It is reported that Harold Macmillan, heir to a successful publishing company, claimed that one of the pleasures of becoming British Prime Minister was that he had more time to read novels. That was almost sixty-five years ago, and it is not a statement one could imagine a contemporary Western political leader making. For one reason, modern politicians like to present themselves as ordinary people, just like the voters whom they represent, and since they assume that most voters do not read books they likewise pretend not to. Instead, they allow themselves to be filmed playing golf, watching football, and taking their kids to the cinema, to celebrate their normality, to reaffirm their averageness. The second reason is that they think they are much too busy, rushing from one meeting to another, speed-reading briefing documents and policy papers, talking with special advisors and party operatives, worrying about the daily news cycle, and the changing trends in the polling data that they collect incessantly. The closest they might come to admitting to opening a real book, as opposed to a policy file, is when they publicise their annual summer holiday reading list, which will tend to be a small number of fashionable non-fiction titles, thereby trying to connect themselves to certain popular concerns of the day.
Reading for pleasure is considered a luxury, or worse an indulgence that the modern politician can and should do without. This is especially true of the reading of fiction – or “story books” – which is assumed to be appropriate only for children and those adults with surplus time on their hands, such as pensioners or academics. By contrast, those who carry the burden of responsibility of government – in “the real world” – consider themselves too busy to be bothered with make believe.
Continue reading “The spectre of good literature”