
Can you talk about a single book for one hour every week? Ministers/Priests/Pastors/Reverends/Etc. do. Why shouldn’t more books get the attention that religion texts do?
Okay, most books don’t have a centuries-long history, a following (even a lukewarm one), or a cultivated lifestyle (excluding the Twilights and Harry Potters). What most books do have in common with religion texts is an industry infrastructure built to support their messages and the text itself; compelling narrative for the ultimate goal of better understand the human condition.
But week after week after week…how? Religious clergy have the amazing ability to use a single book as a point of reflection for EVERYTHING, from contemporary world events to domestic irritants. Natural disaster? War? Impoverished country? Acne? Grab a Bible, right? Why not grab The Confederacy of Dunces or House of Leaves? Each has interesting characters. Each depends on the reader’s own moral scope for impact. Each is a reflection of a life possibility, a Theory of Mind playground. Theory of Mind “…it is a term used by cognitive psychologists…to describe our ability to explain people’s behavior in terms of their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and desires” (Lisa Zunshine, Why We Read Fiction, pg 15).
Basically, Theory of Mind means that by reading about fictional characters in books, whether Johnny Truant, Ignatius J. Reilly, or Job, we implicate ourselves in their positions. This is the heart and magic of narrative. Sure, religion texts have the benefit of worldwide reach and passionate (sometimes vehemently so) devotees, but those aspects alone don’t reserve for the books a singular position as the only texts worth preaching.
So claim a street corner and tell everyone why Ignatius J. Reilly is so repugnant yet simultaneously endearing.