A few months ago, as I walked through the UPenn college bookstore (during Model Congress!), I noticed a book called "How to Read a Book." Of course, this caught my attention. Flipping through it, it seemed as though the authors had categorized the various methods of reading and ordered them in their effectiveness. The goal of the book was to help others read at a higher level.
For example, the first level was called "elementary reading," the type where we simply pick up a book, read of all the words, and put it back down without pondering too deeply about the content. This type of reading is often done for pleasure, but is considered more ineffective. The last, and most advanced, method of reading was called "synoptical", in which a person could read several different books in the same subject area, analyze them, and use them to build an overall view of the subject being read. This would be considered "active reading."
But is it right to judge reading methods in their effectiveness? Is there really any right or wrong way to read a book? Some people read books solely for enjoyment, without paying any attention to analysis or symbolism. Does that mean that their reading method is inferior, or simply that they have chosen a different way? The authors do concede that "elementary reading" can have its uses: if you're so caught up on analyzing every little detail in a Shakespeare play, you risk missing the overall point of it. But "active synoptical reading" still is considered the most effective way of reading by the authors.
Should reading be a spontaneous effort, or should it be approached with care? The problem with focusing on the method of reading itself is that it takes attention away from simply reading books in general, whatever your method. Or does it?
Thoughts?
-Eric W.
4 comments:
I guess it really depends on the situation. For instance, if someone is reading just for entertainment during the summer, then I find no problem with 'elementary reading' in that scenario.
However, I think that the book was referring more to the reading done in school and for academic purposes. In that sense, I think that it's important to do both. 'Active reading' is important so that we can have a deep meaning of the book. However, I think that 'elementary reading' is as, or even more, important. After all, if someone spends all of their time tearing through the words to get a deeper meaning, it really doesn't seem like reading a book anymore. Books are meant to be read, and this 'active reading' seems to make it more like a task. It just seems to defeat the purpose behind books a bit...
Written originally in 1940 by Jerome Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book was later revised in 1972. The time period, therefore as Mary said, suggests that the sorts of writing included in this manual entail critical readings as opposed to texts read for leisurely purposes. Already, the audience for this book has narrowed. According to Wikipedia, this book also neglects to discuss any book that does not relate to "Western tradition." Therefore, the book has approached reading as more of a chore rather than something enjoyable.
The more you read, the better you become at reading, the more advanced you become in writing. The process is logical. Mr. Lazarow always tells us to learn for the sake of learning, rather than feeling obligated to do well to earn good grades. Shouldn't we also read for the sake of reading, and pick up analysis along the way? In classes and other similar environments, reading to gain a certain piece of information (term paper) is only natural. Yet outside of the classroom, in the so-called real world, we should learn to read in general terms and retain what we may. If we look for one specific thing (and this applies to more than just reading), we are bound to miss out on something more valuable.
(Sam Maliha)
There are certainly many different ways to read a book, so I think it's important keep in mind the purpose of reading. For example, I would not approach a text book with the purpose of "enjoying" it, per se; rather, I would approach it with the purpose of learning and gaining knowledge. To that end, it would be most advantageous to approach the text analytically and with a mind to remember that which I'm reading.
Emily T.
I don't really agree with the supposed ineffectiveness or less effectiveness of "elementary reading." While analyzing and dissecting a book, synoptical reading, is definitely beneficial, it isn't the only way to "actually learn."
When I read, I usually skim and pick up random facts as I go. If I'm bored, I read slowly, if I'm in a hurry, I read more quickly. You learn things both ways and neither form of knowledge is superior to the other. One one hand, you get the general idea and on the other hand, you get a bunch of random snippets that assemble into a larger idea. The processes and end goals are slightly different, and thus, they complement each other.
Post a Comment