Reading Aloud

Reading aloud is a great tradition in my home. Always has been. Because of it, I've almost always divided novels into two categories: those that read aloud well and those that don't. For example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was read aloud to me before I read chapter books whose font size measured less than sixteen. Harry Potter reads aloud exceptionally well, and to this day, not one Harry Potter in the household was read before it was read aloud chapter by chapter, one horcrux at a time.

The Chronicles of Narnia is also on the top of the list when it comes to reading aloud. However, when we gave up on The Lord of the Rings, the fellowship was still intact. Now, The Lord of the Rings might belittle Harry Potter in terms of literary significance, but it is not meant to be read aloud unless the reader possesses superhuman breath control.

All three of these series examine fundamental complexities in the struggle between good and evil. As Dumbledore puts it: "It is not how you are alike; it is how you are different." But why is one so much more conducive to oratory than the other? What is the difference? Is one better written if it reads aloud?

These questions have been nagging in my mind, because Life of Pi is one of the most vocal novels I've ever read. So what does it? Tone? Point of View? Character development? Plot? I'm beginning to think that it is a combination of all three, but in this case the roots of it lie in the point of view. The way this story is set up, the writer is listening to Pi tell his story. The story is being told aloud. Apparently Pi's storytelling talents are such that the writer felt "that Mr. Patel's story should be told mostly in the first person, in his voice and through his eyes. (X, Par.3)" That the images and memories were so vivid in narrative, as only narrative can be, that to remove that aspect would be to pull the plug on the original tone of the story and the accurate portrayal of the characters.

But Narnia isn't being told in the first person, and it reads aloud splendidly- it can't be completely dependent on the point of view. So we look at the tone and writing style for clues. First, when someone is telling a story, do they tend to speak formally or informally? Informally. Right, good. But not casually. This is very important. The language is not loopy and indistinct. Life of Pi is incredibly succinct and forthcoming. He doesn't dally about in excessive descriptions (cough Lord cough Rings cough) but his descriptions are nevertheless honest and relevant.

In terms of relevance, Pi is able to choose what he wants emphasized in any given moment or chapter, so instead of committing himself to the life time's task of describing every facet of the zoo for example, we're fed only the bare necessities. I find this very refreshing to read. Description is very much like dialogue in that in real life, some conversations are just boring when transferred to paper. So characters only say what is relevant and true to their personality.

In the case of Life of Pi, the meaning in every chapter and section is camouflaged between the lines. Camouflaged in relevant context that is- it is imperative to the connection between the reader and the aspects of the novel that meaning is not completely obscured by heavy and distracting description.