Is it necessary to read critically? [Archive]

Petrarch's Love

03-11-2006, 06:24 PM

ktd222

03-11-2006, 07:26 PM

I have been thinking about this since. I have no desire to read books "critically" I have to do enough analysis of different things at work, and I like to read for solely enjoyment. Is this wrong? Am I missing anything by not critically analyzing everything I read?

No and yes; The more critical analysis you do the better you get, to the point where critically reading becomes second nature. Whether your reading for work or enjoyement, critical reading will allow you to determine why the book your reading is enjoyable. I'm sure reading isn't enjoyable if the books are yawners, but how will you know that? So I do think when you read--anything--a certain degree of critiquing will be of use.

Nymo

03-11-2006, 07:32 PM

I don't think so. I write continually and I cannot bear the thought of critically reading anything except to tell myself for next time whether it was worth the time or not.
It would be to me like eating a meal and going over and over and over about each ingredient in my mind and trying to see the reason for it all.
however, you being a sport fan must have to endure watching play by plays and critiquing of a good play by your or another's team after the game. right? so maybe it is comparable. I like to pick out what moved me, and try to incorporate some of into my life if applicable and move on. period. any thoughts?

You seem to have some sense about creative expression.

Doesn’t matter how much one feels they have a clear outlook; it can not be understood through critical analysis, which is merely one’s point of view, and not the one who created it. That is why an artist is known by his works because many are amazed by a mystery they do not understand. If you really want to understand the creator read their journals and savor their thoughts, in them you’ll find the ingredients that made up the meal.

ktd222

03-11-2006, 07:41 PM

That is why an artist is known by his works because many are amazed by a mystery they do not understand

Is this the case? I hope not. Why would anybody be amazed by someone they can't understand?

Riesa

03-11-2006, 08:38 PM

If you really want to understand the creator read their journals and savor their thoughts, in them you’ll find the ingredients that made up the meal.Good point, especially with poets.

Why would anybody be amazed by someone they can't understand?
This ^^ happens to me all of the time, in fact, it's a cherished part of my life!
:D

Virgil

03-11-2006, 08:42 PM

As a grad student I feel like I read everything critically all the time (I have to keep myself from analysing ingredient lists on food packages I read :lol: ), but that's because it's training for my career. Reading is my work. To use Rachel's metaphor, I'm like someone going through culinary school who really can't sit down to a meal without analysing every ingredient that went into it and how the ingredients come together. I think there's a lot to be said for critical readings and research (hence choosing job as literary critic) and it can really enrich the way you come away from a text. At the same time, I think it's really important to have certain books that you read purely for enjoyment, or, even if you're reading critically, to have at least half your mind still free to enjoy the text on a purely frivolous level. Certainly I encourage students to come first and foremost to a book with the idea of simply enjoying whatever the author is giving them on an emotional level. It's never good to have all analysis and no soul but it can be fine to read with lots of spirit and no analysis. :nod:

I share Petrarch's response to any text. I have similar thought processes for all things written. Actually it goes beyond reading for me. As an engineer, I try to follow the thought process of how technical components as well as every day objects were designed (at least mechanically, not electronically or chemically) and put together. I can't help it; it's ingrained in me. My wife says I'm too critical, in its derogatory connotation. I can't help it; my mind is always spinning.

PeterL

03-11-2006, 10:13 PM

I have been thinking about this since. I have no desire to read books "critically" I have to do enough analysis of different things at work, and I like to read for solely enjoyment. Is this wrong? Am I missing anything by not critically analyzing everything I read?

If you don't read critically, then why bother reading? Especially in good literature, most of the meaning is not on the surface. While something might look pretty simple, that impression might mean that you are missing most of what was written. There usually are clues in the language or in the way it is set up, or some where else.

Pensive

03-12-2006, 01:27 AM

I would not mind it if people read books critically because they have a right to do so and maybe they enjoy doing so.

I usually read books for enjoyment. Even, sometimes I like reading my school books. I enjoy gaining knowledge and learning about world as well, so the books also provide me entertainment plus knowledge. I think that I don't read critically usually and that's the reason I like nearly every book I read because most of them provides me pleasure.

EAP

03-12-2006, 04:54 AM

Is this wrong? Am I missing anything by not critically analyzing everything I read?

1. No. Why would it be wrong?
2. That depends. Some books contain hidden subtexts and links which require some textual analysis to be brought to the fore but end up enrichening your reading experience. Thing is 'critical reading' and 'enjoyment' aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of people consider sifting a text for literary techniques and other literary paranphernalia immensely pleasurable. Hence, they are deriving their enjoyment 'from' critical reading.

Others are content with reading without digging too deeply into the text. For many, reading is a process of trying to maximise the yeild with the bare minimum input. Crticisim doesn't lend itself too well to this approach since it isn't doing anything to enhance the enjoyment level. This approach is equally valid.

Not to mention, every book requires a different level of commitment from a reader.

The Unnamable

03-12-2006, 06:27 AM

I have to keep myself from analysing ingredient lists on food packages I read :lol:
Yes, this is an occupational hazard. Here is an example from Alan Bennett. He’s sitting on the toilet and ‘Harpic’ is a toilet cleaner.

“Here I sit, alone and sixty,
Bald and fat, and full of sin;
Cold the seat and loud the cistern
As I read the Harpic tin.”

steve12553

03-12-2006, 09:25 AM

If you don't analyze it, you may not fully "get it". If you don't "get it" you may subconciously analyze it. Read, learn, read the critiques of others and eventually you do enough of it automatically to enjoy the book on more than one level.

pan_is_dead

03-12-2006, 10:58 AM

Yes, this is an occupational hazard. Here is an example from Alan Bennett. He’s sitting on the toilet and ‘Harpic’ is a toilet cleaner.

“Here I sit, alone and sixty,
Bald and fat, and full of sin;
Cold the seat and loud the cistern
As I read the Harpic tin.”

y'all be smart, and consistently full of funny shee-ot. :brow:

kilted exile

03-12-2006, 11:43 AM

Ok, starting from the beginning:

Rachel/Virgil: Comparison To Sport

Yes when I watch sports on TV, there is that part of me that automatically kicks in and starts questioning the rationale for different tactics (I honestly believe I could write a 20,000 word paper on why the 4-4-2 formation, whilst being more balnced does not provide anywhere near the fluidity of movement you can acheive by using the 4-5-1). However I dont analyze the plays to anywhere near the level that the coaches do.....and I dont feel it is necessary to do so to enjoy the game. Also I am somewhat of a "Type A" sportsfan I will watch any sport, in fact if they televised the tiddlywinks world-championships I would likely end up watching it, I do this because I get enjoyment from watching competition same with reading.

Emily/Beer Good/Steve:Picking up on sub-texts

I have a basic enough understanding of world history/politics to be able to appreciate the meanings of the books I read, and I also believe that if a literary technique is used to its full extent it should plant the image in the mind of the reader without requiring the analysis.

Petrarch's Love/Emily: Automatic to critique

I see where you are both coming from. However the example used with regards to preventing yourself analyzing the ingredient list is actually quite applicable here, though for me it is somewhat reversed. I am a Design Technologist for the Municipal Government, working specifically in Water/Wastewater. One of my current projects in analyzing different protective coatings we could use in our wet wells/dry wells, this is very much like reading an ingredient list. When I am done I am just looking for enjoyment and not particularly more "whys"

ktd222: Determining why the book is enjoyable/Amazement

Why do I need to know why I enjoy something? Is it not enough to just know that I do? Also with knowing whether a book is a "yawner" I think this can be quite obvious, if it bores me it bores me, no need again to know why it bores me it just does.

With regards to your comment on how people can be amazed by what they dont understand: This is the way it has always been since the beginning of civilization, as an example people were amazed by the steam engine now people understand the theory behind and there is far less a sense of wonderment/amazement.

PeterL: If not reading critically, Whats the Point?

For basic enjoyment to enjoy a story, as an example I love the stories of king Arthur and feel it is perfectly possible to read them just as a story. In fact I feel some of my enjoyment would be taken away if I was constantly looking through it thinking about whether each technique used was effective.

Claes/Petrarch's Love/EAP: Different ways of reading

Not much to say here I agree with all three of you People read things for different reasons, all equally valid.

Unnamable: Harpic Poem

:lol: :lol:

rachel

03-12-2006, 11:52 AM

wow, who are you KILTED, you sound like a man who has roamed the halls of academics for a while.
And for a Scot, ye are not skint with yer words, they are great. i am going to print this out, very insightful. thank you.

Geoffrey

03-12-2006, 04:45 PM

Reading critically is something that comes naturally as skill level in reading increases. Lit. has endless dimensions - I do believe that by not experiencing them that you are missing out on something.

Chances are though, that critical reading comes natural to those experienced. At least that is what I have been led to believe. It does allow me to enjoy books a great deal more as well.
Unless I'm veryyyyyyyy sleep deprived (college) than I commit the greatest error - just reading the words - not everything that they create.

kilted exile

03-12-2006, 05:11 PM

Xamonas Chegwe

03-12-2006, 05:42 PM

Is it necessary to read critically? No, but it's critically necessary to read! :nod:

ktd222

03-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Why do I need to know why I enjoy something? Is it not enough to just know that I do?

C'mon now, how are you going to know that? There has to be a certain level of critiquing that happens.

This is the way it has always been since the beginning of civilization, as an example people were amazed by the steam engine now people understand the theory behind and there is far less a sense of wonderment/amazement

Are you speaking for all of civilization? I'm certainly not one for being amazed at things I don't understand. 'Ohhhhhhhhh...fire warm. MMM..me like'

He is talking about art.

That is why an artist is known by his works because many are amazed by a mystery they do not understand. If you really want to understand the creator read their journals and savor their thoughts, in them you’ll find the ingredients that made up the meal

Artist are known by their mysteriousness. That is ridiculous! People get amazed by artist that connect with them, connect with them too well.

emily655321

03-12-2006, 06:12 PM

ktd222— I think everyone has their own reasons and ways of appreciating art. I don't believe such a thing is easily qualified. Perhaps your way of interpreting art is different from some other people's. I'm curious about your vehemence on this subject, but I fear questioning it further would take us too far off-topic.

kilted exile

03-12-2006, 06:30 PM

ktd

I actually do know a reasonable amount regarding critical analysis of art (the brothers girlfriend has a Masters in Art History and is doing an internship at the Getty Foundation), but I agree with Emily that would take us off-topic.

I think your comments about needing to understand the reason why I enjoy something relate to the same points raised by PeterL which I answered earlier but will answer again for you: The enjoyment of just an interesting story is enough for me, similar to sitting round a campfire telling stories is enjoyable, without critiquing the entire thing to death. If you are unable to enjoy things for just being what they are then I actually feel kinda sorry for you.

