Is it necessary to read critically?

[kilted exile]

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!)

Well it is a quite old discussion, lots of the current active posters werent about when I first started the thread.

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...

When I referred to stopping studying lit at 16, I mean in the sense that that was the point I stopped taking any organised classes in the subject. My reading now is mainly for escapism and the story rather than for artistic merit or any other "lofty" ideal, with the exception of non-fiction I read to gain a better understanding of subjects that interest me.

It is always interesting to me though when I think that the "standard" of lit I have read since then is a lot better than what I read as assigned reading (I was put in the idiot class for english at school because I was on the science path instead) I read shakespeare for fun, and fairly recently went on a travel through the epics. But none of this interferes at all with my ability to enjoy a page-turner by grisham.

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?

cos sometimes I feel like reading a book instead of watching a movie. I watch plenty movies too.

[Mathor]

I would certainly put myself in the "entertainment" category. And that does not mean that I read fluff or I read trash. I find Steinbeck and Dostoevsky and Austen to be

1. hilarious
2. moving
3. entertaining

Perhaps I take the same analysis I take with me as a film buff. I have a critical eye, but that critical eye exists around my general entertainment. As many film critics say, "you take every film you've ever seen with you into the theater." I take the films I have seen to compare to the new movies I will see. If a movie really just has all the same exact elements of a movie i've seen ten years ago, then no, that movie is not enjoyable to me, and no, that movie is NOT good.

That's how I view literature. I compare new literature to classics I've read before, if it surpasses what I've read before, then it is certainly a good book. I certainly read for entertainment, but good art is what is entertaining to me. I don't turn off my mind to be entertained. I am entertained by expanding my mind.

[Zee.]

I think there is a common misconception that reading for entertainment equates to "shutting off your mind"

that's not true at all..

I mean, when I listen to music and watch movies for "entertainment" i don't sit there like a mindless zombie.

I find that the most thought out, rich, complex movies are often the most entertaining, anyway.

And yeah Austen, like Mathor said, I don't always analyze. I find her writing to be entertaining and simply.. enjoyable, because like a lot of other books I love, I develop an attachment or a "relationship" with the characters and i'm therefore curious to see how their "journey" unravels.

In short, i can't imagine not reading for entertainment. And it needs to be said that, if you're reading a book that doesn't entertain you in the slightest, it must be pretty damn boring.

I guess it comes down to what you want to gain from reading, what YOU want out of it

[Drkshadow03]

I would certainly put myself in the "entertainment" category. And that does not mean that I read fluff or I read trash. I find Steinbeck and Dostoevsky and Austen to be

1. hilarious
2. moving
3. entertaining

Perhaps I take the same analysis I take with me as a film buff. I have a critical eye, but that critical eye exists around my general entertainment. As many film critics say, "you take every film you've ever seen with you into the theater." I take the films I have seen to compare to the new movies I will see. If a movie really just has all the same exact elements of a movie i've seen ten years ago, then no, that movie is not enjoyable to me, and no, that movie is NOT good.

That's how I view literature. I compare new literature to classics I've read before, if it surpasses what I've read before, then it is certainly a good book. I certainly read for entertainment, but good art is what is entertaining to me. I don't turn of my mind to be entertained. I am entertained by expanding my mind.

Exactly!!!!!!

[Mathor]

In short, i can't imagine not reading for entertainment. And it needs to be said that, if you're reading a book that doesn't entertain you in the slightest, it must be pretty damn boring.

I guess it comes down to what you want to gain from reading, what YOU want out of it

I just think the entire of point of art is for the reader/viewer/listener/ to become immersed in the atmosphere set up for them. It's quite a miserable existence if that is not the case, when we've analyzed to the point that we've destroyed the art of it.

[islandclimber]

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?

I do read to be entertained.. of course, if I didn't find reading entertaining I would not read.. but I also don't just read purely for the storyline, otherwise I could just read a brief synopsis of the storyline and invent the story in my own head.. I read because I love the artistic side of reading which is why I read poetry quite often.. I love the language of metaphor and simile.. I love vivid imagery..

when I read, I often read a book entirely in one sitting, or as quickly as I can neglecting other commitments, such as work... but I read it while analysing the story, the plot, the characters, and yes, the language... I don't enjoy sloppy mediocre writing, cliche-ridden writing, stylistically ordinary writing, imaginatively derivative writing, vague writing, cumbersome plots, the lack of any social commentary, or inadequate social commentary at best... I don't enjoy reading trash no matter how entertaining or captivating the storyline may be...

now I watch movies much in the same way, except the occasional trash action or romantic comedy movie I may watch when tired just for something to do... I analyse, and think about what I'm watching.. which is why I prefer what many may call boring movies over the smash summer blockbusters that are the Harry Potter's and the Twilight's of the book world (literally now the film world as well)...

but as this began with Potter, I'll leave you with a quote and a link... from Harold Bloom:

And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages. Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.

A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies.


http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

[Zee.]

I do read to be entertained.. of course, if I didn't find reading entertaining I would not read.. but I also don't just read purely for the storyline, otherwise I could just read a brief synopsis of the storyline and invent the story in my own head.. I read because I love the artistic side of reading which is why I read poetry quite often.. I love the language of metaphor and simile.. I love vivid imagery..

when I read, I often read a book entirely in one sitting, or as quickly as I can neglecting other commitments, such as work... but I read it while analysing the story, the plot, the characters, and yes, the language... I don't enjoy sloppy mediocre writing, cliche-ridden writing, stylistically ordinary writing, imaginatively derivative writing, vague writing, cumbersome plots, the lack of any social commentary, or inadequate social commentary at best... I don't enjoy reading trash no matter how entertaining or captivating the storyline may be...

now I watch movies much in the same way, except the occasional trash action or romantic comedy movie I may watch when tired just for something to do... I analyse, and think about what I'm watching.. which is why I prefer what many may call boring movies over the smash summer blockbusters that are the Harry Potter's and the Twilight's of the book world (literally now the film world as well)...

but as this began with Potter, I'll leave you with a quote and a link... from Harold Bloom:

And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages. Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? yes, they have been, and will continue to be for as long as they persevere with Potter.

