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.
Printable View
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.Quote:
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.
Who am I to argue with Goethe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goethe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktd222
"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.
What? So which side are you taking?Quote:
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.
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..."
Hey, there is no such phenomena!Quote:
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
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.
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:
There are a variety of possible reactions to this speech:Quote:
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.
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.
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:Quote:
I do not understand this need to separate "critical reading" from "mindless reading" (somebody called it frivolous reading)
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)?Quote:
This idea that we readers employ modes of reading is silly.
: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. :DQuote:
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.
The two are not exclusive.Quote:
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.
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."Quote:
The two are not exclusive.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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?