Just one more analogy: Do you find rainbows/sunsets beautiful? Are rainbows more beautiful when you look at it as merely the spectrum of visible light refracting through the drops of moisture in the air and splitting into the individual wavelenghts? Sorry it aint for me, if I think about the physics behind it it loses something.

ktd222

03-12-2006, 06:39 PM

The enjoyment of just an interesting story is enough for me, similar to sitting round a campfire telling stories is enjoyable, without critiquing the entire thing to death. If you are unable to enjoy things for just being what they are then I actually feel kinda sorry for you.

Your not even getting to the reasons WHY you enjoy them! What is it about camp stories that you enjoy? Everybody has a reason--even you.

Just one more analogy: Do you find rainbows/sunsets beautiful? Are rainbows more beautiful when you look at it as merely the spectrum of visible light refracting through the drops of moisture in the air and splitting into the individual wavelenghts? Sorry it aint for me, if I think about the physics behind it it loses something.

It doesn't have to be to that degree. Everybody critiques everything at one degree or another.

I actually do know a reasonable amount regarding critical analysis of art (the brothers girlfriend has a Masters in Art History and is doing an internship at the Getty Foundation), but I agree with Emily that would take us off-topic.

Then why say it. Ya, my great great great great great great grandfather use to walk his dog by Shakespeare's house and would eavesdrop on Shakespeare. So what?

kilted exile

03-12-2006, 06:42 PM

See this is the point you're missing I dont care why I enjoy them I just do. Analyzing why I like things takes the fun away. Or is a joke more funny if you spend 10 minutes questioning why it was funny?

Then why say it. Ya, my great great great great great great grandfather use to walk his dog by Shakespeare's house and would eavesdrop on Shakespeare. So what?

I say it because I was annoyed by what I infered from your comments. Whether you intended to imply it or not it came across as extremely condescending.

emily655321

03-12-2006, 06:50 PM

ktd, I'm curious. Why does analyzing your own reason behind enjoyment matter so much to you? I mean, I do understand you on that point—I get a geeky thrill from dissecting my own neural processes, as I do from dissecting an author's writing process,—but that's just a personal enjoyment of mine. I don't do it on principle, and I don't require that others do the same. You seem to have a deeper, more ideological urgency in insisting that such an approach is the only way to experience life. What is it?

ktd222

03-12-2006, 06:51 PM

kilted exile

03-12-2006, 06:56 PM

I know perfectly well why the joke is funny. My point is spending 10 minutes considering the way comic timing, tone etc has been used doesnt necessarilly make it any funnier.

ktd222

03-12-2006, 07:00 PM

I know perfectly well why the joke is funny. My point is spending 10 minutes considering the way comic timing, tone etc has been used doesnt necessarilly make it any funnier.

It doesn't have to be to that degree. Everybody critiques everything at one degree or another.

Xamonas Chegwe

03-12-2006, 07:05 PM

There are three kinds of readers: one, who enjoys without judging; a third, who judges without enjoying; another in the middle, who judges while enjoying and enjoys while judging. This last class truly reproduces a work of art anew; it's members are not numerous.

Who am I to argue with Goethe?

Nymo

03-12-2006, 07:17 PM

C'mon now, how are you going to know that? There has to be a certain level of critiquing that happens.

Are you speaking for all of civilization? I'm certainly not one for being amazed at things I don't understand. 'Ohhhhhhhhh...fire warm. MMM..me like'

He is talking about art.

Artist are known by their mysteriousness. That is ridiculous! People get amazed by artist that connect with them, connect with them too well.

"The sole substitute for an experience which we have not ourselves lived through is art and literature." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“ The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion ”-- Elizabeth Drew

No One knows what it is to be a professional artist and professional writer. Some would rather not believe anyone and feel their opinions have merit and No One can conceive them of anything. No One knows anything and helping anyone to understand; is what is ridiculous! No One is aware of many things and can not explain what is a mystery to others because the world is run by opinon.

ktd222

03-12-2006, 07:22 PM

No One knows what it is to be a professional artist and professional writer. Some would rather not believe anyone and feel their opinions have merit and No One can conceive them of anything. No One knows anything and helping anyone to understand; is what is ridiculous! No One is aware of many things and can not explain what is a mystery to others because the world is run by opinon.

What? So which side are you taking?

jon1jt

03-12-2006, 08:45 PM

I don't mean to sound like an intellectual snob, but I do not understand this need to separate "critical reading" from "mindless reading" (somebody called it frivolous reading) and this is largely an American phenomena. To my mind, if you're intelligent, well-read, and stirred up about learning, then in you will be a natural tendency TO BE critical, regardless of what you read. This idea that we readers employ modes of reading is silly.

It reminds me about my old grad school classmates who always bemoaned speaking about "work" when we went to a bar. Now, since when did throwing back a few beers while discussing Plato or Kant or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard not qualify as having a 'good time'? And this was in a setting with so-called like-minded people.

I believe this mindless-intellectual dichotomy is an American creation because I encountered exchange students from Germany, France, and England, and they ALL loved discoursing, especially in the bar!

The occasions I have picked up to read a "mindless" novel, I'm bored out of my wits by the end of the third page. An example of this was my brief encounter with Danielle Steel's Toxic Bachelors. WHAT A SNORE! They're not authors, they're wanna-be-authors.

There are many bright people in this forum and I'm very surprised people buy into such a notion.

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately..."

ktd222

03-12-2006, 09:00 PM

but I do not understand this need to separate "critical reading" from "mindless reading" (somebody called it frivolous reading) and this is largely an American phenomena

Hey, there is no such phenomena!

Ryduce

03-12-2006, 09:15 PM

Sometimes you have to just disassociate yourself from your intelligence and enjoy a good story.Not every book has to be Ulysses or 1984.While I don't hold J.K Rowling in higher esteem than say Charlotte Bronte,I still can gain something from reading her.I think the world needs "mindless reading".All books have something to offer,and it's stupid to divide books into two categories of mindless and intelligent.

Petrarch's Love

03-12-2006, 09:50 PM

ktd--Is it possible that you are taking a narrower definition of "critical" than others on this thread? If by critical reading you mean any reading that results in an opinion or makes any sort of judgement at all on a work, then yes, every reading is "critical." I thought that Kilted was referring to "critical" readings as readings that intellectually analyse a text, that take it apart to see how it ticks. I don't really see why one has to have this sort of reading in order to enjoy a text (though this additional understanding can certainly increase the enjoyment). Perhaps if we got specific it would help. I'll choose a speech from the Scottish play in honor of Kilted:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

There are a variety of possible reactions to this speech:
A) The reader gasps instinctively in reaction to the despair of the character, feels depressed at his expression of the futility of life, and wonders what will happen next. B) The reader analyses the metrics of Shakespeare's blank verse and notes the effectiveness of the final short line in the context of the speech. C) The reader analyses the various metaphors employed here D) The reader does historical research on the context of the language and metaphors employed as they functioned within Shakespeare's society E) The reader could contemplate the influence of Shakespeare on later authors like Faulkner
Obviously there are countless other approaches. The point I'm making is that it is entirely possible to experience the emotional response (A) without employing any of the additional critical responses, but that without A there is really no motivation for contemplating B-E. I think this is the point Kilted and others are getting at. You can respond emotionally to a story without needing to understand its workings intellectually.

I do not understand this need to separate "critical reading" from "mindless reading" (somebody called it frivolous reading)

Jon--I believe I'm the only one who has brought up the word "frivolous," but I was not referring to "frivolous reading" as something necessarily seperate from critical reading (my point was quite the reverse). I said that we should always be able to read on a frivolous as well as a critical level, and I purposely chose the word frivolous rather than "mindless" because I meant for it to connote a sense of fun in reading which, in my opinion, should never be absent from even the most stringent critical analyses. :nod:

This idea that we readers employ modes of reading is silly.
I don't know that I really understand this claim. Would you deny that there are different layers of meaning in literary works (I won't say levels because this implies a hierarchy, which I don't want to suggest)? I've been spending some time with Spenser's Faerie Queene recently. This is a work that really can be read and enjoyed entirely as an account of the strange battles and adventures of a group of knights. Of course it can also can be analysed in terms of the allegorical significance of its episodes. Wouldn't this mean employing two different kinds of reading (even if one often employs them simultaneously)?

It reminds me about my old grad school classmates who always bemoaned speaking about "work" when we went to a bar. Now, since when did throwing back a few beers while discussing Plato or Kant or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard not qualify as having a 'good time'? And this was in a setting with so-called like-minded people.

:lol: I've run into the same thing, and I think they're just searching for something to complain about. I mean ten times out of ten you couldn't pay an academic to not talk about his/her subject, so I don't buy that they're suffering because we're having a little shop talk over a few pints. :D

ktd222

03-12-2006, 10:07 PM

Is it possible that you are taking a narrower definition of "critical" than others on this thread? If by critical reading you mean any reading that results in an opinion or makes any sort of judgement at all on a work, then yes, every reading is "critical." I thought that Kilted was referring to "critical" readings as readings that intellectually analyse a text, that take it apart to see how it ticks.

The two are not exclusive.

Petrarch's Love

03-12-2006, 11:08 PM

The two are not exclusive.

So I take it you're saying that, yes, you are applying the term criticism in a different sense than I and others were thinking of it. If you look the word "criticism" up in the OED you will find the first definition defines the word generally as "The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything." I take this to be the sense in which you employ the word, in which case "the two are not exclusive" just as you say. The second definition reads: "The art of estimating the qualities and character of literary or artistic work; the function or work of a critic. spec. The critical science which deals with the text, character, composition, and origin of literary documents."
This is a more refined definition of the word, applying specifically to the judgement of certain aspects of literary works as a "science". It is this sense of the word--implying a certain kind of formal critical activity as opposed to personal opinion--which I took the original question to address. I was merely trying to determine which definition you had in mind.

Virgil

03-12-2006, 11:34 PM

Well, it's satisfying to see that Unnambale and me are not the only ones that disagree. :nod: But it's a little mild so far. One of you has to start throwing the word "arrogant" around and the other has to start ridiculing the post modernist leanings. :lol:

rachel

03-12-2006, 11:58 PM

you and Unnameable disagree. really?
I don't see how any human being can read anything without the mind automatically questioning things or dwelling on something that seems odd, new or different in concept or thought while reading well anything.
I just think personally unless there is a direct reason for it, to dissect every little bit of something is like watching the third disc on how they made lord of the rings. It rather wrecks it for me, takes the wonder and magic out of it. Life is so short and there are so many books to read that to me it is just a waste of time for the most part.(how can you tell I am not an academic, as Niles would say I am piffle, no not even that, piffle light!) :blush:

ktd222

03-13-2006, 12:13 AM

Don’t imply anything!(Is that better Virgil) ;)
In the end, the second definition draws on the first definition: to allow you to criticize—albeit at a more in-depth level. When you read any text, the reasons why are drawn from one or more of these critical science aspects you mention.

sdr4jc

03-13-2006, 12:39 AM

I know we've got some 'writers' in here, so let me toss a new perspective at you guys. Say you've sat down and come to the conclusion that you are going to write a piece of literature, whether it be fiction, poetry, songs, whatever. What's the very first thing you start sorting out in your mind? Well it's the fact that you have decided to express an idea, or collection of ideas, into a piece of writing. There's always a point on some level or another with anything written, even if it's just your signature.

