Reaction to 'The Psychology of the Novel'

The Psychology of the Novel provides an interesting analysis on the relationship between a reader and the novel they are reading. It describes this relationship, almost as two humans interacting. The way the reader reacts to the novel, deciding whether or not she feels happy with the narrator is quite similar to human relationships. The author describes how the narrator can impact the way one reacts to a novel. For example, when reading Eat, Pray, Love, I felt a very strong connection with the narrator, the author, because of her personality being displayed in her work. Her writing was funny, witty, and was easy for me to relate to. Contrarily, when reading The White Tiger, the narrator was not exactly the most pleasant characters- being a driver in India committing many disturbing acts. Although I could not relate to this narrator, it was still interesting to read from the point of view of someone that was particularly disturbing to me. Contradictive characters have always appealed to me, for they bring more character to the novel I am reading.

Another aspect of the psychology of the relationship between a reader and the novel is what happens when the reader does not particularly enjoy the novel. I am the type of reader that gets bored with books very easily, and once I put a book aside, it takes a lot for me to return to reading it. I have lost out on reading many great books, due to the fact that I cannot commit. In the rare occasions that I do decide to force myself to read the book, I end up liking it, perhaps just in the act of accomplishing the task of reading the book. I have never disliked a book after reading it, but only when leaving it halfway. In addition, when dealing with my own reading habit, I find that I am extremely susceptible. As long as something is in print, and I am reading, I very rarely doubt the accuracy of it. I have never had a problem with reading a book that is not very believable, for I take the authors writing as the final world. Essentially, my relationships with novels include a lack of commitment and easy susceptibility- not very promising bases for a relationship.

I found the deliberations on lying and gossip very interesting, especially when discussed from a literal point of view. The human mind is not a very stable basis for anything, for it is easily manipulated and not very reliable. But it is our own mind, and sanity, that keeps humanity going (an idea presented in 1984). If we accept novels to be false, how are we so susceptible to believing lies and gossip? Authors themselves are the most skilled liars, for they knew the logical trend of the ‘game’. They know exactly what it takes to make a story seem real and believable. However, their main intent is not to simply tell lies, but to deliver a message. Perhaps this is the reason why humans know novels to be false, for there is always a distinct intent of the author to be writing whatever he/she is writing.

Finally, I found the discussion of inspiration versus intuition very interesting. Some people say you are born a writer, others say you can learn to become one. I always thought that the true skill of writing is something you are engrained with, for it is a very unique and difficult way of expression. Only authors can understand each other’s language, and the readers are simply there to try and figure it out. I don’t know whether it takes a good reader to be a good author, or vice versa, but it seems as if the two skills come hand in hand. Writing is truly an art that one must master the ability to appreciate in their own individual manner.