Reading fiction as if it were non-fiction
Some fiction I just read in a factual, informational way. Let me explain. See if it makes sense.
Two aspects of this. Firstly, approaching the manner of reading as if it were non-fiction. Secondly, reading for the historical context or similar.
First part. When I embarked on Ulysses I approached it like I do non-fiction that is above my abilities to comprehend. Neuroscience. Astrophysics. All science, really. Philosophy. Economics. And so on. Which is: a) I'm going to read every word carefully. b) I'm not going to worry if large chunks of those words make no sense whatsoever. No getting frustrated, just being open to whatever I can absorb. (This is also how I approach reading in French.)
What is the point of reading stuff I can't possibly hope to understand? Firstly, exposure. At some point some of this will sink in. Secondly, I will be able to understand some parts, maybe most parts, but if I allow myself to get overwhelmed and quit then I'm not going to get to those understandable parts.
As it happens, I actively really enjoyed large chunks of Ulysses and it was nowhere near the slog I had been led to believe. Sure, some parts I was just following along and it might as well have been written in Greek. But this approach gave me the confidence to start, and finish, the thing.
Second part. Reading a story not because I think it sounds like a good yarn but because it is otherwise important. Because it's part of the canon, it's part of the historical context, it was an influence, and so on. This, I imagine, is what English Literature students have to do a lot and have a proper name for but I didn't do English Literature at university because I didn't think I was smart enough.
Literature, books, are a conversation with each other. Probably, if I had done English Lit at uni I would say "in dialogue with one another." This is why I read The Mystery of Udolpho after my most recent read of Northanger Abbey. I also read The Monk and The Castle of Otranto. Not because I fancied a bit of mad Gothic. But to expand my understanding of the one, with the other.
Sometimes, this is very explicit. Like, I want to read Percival Everett's James so I felt I needed to read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Which I wouldn't necessarily have picked up to read for entertainment though there were things I enjoyed about them, Sawyer particularly. Similarly, before I read Sandra Newman's Julia I'll read 1984 again. I don't read fanfic of canons I don't know - more power to those who do - and in the same vein I think I'll get more out of these books by knowing and being refreshed on their canon.
There's a whole continuation of this thought I cut out of this post about why I do things like read Northanger Abbey and then feel I need to read The Mysteries of Udolpho, I'll link it when it's done.
Related issue: When I try to search around there's a lot of stuff about how reading fiction isn't frivolous it's good for you, actually. Which, are we still having that debate? Really?
Another issue: I'm sure some people will think I'm a dumbass for not being able to just read Ulysses. Or that I'm a philistine for not reading Samuel Richardson on its own merits as literature. Or whatever. That's fine. You'll not find anyone more in agreement that I'm a dumbass than me.
A more fun issue: the niblings of school-age call fiction and non-fiction 'story books' and 'information books' and I don't know if this is a widespread or curriculum thing but I really love it. I especially love that good non-fiction is a story and there's so much information to be had from fiction (and not just in the above ways.)