Learning To Read
I've been having the beginnings of a conversation about reading and writing with Matt, which started with him sharing his passion for beautifully written theology. He went on to recommend authors who excel in both style and substance.
This got me thinking about the whole question of reading. More specifically, what is a good way to read? Irrespective of our choice of material, almost everyone reads. Whether we read teen magazines, tabloids or tomes, the point is that literate people will read to intake information and educate themselves.
I remember being taught how to read, but once I grasped the basics in primary school, I was pretty much left to it. I'm sure that I'm missing out here – I am forever frustrated with my inability to recall much of books I read. Sometimes I feel like the letters dance across my eyesight like mischievous pixies, never to settle in my memory. I've lost count of the times I've caught myself daydreaming yet my fingers turn pages at a rate of one every ten seconds despite my blatant non-participation.
On this subject, a friend of mine once said to me “read slowly.” There is a wisdom to this – akin to the familiar picture of reading being like a meal. It is one thing to wolf down a meal so quickly, it doesn't touch the sides. But it is something totally different to savour the look, the aroma and the taste. But I'm certainly no expert on this – I feel like I could read so much more, both in terms of quantity, and more productively.
So my question is: how do we read? How can I take in what I read? How can I maximise the input I'm getting from the lessons of life contained in the book in front of me?
These questions are valid whether I want to read a newspaper or a novel. Reading is a discipline, but its a delight – it feeds the soul and stretches the mind. I love reading writers who paint pictures of poetry when sharing something they are passionate about. Many theological works seem to be either textbooks or structured, logical arguments – which is fine, and I understand why this is. But its interesting to me that much of the Bible isn't written like that - the wisdom literature in the Old Testament, for example.
I enjoy writers who write with insight and provocation – who seem to ask questions, rather than give answers. Phillip Yancey and John Eldredge are two who spring to mind, as does Rob Bell. Eugene Peterson is someone I'm beginning to read, but I'm not sure what of his works are best to start with. I also think I need to get into some of the classical writers of the Christian faith – CS Lewis and GK Chesterton seem favourites of many, but again there works are so vast I don't know where to start.
But back to my original question: even if I did know where to start, I want to do it properly. So, dear readers, please share your thoughts with me. I wonder - can you teach me how to read?
Posts
9 Comments:
Maybe you should start with easy words like 'nat' and 'is' and then go on to bigger words like 'gorgeous'
A good start is to drop Yancey, Eldridge, Peterson and Bell.
To ask questions without giving answers is easy, young children do it all the time.
To show how one arrived at the answers one gives is far more instructive.
I would agree that reading slower is a good thing or reading in bursts and then stopping to 'chew' over in the mind what you have just read.
Also never read without a highlighter and a pad + pen next to you.
Underline everything that strikes you from the text and write down what thoughts come to you.
This not only serves to slow you down it means that the material is entering the brain via different senses and you have to actually engage the brain more as you read.
It is no good to have read 10 books, and you can remember hardly anything of what you have read, when you can read, for instance, 4 books that really make an impact because you really thought about them and come away with notes and further avenues to go down.
It is all about quality, not quantity.
I agree with everything that Glenn said!!! :-)
I don't. I think Ant is right to admire writers who provoke questions without giving didactic answers. To be like a child in our appreciation of literature, and indeed the world, is no bad thing. Answers are given by textbooks, encyclopedias, by the law. Questions are the result of a lively mind engaging with a difficult subject, to which there may often be no absolute answer.
In my opinion some of the finest literature in history is ambiguous in its treatment of both characters and issues. Virtues and vices are inextricably entangled, exhibiting the precarious nature of life. Is Macbeth a detestable murderer or the pawn of fate...or his wife? Can we unflinchingly condemn Dr. Frankenstein for his ambition and subsequent cowardice, without suspecting the same things lurking within ourselves? Questions do lead to answers but we must be wary of believing that we possess them all.
To my mind, the greatest writing is that which holds up a mirror that we might better examine ourselves.
Reading questions is fine. If you read questions, then you can have great fun answering them yourself. Reading books which give answers is fine, too. You should read a mixture of both.
Why not read things twice? You'll be surprised how much you actually do recall if you do this.
You write: "I enjoy writers who write with insight and provocation – who seem to ask questions, rather than give answers." My approach would be slightly different - look for authors who make you think, but do also provide something solid. For this reason I quite disliked "Velvet Elvis" but would, again, commend Peterson.
