I think any reading is good, just so long as you’re reading something. However, I would advocate only reading things you enjoy (unless you are required to read something you don’t). Life is too short, and there are too many other books out there that you haven’t discovered.

Having said that, I’m currently reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. I loved the title, loved the premise, and loved the opening paragraph, so I just had to buy it … but I’m starting to struggle now, about 50000 words in. I’m sticking with it for a while, because I believe it’s the translator’s voice I don’t like, not Tolstoy’s story. I only hope I don’t drop out at 100k!

For the record, I don’t get why people slate Stephen King, other than for the fact he’s successful. Some of his descriptions can be breathtaking and beautiful. I would argue that some of his work should be classed as literary, particularly some of his short stories.

On the one hand there’s Bloom–his original rant can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

Josh, I’m with you–I wouldn’t qualify a whole lot of what Bloom says or writes as a “rant,” but here I think the word fits the bill. Bloom complains about that Stephen King’s books do nothing other than “keep the publishing world afloat.” I suspect Bloom owes some portion of his livelihood to the publishing world, so this seems like an odd complaint for him to be leveling against an author. The rest of his statement comes off as fairly curmudgeonly, and falls prey to the trap that cathces nearly everyone complaining about the dumbing down of culture: the final substance of the argument is usually “people are reading X, when they should be reading Y, which I like a lot more than X.” (Notice Bloom’s oft-repeated props to Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, and Thomas Pynchon. He really likes those guys. Not without good reason, but it’s clear he’s expressing a preference.)

That said, I do think some books are better than others. Reading anything isn’t necessarily better than reading nothing–I’ve read at least a few things in my life that I now wish I hadn’t. I think there are works out there that are so debased and consciously vile that anyone reading them will probably feel ashamed to be human for a while afterward. I think there are a handful of authors whose works are such that the world might be a slightly better place had they decided on some other vocation. There aren’t many of them, but they do exist.

Then we have Shakespeare. I sometimes find Shakespeare tiresome, but sometimes I find him magnificent. Either way, I can recognize the historical impact he has on the language that I speak today, and on the culture I live in even in the good ol’, dumbed-down U.S.A. Even people who’ve never read Romeo and Juliet (and I agree, Casey, it’s not his best play) usually are familiar with the name, and probably have some idea what it’s about.

So there are the extremes–the sublime and the depraved. Most reading, of course, falls somewhere in between. I’m not impressed by Twilight (which I admit I’ve never read, but by and large the teenage vampire genre doesn’t do much for me), but if my daughter wants to read it, she certainly can, and I won’t try to persuade her that she’s wasting her time. My feeling is, you could probably always be reading something better/more fulfilling/more humanizing than whatever you happen to be reading (or not reading) at the moment. I read things now and then that don’t do anything for me other than keep me entertained. I try and balance that with looking for the books that will change me for the better, or deepen the way I look at the world. Books like that are great, and a lot of the “classics” fall into that category. But reading those books can be exhausting–sometimes you just need to relax.

Oh, and Vanessa–you commented: “Anything written capable of inspiration is worthy.” I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain?