<p>So I’ve realized recently that I haven’t read – completely read – a novel since I was in high school. And perhaps all throughout high school, I read a total that could be counted on my fingers.</p>
<p>But I don’t consider myself an insensitive or particularly ignorant person. In fact, I think I’m very intellectual. I love ideas, thinking about ideas, talking about them with others.</p>
<p>In particular, I love the ideas that are said to be conveyed through literature. For example, I get all excited reading the wikipedia pages for certain classics, on very substantive issues to do with their content. But I have never read those classics, and I never will. When I pick up a work of fiction, I just can’t seem to read it. When I force myself to, I never comprehend or grasp the ideas within the text. Then I scamper off to some cheap second-hand source like SparkNotes, and even just reading the summaries I get so much out of it.</p>
<p>People who use SparkNotes regularly say they do so because they don’t have time to read the original text. Well I’m someone who derives more from SparkNotes than from the original text, regardless of how much time I have to do either activity. What do you call someone like me?</p>
<p>Note: It’s not that the language in the original literature is too difficult for me. I can handle quite complicated non-fiction.</p>
<p>Someone who doesn’t like to read fiction, and/or does not have the analytical skill to derive meaning from literature. That is a skill in and of itself, the skill needed to comprehend fiction is not just the skill to understand complex language, obviously there is more to it than that or you would not need sparknotes to get the meaning.</p>
<p>Weak analytical skills, probably easily frustrated. Have you tried Russian literature? Whereas Western lit took a turn for aestheticism relatively early on, Russian lit, up until the past twenty years, has been all about communicating ideas and values. You say that the language in literature isn’t difficult for you, so that’s probably right up your alley.</p>
<p>correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think character based fiction is about “ideas,” it’s about the character. plot based fiction might be about ideas, but I’ve never hears of it refered to as literature.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll get more specific. In return, can you guys get more specific about what you mean by “analytical skill”? I think I have great analytical skills. By whatever definition of analysis I’m familiar with, I’ve always been praised. I get A’s on my papers from a wide range of fields, including English. It’s just that I rely heavily on second-hand material. I could never write a paper cold. You know those articles we receive in class as a book’s supplementary material, written by literary critics, chock full of theory that it resembles philosophy – in other words, idea-heavy? I find them wonderfully enjoyable, and I’m able to use those ideas with reference to the original literature to write essays that professors say contain insightful original thought. I might minor in English, WHAT UP?</p>
<p>Anyway, I’ve taken 2 English courses. I loved the lectures, loved discussions (though I was often lost), loved the little articles, and I killed the essays. But I didn’t read a single book in whole. At most, half. I’m slow as hell at reading. And that coupled with my inability to glean ideas from prose… it was a torture in the beginning when I tried to sit through it. Then I realized I didn’t need to – not to hold discussions in class, not to seem informed to other students, not even to write 12 page essays. But I still feel I’m missing out on something… maybe.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what we mean. People with the particular type of analytical skill which lends itself to comprehending deeper messages in literature have the ability to write those papers without needing someone to do the analytical work for them. Being able to understand the analysis that SOMEONE ELSE constructed isn’t analytical skill, it just means you’re probably not an idiot. I am surprised you have never gotten in trouble for cheating if that’s how you write your papers, in all of my english classes no outside sources are allowed, all the analysis has to be your own-- the only way to get around that is plagiarism. I just wrote two 15 page analytical papers of 800 page novels and each thought had to be my own, that was the assignment. And I am not even an english major, these are elective courses. </p>
<p>I mean, it’s not like it’s necessarily a bad thing. Everybody is good at different things. I suck at math. And I can’t analyze most poetry to an academic standard to save my life, even though I am smart enough to appreciate it. Everyone’s different. Maybe you could understand more if you tried listening to an audio book, if you are interested in the analysis you might enjoy the opportunity to take it in yourself. Just a suggestion. Some people take in information better aurally, myself included. I am not always great at reading comprehension myself and when I struggle I find it gets easier if I read it out loud and listen to myself. But of course there’s nothing wrong with you if you just aren’t interested. Like I said, everybody is different. Non-fiction is a LOT harder for me than fiction. You probably have a lot of skills that I don’t.</p>
<p>I get what you’re saying. I can’t do something, so of course that means I’m missing some kind of skill. That’s obvious, and I don’t need anyone to tell me that. I just wanted clarification on what that skill was. In other words, what kind person lacks it but doesn’t lack the desire to learn about the ideas conveyed by the literature. And what exactly is lost by going directly to the ideas and side-stepping the literature.</p>
<p>Further, how is such a skill to be called analytical when it seems more like talking from your feelings, your gut, than through your brain? I think you misunderstand what I do for my papers. I read and comprehend and utilize the literary theory I find in articles – and English nowadays is almost all about the theory – and I use them in conjunction with the text in an analytical way that my fellow students are not able to. They may be able to appreciate various themes throughout the book – not through analysis, mind you – but they can’t wrestle with ideas to save their life. And so when they write their papers on the themes that they somehow came up with, I feel that’s more like plagiarism because they inevitably echo the language and ideas that arise in class lecture and class discussion. I, on the other hand, am praised for my original thought. Now stop getting all huffy about plagiarism. I hate when people do that at every opportunity – it’s like crying witch in medieval times.</p>
<p>Sounds like high school. Well, there is a Long long Chinese novel called story of the stone. Way too long to read for class… but I only had to read the first few pages at write an A essay on it’s meaning (I got lucky). what I would suggest is: try to learn how authors put stories together … It will make you a better reader. (ps. I also am a slow reader).</p>
<p>please give an exampple of an “idea”?</p>
<p>in order to “get ideas,” you have look out for literary devices (Irony, hyberbole… archetypes, symbolism etc.) for example, in the star wars (ep 3) obi wan fight fights anakin in a hot-lava filled planet… because the hot lava symbolizes what’s happening inside anakin…</p>
<p>I agree in literature you ascertain ideas by looking out for literary devices. But I think any such idea can exist in a more pure, or at least explicit, form. Take your example for example. I don’t know anything about star wars, but the symbolism of obi wan and anakin fighting in a lava planet would fly over my head. On the other hand, if a movie critic wrote directly about the idea that that symbolism was meant to convey – say, I don’t know, the inner turmoil that anakin is experiencing due to conflicting feelings about his parents that is burning him up from the inside – then I would be comfortable and enjoy talking about it. Come to think of it, this happens frequently with movies as well. I might watch some highly-acclaimed movie just to see some action or drama scenes. Then I go read some movie reviews, and even if the review is brief or poorly done, it opens up a whole new world of ideas to me, that was not ascertainable through the movie alone.</p>
<p>Note that after I read or watch a movie or book, I haven’t understood much of it. Other people are much better able to talk about said material. However, after I read some second-hand sources that explain the ideas in a more explicit way, I think I have a better handle on the content than most other people who peruse both source and second-hand source. In the end, I have just as deep a connection, but I find it strange the way I come about it. And I would like others’ perspectives to explain why.</p>
<p>Your review came from a movie critic. Where did this critic get his ideas? Hopefully the movie, but even if it’s from another review, you can keep asking the question and you have to reach an original source–someone who viewed the movie (or read a book) and analyzed it without outside help. </p>
<p>Your “analysis,” which stems from other people’s initial take on the movie, is baseless without that initial conversion from raw film to critique. In fact, you can see that if everyone built off other people’s thoughts, then everything that is written is circular–and nothing can begin. </p>
<p>You ask me what type of person you are. You’re the guy who builds off others’ initial work. There’s the guy that writes the patent. And then there’s you–the guy who wants to tinker with the idea and make it marketable or better. </p>
<p>If your entire life parallels the way you write essays, then you’re the opposite of an innovator, the opposite of a venture capitalist, the opposite of an entrepreneur. You’re the big corp guy, the fat cat. </p>
<p>Is this what you wanted to hear? Because really you’re just a guy who can’t think creatively and needs initial prodding to get his thoughts going.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand the dilemma. I wrote a short story… and yes, I am published… so it’s not crap. Lets see if you can glean the “ideas” (I still think literary fiction is about character change, not ideas) maybe thats the problem… you don’t see the purpose of literature? The purpose is emotional involvement with the characters.</p>
<p>leolibby: I never said I don’t see the purpose of literature. It’s to convey ideas in particular ways. I’m not going to get specific about what those ways are, what literature is for. My problem is that, whatever its purpose, literature doesn’t work for me. And I don’t know what exactly I’m missing out on, when everyone including my professors think I’m a good student of English. Now let’s see that short story.</p>
<p>justtotalk: That’s actually exactly the kind of response I wanted. It answers my question very directly. None of this “different people are different” wishy-washiness. Hooray for you! About the substance of your post, however, I’m not in agreement. </p>
<p>You think I’m some kind of parasite because I deal with the ideas, and you say others had to do the work of lifting the ideas from the prose. Well, you should probably consider that the prose or the film came from the ideas themselves. The film isn’t raw, it’s been processed – it’s an artificial form of the essential ideas. Just because some people can encrypt ideas in some literary secret language, and then decrypt it again, doesn’t make them more creative or innovative than someone who sticks with the ideas and can manipulate them and generate his/her own.</p>
<p>Books aren’t containers for these tidy, universally agreed upon gems of truths/ideas bundled up in distracting words. They’re ambiguous; subject to interpretation. It’s a maze. Navigating through the maze teaches you how to approach unique problems later on. When you read someone else’s analysis, you’re letting them point out in a particular direction and punt your arse right to the end. You never learned to navigate the maze, and next time you have to read or even think for yourself you’re still floundering around. </p>
<p>If you build your own essays from other people’s reviews, then you only know how to stretch someone else’s ideas and see where they lead you–because every time you write you’re just expanding on preconceived notions. </p>
<p>You don’t like analyzing original texts because you have no idea where to start or where to go. You’re rehashing the past while others are creating anew. It’s the difference between the guy who fixes current problems and the guy who foresees future problems. </p>
<p>(And this is off topic, but it’s the same difference between the people majoring in subjects like business versus subjects like math. One learns today’s management theory fads. The other learns to create tomorrow’s theory.)</p>