You could do worse than try Peterson's "Take & Read" which is a guide to spiritual reading and lists the books that Peterson thinks pastors should read in order to grow spiritually. Even Glennsp might benefit from it!
(PS I've posted a slightly longer version of this comment back at my blog.)
Why do we read ?, we all have different emotions as humans , even reading a blog , u can feel happy at the humour of it , sad as you can see the emotions in the writing, agreeing, disagreeing, i dont read much only my bible or the odd autobiography , but on my journey to visit my sister i have read one book called someone to watch over me , by izzy hammond and robert potter, and i can tell u that 1 book brought so many emotions for me happiness,sadness,thankfullness,the list is endless,i think we read not for a particular reason , well if you wanna laugh you can choose a funny book etc etc, but when we read it can be or bring out a number of thoughts and emotions whether we relate to it , understand it, agree , disagree,laugh or cry .
Now wait a minute...
Just what is wrong with textbooks, encyclopedias and the law?
Facts are GOOD.
However, I understand that joy doesn't necessarily lie in the answer itself but the path travelled to get to that answer. But surely there's no path better travelled than a complete path? Whilst the examples quoted by simon before me are all good literary devices, it doesn't really do to have a textbook leaving you pondering about whether or not the fallopian tube is real or not, or dare I say it, a book on theology leaving you with doubts as to the status of things.
But of course, theology is a lot more theoretical than science and so the answers aren't as clear cut by its very nature; one bolder than I may dare suggest the former relies more on fiction and literary devices such as those employed in Macbeth and other plays and novels.
However.
Whilst I admire answers, I do not admire speculation as an answer, neither do I admire those who attempt to pass off their own strange views as the only answer to a complex and much debated question. To me, at such a time, it would be completely acceptible to not dwell on an answer.
Often, it is perhaps best to present a reader with the information and allow them to make up their minds...
Ant, try reading a selection of books. On my own shelf, for example, sits a book about Buddhism, another by Dawkins on the falsity of religion (an addition to the many Jewish books). All good. Broaden horizons, says I! If it's questions you want, read something gripping and challenging! The old classics might not be the place to start.
Personally, I think one can totally condemn Doctor Frankenstein for creating the monster. A far more relevant question is 'Is the monster really a monster in all the meanings we know the word to be?' Surely Mary Shelley writes the character of Frankenstein to be read as a man that borders on the brink of madness. Likewise, she surely wrote the monster to be ambiguous, which many people like, but the fact remains that we can hardly grasp why we tend to side with Frankenstein rather than the monster. After all, the monster is just haplessly brought into existence. You have to hold some degree of sympathy for him. Note also that the monster is never given a name. Perhaps there's something to be said about that as well.
Anton, darling, I am somewaht surprised that you've written this blog. I would never have guessed that you weren't 'good' at reading. I would offer advice, but my experience and my teaching would be grossly biased since the entirety of my education has been in literature. I'm quite lost when it comes to theology, which is something you seem to like far more than 'classic' literature.
I suppose the best advice I have to offer you is this:
If you're reading fiction, of any kind, especially anything regarded as a 'classic,' there's almost always something else going on than what the page tells you. In some cases, three or four different things are going on (I say that having read Melville and Hemingway...American writers of the 20th Century are good at that sort of thing).
For instance, Ishmael in Moby Dick. Ask yourself, 'why does he ask the reader to call him Ishmael?' Surely there's a reason. Why would he forsake his own name for that of another? Why is it Biblical? Why is it the very first thing he says? Does it have any ties to earlier pieces of literature? If so, why?
I suggest highly that you find, obtain and read a copy of 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.' It's a fantastic poem and good for this sort of thing.
If you're reading theology, I suppose the only thing to do would be to ask 'what circumstance or passage of the Bible leads this writer to say this?'
Non-fiction tends to be boring unless the writer is amusing through the page.
Poetry is, by far, one of my favorite things to read. In older poetry (I'm talking anything that stretches from and between Beowulf and Tennyson) there's a lot to be found as far as digging deeper into the poet's mind. There is, however, an inescapeable flaw in this. You see, we can never be 100% sure of what any of these poets means because they're dead. They can't tell us (and chances are they would tell us anyway if they were alive).
Gah! Now I have the urge to go dig out my British Literature anthologies! I'll talk to you later!
Post a Comment