I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16.Originally Posted by islandclimber
Lots of practice. I find it necessarry every once in a while - it helps me relax & unwind after a long day without still thinking about work
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
The question is that those arguing you can read just for reading sake, bring freedom to justify themselves, forgetting those who are over-analisying are using their own freedom. True freedom is not doing anything you want, is allowing others to do what they want.
JC - I think you are seeing things that arent there. I havent made any claims that people shouldnt read critically. As usual with me it is a case of "whatever floats yer boat"
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
No worries, it not specifically towards to you, but the overall discussion that re-started this thread.
I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16.
Lots of practice
oh that comment wasn't aimed at you, just in general, as there have been way too many debates on the benefits of reading "relatively" mediocre writing..
critical reading is natural, you dont have to force yourself to do it. if youre liking the book, its because your subconscious criticism regarding the book is positive. and when youre reading something and not liking it, its because your criticism regarding it is negative. if you read something you cant quite formulate a critical view over, its certainly because you dont fully understand what youre reading.
you can read something you completely despise and still be unable to stop reading it, so that you can hate it more thoroughly. but most of the times you just leave it cause it doesnt interest you. that is critical reading nonetheless.
ah but welt that is what I think we would all agree is "small c" criticism - not large C involving thought on why the authors use of repeated short sentences increase the feeling of tension in a section of a novel as an example. The small c is natural, but I would contend the other is not.
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
It is natural to me, I think. It might be that the terminology I'd use to discuss it is acquired, but the impulse to do it is pretty much in my nature. And, actually, although the terminology might be constructed, I'd argue that the stuff it is used to describe would be there anyway.
In other words, the conventions and techniques that criticism addresses are inherent to writing, like crystalline structure is inherent to snow. And it's possible to be interested in that without having any idea at all about the behaviour of water freezing at high altitude. As it happens, the people who are interested will tend to learn about how it happens - but it would happen anyway, and the interest in it can be entirely spontaneous, entirely unlearned.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 07-19-2009 at 02:32 PM.
I responded somewheree towards the beginning of this thread (first page) and my thoughts from back then still hold. No it is not important to read critically. If you don't want to, why the hell should you? You're not in school any more. You can do what you want. Whatever gives you enjoyment, then that's what you should do.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I agree with you Virgil, however I do find it more fulfilling to closely analyze some authors. Granted not all, some books are just a cracking good ride.
For me reading critically gives me a greater appreciation of the book.
Just now finished Milan Kundera's The Joke and I feel that I am going to go back and look at it closely, now that I know how he wanted the ending to turn out. It will probably explain why he created such an insufferable main character in the first place. Otherwise it will remain a very tedious book in my memory and barely worth the effort.
"I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita." -- Vladimir Nabokov
Hmmm... seems I've been missing out on a spirited discussion/debate... but then I do need to spend some time in my studio working on my art... and I do actually need some time to read (imagine that!)
I make no pretension of my reading being any more beneficial than any other form of entertainment - I stopped "studying" literature at 16...
That reminds me of the old anecdote about Einstein. Introduced to some cute young thing at a dinner gathering she asked the scientist what he did for a living. Einstein replied, "I'm studying physics." "Oh," she replied, "I finished studying that already." As an educator I am continually bombarded with the cliche that we must motivate children to be "lifelong learners." While it sounds hokey, being a lifelong learner seems to me to be a real ideal to strive for. My own love of literature and art and music certainly are rooted in a passion for learning. Of course I take the view that learning need not be something painful... learning is a pleasure. I probably do not consciously make the same degree of an attempt to tear every book apart and analyze it to the hilt as someone like JBI might... but then he is a student majoring in literature with an eye on an academic career in literary criticism. On the other hand, I do not "mindlessly" read, either. Having a read a decent amount of literature and some small bit of literary comment and analysis I certainly cannot approach a bit of fluff or crap writing without some knowledge of how this compares to far better examples within the same genre. The reason that a book we read at age 16 is not the same when we read it again at 35 and once more at 60 is because we have changed and we cannot read "mindlessly". When we read we bring all that we have experienced in literature and in life to our reading. I personally cannot even fathom the notion of knowingly reading trash just for the "pleasure" because I cannot imagine what degree of pleasure such an experience would bring in comparison to something far more intelligent. I realize that Mallarme's famous expression of ennui ("The flesh is sad, alas, and I have read all the books...") was but a rhetorical flourish. There are far too many books that I wish to read... and like J.L. Borges I suspect there are even those among my shelves that I shall never get to for time is limited. But on with the discussion...
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
For me, it totally depends on the book i'm reading.
Some books are for pure entertainment, and just.. enjoyment of the story itself. Others are to make observations of types of people, or place, or situations - others I read to gather an understanding of particular things etc,
However, I will not read a book, no matter what it offers in language or.. whatever it may be, if it is boring. Every book I read must make me want to turn the page or else I can't be bothered with it, no matter how well "regarded" it is.
I prefer to read for pure entertainment though. I follow the characters and naturally analyze the characters like I do with people.
I also find that a lot of the novels people read to analyze and break down to the bone, I just read for entertainment.
Reading through some of the comments, what Kilted is saying is pretty clear, and I am on the same page as him with books.
It's interesting talking to people and finding out why exactly they read, a lot of people completely disregard the story itself and choose to just analyze themes or language. I treat books like a good movie. I read them because they're exciting, and my ability to take them with me anywhere makes them that much better
Last edited by Zee.; 07-19-2009 at 06:27 PM.
but with modern technology you can take a movie anywhere with you too? and well, if it is purely entertainment one seeks, well, why not just watch a movie instead?For me, it totally depends on the book i'm reading.
Some books are for pure entertainment, and just.. enjoyment of the story itself. Others are to make observations of types of people, or place, or situations - others I read to gather an understanding of particular things etc,
However, I will not read a book, no matter what it offers in language or.. whatever it may be, if it is boring. Every book I read must make me want to turn the page or else I can't be bothered with it, no matter how well "regarded" it is.
I prefer to read for pure entertainment though. I follow the characters and naturally analyze the characters like I do with people.
I also find that a lot of the novels people read to analyze and break down to the bone, I just read for entertainment.
Reading through some of the comments, what Kilted is saying is pretty clear, and I am on the same page as him with books.
It's interesting talking to people and finding out why exactly they read, a lot of people completely disregard the story itself and choose to just analyze themes or language. I treat books like a good movie. I read them because they're exciting, and my ability to take them with me anywhere makes them that much better
Because I like to read. It's a lot more personal than watching a movie. When I say that i read for "entertainment" I don't read books that enable me to turn my brain off completely. I like to follow the story, i like being able to put it down when I can, and I find reading an interesting and exciting story better than watching one. William Faulkner is my favourite author and I refuse to critically analyze any of his work, simply because I absolutely love his stories. That's my decision.
Critically analyzing every book you read must get tedious and tiring, i would hate to do it.
I study both English and Literature, and most of the time, it destroys my love for a particular book.
Do you not read for the simple gift of being entertained? do you not read books that are just, so thrilling, that you can't put them down, and all you choose to focus on is the story itself?
How do you read?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
