In his book Good Readers and Good Writers,
Valdimir Nabokov states that "...the good reader is one who has
imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense..." (615)
and a good reader is a "rereader" who develops a sense of the written
word over subsequent readings that allow the mind to fully image the
constructs created through the written word. I do tend to agree with
this vision of what a good reader is as understanding is a conceptual
practice.
Though I agree with Nabokov I also disagree and find
him to be very judgmental when it comes to the acceptance of others and
their practice of reading when he feels they do not live up to his
vision of what a good reader should be. He expresses outright disdain
for those he refers to as being of the "lowly variety" (616) of reader.
I believe that a good reader is also one who knows why they are reading
and one who is deriving true satisfaction from the activity of
reading. Nabokov gives the distinct impression that he does not really
care about the reader unless the reader is meeting his expectations.
This would lead me to question his motivation in any writing he
produces.
By my definition as well as Nabokov's I consider myself
to be a good reader; I also know a have a tendency to be a lazy reader
and when the latter is the case I am a very active "rereader".
There are some good points made in your blog, however, I disagree with the thought of Nabokov being judgemental, as he is trying to describe the different types of readers in the world. His expression that was referred to as "lowly variety" was merely a description of a person that tries to identify themselves in the book, as if it were their life. Unlike you, I do not consider myself to be a good reader, however, as I read into the story more and slow down to understand what Nabokov is saying, he does make sense, giving an ultimate opinion of the variety of readers.
ReplyDeleteIf you are reading and are getting value (of any kind) from your experience of the written word then it is my opinion that you are a good reader because your are serving your your purpose in reading. Thank you for your comments.
DeleteI agree with Kat in a new world way, that Nabokov comes off as judgmental at times. I think part of my bias stems from some of the weighted words he uses in his article. His use of the terms "minor authors" and "lowly kind" took me back momentarily. I feel that in society today we are less honest and more politically correct so we tend to be more sensitive to weighted words. While Nabokov may just be telling it like it is, I however would think twice before I referred to someone as a "lowly kind" in a professional setting.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. I am not judging Nabokov, I am merely expressing acceptance and appreciation for all readers being able to engage the written word in a way that best suits each individual reader.
DeleteThe "lowly kind" comment confused me a bit and I had to re-read that part a few times. Maybe he was just trying to trick me into being a good reader. As for going in open minded I was looking for a reason to disagree with Nabokov the moment I read the first sentence.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that he was a little judgmental. As I was reading the part where he was discussing what the right way was to read a book I started to think he was acting very biased towards one side. Then as I continued reading my thought was backed by the fact that he very much embraced HIS way of reading a book and, as you said, called the other side a lowly way of reading. However, I wonder what it was to spur that decision of his? I completely agree that satisfaction is a big part of being a "good reader". If someone is reading JUST for the sake of reading.. what really is their purpose? I myself find it a pleasure when I read, I wouldn't want to dumb down the experience by getting complacent with it!
ReplyDeleteI feel that Nabokov is expecting far to much from someone to be a "good" reader. He doesn't say a "great" or "skilled" reader, just a "good" one. Reading through his essay I noticed that I do in fact read the way he believes a good reader should, and I do so in part because I myself am a writer. I am fascinated with literature, but I don't believe that would be the way an average good reader would approach a work of fiction. Perhaps Nabokov is really stating how he wants his works to be read rather than what he believes is the definition of a good reader. If the author has done his job, the story will speak for itself. The reader will find the theme and imaginative world because the work will present it. I'm not saying rereading a good book is a bad thing; I do find I get a deeper feeling of the work the second time around. However if the overall picture of the story doesn't resonate with the reader the first read through than either the author wasn't clear enough, or that might not be the type of book for that particular reader. I think Nabokov was a tad harsh here.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see where you are coming from when you say that he is judgemental and expects too much from readers. I think that he is a bit biased because he is a writer himself, so his opinion of a good reader is just that, his opinion. I felt that he was basing it on his ideal audience and how he would have them read his writing. In my blog post I embedded a video about Nabokov, which begins with some clips of him speaking which add to his seaming almost condescending, which you might like to see. What you added about a good reader being someone who enjoys the act of reading and has their own purpose for it rang true to me. I really enjoyed your outlook on "Good Readers and Good Writers." Compared to other posts I have seen so far, you had a refreshingly different take which was interesting to read. I think you might like Matthew M.'s post based on how you reacted to the reading, here is the link to his blog http://manske102.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing your future posts! Have a great week!