"Naïve reading can be very hard; it can be done well or poorly; people can get better at it. And it doesn’t have to be “formalist” or purely textual criticism. Knowing as much as possible about the social world it was written for, about the author’s other works, his or her contemporaries, and so forth, can be very helpful."(UPDATED: A comprehensive response to the NYTimes article, here. Two things I liked about this ... 1) "the study of literature prepares you for the study of anything" and 2) the comparison between a naive Henry James reading and a naive Stephanie Meyers reading - i.e., by reading Henry James without lit crit guidance you lose some ability to appreciate his uniqueness)
The first commenter on this article mentioned ye olde question of 'what is the canon' and its constant evolution (see previously mentioned Excel sheet) -- leading up to the problem of how does one become "well read"? The commenter referenced a piece from www.pandalous.com, which seems to have been created by some juvenile webmaster but actually yielded this wonderful comment from user Hanna:
"One of the things I love about reading is that each book dictates where I go next. The only person I'm out to satisfy when I read is myself ... I am constantly encouraged to keep going down all the side roads. I take turns this way and that, but always find myself heading back down that main highway. And I love seeing when my choices are validated. As you continue your own literary journey you'll begin to see hints of one book inside another even though they are separated by centuries. And as these connections grow and expand, then you'll know you've become well read. You'll begin to see the ember at the heart of literature, a hint at an eternal dialogue between writers and thinkers across all human existence."Ditto!
In other news: stalled out for a week on "The Idiot" due to errands & such, but now back in the swing of things.
No comments:
Post a Comment