Reading Perspectives and Angles

[sk2]

I was just wanting to explore what kind of angles one might use in reading
literature. I usually find it more insightful in reading a text when I have some
sort of angle from which to read the text from. For instance:

a)Reading from the point of view of theme
Sometimes I like to read by relating how the text relates to a particular theme.
For instance, alienation in the works of Kafka.

b)Reading for the language
Other times I will read a text for its inherent use of poetic language.
For example, reading Proust seems more suited to just feeling the flow and quality of the verbal impressions.

It seems to me that different texts and authors emphasize certain perspectives
and angles of reading more than others.

Can you name an author or a work and describe what angle or angles you think is most emphasized?
Do you tend to read using a multiple of angles or just thinking of one single angle applied to the text at a time?

[Ceile]

Personally I would read a text with an open mind first, before starting to analyze it. If it's for an essay and you already know what kind of perspective you need or the certain aspects of the work you are looking for then it is effective. However if you are trying to understand the work as a whole and get the most out of it then I feel like reading it with a clear mind and then re-reading will not only let you understand it more, but find things you may have overlooked the first time. There are just so many different aspects to a piece of literature that reading it solely from one angle or one perspective and leaving it at that leaves a lot to be desired from the complete work. It's like reading Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" or "A Modest Proposal" from only a literal point of view, instead of figuratively as well. Or say you read anything by Shakespeare; you could read it for the use of his language, use of wit, the actual plot, character development, etc. It completely depends on what I'm reading for, but to appreciate the work in its entirety I try to analyze it based on multiple angles; I can't pick just one!

[JBI]

Those all are parts of Narratology - that being one branch of literary criticism.

Generally, the Abrams Triangle still hold - we are either Pragmatic, Mimetic, Expressive or objective. Objective is an ideal here, therefore is not capitalized.

We mostly fall into those camps, though most people mix tinges of each. Pragmatic criticism deals with how the audience interprets, mimetic criticism deals with the world in relation to the text, expressive criticism deals with the artist/author who wrote the work, and objective, would, by any admission, deal with the text - this is generally to the tune of glossing vocabulary, and editing textual errors.

On another level, criticism is divided really into history and theory - history seeing why historically literature developed, and how it reflects a history, and theory dealing with a philosophy of how notions of what is reading, literature, and a text develop. Both are popular, though history seems to be more enduring.

[kelby_lake]

First off I just read the novel/poem, then I pick out anything that jumps out at me. Certain novels lend themselves to certain types of reading- such as The Great Gatsby and symbolism- but you can take any angle you want.

[mal4mac]

I prefer reclining at an obtuse angle and just read the book!

"I rejoice to concur with the common reader; for by the common sense of readers, uncorrupted by literary prejudices, after all the refinements of subtety and the dogmatism of learning, must be generally decided all claims to poetical honours." - Dr Johnson

[mal4mac]

I prefer to recline at an obtuse angle and just read the book!

"I rejoice to concur with the common reader; for by the common sense of readers, uncorrupted by literary prejudices, after all the refinements of subtety and the dogmatism of learning, must be generally decided all claims to poetical honours." - Dr Johnson