Despite the promises of literacy posters for kids, reading is a passive act. But is it submissive? In this interview with Joseph O'Neill, who wrote the great recent novel Netherland, he suggests it is. Netherland is the last book that President Obama was spotted reading. O'Neill has given great consideration to joining Obama's Book Club:

There is such an asymmetrical relationship between the President and the rest of the world in terms of power, that it can only be good for the soul of such a powerful man — whether it’s this President or another — to submit temporarily to the authority of a novel. Because whatever the nature of the novel, it is actually, ultimately a submissive act to read a novel.

It's not surprising to hear that a novelist thinks reading is submissive, but I think this is kind of a literal take on reading. I always think of reading as a collaborative act between author and reader. The two come together to create something new in the mind of the reader—an author can't force a thought into a reader's brain, s/he can only suggest it. But I'm sure that O'Neill enjoys his perceived mad power of temporarily controlling the mind of the leader of the free world*, and so maybe we should let him have his moment in the sun.

* After Bush, it feels kind of weird to call the president the leader of the free world, in the same way that it felt weird to say "It's a free country" when Bush was president. Is this still true? Is America still the leader of the free world? Or is that title currently up for grabs? Does anybody else want a drink?