reading and not

i was appalled by today's front page story on the winner of this yr's angus ross prize for lit. she only read three books last year, and all were dan brown's. she claimed that she "no longer needs to read novels for ideas or to emulate techniques".

One : we all know that dan brown can't write.

Two: how could ANYONE say something like that? how could she think so highly of herself? i do hope what she said was taken out of context. i am truly horrified by her ego.
I mean yes, there are plenty of crap books out there, especially chicklit which I absolutely loathe and romance shit which i cringe to even see on library bookshelves but what about the classics? what about Hemmingway? F Scott Fitzgerald? Willa Cather? even newer writers like Ian McEwan? there are far too many to name.

I'm currently reading Amy Tan's The Opposite of Fate, a collection of various essays about writing, her life etc. I don't exactly count Tan as a prolific writer and she does fall under the chicklit section but I'd wanted to see what she had to say, about her real life. and well, this sentence sorta stood out today when I recalled that story in today's papers.

""I also think of reading as an act of faith, a hope I will discover something remarkable about ordinary life, about myself.''

Reading is not just about emulating techniques or generating ideas. You get to see from another person's perspective, to let your imagination wander into a world that might not exist or might be miles away. It's about reading words, and remarking the way an author crafts sentences, paragraphs, into a story.

I've never won the Angus Ross prize, I've never had fiction published, but to me, reading fiction is one of the most important things I can do. Reading takes my breath away and makes me forget. It amazes me that reading someone's words can make me laugh, cry and be inspired.

Now if only someone would pay me to read. Then I'd be happy.