So holding that thought for a moment, ask yourself what drew you into the realm of literature in the first place. It's likely that you are attracted to literature because you are attracted to its philosophical wealth, and I use that term both broadly and loosely; you understand.

Now take your love of creative philosophy and apply it to every other writer that ever was. They were all once at that very beginning point, too (that is, having just decided to put thoughts to paper) and are likewise expressing something deeper than just the storyline.

My point being this:
1) Reading 'critically' doesn't command more effort than reading 'casually' (especially for those who enjoy it in the first place) so why would anybody CHOOSE to skim the surface when skuba diving the great reefs?
2) Reading 'critically' doesn't necessarily have negative connotations, nor does it take the fun out of the story.
3) You must remember that there are any number of different degrees that 'critical' reading can be taken to. It doesn't have to involve line by line analysis if the reader so chooses.

It just somehow seems like the unpardonable sin of literature to read a fellow enthusiast's work and walk away with just a 'good story' for your time and efforts! Although 'critical' analysis and casual reading are two completely different things, I firmly believe that the two can indeed coexist!

Any thoughts?

bluevictim

03-13-2006, 12:44 AM

To my mind, if you're intelligent, well-read, and stirred up about learning, then in you will be a natural tendency TO BE critical, regardless of what you read. As someone who is unintelligent, poorly-read, and apathetic about learning, I might have a unique perspective to offer. Reading critically does not come naturally to me, and I employ not one, not two, but effectively a whole continuum of modes when I read, from very passive (for example, when I read the weather forecast) to very active (for example, when I read mathematics). It is routine for symbolism, allusions, and the significance of the text for lesbians under anarcho-socialist power structures to fly right over my head (the horror! the horror!), while I still manage to enjoy what I'm reading (one of the blessings of such a feeble mind). One time, I read a whole tragedy without even once looking at the app. crit., and I liked it.

As far as I'm concerned, since I paid for the book, and I'm spending my own leisure time, I'm pretty much Supreme Monarch as far as the book is concerned. If I want to read the Peanuts without picking up on the influence of post-modern thought on Charles Schultz, that's what I'll do. If I didn't catch every allusion to Shakespeare in Absalom! Absalom!, that's just too bad for Faulkner; I might come back and reread it and catch some more, or I might not; I might never read Faulkner again (bwahahahaha!). I don't know which is better, War and Peace or Les Miserables; it doesn't even matter all that much to me, and I still enjoyed reading them.

Pity me! (or envy me!)

ktd222

03-13-2006, 12:46 AM

sdr4jc,

Although 'critical' analysis and casual reading are two completely different things, I firmly believe that the two can indeed coexist!

go through and read this thread. The two are not that easily distinguishable.

jon1jt

03-13-2006, 06:25 AM

Jon--I believe I'm the only one who has brought up the word "frivolous," but I was not referring to "frivolous reading" as something necessarily seperate from critical reading (my point was quite the reverse). I said that we should always be able to read on a frivolous as well as a critical level, and I purposely chose the word frivolous rather than "mindless" because I meant for it to connote a sense of fun in reading which, in my opinion, should never be absent from even the most stringent critical analyses. :nod:

Now I get it!!! Well put, and we see eye-to-eye on this one.

[QUOTE=bluevictim] and I'm spending my own leisure time, I'm pretty much Supreme Monarch as far as the book is concerned. If I want to read the Peanuts without picking up on the influence of post-modern thought on Charles Schultz, that's what I'll do. If I didn't catch every allusion to Shakespeare in Absalom! Absalom!, that's just too bad for Faulkner; I might come back and reread it and catch some more, or I might not;

If you're critical by nature - and you say you're not - then any post-modern thought in Peanuts can reveal itself while reading. Of course, subtlety often slips from our grasp, but struggling with the text is part of the learning process, not the result of the way we read. My contention is that Readers read in their "leisure" time. Big difference.

The Unnamable

03-13-2006, 08:10 AM

I’ve just read Animal Farm. It’s about pigs (mostly).

You have my sympathy, ktd222.

Have you noticed that all questions on this forum meet with the same fate? We get a few splutterings of a response that could generate actual discussion of the topic and then someone insightful person points out that we are all different and do things differently. Therefore, it is either argued or implied, everything is equally valid, so there is little point in discussing it. We should instead celebrate the multi-dimensional nature of everything and bask in diversity.

As for critical reading, I can’t read any other way, whether it's the Harpic tin I mentioned above or a Shakespeare sonnet. For me, this does not entail ‘naming of parts’ (counting syllables, exploring connotations or identifying symbolism and imagery, etc.) but simply thinking about and processing the words before me. We have to process language in order to achieve any degree of understanding. I usually assume the words before me weren’t generated randomly so I consider what I read. The depth to which I do so depends on many different factors, including how bored I am.

On another thread, someone replied to a comment I made by saying, “I know your comment was directed at X but …” I responded by saying that my comment was not directed at but addressed to. There is a difference and I can’t help but be aware of it.

EAP

03-13-2006, 09:17 AM

So I take it you're saying that, yes, you are applying the term criticism in a different sense than I and others were thinking of it. If you look the word "criticism" up in the OED you will find the first definition defines the word generally as "The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything." I take this to be the sense in which you employ the word, in which case "the two are not exclusive" just as you say. The second definition reads: "The art of estimating the qualities and character of literary or artistic work; the function or work of a critic. spec. The critical science which deals with the text, character, composition, and origin of literary documents."
This is a more refined definition of the word, applying specifically to the judgement of certain aspects of literary works as a "science". It is this sense of the word--implying a certain kind of formal critical activity as opposed to personal opinion--which I took the original question to address. I was merely trying to determine which definition you had in mind.

A brilliant post.

sdr4jc

03-13-2006, 10:30 AM

sdr4jc,

go through and read this thread. The two are not that easily distinguishable.

I have read this thread and based my post on my belief that critical analysis is in fact NOT the same as casual reading. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I generally frown upon posting blindly, that is, not having read the thread before jumping in. ;)

rachel

03-13-2006, 01:20 PM

This may sound really lame or insane really but when I read how Unnameable describes his approach to reading I see it as a world which starts at point A but which takes you on several different roads and sceneries round the circumference of that world and back again.I, when writing an investigative story-i knew that every word, every inference had to be as perfect, as meaningful and as descriptive while staying in a small circumference -saw in a blur the other roads but knew precisely what I wanted so only followed one.
Because I am a very 'visual' person I analyze with my heart thru my eyes, so pictures and colors come to me and form an opinion in my mind. I think it would be awesome to be able to analyze in the manner the rest of you seem to, but I cannot do it. period. and it is not for lack of trying. so for people like me who seem challenged this way this 'feeling,visual' way of reading is the only way we , I have to come to an informed understanding, if indeed it even is, of the world represented in that particular work.
sigh....sad really.It is like being the only lamb in a farm full of thoroughbreds I guess.I see it from rather a lower viewpoint. I am not complaining, it is pretty from there as well.

Petrarch's Love

03-13-2006, 01:45 PM

In the end, the second definition draws on the first definition: to allow you to criticize—albeit at a more in-depth level.

KTD--I never claimed that the second definition doesn't draw on the first definition. They are, however two seperate definitions for a reason. Dictionary writers don't generally write two definitions where one would do. You admit that definition two connotes "a more in-depth level" and this is all I was trying to get at. It is a question of the degree of criticism which the word connotes in different situations. I do not, in fact disagree with either you or Unnamable, or anyone else who claim that we all criticise all the time if you are taking criticism to mean any act of judgement at all in accordance with the first definition offered (after all, my first post to this thread was a confession of my compulsory need to analyse the wording of food packaging :)) It would be silly of me indeed to claim that no cognitive process whatsoever goes on when someone reads.

People do, however, also use the word criticism in a more specific way to talk about what people do when reading at a more "in depth" (to use your phrase) level. I don't think students doing a close reading in class think of this as the same as reading a love poem while they sigh over their own unrequited love. I don't think the editors here at Critical Inquiry(literary journal) think of the papers they publish as being the same as someone's reactions to their reading in a diary (I'm not saying the diary writer's words aren't equally good or better, just that there's a difference in the way they're labelled and perceived and in the methodology of the writer). People need a way to differentiate when they're talking about a more formal, scientific approach to a text as opposed to an emotional reaction, and usually the word "criticism," in accordance with the second OED definition, is the word chosen for this purpose. It's a matter not of seperation but of degree. Perhaps there is another term you would prefer to refer to a reading which involves a more in depth analysis of the text and its workings?

Of course, I'm probably disappointing both Virgil and Unnamable, the debating champs, by not being more vehement in my response. What was I supposed to toss in there? More about post modernist readings? Less about diversity? ;)

I don't see how any human being can read anything without the mind automatically questioning things or dwelling on something that seems odd, new or different in concept or thought while reading well anything.
I just think personally unless there is a direct reason for it, to dissect every little bit of something is like watching the third disc on how they made lord of the rings. It rather wrecks it for me, takes the wonder and magic out of it.

this 'feeling,visual' way of reading is the only way we , I have to come to an informed understanding, if indeed it even is, of the world represented in that particular work.

Rachel--Thank you. In your last few posts you have illustrated the point I am trying to make beautifully. There can indeed be different modes of reading (though they do not have to be mutually exclusive). As you say, no person "can read anything without the mind automatically questioning things or dwelling on something that seems odd, new or different in concept," this is, I think the point that ktd and others are adhering to, that every reader criticises what they are reading in some way. But it is also true that there is a way of reading that does not depend so much on an intellectual as an emotional response. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. I also am a very visual reader, and I sometimes find that reading is more experiential and feeling based than anything else. Sometimes I react to what I read without forming any kind of verbal response to it. I see a picture, hear the music described, laugh out loud at what is funny. I think that these reactions are the most important ones we can have as readers. That's the heart of why we read, and if you haven't gotten there first, I don't see what enjoyment there is in reading. Any further analysis is icing on the cake. :)

P.S. I wouldn't call you "piffle,"--you seem to have a very balanced and sane grasp of how to enjoy a book--but it's a great word. I may have to employ it as a defense if the debate gets too heated. :lol:

Geoffrey

03-13-2006, 02:40 PM

Ok Geoff let's suppose for a second that I have read enough/been taught enough to be able to correctly analyze the techniques used by an author, but I choose however not to do so. There are a number of works of classic literature which work perfectly well as just** an excellent story I mentioned King Arthur earlier but there are many others. The authors wrote these stories to be enjoyed and isn't that all that matters?

**I dislike using the word "just" here as it gives the impression that being a story is not good enough, but I cant think of another way to put it.

