Is it necessary to read critically?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-14-2006, 12:46 AM
ktd222

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
03-14-2006, 01:58 AM
jon1jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktd222

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
03-14-2006, 02:02 AM
ktd222

No, I mean a NY Bestseller-like list from where you're from.
03-14-2006, 02:22 AM
jon1jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktd222

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.
03-14-2006, 02:34 AM
ktd222

Quote:

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?
03-14-2006, 07:46 AM
Whifflingpin

"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.
03-14-2006, 08:24 AM
Virgil

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:
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.
03-14-2006, 08:43 AM
Grumbleguts

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!

Have you read all of these? Or any of them? This looks more like an example of mindless criticism rather than mindless reading. Although I must admit that I wouldn't want the job of critically reading this ****! :D
03-14-2006, 10:33 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by “bluevictim”

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)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “bluevictim”

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “bluevictim”

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “bluevictim”

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “bluevictim”

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
03-14-2006, 05:15 PM
bluevictim

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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

Thanks for the glimpse!
03-14-2006, 06:57 PM
emily655321

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.
03-14-2006, 07:25 PM
Scheherazade

A small reminder:

The topic of discussion in this thread is 'Is it necessary to read critically?'
03-14-2006, 08:43 PM
emily655321

Sorry, Scher.
03-14-2006, 09:57 PM
The Unnamable

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. ;)
03-15-2006, 12:12 AM
Petrarch's Love

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page