/lit/ - Literature

I can't read this

In his 1940 opus 'How to Read a Book', Mortimer J. Adler laid a few guidelines regarding the reading of 'imaginative literature' as he called it. He basically came up with four do's and four faux pas that I've tried to summarise.

1) Read the story quickly and with total immersion. The reading of the story should be compressed into as short time as feasible, so the unity of the story isn't lost on the reader. Immersion should not be disregarded either, for reading intensely will help with the narration details.

2) Classify the work according to its kind. Is it a novel? A play? A poem?

3) Grasp the unity of the whole work. Once you're done witht the book, you should be able to summarise its plot in a brief narration.

4) Try to discover how the 'whole' is constructed out of the elements of fiction: characters and incidents/events. The author manipulates both in order to tell a story. You need to adumbrate their connection to the static (scenes/backgrounds) and their dynamic interweaving (the unraveling of the plot).

5) Don't try to resist the effect that a work of imaginative literature has on you. Let the story act on you.

6) Don't look for formal propositions or arguments akin to those found in non-fiction. The language used is different. Purposeful ambiguity, figures of speech, reading between the lines and reliance upon what is implied as much as upon what is said are cornerstones of fiction writing. The story as a whole may often say something none of its words say.

7) Don't criticise fiction by the standards of truth and consistency that properly apply to communication of knowledge. The story at hand must be likely, but it does not need to describe facts of life or society in a manner resembling verifiable sciences. The truth of a good story is its verisimilitude, its intrinsic plausibility.

8) Don't criticise imaginative writing until you fully appreciate what the author tried to make you experience. The artist must, at the very least, be granted his idea and subject-matter; criticism should only be applied to what he makes of it.

Well, anon? You've read this book, agreed with the authors' statements, and applied the ideas, right? You do make sure to understand the critical terms of a work of non-fiction before dismissing an argument, right? And you write a neat summary of the book to consolidate your learning, yes? Finished the trivium yet? Feel like you're ready to start you intellectual journey? You wouldn't be on this board otherwise, right?