Is it necessary to read critically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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!)

sdr4jc,

Quote:

---

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.

[QUOTE=Petrarch's Love]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:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

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. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

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? ;)

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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?

Quote:

---

It's a matter not of seperation but of degree.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
Let me count how many times I've said the above:

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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: