomas has an absolute jewel of a song called Wedding Day. When I first heard the song I took "wedding day" to be a metaphor for a time and place when everything clicks into place and things just work -- sort of a personal Garden of Eden. Hence, when Rosie sang about a woman packing up her car and hitting the road searching for a situation that would be "just like her wedding day", I saw it as the ultimate optimistic road trip. In fact, I saw the protagonist as a single woman with a happy ideal of what a wedding day should be like. She'd finally worked up the gumption to go out and look for what would make her happy rather than sitting around waiting for happiness to find her.

Later, though, I read a review of the album and the reviewer said the song was about a woman who was fed up with her marriage and was leaving her husband. Aw man, what a downer! That may be the more mainstream interpretation of the song, but I like my version better. "Leaving a bad man" songs are a dime a dozen, but that's not how I took Wedding Day. If I'd read the review before hearing the song, though, I'm afraid I would never have seen the more optimistic take and I'd have thought it was just another These Boots Were Made For Walking.

I know my take on music videos is unusual, but to me they're just like CliffsNotes. You'll never be open to a fresh or unusual interpretation of a song or book if someone's already told you what it's about. Yeah, I'm strange. I've never denied it.