Clearly its possible and enjoyable to not read critically. I think though, that by not doing so there are things that the reader is missing in the book, story, characters, what have you.

So the question must be is the person who IS reading critically missing out on anything in a work of lit.

bluevictim

03-13-2006, 03:18 PM

We have to process language in order to achieve any degree of understanding. I usually assume the words before me weren’t generated randomly so I consider what I read. I'm not sure I get your meaning. This seems to imply that any kind of reading is, by definition, critical, which seems a bit vacuous, despite having a certain mathematical elegance.

As an example of what seems to me to be a different definition of "critical" which seems closer to the sense in the original post, jon1jt seems to assert that a Reader (with a capital R) who reads (in italics) critically naturally achieves a higher level of understanding than a reader (lowercase r) who reads non-critcally. This seems plausible enough, although I can't confirm this from first-hand experience.

Or, perhaps, are you saying that readers (lowercase r) who read (no italics) non-critically might as well be reading randomly generated words, for all the benefit they get from the text? Or do you mean something else entirely?

ktd222

03-13-2006, 08:07 PM

It's a matter not of seperation but of degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let me count how many times I've said the above:

So I do think when you read--anything--a certain degree of critiquing will be of use.

C'mon now, how are you going to know that? There has to be a certain level of critiquing that happens.

It doesn't have to be to that degree. Everybody critiques everything at one degree or another.

It doesn't have to be to that degree. Everybody critiques everything at one degree or another.

When you read any text, the reasons why are drawn from one or more of these critical science aspects you mention.

Petrarch's Love

03-13-2006, 09:25 PM

Good. Then we agree on something. I was not debating this portion of your argument, and my main motivations in posting originally was for clarification. My initial question to you was whether or not you were taking "criticism" in a different sense than some of the others on this thread. It seemed to me that you were taking the term in its strictest sense, to mean that even the faintest possible degree of thought or judgement is equated to critical thought. I have said more than once that I don't dispute that this is a valid point of view (though I won't bother listing them), but that it seemed that Kilted and others were taking the term in a more nuanced manner to specifically mean an in depth degree of critical consideration, and that I thought this was the sense in which the term was being debated.

kilted exile

03-13-2006, 10:23 PM

Wow so much to respond to. not tonight however (the brain is working over other things currently) tomorrow at some stage.

jon1jt

03-13-2006, 10:32 PM

Hey, there is no such phenomena!

Of course mindless reading is largely an American phenomena, just go to any Barnes & Noble and take a look at the smut they're pawning off as "books." Here are this week's NY Times Top 10 BESTSELLERS:

The 5th Horseman, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
Cell, by Stephen King
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
The Templar Legacy, by Steve Berry
The Last Templar, by Raymond Khoury
The Two Minute Rule, by Robert Crais
In the Company of the Courtesan, by Sarah Dunant
The Old Wine Shades, by Martha Grimes
Lovers & Players, by Jackie Collins
Sea Change, by Robert B. Parker

PHOOEY!

sdr4jc

03-13-2006, 10:35 PM

Of course mindless reading is largely an American phenomena, just go to any Barnes & Noble and take a look at the smut they're pawning off as "books." Here are this week's NY Times Top 10 BESTSELLERS:

The 5th Horseman, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
Cell, by Stephen King
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
The Templar Legacy, by Steve Berry
The Last Templar, by Raymond Khoury
The Two Minute Rule, by Robert Crais
In the Company of the Courtesan, by Sarah Dunant
The Old Wine Shades, by Martha Grimes
Lovers & Players, by Jackie Collins
Sea Change, by Robert B. Parker

PHOOEY!

Er...um...yep...that's proof for me :lol:

ktd222

03-14-2006, 12:46 AM

My initial question to you was whether or not you were taking "criticism" in a different sense than some of the others on this thread. It seemed to me that you were taking the term in its strictest sense, to mean that even the faintest possible degree of thought or judgement is equated to critical thought.

No. You guys are the ones using criticism in the narrowest definition of the word(the second definition), which is encompassed by the first definition.

Of course mindless reading is largely an American phenomena, just go to any Barnes & Noble and take a look at the smut they're pawning off as "books." Here are this week's NY Times Top 10 BESTSELLERS:

The 5th Horseman, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
Cell, by Stephen King
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
The Templar Legacy, by Steve Berry
The Last Templar, by Raymond Khoury
The Two Minute Rule, by Robert Crais
In the Company of the Courtesan, by Sarah Dunant
The Old Wine Shades, by Martha Grimes
Lovers & Players, by Jackie Collins
Sea Change, by Robert B. Parker

jon,

give me the Bestsellers where your from.

jon1jt

03-14-2006, 01:58 AM

jon,

give me the Bestsellers where your from.

I assume you mean my Top 10 List. Today, its

10. Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Richard Bach
9. The Metamorphosis, Franz Kafka
8. Boredom, Alberto Moravia
7. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
6. Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky
5. The Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant
4. The Republic, Plato
3. The Apology, Plato
2. Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche
1. Being and Time, Martin Heidegger

ktd222

03-14-2006, 02:02 AM

No, I mean a NY Bestseller-like list from where you're from.

jon1jt

03-14-2006, 02:22 AM

No, I mean a NY Bestseller-like list from where you're from.

Your English is horrific. And so you've exhausted me, forget about it.

ktd222

03-14-2006, 02:34 AM

Your English is horrific. And so you've exhausted me, forget about it

Whatever you say. I'll even let you make up one. The word Bestsellers wasn't enough?

Whifflingpin

03-14-2006, 07:46 AM

"New Jersey, 4 miles from Manhatten!"

Jon is from New York, near enough - assuming that "Manhatten" is the place that appears as "Manhattan" on the maps.

Virgil

03-14-2006, 08:24 AM

Of course mindless reading is largely an American phenomena, just go to any Barnes & Noble and take a look at the smut they're pawning off as "books." Here are this week's NY Times Top 10 BESTSELLERS:
PHOOEY!

Best sellers have nothing to do with Barnes and Noble. Bestsellers are the books the public most buys by number bought. Look the general public are not English majors or philosophers. It's no different than television or sports. Come on, we shouldn't be so snobby. Everyone has what interests them. I particularly think that philosophy is boring. Does that make me vulgar? But then I love reading William Faulkner or James Joyce. Does that make me superior?

And what does this have to do with American? Are you saying that other publics don't have their popular literature? Have you seen the TV shows of other countries? Come on.

Grumbleguts

03-14-2006, 08:43 AM

The Unnamable

03-14-2006, 10:33 AM

I'm not sure I get your meaning.
In what sense is it my meaning? Isn’t your perception of it your meaning? How did you decide? Did you analyse my words critically or did you just read them (or Read them or read them)?

This seems to imply that any kind of reading is, by definition, critical, which seems a bit vacuous, despite having a certain mathematical elegance.
Seems? Can something be a bit vacuous? Are the repeated use of ‘seems’ and the inclusion of ‘a bit’ there because that is a part of your intended meaning or evidence of your desire to appear polite? How do I decide?

What is ‘mathematical elegance’? Why does the comment display this? Was I going for mathematical elegance? Am I analysing? How are meanings being generated? Whose meanings?

As an example of what seems to me to be a different definition of "critical" which seems closer to the sense in the original post, jon1jt seems to assert that
Is ‘assert’ different from ‘imply’ as used above?

a Reader (with a capital R) who reads (in italics) critically naturally achieves a higher level of understanding than a reader (lowercase r) who reads non-critcally. This seems plausible enough, although I can't confirm this from first-hand experience.
What is ‘a higher level of understanding’? How is it achieved? Does first-hand experience confirm anything? How?

Or, perhaps, are you saying that readers (lowercase r) who read (no italics) non-critically might as well be reading randomly generated words, for all the benefit they get from the text? Or do you mean something else entirely?
Perhaps the implication could be that it might seem so?

:santasmil

bluevictim

03-14-2006, 05:15 PM

In what sense is it my meaning?...Perhaps the implication could be that it might seem so? Thanks for the glimpse!

emily655321

03-14-2006, 06:57 PM

See, bluevictim, if you practice criticism as thoroughly as the Unnamable, someday you too may be able to dodge any and all questions put to you while still managing to sound condescending. Let this be a lesson on the value of critical reading.

Scheherazade

03-14-2006, 07:25 PM

A small reminder:

The topic of discussion in this thread is 'Is it necessary to read critically?'

emily655321

03-14-2006, 08:43 PM

Sorry, Scher.

The Unnamable

03-14-2006, 09:57 PM

If the ‘small reminder’ was prompted by emily655321’s comment about me, I’d like to point out that the comment was on topic. It clearly demonstrates how critically she reads my posts. :lol: She is consistently critical of my contributions. Those who have nothing of interest to say about Literature must surely be allowed to contribute somehow.

You go ahead, emily, my little sweetie. I like a lass with a touch of derring-do. ;)

Petrarch's Love

03-15-2006, 12:12 AM

No. You guys are the ones using criticism in the narrowest definition of the word(the second definition), which is encompassed by the first definition.

Just to go back a bit,
ktd--Yes, the second definition is more specific and in that sense narrower. That's really beside the point I think. Why does the fact that it is related to the first definition in some way negate it's relevance? Words can be used in multiple senses. I don't claim that either of the definitions of "criticism" are better than the other. All I'm doing is identifying that there are different ways of utilizing the word, and that I think what was intended to be debated as a topic in this thread was the importance of a more technical critical approach as opposed to a more relaxed reading (as per definition two), not to argue whether or not we use even the most basic critical faculties when reading (which is the argument we'd have using the first defintion). If you really want to split hairs we could rephrase the topic of the debate to read, "Is it necessary to read with a greater degree of critical attention and analysis as opposed to a minimal degree of subconcious critical judgement?" rather than "is it necessary to read critically?" That seems a little wordy though.

Of course mindless reading is largely an American phenomena, just go to any Barnes & Noble and take a look at the smut they're pawning off as "books." Here are this week's NY Times Top 10 BESTSELLERS:

The 5th Horseman, by James Patterson and Maxine Paetro
Cell, by Stephen King
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
The Templar Legacy, by Steve Berry
The Last Templar, by Raymond Khoury
The Two Minute Rule, by Robert Crais
In the Company of the Courtesan, by Sarah Dunant
The Old Wine Shades, by Martha Grimes
Lovers & Players, by Jackie Collins
Sea Change, by Robert B. Parker

PHOOEY!

Jon--Don't you think there have always been lesser (but perhaps still enjoyable) writers in any place/era of history? I mean the Elizabethan era gave us Shakespeare, but it also gave us Gorboduc (If you've never heard of it that's for the same reason people four hundred years from now may never have heard of the Stephen King book on your list ;) ). We tend to pick out some of the best talents from history to continue reading years later. It seems unfair to expect that the books coming off the press every day all measure up to the standards of these happy few.

ktd222

03-15-2006, 12:45 AM

If you really want to split hairs we could rephrase the topic of the debate to read, "Is it necessary to read with a greater degree of critical attention and analysis as opposed to a minimal degree of subconcious critical judgement?" rather than "is it necessary to read critically?" That seems a little wordy though.

Stop it, please!

Petrarch's Love

03-15-2006, 01:00 AM

:lol: OK, I have no problem dropping it. If you're sick of the topic, that's fine. We'll call it a draw and no hard feelings :). I only persisted because I had a feeling we actually weren't disagreeing as much as it might appear on this issue and because I thought it might be useful to define terms if people were going to continue debating this issue. All in good fun.

jon1jt

03-15-2006, 08:23 PM

"New Jersey, 4 miles from Manhatten!"

Jon is from New York, near enough - assuming that "Manhatten" is the place that appears as "Manhattan" on the maps.

Fair enough Whif; I was drunk the night I set up my profile. :D What is KTD's excuse for writing the same question three ways, all equally unintelligible? Can you figure them out? If you can I'll buy you a beer in Manhatten. :lol:

Jon--Don't you think there have always been lesser (but perhaps still enjoyable) writers in any place/era of history? I mean the Elizabethan era gave us Shakespeare, but it also gave us Gorboduc (If you've never heard of it that's for the same reason people four hundred years from now may never have heard of the Stephen King book on your list ;) ). We tend to pick out some of the best talents from history to continue reading years later. It seems unfair to expect that the books coming off the press every day all measure up to the standards of these happy few.

Good point Petrach, I see what you're saying. What bothers me is that the producers of the books I listed don't even have a "standard" to measure up against, besides the one that calculates projected sales figures. I' d be curious to know if Gorboduc was driven by the same ambition. Perhaps the books that withstand the test of time become the Great Books, although Virgil makes a valid point about the so-called "great books" he dislikes. Gotcha. Thanks.

ktd222

03-15-2006, 10:53 PM

What is KTD's excuse for writing the same question three ways, all equally unintelligible? Can you figure them out?

ummm..ok
If you want to dodge the question, thats ok, or just STFU.

jon1jt

03-16-2006, 01:09 AM

ummm..ok
If you want to dodge the question, thats ok, or just STFU.

I honestly did not and still do not understand the question. I wasn't being sarcastic. You stated the question three ways and I still didn't get it. Is it just me? If you'd like to restate the question, I'll do my best to answer it like I did the first time when I gave you my top ten list. You're not being very nice telling me to STFU, but I forgive you.

jon1jt

03-16-2006, 02:18 AM

Best sellers have nothing to do with Barnes and Noble. Bestsellers are the books the public most buys by number bought. Look the general public are not English majors or philosophers. It's no different than television or sports. Come on, we shouldn't be so snobby. Everyone has what interests them. I particularly think that philosophy is boring. Does that make me vulgar? But then I love reading William Faulkner or James Joyce. Does that make me superior?

And what does this have to do with American? Are you saying that other publics don't have their popular literature? Have you seen the TV shows of other countries? Come on.

Why is it that I make a reasonable distinction between great books and garbage literature and immediately I'm cast as a snob? I refused and still refuse to defer my judgment of pop literature in the name of tolerance or some relativistic standard of what good Literature is. I respectfully disagree, "pop literature" is not Literature! The works of Shakespeare, Austen, Bronte, Joyce, Conrad, Hemingway, Miller, the list goes on and on, get you to think, they speak to the human condition, they open our eyes to who we are and why we're here in a way the others can't and never will. While these books weren't intended for such - given their all-too-predictable plot lines, endings, and watered-down narrative---it is, to my mind, worth the criticism, especially considering the corrosive effect these books are having on society in terms of "critical" reading habits. I'm just stating my opinion here like everyone else and I shouldn't be called a snob for doing so. Come on.

When somebody informs me that philosophy is a boring subject I tell them they're missing out on some thought-provoking ideas, ideas that are changing the world as I type, the way we think, the way we see ourselves in the world, notions of life and death, civil rights and liberties, morality, and so on. If everyone thought that way about philosophy, I truly wonder whether the modern world would have ever seen the development of a United Nations Charter, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the European Court, the European Union. I wonder what the basis for the Nuremburg decisions would have been had Euripides not irrevocably carved a distinction between the law of kings and natural law. I also wonder whether private organizations like the Red Cross, GreenPeace, Doctors Without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, Transparency International, and Human Rights Watch, would exist with the same moral and political legitimacy they have promoting world peace and stability. At the same time, I won't call people vulgar for holding such an opinion about philosophy. I will encourage them to read Plato's Apology or Aristotle's Ethics and after they're through ask them if they feel the same way about philosophy and pop literature. :D

The Unnamable

03-16-2006, 01:34 PM

Why is it that I make a reasonable distinction between great books and garbage literature and immediately I'm cast as a snob?
Because many people who post here despise intellect. Unfortunately, it really is as simple as that.

Petrarch's Love

03-16-2006, 02:39 PM

Oh yes, I for one dislike intellect intensely. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :D

Jon--Let me start out by saying that I agree with you in as far as the statement that some books are simply more thoughtful and of greater lasting interest than others. There are also definitely books that are one time or even no time reads. I am always hesitant, however, when it comes to making generalizing statements about "pop" literature being universally garbage. It sounds too much like judging a book by its cover, and such judgements, if carried too far, can lead to missing out on the next "great" writer when he/she comes along. After all, Shakespeare was once considered part of the popular culture of his time, and my grandparents, who are now in their eighties make casual references to that popular writer Hemingway. They remember him as the latest bestseller, not necessarily an enshrined genius of literature.

I have no desire to cast you as a snob. I myself have a deep love for "classic" literature and a desire to pass on the intellectual ideas of the past to coming generations. But there also is a place for the one time read. Sometimes it's nice to just have something fun to pass the time without having to be on critical alert. ;) "Lite Lit." also serves the purpose of just getting people reading. I've noticed with students and friends who are not big readers to begin with, but become interested in reading later, that they seldom go from reading next to nothing to reading Tolstoy. Usually someone has started with something that's entertaining and easy to read, and becomes interested in an expanding variety of books (including the classics) from there. The Da Vinci Code may not be immortal prose in and of itself (I haven't actually read it so I can't really give my personal judgement), but it made a friend of mine, who reads very little, ask me for resources on Renaissance Art History, which in turn has led to questions about philosophy... So things may not be as bleak as they appear.

blp

03-16-2006, 06:43 PM

Seems a good time to post a link to Susan Sontag's essay Against Interpretation (http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/sontag.html#B)

- not that it's against criticism, just a shift of emphasis from content to form.

Petrarch's Love

03-16-2006, 11:02 PM

BLP--Thanks for posting the Sontag. I first read that essay shortly before coming to grad. school, and I remember laughing out loud at the line, "the list is endless of those around whom thick encrustations of interpretation have taken hold." It is my goal as a critic to be as little of an encrustation as possible.:) And boy, I'd love to write a final line like that one at the end of one of my papers some day.

blp

03-16-2006, 11:19 PM

It's funny. It's one of the first critical essays I ever read and I'd forgotten lots of it, but I think it's shaped my attitude - even if I felt the need to take issue with it at the time. I love what she says about transparence: 'Transparence means experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are', and, a long time later, went on to love the filmmakers she says embody this quality.

Weirdly though, just after posting that essay, I turned on the TV to find a Freudian critic demonstrating how classic films are structured according to the id, the ego and the superego - exactly what Sontag would have reviled, but it was really interesting!

jon1jt

03-16-2006, 11:27 PM

Because many people who post here despise intellect. Unfortunately, it really is as simple as that.

I'm still somewhat of a newbie and so didn't expect that sort of gratuitous remark to come from somebody here. I'm learning. Unfortunate, yes it is. Thanks Unnamable.

Oh yes, I for one dislike intellect intensely. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :D

Jon--Let me start out by saying that I agree with you in as far as the statement that some books are simply more thoughtful and of greater lasting interest than others. There are also definately books that are one time or even no time reads. I am always hesitant, however, when it comes to making generalizing statements about "pop" literature being universally garbage. It sounds too much like judging a book by its cover, and such judgements, if carried too far, can lead to missing out on the next "great" writer when he/she comes along. After all, Shakespeare was once considered part of the popular culture of his time, and my grandparents, who are now in their eighties make casual references to that popular writer Hemingway. They remember him as the latest bestseller, not necessarily an enshrined genius of literature.

I have no desire to cast you as a snob. I myself have a deep love for "classic" literature and a desire to pass on the intellectual ideas of the past to coming generations. But there also is a place for the one time read. Sometimes it's nice to just have something fun to pass the time without having to be on critical alert. ;) "Lite Lit." also serves the purpose of just getting people reading. I've noticed with students and friends who are not big readers to begin with, but become interested in reading later, that they seldom go from reading next to nothing to reading Tolstoy. Usually someone has started with something that's entertaining and easy to read, and becomes interested in an expanding variety of books (including the classics) from there. The Da Vinci Code may not be immortal prose in and of itself (I haven't actually read it so I can't really give my personal judgement), but it made a friend of mine, who reads very little, ask me for resources on Renaissance Art History, which in turn has led to questions about philosophy... So things may not be as bleak as they appear.

I never intended to lump together pop literature books with those rare gems from the same genre that "make it." I consider, for example, The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova to be a terrific book. I'm not so sure, however, that the book and others like it (e.g. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale) will ever reach the "classic" list. I judge each book on its own merit. It's been my experience that the vast majority of popular literature books are garbage, so now I wait for friends whose reading taste I profoundly trust to recommend such books to me. :D I don't call snobbery having a high standard for the books one selects to read, especially considering the limited time people have to read.

Petrarch's Love

03-17-2006, 12:21 AM

I wait for friends whose reading taste I profoundly trust to recommend such books to me.

Clever--have friends seperate the wheat from the chaff for you. :)

I don't call snobbery having a high standard for the books one selects to read

Nor would I. ;)

PeterL

03-17-2006, 03:57 PM

blp

03-17-2006, 04:41 PM

Reading without interpretation is just looking at marks on paper. Interpretation takes the imitation and converts it into an ideal. I agree with Sontag that "In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art."

I'm not sure I follow this. If you think that reading without interpretation is just looking at marks on paper and you agree that we need to replace hermeneutics with erotics, are you calling for an erotics of marks on paper?

PeterL

03-17-2006, 05:09 PM

I'm not sure I follow this. If you think that reading without interpretation is just looking at marks on paper and you agree that we need to replace hermeneutics with erotics, are you calling for an erotics of marks on paper?

Please forgive me. I should have made two paragraphs.

Reading is the interpretations of words written on some medium. If readers do not interpret the marks on the page, then the marks are nothing more than marks. The comment was facetious but true.

"you agree that we need to replace hermeneutics with erotics, are you calling for an erotics of marks on paper?"

