Book Review: "Why Read?" by Will Self

I like to read books about reading but I'm not someone who usually likes to read Will Self because I find him self-indulgent. He's like David Foster Wallace if all David Foster Wallace did was wrote about himself. In the book 'Why Read?', Will Self discusses everything from shelving to Chernobyl and gives us an insight into his thoughts no matter how purposefully obtruse he is with them. Some of these points I can get on board with whilst others are slow, and then again others can also be beyond stupid. It's probably good that this book frustrated me because it has made me understand why I don't read books by Will Self.

Self emphasises that reading is more than absorbing information; it’s an intimate journey into the self. He argues that engaging with literature can stimulate introspection, allowing readers to confront and examine their own values, emotions, and beliefs. By encountering diverse narratives, readers can expand their understanding of the world and develop a more nuanced sense of identity. Self suggests that this process of self-discovery is critical for personal growth, as it requires readers to wrestle with complex ideas and differing perspectives.

Literature, according to the author, offers a mirror that reflects both the reader’s conscious and unconscious thoughts, making it an essential tool for inner exploration and intellectual growth. Now, this is something I can agree with. We should all be reading as a journey of discovering our own beliefs, our own modes of comprehension and to challenge and wrestle with things we once thought to be truths. This is the whole process of learning and though it's badly written, I agree with him here.

He advocates for an approach to reading that is unhurried and open-ended. He suggests that readers should allow themselves to drift through books, rather than seeking immediate comprehension or closure. This approach encourages a curiosity-driven reading experience, where the emphasis is on exploration rather than mastery. Self believes that this openness fosters a deeper connection to the text, as readers engage more personally with each story’s ambiguity and complexity. By reading without rigid expectations, readers can appreciate the richness of literature and make discoveries that resonate on a personal level.

He contrasts this with a culture that increasingly demands instant understanding and certainty, which can strip reading of its deeper, meditative qualities​. I want to completely agree with this but what I don't agree with is his tendency to believe that he is the great mediator and voice of why we should be reading. Curiosity-driven experiences are great when you're reading for pleasure, but there are times when perhaps you have to read in order to understand concepts or your work. These should be driven by the requirement to comprehend and pleasure and curiosity should come second. Be that as it may, I somewhat agree with the meditative qualities related to reading that we should allow ourselves to return to.

In essays like “The Death of the Shelf,” Self reflects on the decline of physical bookshelves and the role they once played in homes as symbols of intellectual curiosity and conversation starters. He describes the bookshelf as a cultural artefact that represented a person’s reading history and interests, acting as a physical repository of knowledge. Now, as e-books and digital collections replace physical libraries, Self believes that some of the intimacy and reverence associated with physical books are lost.

He worries that without the tangible presence of books, society may lose an important connection to literature’s legacy and cultural weight. He implies that the shift to digital reading may make reading a more solitary, less communal activity, changing how we interact with literature and with each other. Well, seeing as reading is meant to be a solitary activity, I don't think this is a problem. I also think as a reading community, e-readers move us away from the ableist attitude to reading which previously existed (and still exists in the realms of Instagram).

On the whole, I think this was not a bad book but some of the arguments were just badly presented. Purposefully obtruse and riddled with archaic terminology and outdated language, this book would only be accessible to people like you and me who regularly read. Someone who would want to get into reading would not find this as accessible and therefore, does this book not cease to serve its key purpose - making people want to read more consciously? I think it does.