Famed author and Writer-in-Residence at Emory has a conversation with University Secretary Rosemary Magee on the subject of creativity. For more information visit: www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/2...
Now I get why I read but hate reading at the same time. My brain fires up with so many ideas and comes to rational conclusions after I close a book. These ideas and theories just get bombarded in my head while I'm cleaning my room, working out, sleeping. As someone who just got into reading, I will try to stop thinking critically about what I'm reading and just understand, react to it, and go with the flow. Because the last thing I want is to hate reading books
Studying English Literature is often a mistake. I made the move to History, and all the better for it. Fiction is respite, is therapy. Just because you enjoy reading doesn’t mean you should study Literature
It is an opportunity to gain experience without losing time. Much like one's own experience, it adds to the wisdom I believe. Reading history is almost the same. Only difference is that the personal behavioral aspect is involved while reading fiction, whereas, other literatures do that for specific subjects. So as long as you are reading, it is hardly a mistake. It is an opportunity.
Your point of view is quite insightful, and I totally agree with you. Most literary scholars like to apply theories to analyzing literary works. I do not appreciate that.
In my opinion it totally depends on the person who's reading & what kind of text he's reading. I mean if you are reading Shakespeare then you'll have to read between the lines. You'll have to know some theories, otherwise you're just a parrot. I believe when it comes to great texts there's always more in the background than what you see infront of you. Great literary texts are great because of its writers great imagination and to reach there, to taste that you have read between the lines.
Templedelagloire : Reading should be pleasurable. Theorising what you read only kills it. In other words, the paralysis of analysis. Rushdie quantifies this by clarifying his own writing approach, 'I don't want too much theory in my head when I'm writing. When I'm writing I do not think very theoretically. . . . I'm not trying to think about some overarching thing. I'm trying to think what sentence to put after the last one. I don't have that kind of overarching theoretical concern when I'm writing. I don't want too much of that noise in my head.' See beyond the theory, 'be there with the page, allow yourself, as a human being, to respond as fully possible to the thing on the page, that is the best way to read'. Philosophy can and does inform how and what people write. Art and philosophy go hand in hand. Trust, fall in to the words, their rhythm and musicality; analyse all you wish after you have put the book down.
Templedelagloire : In terms of approach : get the theory under your belt, then you are free to write and the reader can enjoy it. But if the reader reads over analytically then they will miss the pleasure to be garnered from what has been written. [The same applies to photography and many, if not all, arts]
That's a nice thought on "reading for pleasure" but when it comes to reading for research/analysis, I personally think we have to consider Literary Theories or "the French stuff".... I appreciate his views as a writer... when a student reads a text he/she should go for what we call "Aesthetic reading"... but it is the teacher's duty to make them look beyond the text to see the unseen.... and I believe, Theories like psychoanalytic and Deconstruction as analytical tools help us to "read between lines"...
