Neil Postman describes a good reader as one that is analytical and detached. On page 51, Postman specifically states that a good reader should not applaud at the end of a well written segment but should be busily engaged in classifying, inferring and reasoning.
"It means to uncover lies, confusions, and over generalizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and accomplish this, one must achieve a certain distance from the impersonal text. That is why a good reader does not cheer an apt sentence or pause to applaud even an inspired paragraph. Analytic thought is too busy for that, and too detached."
Postman in his own words describes his view of a good reader that defends the medium of typography by purging it of unintellectual content. However, Postman does not refer to reading as an activity of leisure or that reading should be enjoyed. Postman even states the opposite, that a reader should be too busy analyzing his content to actually appreciate it. Though Postman was referring to the specific era in America were print was dominantly resounding throughout the entire culture, he brings up a certain argument. Should reading be viewed as an activity of leisure or as an intellectual duty? If we believe that it should be purely intellectual then shouldn't textbooks be the only books available since they are dedicated to learning. If Postman is right then how do you explain books that don't contain intelligent thought but rather leisure filled literature. If Postman is right then how does one defend the Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings and other fairy tales. If America was filled with many of the brightest intellectual minds then how does Greek mythology exist today as more than a bunch of stories. If Postman is right about the way reading should be read then how is it even remotely possible that Dr. Seuss became famous.
Joe, we set a purpose for reading, just as we do for writing. The section you are referring to in Postman is of particular interest to me because it talks about the rhetorical exchange between reader/writer, and the habits of mind of a good reader.
ReplyDeleteI am an excellent reader, and I often gape and cheer at beautiful or powerful sentences. They stop me in my tracks. I go back, re-read, re-read again, analyze the sentence, and then just ogle it. And of course, bad sentences, illogical ones, sentences with uncertain antecedents, erratic shifts in point of view, where one encounters words strung together but is unsure about who is doing what to whom...well, these sentences are unfortunately my stock-in-trade.
Even leisure reading of fiction requires that the language itself, (as well as the elements of plot, character, setting), have a logic and a direction that is rational.
Also, have we exited the era where print is the dominant intellectual activity? Better alert the media.
But anyway, you don't have to choose whether reading is a purely intellectual "duty," or a leisure activity. It is both.