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?
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
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?
There's no law that says you have to. To me, it's one and the same, I do it instinctively. Things jump out at me—comparisons between characters, symbolism in scenery,—and it adds to my understanding, and hence enjoyment, of the book. But if you're reading for pleasure, and rooting out plot points doesn't please you, then I see no sense in doing it.
If you had to live with this you'd rather lie than fall.
You think I can't fly? Well, you just watch me!
~The Dresden Dolls
I agree with Emily: I enjoy reading critically. I love picking up on subtext, intertextuality, sneaky symbolism and whatnot. I love wondering if the writer is trying to trick me into going someplace. I may not always agree with a writer's viewpoint, so that just makes it all the more fun to figure him/her out. Especially since a lot of books, I believe, are written to be read critically. But as for necessary... no. To each his own.
Funny thing is, I find my reading getting more and more critical over the last few years. Which means I have a ton of books I need to re-read since I originally read them in a much more "get-to-the-ending" way. "'Crime And Punishment'? That's about a guy who beats an old lady to death, isn't it?"
But the time ain't tall, yet on time you depend
And no word is possessed by no special friend
And though the line is cut it ain't quite the end,
I'll just bid farewell till we meet again.
- Bob Dylan
Good question. Good answers. I like Rachel's simile. Do you enjoy a commentator disecting a sports play? Do you enjoy the sport more when you understand a subtle nuance? Same thing with literature. You don't need the critical analysis to enjoy a particular work. But to some it adds to the enjoyment. To some it is too much.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
No, given the circumstances you mention, it is most definitely not wrong. I can relate to what you are saying. Like you, I need to analyze things at work, and when I get free time I read for sheer amusement. It's like letting your brains off the leash. Reading takes my mind off work.Originally Posted by kilted exile
The way I see it, it depends on what you read, and why...
If you read for pleasure, I see no need to read critically (unless you want to, of course). Then again, if you read something in order to base an important decision on it: Different story...
/Claes
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), 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.
"In rime sparse il suono/ di quei sospiri ond' io nudriva 'l core/ in sul mio primo giovenile errore"~ Francesco Petrarca
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can."~ Jane Austen
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.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?
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.
Is this the case? I hope not. Why would anybody be amazed by someone they can't understand?That is why an artist is known by his works because many are amazed by a mystery they do not understand
Good point, especially with poets.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.
This ^^ happens to me all of the time, in fact, it's a cherished part of my life!
"Don't matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house, they are company and don't let me catch you remarking on their ways like you were so high and mighty."
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.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
Last edited by Virgil; 03-11-2006 at 10:16 PM.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
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.
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.
I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew.
1. No. Why would it be wrong?Is this wrong? Am I missing anything by not critically analyzing everything I read?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