A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies.


http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

Yeah i understand what you're saying, and I don't want to be put on the shelf as a reader who reads SOLELY for entertainment.

I pull different things from both movies and books. I watch the Harry Potter movies because they're simply enjoyable to me - just like the books. They were part of my childhood.

Most of the books I read for entertainment are pretty well regarded anyway. Faulkner, Steinbeck, Austen, Capote.. are amongst my favourites.

I write a lot myself, so i'm always looking for books with beautiful language, etc, so when I say that i read for "entertainment" obviously it is not only "entertainment" that I look for. I think that's one of the problems, that people who do enjoy a bit of trash every now and then, face. They seem to have this.. misconception attached to them, that they can't appreciate finer literature, etc

If i want to engage my mind and learn something new, which is quite often, the movie i'll choose to watch, the book i'll choose to read, will be a lot different to the book or movie I want to read because i've had a busy/bad day etc, and just want to chill out.

I guess you could look at it like this: take two people, both enjoy "fine" literature, etc, and both, like every other person on the planet, needs to "unwind" at some point. One, may find the ability to relax through sport, the other.. may find that through "trashy" books, movies, or music etc

it doesn't mean that they both can't appreciate literature of a finer standard. Books, all books, assist us in different ways.

[islandclimber]

Yeah i understand what you're saying, and I don't want to be put on the shelf as a reader who reads SOLELY for entertainment.

I pull different things from both movies and books. I watch the Harry Potter movies because they're simply enjoyable to me - just like the books. They were part of my childhood.

Most of the books I read for entertainment are pretty well regarded anyway. Faulkner, Steinbeck, Austen, Capote.. are amongst my favourites.

I write a lot myself, so i'm always looking for books with beautiful language, etc, so when I say that i read for "entertainment" obviously it is not only "entertainment" that I look for. I think that's one of the problems, that people who do enjoy a bit of trash every now and then, face. They seem to have this.. misconception attached to them, that they can't appreciate finer literature, etc

If i want to engage my mind and learn something new, which is quite often, the movie i'll choose to watch, the book i'll choose to read, will be a lot different to the book or movie I want to read because i've had a busy/bad day etc, and just want to chill out.

I guess you could look at it like this: take two people, both enjoy "fine" literature, etc, and both, like every other person on the planet, needs to "unwind" at some point. One, may find the ability to relax through sport, the other.. may find that through "trashy" books, movies, or music etc

it doesn't mean that they both can't appreciate literature of a finer standard. Books, all books, assist us in different ways.

Oh I agree with you completely, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people reading trash and to be honest I wouldn't even generally call it such, maybe mediocre writing is better... the storylines can be and often are very entertaining and captivating... I'll admit that even the Harry Potter storyline can be entertaining..

what I object to, is the statement that reading authors like Rowling, King, Meyer, Clancy, Cussler, etc. is of benefit beyond purely entertainment.. for it isn't in my opinion..

but of course some who read these authors will also greatly enjoy great literature, the majority won't, but no matter, some will and I have no problem with this, why should I? I just don't like the argument that these books are beneficial, as it leads me to the belief that these books will someday soon be spoonfed in the education system...

[Zee.]

Oh I agree with you completely, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people reading trash and to be honest I wouldn't even generally call it such, maybe mediocre writing is better... the storylines can be and often are very entertaining and captivating... I'll admit that even the Harry Potter storyline can be entertaining..

what I object to, is the statement that reading authors like Rowling, King, Meyer, Clancy, Cussler, etc. is of benefit beyond purely entertainment.. for it isn't in my opinion..

but of course some who read these authors will also greatly enjoy great literature, the majority won't, but no matter, some will and I have no problem with this, why should I? I just don't like the argument that these books are beneficial, as it leads me to the belief that these books will someday soon be spoonfed in the education system...

No I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think anyone is arguing that you can pull out from Harry Potter.. what you can from Dostoyevsky. I certainly can't, and it is the argument of a child to believe so. In my opinion anyway.


The point i'm making is that, "trash", and yeah, a lot of the "trash" i read isn't really.. "trash" either, serves a different purpose to a lot of other literature, and that just because one chooses to indulge in it from time to time, doesn't mean they can't appreciate or take away the same understanding of a higher standard of literature.

When i can't sleep or when I feel like being "captivated" by a story, when I want to read something "thrilling", i usually turn to "mediocre" writing. Books which I believe, are designed for the sole purpose of simply being entertaining.

When I want to engage my mind and when I want to learn something new, and grow as a person, I turn to literature of a much higher standard.

The point i'm making is that they do serve different purposes, and whether someone likes the Harry Potter series or not, Rowling's ability to captivate people, to create this wonderful atmosphere in her work, and her ability to tell a story is undeniable. I think a lot of great writers fail where an author like her or King succeeds.

[Drkshadow03]

I just don't like the argument that these books are beneficial, as it leads me to the belief that these books will someday soon be spoonfed in the education system...

I would point out that some of these books are currently taught in the education system such as Rowling and King.

[JCamilo]

as many other fashionable books before. Do anyone remember Mists of Avalon? Operation Horse of Troy? I mean, even Le Petit Prince is vanishing, there is serious argument for the power of those books and not the educational system instead
?