I am suggesting that Sontag made an interesting suggestion, but I believe that she was joking, and I was also, but interpretation of writing will almost always eventually lead to something erotic, because most humans are interested in the erotic most of the time. Whether something in directly or indirectly erotic is of little consequence, because humans are inherently erotic. Please excuse this, but in a face-to-face conversation this sequence of remarks might also lead to something erotic, depending on who I was having the conversation with.

blp

03-17-2006, 05:50 PM

Petrarch's Love

03-17-2006, 07:55 PM

I took 'erotic' to mean sensory in general rather than specifically sexual (though I wasn't sure if I was right to).

This is generally considered the primary meaning.

blp

03-17-2006, 08:39 PM

Oh, thanks. Wait - which is?

Petrarch's Love

03-17-2006, 08:50 PM

"sensory rather than specifically sexual"

blp

03-17-2006, 08:52 PM

Thanks. I really didn't know that.

kilted exile

03-17-2006, 08:58 PM

Ok, I been unbeliavbly busy at work so this is my first chance to reply.

Petrarch's Love is quite correct I did mean critical in the analysis of literary techniques sense. Sorry I did not make myself clearer originally, ( I'm sure it could have saved a lot of going round in circles).

Petrarch's Love

03-17-2006, 09:11 PM

( I'm sure it could have saved a lot of going round in circles).

But one gets such a lot accomplished going round in circles. :nod: As Donne wrote: "On a huge hill/ Cragged, and steep, Truth stands, and hee that will/ Reach her, about must, and about must go." Circular debate is good for us.

PeterL

03-18-2006, 09:49 AM

I was being a bit frivolous too, but I must say, it seems to me that Sontag, at least, was in earnest. I took 'erotic' to mean sensory in general rather than specifically sexual (though I wasn't sure if I was right to).

My interpretation is that she was looking for generality in interpretation, rather than interpretations based on prejudgement. What is more general than sex?

blp

03-18-2006, 12:43 PM

My interpretation is that she was looking for generality in interpretation, rather than interpretations based on prejudgement. What is more general than sex?

Um...dunno - generalisation in general? And aren't you generalising a bit yourself? You could equally say, 'What is more particular than sex?' I'm not convinced either statement would be terribly to the point, generalisations that they are.

In her opposition to the hermeneutic filters of Freudianism and Marxism, Sontag seems to be taking umbrage at generalisation in particular and to be arguing for critique based less on meaning than matter, if such an opposition can be said to be valid. To whit, she's interested in talking about why, or, probably more to the point, how a work of art matters to us experientially without the distantiating and generalising filter of ananlysis.

Your point, that every act of reading involves interpretation, pedantic as it is, does seem to present the biggest problem in understanding Sontag's essay as it would apply to literature. She begins by talking about Platonic and Aristotelian theorisations of art as mimetic, i.e. simulations of things they are not, and suggests that she's trying to move the debate away from this. But how can she when she's dealing with representational media such as literature or film? The word 'hand', is not a hand, just a representation of one - an arbitrary one at that, that not everyone would be able to read. Even a picture of a hand might not be immediately readable by someone from a culture that doesn't have a pictorial tradition .

It might be a thread that pulls the whole jumper apart, but if so, let's leave it for the moment and stick to what she's actually saying, which I think is fairly straightforward. She wants to accept the inherent mimetic qualities of many artforms and concentrate on what they are manifestly representing and not some other thing that they might be said to be representing, which is not present in the artwork. The tank in Bergman's The Silence is a tank, not a symbol of a phallus, in her schema. The material of the tank already matters enough - even as representation - and perhaps it matters too much for some people and that's why they start chattering away, analysing it.

PeterL

03-18-2006, 03:06 PM

Um...dunno - generalisation in general? And aren't you generalising a bit yourself? You could equally say, 'What is more particular than sex?' I'm not convinced either statement would be terribly to the point, generalisations that they are.

Generalizing!! You bet I was. Communication, of any sort, is generalizing so that others will understand a person experience.

In her opposition to the hermeneutic filters of Freudianism and Marxism, Sontag seems to be taking umbrage at generalisation in particular and to be arguing for critique based less on meaning than matter, if such an opposition can be said to be valid. To whit, she's interested in talking about why, or, probably more to the point, how a work of art matters to us experientially without the distantiating and generalising filter of ananlysis.

It was my impression that she was more opposed to the filters than to interpretation. Understanding a work of art is a matter of particularizing a generalization that was produced by another. Applying a filter created by another does not help in that process.

Your point, that every act of reading involves interpretation, pedantic as it is, does seem to present the biggest problem in understanding Sontag's essay as it would apply to literature. She begins by talking about Platonic and Aristotelian theorisations of art as mimetic, i.e. simulations of things they are not, and suggests that she's trying to move the debate away from this. But how can she when she's dealing with representational media such as literature or film? The word 'hand', is not a hand, just a representation of one - an arbitrary one at that, that not everyone would be able to read. Even a picture of a hand might not be immediately readable by someone from a culture that doesn't have a pictorial tradition .

It was my impression that she didn't like the Platonic and Aristotelian theorisations of art as mimetic, but she recognised that they were reasonable. Any semiotic system is built from signs that have been assigned meanings that are generally agreed upon. That is what any representation is. Without the agreement that a sign is a representation understanding can't exist, except with telepathy, in which case there is no repesentation.

It might be a thread that pulls the whole jumper apart, but if so, let's leave it for the moment and stick to what she's actually saying, which I think is fairly straightforward. She wants to accept the inherent mimetic qualities of many artforms and concentrate on what they are manifestly representing and not some other thing that they might be said to be representing, which is not present in the artwork. The tank in Bergman's The Silence is a tank, not a symbol of a phallus, in her schema. The material of the tank already matters enough - even as representation - and perhaps it matters too much for some people and that's why they start chattering away, analysing it.

If she did mean that, then there might be a problem, because in much art and literature there are second degree symbols; one sign standing for a different sign. If she wants to ignore those, she would miss a great deal. There are also examples of overinterpretation. If she was railing against interpretations of things that simply aren't there, then that's fine.

Aiculík

03-31-2007, 06:42 PM

No its definitely not wrong. One should always read for pleasure. If you read something just to have it read, or if you force yourself into reading it "critically", it won't left anything behind. At least that's my experience.

But reading critically and reading for pleasure don't have to be two different things. I love "decoding" the books. That's why I love modern, "open" books, like Eco's Pendulum, more than e.g. Dan Brown, but also classics like Dickens. I like the chanllenge that good book puts in front of me.

Jolly McJollyso

05-17-2007, 10:27 AM

This was inspired by a comment in the "best book you've ever read thread" about whether people read critically - dont remember off hand who wrote it.

I have been thinking about this since. I have no desire to read books "critically" I have to do enough analysis of different things at work, and I like to read for solely enjoyment. Is this wrong? Am I missing anything by not critically analyzing everything I read?
I critically analyze EVERYTHING I read. It's just become second nature to me, and I love doing it. If you don't like doing it, then good on you; it all depends on the reader.

Do or don't. Some people enjoy it, some don't. If it doesn't hinder your enjoyment of reading, continue the way you do it now.

Set of Keys

05-17-2007, 11:03 AM

Jolly McJollyso

05-17-2007, 01:38 PM

This is all very interesting.

I agree, critical reading can be intuitive and not necessarily worked out painstakingly with pencil and paper.

But I'm desperately bored by embedded cryptic symbols and even worse, symbols symbolising symbols. When reading becomes this mathmatical I lose all interest. And to me, the writer loses a good deal of credibility.
In fairness, "symbolism" (or a category of images with fixed symbolic meanings) hasn't been around since 19th century French Literature. What you're looking for in Modern Literature are metaphors.

Set of Keys

05-17-2007, 02:26 PM

Really? I'm not talking about anything as figurative as metaphor.

I'm being quite general I know, but I'm referring to cryptic codes, symbols and signs. These have all existed in Modern Literature.

Jolly McJollyso

05-17-2007, 02:28 PM

Really? I'm not talking about anything as figurative as metaphor.

I'm being quite general I know, but I'm referring to cryptic codes, symbols and signs. These have existed all in Modern Literature.
Tropes, then, you can call them. Or images. "Symbolism" is a very specific form of representative imagery.

Even college professors misapply the term, actually. It's pretty funny when one of the other department members calls them out, though.

Set of Keys

05-17-2007, 02:35 PM

Sorry, I should have been clear about what I meant by symbols. I wasn't referring to Symbolism and the Symbolism Movement.

I meant symbols and signs. Semiotics. Umberto Eco. That sort of thing.

Jolly McJollyso

05-17-2007, 02:50 PM

Sorry, I should have been clear about what I meant by symbols. I wasn't referring to Symbolism and the Symbolism Movement.

I meant symbols and signs. Semiotics. Umberto Eco. That sort of thing.
Ah, yes. Well, the thing about semiotics is it's a legitimate and wonderfully insightful field. Many authors do consciously bring abstractions, metaphors, and representative imagery into their writing. The problem, however, is that there are some poorer scholars out there who completely devalue the field with poor analysis and misinterpretation. Many scholars think that somehow some form of "symbolism" will descend from the heavens and absolve them from the need for close-reading. From there, we get a lot of simply BAD criticism that interprets a certain image as meaning something that simply doesn't follow through contextually througout the entire work.

Set of Keys

05-18-2007, 04:48 AM

"The problem, however, is that there are some poorer scholars out there who completely devalue the field with poor analysis and misinterpretation. Many scholars think that somehow some form of "symbolism" will descend from the heavens and absolve them from the need for close-reading. From there, we get a lot of simply BAD criticism that interprets a certain image as meaning something that simply doesn't follow through contextually througout the entire work".

I agree with this.

And I do find semiotics an intereting phenomenon. Ferdinand de Saussure has blown my mind more than once. But when applied to literature to convey meaning, it all gets a little cold-blooded and giddily premeditated for my tastes. I begin to distrust the author. And paradoxically, for me at least, the cloaked meaning becomes tainted or lost.

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 12:16 PM

Bumping this in light of the recent histrionics by some regarding the idea that people may *insert gasps and sound of people fainting* enjoy reading just for reading and not as an exercise in literary analysis

My position remains unchanged from my OP. I still see no need for it.

wessexgirl

07-19-2009, 12:23 PM

This is from the Harry Potter thread. I thought it was apt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
But why he can not over-analyse it. To me it seems like he deals with all books this way, why he can not be free to do as he please? Just because the results he produces are negative?

Because sometimes people just want to read and enjoy a book, without having every comma, full-stop and sentence ripped to shreds, particularly when the book which is getting said treatment is supposed to be an enjoyable adventure entertainment for children. We don't have to have a lecture on literary criticism for every book ever mentioned. I know this is a literature forum, but to take apart a book aimed at children, and try to demolish it, and those who enjoy it, is tedious in the extreme, not to mention patronising.

MarkBastable

07-19-2009, 12:24 PM

How does one read uncritically? Even if you think something as simple as "I like this" or "I don't like this" you're reading critically. And I can't see how one can avoid doing that.

Anything further is simply an extension of that unbidden thought - but it's all criticism.

JCamilo

07-19-2009, 12:24 PM

I am puzzled because you think there is only one way of reading wiht pleasure. Apparently, critical reading is a torture!

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 12:36 PM

At times yes it is. At times reading is mindless escapism.

MarkBastable

07-19-2009, 12:38 PM

At times yes it is. At times reading is mindless escapism.

So when you're reading for mindless escapism, you don't have any view as to whether you're enjoying it or not?

JCamilo

07-19-2009, 12:40 PM

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 12:41 PM

islandclimber

07-19-2009, 12:59 PM

and I have no problem of reading just for the sake of reading.. but when it is mindlessly reading "relative" trash, please don't claim that it provides more benefit than just entertainment, is all...

MarkBastable

07-19-2009, 12:59 PM

now earlier in this thread we went round in some circles cos I didnt explain myself fully on the subject of what I mean by "critically" I mean here critical analysis of literary technique. I do use small c criticism in the original deciding whether I enjoy the story enough to continue reading it.

Okay.

Then, for me, yes, it is necessary.

I have never read for mindless escapism. What I like about fiction is the engagement with the writing - and that means how it's done as well as what it's about. That, to me, is entertainment. If I didn't do that, I wouldn't enjoy reading at all.

Incidentally, this is not because I think that writing is in some way special. I watch TV and movies the same way. It doesn't detract at all from Two and Half Men to notice how cleverly the plot is constructed, or how a gag in the last few minute was set up so carefully at two or three earlier points in the show, or what the inherent rules are that govern the internally-consistent world of the Harpers.

Come to think of it, I don't do anything mindlessly. I'm not sure I'd even know how to. How do you disengage your mind?

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 01:03 PM

and I have no problem of reading just for the sake of reading.. but when it is mindlessly reading "relative" trash, please don't claim that it provides more benefit than just entertainment, is all...

I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16.

Come to think of it, I don't do anything mindlessly. I'm not sure I'd even know how to. How do you disengage your mind?

Lots of practice;). I find it necessarry every once in a while - it helps me relax & unwind after a long day without still thinking about work

JCamilo

07-19-2009, 01:03 PM

The question is that those arguing you can read just for reading sake, bring freedom to justify themselves, forgetting those who are over-analisying are using their own freedom. True freedom is not doing anything you want, is allowing others to do what they want.

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 01:05 PM

JC - I think you are seeing things that arent there. I havent made any claims that people shouldnt read critically. As usual with me it is a case of "whatever floats yer boat"

JCamilo

07-19-2009, 01:10 PM

No worries, it not specifically towards to you, but the overall discussion that re-started this thread.

islandclimber

07-19-2009, 01:11 PM

I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16.

Lots of practice;). I find it necessarry every once in a while - it helps me relax & unwind after a long day without still thinking about work

oh that comment wasn't aimed at you, just in general, as there have been way too many debates on the benefits of reading "relatively" mediocre writing..

weltanschauung

07-19-2009, 01:49 PM

No, the problem is that they think one ceases to be while reading. They think critical reading is a job, not a form of relationship with books. A Critical reader enjoys as much as anyone, but they equate enjoyment with liking the book. But of course, since you can only know how much you liked the book after you finish, they advice critical readers to predict the future and avoid certain books.

critical reading is natural, you dont have to force yourself to do it. if youre liking the book, its because your subconscious criticism regarding the book is positive. and when youre reading something and not liking it, its because your criticism regarding it is negative. if you read something you cant quite formulate a critical view over, its certainly because you dont fully understand what youre reading.
you can read something you completely despise and still be unable to stop reading it, so that you can hate it more thoroughly. but most of the times you just leave it cause it doesnt interest you. that is critical reading nonetheless.

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 02:06 PM

MarkBastable

07-19-2009, 02:30 PM

ah but welt that is what I think we would all agree is "small c" criticism - not large C involving thought on why the authors use of repeated short sentences increase the feeling of tension in a section of a novel as an example. The small c is natural, but I would contend the other is not.

It is natural to me, I think. It might be that the terminology I'd use to discuss it is acquired, but the impulse to do it is pretty much in my nature. And, actually, although the terminology might be constructed, I'd argue that the stuff it is used to describe would be there anyway.

In other words, the conventions and techniques that criticism addresses are inherent to writing, like crystalline structure is inherent to snow. And it's possible to be interested in that without having any idea at all about the behaviour of water freezing at high altitude. As it happens, the people who are interested will tend to learn about how it happens - but it would happen anyway, and the interest in it can be entirely spontaneous, entirely unlearned.

Virgil

07-19-2009, 04:40 PM

I responded somewheree towards the beginning of this thread (first page) and my thoughts from back then still hold. No it is not important to read critically. If you don't want to, why the hell should you? You're not in school any more. You can do what you want. Whatever gives you enjoyment, then that's what you should do.

plainjane

07-19-2009, 04:49 PM

I agree with you Virgil, however I do find it more fulfilling to closely analyze some authors. Granted not all, some books are just a cracking good ride.

Morden

07-19-2009, 05:12 PM

For me reading critically gives me a greater appreciation of the book.
Just now finished Milan Kundera's The Joke and I feel that I am going to go back and look at it closely, now that I know how he wanted the ending to turn out. It will probably explain why he created such an insufferable main character in the first place. Otherwise it will remain a very tedious book in my memory and barely worth the effort.

stlukesguild

07-19-2009, 06:14 PM

Hmmm... seems I've been missing out on a spirited discussion/debate... but then I do need to spend some time in my studio working on my art... and I do actually need some time to read (imagine that!:lol:)

I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16...

That reminds me of the old anecdote about Einstein. Introduced to some cute young thing at a dinner gathering she asked the scientist what he did for a living. Einstein replied, "I'm studying physics." "Oh," she replied, "I finished studying that already." As an educator I am continually bombarded with the cliche that we must motivate children to be "lifelong learners." While it sounds hokey, being a lifelong learner seems to me to be a real ideal to strive for. My own love of literature and art and music certainly are rooted in a passion for learning. Of course I take the view that learning need not be something painful... learning is a pleasure. I probably do not consciously make the same degree of an attempt to tear every book apart and analyze it to the hilt as someone like JBI might... but then he is a student majoring in literature with an eye on an academic career in literary criticism. On the other hand, I do not "mindlessly" read, either. Having a read a decent amount of literature and some small bit of literary comment and analysis I certainly cannot approach a bit of fluff or crap writing without some knowledge of how this compares to far better examples within the same genre. The reason that a book we read at age 16 is not the same when we read it again at 35 and once more at 60 is because we have changed and we cannot read "mindlessly". When we read we bring all that we have experienced in literature and in life to our reading. I personally cannot even fathom the notion of knowingly reading trash just for the "pleasure" because I cannot imagine what degree of pleasure such an experience would bring in comparison to something far more intelligent. I realize that Mallarme's famous expression of ennui ("The flesh is sad, alas, and I have read all the books...") was but a rhetorical flourish. There are far too many books that I wish to read... and like J.L. Borges I suspect there are even those among my shelves that I shall never get to for time is limited. But on with the discussion...

Zee.

07-19-2009, 06:24 PM

For me, it totally depends on the book i'm reading.

Some books are for pure entertainment, and just.. enjoyment of the story itself. Others are to make observations of types of people, or place, or situations - others I read to gather an understanding of particular things etc,

However, I will not read a book, no matter what it offers in language or.. whatever it may be, if it is boring. Every book I read must make me want to turn the page or else I can't be bothered with it, no matter how well "regarded" it is.

I prefer to read for pure entertainment though. I follow the characters and naturally analyze the characters like I do with people.

I also find that a lot of the novels people read to analyze and break down to the bone, I just read for entertainment.

Reading through some of the comments, what Kilted is saying is pretty clear, and I am on the same page as him with books.
It's interesting talking to people and finding out why exactly they read, a lot of people completely disregard the story itself and choose to just analyze themes or language. I treat books like a good movie. I read them because they're exciting, and my ability to take them with me anywhere makes them that much better :)

islandclimber

07-19-2009, 06:31 PM

Zee.

07-19-2009, 06:43 PM

but with modern technology you can take a movie anywhere with you too? and well, if it is purely entertainment one seeks, well, why not just watch a movie instead?

Because I like to read. It's a lot more personal than watching a movie. When I say that i read for "entertainment" I don't read books that enable me to turn my brain off completely. I like to follow the story, i like being able to put it down when I can, and I find reading an interesting and exciting story better than watching one. William Faulkner is my favourite author and I refuse to critically analyze any of his work, simply because I absolutely love his stories. That's my decision.

Critically analyzing every book you read must get tedious and tiring, i would hate to do it.

I study both English and Literature, and most of the time, it destroys my love for a particular book.

Do you not read for the simple gift of being entertained? do you not read books that are just, so thrilling, that you can't put them down, and all you choose to focus on is the story itself?

How do you read?

kilted exile

07-19-2009, 06:43 PM

Hmmm... seems I've been missing out on a spirited discussion/debate... but then I do need to spend some time in my studio working on my art... and I do actually need some time to read (imagine that!:lol:)
Well it is a quite old discussion, lots of the current active posters werent about when I first started the thread.

That reminds me of the old anecdote about Einstein. Introduced to some cute young thing at a dinner gathering she asked the scientist what he did for a living. Einstein replied, "I'm studying physics." "Oh," she replied, "I finished studying that already." As an educator I am continually bombarded with the cliche that we must motivate children to be "lifelong learners." While it sounds hokey, being a lifelong learner seems to me to be a real ideal to strive for. My own love of literature and art and music certainly are rooted in a passion for learning. Of course I take the view that learning need not be something painful... learning is a pleasure. I probably do not consciously make the same degree of an attempt to tear every book apart and analyze it to the hilt as someone like JBI might... but then he is a student majoring in literature with an eye on an academic career in literary criticism. On the other hand, I do not "mindlessly" read, either. Having a read a decent amount of literature and some small bit of literary comment and analysis I certainly cannot approach a bit of fluff or crap writing without some knowledge of how this compares to far better examples within the same genre. The reason that a book we read at age 16 is not the same when we read it again at 35 and once more at 60 is because we have changed and we cannot read "mindlessly". When we read we bring all that we have experienced in literature and in life to our reading. I personally cannot even fathom the notion of knowingly reading trash just for the "pleasure" because I cannot imagine what degree of pleasure such an experience would bring in comparison to something far more intelligent. I realize that Mallarme's famous expression of ennui ("The flesh is sad, alas, and I have read all the books...") was but a rhetorical flourish. There are far too many books that I wish to read... and like J.L. Borges I suspect there are even those among my shelves that I shall never get to for time is limited. But on with the discussion...

When I referred to stopping studying lit at 16, I mean in the sense that that was the point I stopped taking any organised classes in the subject. My reading now is mainly for escapism and the story rather than for artistic merit or any other "lofty" ideal, with the exception of non-fiction I read to gain a better understanding of subjects that interest me.

