How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. AdlerMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
Note that this is a revision of the original review posted in Goodreads.
Very helpful book, detailed, emphasizing our responsibility as readers to fully understand a text before criticizing it, to represent another person's ideas conscientiously and thoroughly, and to dignify the act of reading by responding to what is being proposed. Response does not imply agreement with the author's proposals. The point is that if you are going to read an expositional book, you should do so with the aim of expanding your understanding. Taking on this responsibility only makes sense if you've taken the time to determine beforehand whether the book is worth your time or not, which is the point of the second stage of reading Adler and Van Doren teach. Because understanding takes work.
While I consider myself an active reader, it has never become my habit to take the time and trouble to understand that Adler and Van Doren require. I've always thought I could get a sense of what an author is saying by getting through the material. I expected revelation to come later, through a sort of unconscious critical process. I've come to realize over the years, however, that this kind of reading is ultimately unproductive. I was unable to remember for more than a month what it was I had read. There are few things as aggravating as wanting to explain an argument to a friend but not quite being able to remember what the argument was. I also find I cannot respond, and cannot incorporate ideas into my own thought process unless I take the time to read things properly. Adler and Van Doren were able to help with this.
It helps, of course, that I already shared a lot of their philosophy. I plan to read the book again at a later date and make myself an outline of all the philosophical statements contained in the book so I will be prepared to compare Adler's and Van Doren's principles with those of other contrasting theories of reading. They clearly expect that truth can be arrived at through debate, which means that the intentions of the author matter, whereas other literary critics privilege the reader over authorial expression. I'm told that Stanley Fish does this. I'm told that this is what "death of the author" means in both Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault.
In fact I know that Robert Scholes, in his The Rise and Fall of English, disagrees to some extent with Adler and Van Doren's emphasis on Great Ideas. I look forward to comparing Adler and Van Doren's ideas with those of others operating in the same field.
I have linked above to a review of The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructiong English as a Discipline. I like the review. I think it is a good one. I don't agree with the author's conclusions. James K.A. Smith's book is helping me to see the reason why.
View all my reviews
6 comments:
I find myself having a strong, emotional reaction against the premise of this book as you have explained it. Phrases like "our responsibility as readers to fully understand a text before criticizing it" and "dignify the act of reading" and "understanding takes work" and "take the time and trouble to understand that Adler and Van Doren require" seem to place too much responsibility on the reader for successful communication. In my view, writing should be clear. It should not be "work" to understand what an author is trying to say. The reader's job, should simply be to read with honesty. Coming at a text with willful, preconceived hostility may hinder understanding, and that's the reader's problem, not the author's.
But, almost anyone can read. Saying "I read that book" means little. In making such a statement, a person does not hold himself out as anything special. But, saying "I wrote that book," well, that's a horse of a different color. Publishing, at least traditional publishing, is expensive and selective. Not everyone can truthfully make the claim, "I'm a published author."
So, how about a little more of "dignify the act of writing for publication" and "good writing takes work" and "an author's responsibility to clearly and plainly articulate his views?" When I was taking high school english classes and again in my freshman comp. class in college, the teachers consistently said, "If I have to re-read something you wrote in order to understand what you meant, then it's your fault as the writer. Re-write that part." It was the best writing advice I've ever received. It's consistently the question I ask people when I ask them to preview something I've written before I send it to its intended audience--"Is it clear and easy to understand? Is there any part of it that you had to go back and re-read because you misunderstood it the first time?"
So, what would The Great Knock have to say about Adler's premise?
Maybe you two are talking about two different aspects of reading, or of what qualifies as a "good" book. What Jim describes is a problem with the mechanics of writing. And there is an unfortunate amount of bad writing in the world even if we were to use only basic competency as the standard.
As Kelly was reading "How to Read a Book" she would discuss certain things with me. I believe Adler and Van Doren were taking it as a given that "good" books had already dealt with those mechanical issues, which are indeed totally the responsibility of the writer. This book seems geared more toward the content of the writing rather than the mechanics of it. For example, a book which addresses a complicated issue or idea, or a subject one may strongly disagree with, or perhaps occasionally disagree with.
In this latter type of issue Adler and Van Doren make the argument (as I vicariously gleaned it) that, beyond the basics of literacy and clarity, the human aspects of reading come into play (assumptions, reactions, stuff we bring to the table the author really had no intention of addressing, honestly interpreting what the author is saying, etc.). These are the responsibility of the reader, which is what "How to Read a Book" seems to be about.
As an example of a "purely" mechanical work I would offer an encyclopedia or a game rulebook. Such writing is merely for acquiring knowledge either in general or about specifics. Other than that, they have little to offer the reader, although this aspect of writing certainly has its place and is certainly necessary for the process of understanding.
In musical terms, just because you're playing the right notes in time and in tune don't mean you're makin' music. Likewise, deciding you do or don't like the music don't mean you know whut you're talkin' about.
I think I understand your frustration, Jim. Even Doctor Young, my very first literary criticism professor wanted us to write simply and clearly. He wasn't at all interested in our attempts to imitate the scholars. He wanted us to learn to communicate clearly and well.
Adler and Van Doren are operating on the premise that you've examined the book to determine whether it is worth your time before putting all that effort into it. That's why they teach inspectional reading methods that can be performed in a limited amount of time before going into all the details of careful analytical reading. They assume that you're dealing with a book you actually want to read and understand, that you've already determined will increase your understanding in some specified (and desirable or desired) way.
Their main contention, as Wes has pointed out, is that different books should be read in different ways depending on what kind of books they are and what they are meant to do. I like Charleston James's description of “a book which addresses a complicated issue or idea, or a subject one may strongly disagree with, or perhaps occasionally disagree with.” A lot of the books I read these days are exactly that: books I disagree with or only occasionally disagree with. I read them because my own perspective is limited, and because I am surrounded by, and will continue to be surrounded by, people who have a very different point of view. I want to understand their arguments so that I can disagree with them with purpose, or else find that I don't really disagree with them as much as I suppose.
I like your question about The Great Knock, by the way. I don't know which books he would recommend if he agreed, but I do think he would expect the reader to think long and hard before opening his mouth.
Thanks. For both of the comments. I've read way too many academic journals that seemed to be trying to communicate "I am smarter than you" and not much else. Rather than explaining a particular idea, the authors buried their message under a mountain of highfalutin lingo and complex sentences. From the initial explanation, it sounded as if the Adler book was excusing that crap, and instead placing the responsibility on the reader to "work for it."
Or, maybe this is just a touchy subject with me, and I'm being hypersensitive to the remotest possibility that someone out there might be excusing obtuse writing. That's definitely possible.
I should have said, "[The Great Knock] would have expected both the reader and writer to think long and hard..." but that would have screwed up the grammar. Nah, I think Adler is in favor of communication.
There's another theory out there that writing should "almost successfully" resist interpretation, but that's a strange one (to me) and not at all what you are describing.
I'll admit, though, a lot of what I read falls into the category of "trying to impress" or "writing for an audience who won't pay you any attention unless you use certain convoluted forms to show that you are part of their club." Still, I tend to favor theoretical books that are described by their reviewers as "accessible." I also think that sometimes complex ideas require complex forms...
And my mind is wandering all over the place now. I think it is safe to say that Adler does not intend to excuse bad writing.
Since you've read a lot of "trying to impress" and "I'm in the club" articles, you might be entertained by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Post a Comment