“Good Readers and Good Writers” Reaction Paper
Cameron Reed
Block G
Philosophy is a strange thing, and though it may seem to just be that major that gets college undergrads no where it shows up in more ways than we generally perceive. Vladimir Nabokov’s work “Good Readers and Good Writers” to me seems to just be an exploration in the philosophy of scripture. To my dismay though, he tends to have a rather closed minded approach to the topic which although insulting at times, ex: his escapade into what a reader should and should not do “Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book.”, since I believe it is more of a personal preference, leads to some very broad topics of discussion.
I generally speaking have a liking for books that teach on a topic of my interest. I have grown fond of works that discuss ideas ranging from theoretical physics to religion. Gone are the days that I will blissfully sit down to read a fiction book cover to cover. That being said, many of Nabokov’s theories coincide with my style. I enjoy reading simply for observing a point of view. From these viewpoints I can gain a better understanding for how people think and consequently a vast amount of questionable knowledge. I say questionable because, who is to say that facts are facts and fiction is fiction, but I digress. To agree with Nabokov at this point would be a very hypocritical choice since he boasts that “If one begins with a readymade generalization, one begins at the wrong end and travels away from the book before one has started to understand this” interesting though, because he also states that “Can anybody be so naive as to think he or she can learn anything about the past from those from those buxom bestsellers that are hawked around by book clubs under the heading of historical novels?... certainly not” While hold on their Mr. Nabokov, wasn’t it you that also said readymade generalizations are the path to failure in understanding a novel? Seems rather hypocritical to condemn a whole genre of works. I feel as if it is rather useful to run into such novels with a mind free of any such boundaries. Sure these authors could be leading me into a heap of useless and untrue information but why not instead praise the text for it’s pure beauty then lament it for it’s lack of accuracy. To generalize my thought on this point, I believe open mindedness in all cases is the key, no matter if you are trying to learn or simply observe.
Tediousness seems to detract from just about anything. Folding clothes for example, is a rather boring task. Yet when done correctly, even such a simple process can have rewarding results.I mean who doesn’t like a perfectly folded t-shirt that tucks away nicely in their overpriced ikea wardrobe but, may I point out you only recognize the value of the folding once you have handled the laundry a second time, and then once again as your wear said laundry. As so, books do require somewhat menial tasks such as flipping pages and visually panning the pages. The end result at first may seem all well and good but then through either further reading, or thought (because I do believe additional thinking about your reading to be vital) the reading takes on a completely different role. Not one of menial labor but rather artistic observation and general pleasure for what you have done. I very much so agree with his thought that to paraphrase time “stands between us and artistic appreciation”. He goes on to mention that “...We must have time to acquaint ourselves with it”, if I had to pick any line from the reading that a vast majority of people could agree with this would be it. I could go on and on about how I find it hard to get into a book, but the only thing that would achieve would be to display my minor symptoms of adhd. So in summary everyone needs time to fully appreciate the task at hand whether it be relaxing such as reading, or manual labor such as landscaping and Nabokov picked up on that well.
Nabokov also has a knack for picking apart general reading styles. Broadly speaking I have heard of many people saying they, to quote Nabokov, “...Identifies themselves with a character in the book”. He also seems to believe that it is the worst thing one can do. I agree with him to a point on this issue. We can not disown one as a reader for simply wanting to associate, that would be imposing on one’s personal preference. As individuals we are allowed to interpret, and appreciate art in any way we please. If their are rules to how we may appreciate something then that to me is outrageous. One can not simply deny another of personal experiences, why should they be told how to view things? Are we not a society of people who believes in having our own opinions? Nabokov even states that “... we keenly enjoy-- passionately enjoy, enjoy with tears and shivers-- the inner weave of a given masterpiece.” Displaying emotion comes differently to everyone and to procure those emotions takes different triggers for each individual so it is nearly impossible to tell someone how he or she may trigger those emotions thus rendering Nabokov’s theory erroneous.
With so many topics concerning reading skills, and tactics it would only be fair that I evaluate myself. I find that just by glancing at a freshman year essay and a more recent essay that both my writing style and ideas have grown ten fold. To elaborate I feel as if philosophy has become a key aspect of many essay related debates. I would hate to be a writer who, writes solely on topic states facts, and moves on. Debating each and every point is much more amusing for me and, as I would like to believe, for the reader also. It helps to form a solid opinion and hopefully along the way establish information that backs such arguments up. What I am terrible at is forming concise arguments. My love of lingering away from the issue on hand generally makes me lose focus. Although these lingerings may prove interesting and insightful they can implant huge gaps in arguments that could have otherwise been airtight. For instance in AP U.S. History Mr. Bennett would always comment that my ideas were incredibly well formed and worded yet, lacked sufficient information to solidify the argument. So a great start for me would be combining my love of philosophical debate with factual evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment