I digress

And I wonder why it takes so much time and exhaustive effort to read Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne. Not discounting the 18^th century syntax and vocabulary (the OED is the dictionary most required and I wish I recalled better how to diagram sentences), I think that this is a book without a real plot but actually about what is thought about what ever occurs that approaches the idea of plot.  And as soon as Tristram begins thinking about what has happened and comments upon the action, he offers the context of that action relating it to the philosophical currents past or present; to instruct the reader how to perceive that action (or how not to perceive it); etc. Tristram Shandy is a book built on digressions and I cannot with any certainty situate myself anywhere in the text because at any one time there is no clear plot line to keep me on track. These digressions offer insight into character and time; without digressions the book lacks substance.  Indeed, without digressions there is no book—“Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine;--they are the life, the soul of reading;--take them out of this book for instance—you might as well take the book along with them . . .” I think sometimes that life, too, becomes meaningful in the digressions.
     A book, like a life, might be considered a skilled interweaving of plot and digression and a reader must learn to distinguish the presence of either. A digression stops the movement of the plot because it offers context for the plot; and the plot puts an end to digression because one can’t call up context in the midst of action.  This reminds me of Thoreau’s caution written somewhere that we can either live life or write about it: of course, the opposite holds true: if we write about life we cannot live it unless the writing becomes life.
     To read Tristram Shandy is to enter into the wonder of why and how to read at all: is reading the mere following of plot or is it the enjoyment of digression. How to make sense of the relationship between the two strategies of elaboration. If the former perhaps books might be terribly made shorter: as Joe Friday demanded, “Just the facts, madam.” If the latter then the plot can only be understood by the digression, but the reader must learn how to understand the connections between overt plot and digression: the reader must discover the relationships between the plot and digression. Readers must discern the role of the digression within the content and context of the book. Zuckerman, Phillip Roth’s fictional creation, accuses Roth of deceiving the reader in his autobiography, The Facts, by writing ‘only the facts’ and editing out “the one percent that counts—the one percent that’s saved for your imagination and that changes everything.” In The Facts, Zuckerman complains, Roth is too proper to be truthful, too well behaved and modest to be honest. Only in fiction, Zuckerman argues, can Roth be honest. Tristram’s digressions argue similarly: without them there is no book:  “that tho’ my digressions are all fair, --as you observe,--and that I fly off from what I am about, as far and often too as any writer in Great Britain; yet I constantly take care to order affairs so, that my main business does not stand still in my absence.” The story must go on, but the story is meaningless without the digressions. The digressions contain the plot by giving it context and therefore move it along; the plot needs the digressions to approach honesty. The author has to be attentive to “keep up the spirit and connection of what they have in hand.”