It is always interesting to me though when I think that the "standard" of lit I have read since then is a lot better than what I read as assigned reading (I was put in the idiot class for english at school because I was on the science path instead) I read shakespeare for fun, and fairly recently went on a travel through the epics. But none of this interferes at all with my ability to enjoy a page-turner by grisham.

but with modern technology you can take a movie anywhere with you too? and well, if it is purely entertainment one seeks, well, why not just watch a movie instead?

cos sometimes I feel like reading a book instead of watching a movie. I watch plenty movies too.

Mathor

07-19-2009, 07:04 PM

I would certainly put myself in the "entertainment" category. And that does not mean that I read fluff or I read trash. I find Steinbeck and Dostoevsky and Austen to be

1. hilarious
2. moving
3. entertaining

Perhaps I take the same analysis I take with me as a film buff. I have a critical eye, but that critical eye exists around my general entertainment. As many film critics say, "you take every film you've ever seen with you into the theater." I take the films I have seen to compare to the new movies I will see. If a movie really just has all the same exact elements of a movie i've seen ten years ago, then no, that movie is not enjoyable to me, and no, that movie is NOT good.

That's how I view literature. I compare new literature to classics I've read before, if it surpasses what I've read before, then it is certainly a good book. I certainly read for entertainment, but good art is what is entertaining to me. I don't turn off my mind to be entertained. I am entertained by expanding my mind.

Zee.

07-19-2009, 07:07 PM

I think there is a common misconception that reading for entertainment equates to "shutting off your mind"

that's not true at all..

I mean, when I listen to music and watch movies for "entertainment" i don't sit there like a mindless zombie.

I find that the most thought out, rich, complex movies are often the most entertaining, anyway.

And yeah Austen, like Mathor said, I don't always analyze. I find her writing to be entertaining and simply.. enjoyable, because like a lot of other books I love, I develop an attachment or a "relationship" with the characters and i'm therefore curious to see how their "journey" unravels.

In short, i can't imagine not reading for entertainment. And it needs to be said that, if you're reading a book that doesn't entertain you in the slightest, it must be pretty damn boring.

I guess it comes down to what you want to gain from reading, what YOU want out of it

Drkshadow03

07-19-2009, 07:08 PM

I would certainly put myself in the "entertainment" category. And that does not mean that I read fluff or I read trash. I find Steinbeck and Dostoevsky and Austen to be

1. hilarious
2. moving
3. entertaining

Perhaps I take the same analysis I take with me as a film buff. I have a critical eye, but that critical eye exists around my general entertainment. As many film critics say, "you take every film you've ever seen with you into the theater." I take the films I have seen to compare to the new movies I will see. If a movie really just has all the same exact elements of a movie i've seen ten years ago, then no, that movie is not enjoyable to me, and no, that movie is NOT good.

That's how I view literature. I compare new literature to classics I've read before, if it surpasses what I've read before, then it is certainly a good book. I certainly read for entertainment, but good art is what is entertaining to me. I don't turn of my mind to be entertained. I am entertained by expanding my mind.

Exactly!!!!!!

Mathor

07-19-2009, 07:18 PM

In short, i can't imagine not reading for entertainment. And it needs to be said that, if you're reading a book that doesn't entertain you in the slightest, it must be pretty damn boring.

I guess it comes down to what you want to gain from reading, what YOU want out of it

I just think the entire of point of art is for the reader/viewer/listener/ to become immersed in the atmosphere set up for them. It's quite a miserable existence if that is not the case, when we've analyzed to the point that we've destroyed the art of it.

islandclimber

07-19-2009, 07:36 PM

Do you not read for the simple gift of being entertained? do you not read books that are just, so thrilling, that you can't put them down, and all you choose to focus on is the story itself?

How do you read?

I do read to be entertained.. of course, if I didn't find reading entertaining I would not read.. but I also don't just read purely for the storyline, otherwise I could just read a brief synopsis of the storyline and invent the story in my own head.. I read because I love the artistic side of reading which is why I read poetry quite often.. I love the language of metaphor and simile.. I love vivid imagery..

when I read, I often read a book entirely in one sitting, or as quickly as I can neglecting other commitments, such as work... but I read it while analysing the story, the plot, the characters, and yes, the language... I don't enjoy sloppy mediocre writing, cliche-ridden writing, stylistically ordinary writing, imaginatively derivative writing, vague writing, cumbersome plots, the lack of any social commentary, or inadequate social commentary at best... I don't enjoy reading trash no matter how entertaining or captivating the storyline may be...

now I watch movies much in the same way, except the occasional trash action or romantic comedy movie I may watch when tired just for something to do... I analyse, and think about what I'm watching.. which is why I prefer what many may call boring movies over the smash summer blockbusters that are the Harry Potter's and the Twilight's of the book world (literally now the film world as well)...

but as this began with Potter, I'll leave you with a quote and a link... from Harold Bloom:

And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages. Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.

A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies.

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

Zee.

07-19-2009, 07:57 PM

I do read to be entertained.. of course, if I didn't find reading entertaining I would not read.. but I also don't just read purely for the storyline, otherwise I could just read a brief synopsis of the storyline and invent the story in my own head.. I read because I love the artistic side of reading which is why I read poetry quite often.. I love the language of metaphor and simile.. I love vivid imagery..

when I read, I often read a book entirely in one sitting, or as quickly as I can neglecting other commitments, such as work... but I read it while analysing the story, the plot, the characters, and yes, the language... I don't enjoy sloppy mediocre writing, cliche-ridden writing, stylistically ordinary writing, imaginatively derivative writing, vague writing, cumbersome plots, the lack of any social commentary, or inadequate social commentary at best... I don't enjoy reading trash no matter how entertaining or captivating the storyline may be...

now I watch movies much in the same way, except the occasional trash action or romantic comedy movie I may watch when tired just for something to do... I analyse, and think about what I'm watching.. which is why I prefer what many may call boring movies over the smash summer blockbusters that are the Harry Potter's and the Twilight's of the book world (literally now the film world as well)...

but as this began with Potter, I'll leave you with a quote and a link... from Harold Bloom:

And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages. Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.

A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies.

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

Yeah i understand what you're saying, and I don't want to be put on the shelf as a reader who reads SOLELY for entertainment.

I pull different things from both movies and books. I watch the Harry Potter movies because they're simply enjoyable to me - just like the books. They were part of my childhood.

Most of the books I read for entertainment are pretty well regarded anyway. Faulkner, Steinbeck, Austen, Capote.. are amongst my favourites.

I write a lot myself, so i'm always looking for books with beautiful language, etc, so when I say that i read for "entertainment" obviously it is not only "entertainment" that I look for. I think that's one of the problems, that people who do enjoy a bit of trash every now and then, face. They seem to have this.. misconception attached to them, that they can't appreciate finer literature, etc

If i want to engage my mind and learn something new, which is quite often, the movie i'll choose to watch, the book i'll choose to read, will be a lot different to the book or movie I want to read because i've had a busy/bad day etc, and just want to chill out.

I guess you could look at it like this: take two people, both enjoy "fine" literature, etc, and both, like every other person on the planet, needs to "unwind" at some point. One, may find the ability to relax through sport, the other.. may find that through "trashy" books, movies, or music etc

it doesn't mean that they both can't appreciate literature of a finer standard. Books, all books, assist us in different ways.

islandclimber

07-19-2009, 08:08 PM

Yeah i understand what you're saying, and I don't want to be put on the shelf as a reader who reads SOLELY for entertainment.

I pull different things from both movies and books. I watch the Harry Potter movies because they're simply enjoyable to me - just like the books. They were part of my childhood.

Most of the books I read for entertainment are pretty well regarded anyway. Faulkner, Steinbeck, Austen, Capote.. are amongst my favourites.

I write a lot myself, so i'm always looking for books with beautiful language, etc, so when I say that i read for "entertainment" obviously it is not only "entertainment" that I look for. I think that's one of the problems, that people who do enjoy a bit of trash every now and then, face. They seem to have this.. misconception attached to them, that they can't appreciate finer literature, etc

If i want to engage my mind and learn something new, which is quite often, the movie i'll choose to watch, the book i'll choose to read, will be a lot different to the book or movie I want to read because i've had a busy/bad day etc, and just want to chill out.

I guess you could look at it like this: take two people, both enjoy "fine" literature, etc, and both, like every other person on the planet, needs to "unwind" at some point. One, may find the ability to relax through sport, the other.. may find that through "trashy" books, movies, or music etc

it doesn't mean that they both can't appreciate literature of a finer standard. Books, all books, assist us in different ways.

Oh I agree with you completely, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people reading trash and to be honest I wouldn't even generally call it such, maybe mediocre writing is better... the storylines can be and often are very entertaining and captivating... I'll admit that even the Harry Potter storyline can be entertaining..

what I object to, is the statement that reading authors like Rowling, King, Meyer, Clancy, Cussler, etc. is of benefit beyond purely entertainment.. for it isn't in my opinion..

but of course some who read these authors will also greatly enjoy great literature, the majority won't, but no matter, some will and I have no problem with this, why should I? I just don't like the argument that these books are beneficial, as it leads me to the belief that these books will someday soon be spoonfed in the education system...

Zee.

07-19-2009, 08:32 PM

Oh I agree with you completely, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people reading trash and to be honest I wouldn't even generally call it such, maybe mediocre writing is better... the storylines can be and often are very entertaining and captivating... I'll admit that even the Harry Potter storyline can be entertaining..

what I object to, is the statement that reading authors like Rowling, King, Meyer, Clancy, Cussler, etc. is of benefit beyond purely entertainment.. for it isn't in my opinion..

but of course some who read these authors will also greatly enjoy great literature, the majority won't, but no matter, some will and I have no problem with this, why should I? I just don't like the argument that these books are beneficial, as it leads me to the belief that these books will someday soon be spoonfed in the education system...

No I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think anyone is arguing that you can pull out from Harry Potter.. what you can from Dostoyevsky. I certainly can't, and it is the argument of a child to believe so. In my opinion anyway.

The point i'm making is that, "trash", and yeah, a lot of the "trash" i read isn't really.. "trash" either, serves a different purpose to a lot of other literature, and that just because one chooses to indulge in it from time to time, doesn't mean they can't appreciate or take away the same understanding of a higher standard of literature.

When i can't sleep or when I feel like being "captivated" by a story, when I want to read something "thrilling", i usually turn to "mediocre" writing. Books which I believe, are designed for the sole purpose of simply being entertaining.

When I want to engage my mind and when I want to learn something new, and grow as a person, I turn to literature of a much higher standard.

The point i'm making is that they do serve different purposes, and whether someone likes the Harry Potter series or not, Rowling's ability to captivate people, to create this wonderful atmosphere in her work, and her ability to tell a story is undeniable. I think a lot of great writers fail where an author like her or King succeeds.